Just thinking

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Why is that a problem for you?

It's a problem for science. It's a problem for this thread. Proposing aliens and "hypothetical" matter energy hand waving as creating agents does not float in the world of science.

[bornagainathiest]

 

It's a problem for science. It's a problem for this thread. Proposing aliens and "hypothetical" matter energy hand waving as creating agents does not float in the world of science.

 

Explain why it's a problem for both science and this thread.

 

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Entire universes cost nothing.

 

Entire ensembles of universes cost nