Regular Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Joshpantera last won the day on January 15

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

722 Outstanding


About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    Gemini / Dragon

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    US of A
  • Interests
    A plethora...
  • More About Me
    I'm an over 20 year deconvert.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    They don't exist

Recent Profile Visitors

1,346 profile views
  1. Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

    Thanks for this, I think I follow where you're going. It does address the Kalam argument of WLC. But let me just clarify another point of what Aron Ra laid out. Imagine a scenario where currently the black holes in our universe were taking matter, source material from our universe where space and time exist, and then ushering them into blowing out elsewhere creating little big bangs, or inflationary periods creating more universes. My issue with past eternal and an infinite past can be illustrated that way as well. What is here, essentially originated somewhere else and then came here. And some of what is here will continue on and create something new. There's no way to fix a beginning to such a process. Beginnings, essentially, are merely a point a reference to map out and try and keep track of things, but are not literal in any sense according to this thought experiment. There's also no beginning for time, either, because just as time exists here, and the source material here being a product of the existence of time goes on to another dimension carrying it's own history of time with it, so too would a history of the existence of time elsewhere have traveled through to create our own dimension and experience of time here and now, intertwined with the source material that crossed over in order to create here and now. That's one way that the question of what came before the universe, or rather our universe can make sense. Because there would always be a "before." A before for space, time, material and existence in general regardless of our observable universe. And if there could have always been a "before" for space, time, matter and existence in general, would that not constitute an infinite past at the base of truth seeking? "Very deep is the well of the past, shall we not call it bottomless?" Because if the process of the existence of space, time, and matter ever did spontaneously emerge from true or absolute nothingness, then we face another deeper question. Did absolute nothingness exist infinitely in the past, bottomless, and then just spontaneously emerge into something at some given point, and then continue moving forward to create and more and more of something leading to our existence and experience of something-ness now? Or did the existence of absolute nothingness at all, have it's own beginning as the 'end' of a prior something making the absolute nothingness not infinite in the past, not bottomless? But then again, if so, what could be said of the exchange between the existence of something, to absolute nothing, to something again going back into the past, the past of existence itself? Would that not then lay out a never beginning and infinite past in an of itself, either way we turn? 1)..............something > nothing > something > nothing................ 2)..........something > something > something > something........... 3)..................................nothing > something.............................. This is Bruno applied to today. And further more, according to the above, what would that mean to the issue of replication? In this never beginning, never ending process of existence, wouldn't things repeat themselves or would they always emerge completely fresh and new for the first time ever, in all of eternity, over and over again each time something comes into being during such a boundless and limitless process? And furthermore, could that outline why the past is indefinite and can't be touched on by the physics? These are the places that I went with Mark several years ago. And he emerged from it with a different perspective from when he entered into it. Now I have to figure out what exactly it was that he found that changed his mind.
  2. Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

    I've attached Mark's last argument thread to my signature line for the time being. As I'm reading through I can see that what we're talking about in terms of consolidating his arguments in order has already been done, by Mark, literally during his final month alive. I'm a little taken back by that. But that looks like what I'm reading through. He's going point by point and then addressing the objections one by one. He's left citation, in order, point by point. He couldn't have known that he was going to die in an accident, but it's as if he did and consolidated his position in one neat little package before he did. Very odd, as I said, I'm a little taken back reading through it all. And I think that the thread answers some of the questions that you guys are still asking, to be honest. So it's worth reading through carefully again.
  3. Please Test This... Rebooted.

    I'm bumping this to scour over Mark's arguments some more. This last post was literally written shortly before his passing. I'm sure he'd be happy to know that some of us are very interesting in his perspective and would like to see it live on.
  4. Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

    How does this work with the notion that the source material must be eternal, as Aron Ra pointed out? And the issue of an indefinite past, as Mark was alluding to? I'm reading through the LD thread which is started a mere few weeks before his passing. I completely missed that thread. It seems to address many of the questions you've raised in the above: I'm still scouring through his points and position taking.
  5. Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

    Maybe I should add another video from Aron Ra about Genesis as we go along here:
  6. Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

    He and I were into the past eternal discussion a while back, it may been several years ago. But I remember having it. That's an issue unto itself. And requires some searching to try and locate all of the info relevant to that question. Mark's #3 speaks to this. I know that he had moved beyond what you're talking about in the above over the last few years from when we first had the past eternal discussions. And he had found that inflation is not a one off event, but a never ending process that began an indefinitely long time before it inflated our observable universe, caused the big bang. I'd have to find the citation work behind point #3. But I know that it's due to his further reading and getting deeper into the issue. He and I got into this stuff because I have philosophical issues pertaining to infinity and eternity. I feel that there's no alternative to past eternal scenarios of some type, mainly due to the fact that any given fixed beginning one could offer will always beg the question of what existed before that fixed beginning. It's very simple and cut and dry from the philosophical angle. And it's the same issue Bruno found himself pondering with his arrow thought experiment. This goes back to the need for something to have been past eternal and how Bruno confronted the problem. If not, then we could find ourselves in a situation where we find a beginning. And then realize another beginning had to have come before that. But then face another beginning before that. And pretty soon we're back to square one with a 'past eternal' series of beginnings, which, never really were fixed beginnings and everything gets washed out into a necessarily infinite past. Between several years ago and this last year, Mark changed from taking the direction of Guth's quotes on the past eternal issue, to sort of coming at it from what we see in point #3. And I'm not sure exactly what it was that changed his perspective. But he didn't change any perspective without a scientific citation. So I'd have to go looking for what prompted the change. I know that Mark seemed to agree with this video from AronRa. The relevant parts start around 5:25 The source material has to be eternal in some way, according to this line of reasoning. Which is right in line with the philosophical direction I've described above. We could have myriad universes sprouting into being and then repeating the process again and again, but all of the inflating would have come from pre existing source material transferring from one place to another. No creation ex nihilo. That's another issue at play here which Mark and I had discussed over the years.
  7. Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

    I pulled this from the LD thread that Disilluioned linked. He goes into more detail about how these pocket universes are not a fixed beginning, but simply block out the ability for any observer within an inflating pocket universe to observe the conditions that preceded it's inflationary period. That's more or less where we're at right now with these questions of christians and claims of a fixed beginning. Another area of interest is the size of the universe which Mark illustrated well in another thread. I need to figure where it was. How our observable universe would be but a small square on the face of much larger area of universe transcending any observable abilities as it fades away into the distance. That spoke directly to the issue of a center of the universe and how it's not possible to locate one, let alone have christians thinking that the bibles correct for portraying earth as the center. No fixed beginning, no fixed center. Both these arguments destroy the bible from the outset as of Genesis 1:1. Mainly because whole idea of a beginning, and the earth as center, stems from Genesis 1:1 where the first things created are the "heavens" and "earth." A universe with the unformed earth at it's center. Both horribly incorrect in the face of science. It would be nice to consolidate all of his relevant posts in a one, two, three step type of order of presenting the total argument. Now WLC, in his arrogance, has pointed out in speeches that the old myths never had any fixed beginnings. And then proceeds to suggest that bible is unique in that way, not only unique but more sophisticated and more correct because of Genesis 1:1 lining up with the BBT and having a beginning. But that was a very short lived period for BBT that he's reaching for with his apologetic's. The way it works it out here is that the old pagan myths are more in tune with modern science than Genesis 1:1, and in fact, Genesis 1:1 is far less sophisticated than the old pagan myths because of it's assertion of a fixed beginning. WLC is holding up his worst failure as his greatest triumph. Now I can see room for an apologetic angle to emerge from this. They may want to reinterpret Genesis 1:1 and say that technically it doesn't speak about what came before god creating the heavens and earth, so perhaps god only wanted to disclose to us the relevant history of our specific pocket universe from the point of it's own big bang forward. But that would of course lead to a domino effect that would unravel nearly all previous christian belief in various ways, as it continues to ravel. We could explore the possibility of unraveling where this sort of apologetic position would lead in order to stay abreast on what we may find ourselves arguing as they try and evolve and adapt to the new arguments.
  8. The worlds biggest lie?

    @wellnamed Hey bud, I don't think the first link went through. We were hoping you'd weigh in on this one. Thanks.
  9. Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

    Mark was not bothered by this. And why I think he was not bothered by this is because the apologists that he's speaking to are the variety who are trying to claim that scientific theory, namely BBT, supports the bible. So the playing field itself has to do with scientific theory. That said, they are reaching for outdated scientific theory to bolster their own conclusions. This speaks directly to the likes of men like of William Lane Craig: He's trying to use scientific theoretical ideas like a singularity. This is where Mark has dismantled these specific arguments by applying the very forefront of cosmology and physics against their outdated conceptual usage in the apologetic's. This is why theoretical physics is precisely fair game and the basis for the entire debate itself. Mark had taken WLC's claims and showed the specific errors involved in them. That's the context that eternal inflation and infinite replication paradox enter into the debate against apologist's like WLC. The PM that I added to the Dude thread was a conversation following PIPER and PIXIE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Josh! I'm PMing this stuff to you because I know that you have a burning interest in Inflationary cosmology. Just a few days ago I came across PIXIE and then, when I was Googling the words, "Primordial Inflation..." some links for PIPER came up too. Fyi, PIPER is a balloon-borne instrument package that'll be scanning the skies for B-mode oscillations in the CMB. These are the patterns that the BICEP2 team thought they'd found back in 2012. Patterns which would have confirmed the existence of primordial gravitational waves coming from the Big Bang. This would have been the smoking gun for Inflationary theory and an elegant confirmation that we do indeed inhabit an inflationary multiverse. Alas, the BICEP team screwed up big time and mistook swirls of interstellar dust for the B-mode signal. (I'm sure you recall that fiasco!) Anyway... The search is still on. PIPER is up and running right now. PIXIE looks to be in the proposal stage and so let's cross our fingers and hope it gets the necessary approval and funding to go ahead. Please enjoy the material at the end of these links and please feel free to message me with any questions that pop into your mind. I can 'get' some of this stuff, but not all of it. All the best, BAA (Mark) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As far as confirmation, this is what we were following and watching for new developments. I aim to stay abreast on all of this myself now going forward to see how it unravels and evolves. The point being is that the human mind is capable of conceiving ways in which to verify these things in various ways. The infinite replication paradox follows behind certain confirmations as a necessary extension of the factors being confirmed. Our limitations don't necessarily keep us from making these logical and necessary deductions about the cosmos.
  10. Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

    For better clarity, let's call what I'm talking about naturalistic mysticism. I'm using it in the way that Sam Harris would use the same terminology.
  11. Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

    It's an odd and out of the ordinary thing to come out of science. I get that. But apparently this is what stems from infinite and eternal cosmological modeling. And I realize that infinite and eternal cosmological modeling is the only logical way of approaching the issue (both leading models Mark and I were discussing are of this variety). The question of what came before the beginning, vanishes. Where a theist would posit that a god is what existed before the beginning of the universe, the cosmos itself had always existed in the same way. And there's no need to posit a god with no beginning or end when the natural cosmos fits the same description and serves the same exact function in terms of the human mind trying to grasp reality. A natural cosmos, self existent, with no beginning or end. That's all that I think the gods of mythology are - the human mind trying to grasp the magnitude of reality and existence. The mind always comes down to the need for something to have always existed with no fixed beginning. So, the primitive mind posited eternal gods with no beginning or end. That satisfied the need for a while. But we've evolved far beyond that now. And we simply conceptualize the natural cosmos itself as infinite and eternal. For anyone silently following, I'm trying to break this down to simplicity for everyone's sake. But the thing is, the equations reveal that in an infinite and eternal cosmos, repetition follows (refer to Alan Guth for the physics). I'm trying to step it down step by step to where Mark was coming from this infinite replication paradox thing. The reason I'm somewhat keen to it is because I understand very clearly the necessity of an infinite and eternal cosmological model to explain reality and existence. So the baggage that comes attached to it, namely infinite replication, just sort of is what it is to me. I never knew about it until Mark brought it up. But it makes sense considering all the factors at play. Especially the pressing need for an infinite and eternal cosmos to accurately describe the universe, existence and reality. This whole thing sharpens the argument. But at the same time even if it were wrong, the remaining arguments down the line are so strong and so many that it doesn't do an apologist any bit of good to defeat this one, if they were able to defeat it. But I don't see how they would be able to defeat it.
  12. Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

    Until I came across Mark's argument I had only focused in on the problem of "days." I had it down to where "day" 1 can not be literal, therefore none of the other days thereafter can be interpreted as literal either. Nor symbolic, as liberal christians try and do, which fails the same way. Mark's argument went even further than my own, cutting their heads off at the very outset from Genesis 1:1 You are on the track to understanding the argument because it's focused on refuting any fixed "beginning" for the heavens and earth. The heavens are essentially beginning-less and the earth was NOT formed before the sun, moon, planets and various other stars in the "heavens." It's a real non-starter. No "In the beginning" in any literal sense, and no "created the heavens and earth" in one shot at the same time either. Then, behind that, we face continuous problems thereafter right on through each of the "days" whether interpreted literally or symbolically.
  13. Something For The Dude : Limited Vs Complete Understanding

    The over arching point of the above PM was about confirming these things. And if confirmed, either way, either theory, the end result has to do with a necessary infinite replication scenario. As in anything that can and does happen, will happen again and again, infinitely. Such as our own lives, for instance. They aren't limited to just right here and here alone, just right now and now alone. We'd quite literally be experiencing this particular experience when in fact we are really part of a very naturally occuring infinite replication process and some what spread out all over the expanse of existence in that way. Heavy issue. Heavy implications. And as we were discussing, relevant to either one of the two leading cosmological theories. But, the inflationary model is the preferred. These are the sort of realizations that he took to the grave. He understood well that there may be way more going on than we currently realize. But not in any spooky, magical or supernatural sense. He didn't include this particular understanding into his pre-written farewell address, but it's one that he was outspoken about with some of us here. The main thing that I took from Mark is pure dedication to helping others and his desire to combat the blatant fallacies of man made superstition and religious belief with logic and reason. Very admirable, IMO. And he saw himself in the service of others in that way. He was a very powerful minded solider for 'logic and reason' oriented social evolution. And the conversation, although deep, is quite reasonable and logical. When dealing with existence itself, the path always leads to infinite and eternal by necessity. And in realizing that end result, then the necessary implications of an infinite and eternal exist immediately apply. That's one of the reasons that Genesis 1:1 fails immediately by it's suggestion of a fixed beginning for the void of space, with the earth created at the very same time. It doesn't stand up in any way to the necessities of reality.
  14. Something For The Dude : Limited Vs Complete Understanding

    This is made to be somewhat discrete, but here's where the two of us were bouncing ideas off one another and what had come of it before his passing: BAA: Agree. It is exciting! But more than that, I reckon that this is a win-win scenario, even if inflation isn't confirmed. Should inflation's main competitor (ekpyrotic theory) ultimately win out, look at what that gives us. A finitely-large universe that reiterates itself into new patterns... eternally. So, in a way, ekpyrosis and inflation are flip sides of the same coin. One gives a multiverse that's finite in time, but infinite in space. The other gives us a universe that's finite in space, but infinite in time. Win-win. Cheers, Mark. __________________________________________ Me: But in terms of ekprotic theory (which I've skimmed through in magazine articles years ago and watched a few debates) space itself is still infinite in scope and depth isn't it? The colliding branes or any other cyclic model would have to account for the expanse beyond the finite universe from what I thought. I guess the way I've seen it is that either way space has to extend out forever. And there's either a multiverse of universes or colliding branes or some other things taking place within the necessary expand of never ending space. Does this sound about right? -------------------------------------------------------------- BAA: Hmmm... I hear what you say. However, if space extends infinitely beyond our visible universe in the Ekpyrotic paradigm, then doesn't that automatically result in the same kind of multiverse that Inflationary theory produces? That is, where the infinite replication paradox takes hold and leads to infinite copies of people and planets? Yet the Wiki page is quite emphatic that Ekpyrosis does not lead to a multiverse. Implications for cosmology[edit] A key advantage of ekpyrotic and cyclic models is that they do not produce a multiverse. So, is there some feature of the ekpyrotic model that suppresses a multiverse and therefore replication? I dunno right now. Let me look into it and I'll get back to once I figure out some more. All the best, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Me: I thought that Guth pointed out this problem in a discussion panel, that the ekpyrotic model merely suggests another version of a mulitverse anyways. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BAA: Ummm... I can't recall which discussion panel that was. But the logic seems sound. If you have two parallel branes that stretch to infinity, when they come together to initiate another big bang, doesn't it logically follow that the space-time continuum created by them will also stretch to infinity? Meaning that with a finite speed of light, regions will be causally disconnected from each other - just like an inflationary multiverse. And further meaning that with only a finite numbers of ways matter can arrange itself, eventually these arrangements begin to repeat - just as you'd get in an inflationary multiverse. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Me: starting around 1:15 and Guth chiming in around 1:20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BAA: Thanks for the video. Without getting too swell-headed, I'm pleased to see that my understanding of the infinities in Turok and Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic model is on target. If each brane is exponentially expanding forever, then it's inevitable that patterns of matter and energy in certain regions of space will begin to repeat themselves. That, allied with the idea that Ekpyrosis is eternally cyclic also points to a multiverse in all but name. What I wasn't aware of was Turok's reliance on String theory to make Ekpyrosis work. Back in 2013 there may have been more optimism that the LHC would find evidence for String theory, but since then that hope has very much faded. The Standard Model of particle physics has been nicely completed with the discovery of the Higgs boson and various predictions of Quantum Chromodynamics (the theory of quarks) have also been nicely confirmed. But there's been no evidence for strings at all. Nothing. Nada. Zip! As far as I'm concerned this is a major problem for Turok and Steinhardt. Ok, their idea works well on paper and many of the results from satellites and telescopes can be interpreted as confirming Ekpyrosis, but without any evidence for strings, their case is significantly weaker than of Inflation. To explain further... Inflation proposes that during the Inflationary Epoch one or more scalar fields of energy were responsible for the ultra-brief, super-luminal expansion of the early universe. These scalar fields are also deemed to be responsible for the symmetry-breaking that 'broke' the one, unified super-force into the four Forces we see today. Namely, the Weak and the Strong nuclear Forces, the Electromagnetic Force and the Gravitational Force. It is assumed that all four were once unified and have since broken apart. Evidence for this comes from ElectroWeak theory, which unifies the ElectroMagnetic and Weak nuclear forces. That was demonstrated by Weinberg, Glashow and Salaam in the 1960's. Furthermore, Alan Guth's breakthrough in formulating Inflationary theory came after he closely studied the Grand Unification Theory (GUT) of the three non-Gravitational forces. Lastly, the Higgs boson itself is a scalar boson. So it has the potential to behave in a way that would fit with Inflation's predictions about the scalar fields operating in the very early universe. To my mind, this body of evidence now far outweighs anything that Ekyrpotic theory can muster. Thanks, Mark. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Me: So that pretty much narrows it down to the inflationary multiverse. They don't like the infinities, but it is what it is. If that's how the cards fall, then that's how the cards fall. The opposing views seem based on a bias against infinities and the pocket universes that stem from inflation. Since their theories have fallen flat, more or less, I suppose they have to deal with the alternative.
  15. Something For The Dude : Limited Vs Complete Understanding

    I'd like to try. He had a very specific perspective. I know he liked to have PM's with a lot of people, myself not withstanding. We were going over some issues of cosmology for a while before he apparently died in the accident in November. I've been going back and rereading everything. Maybe I can transfer some of the dialogue to here.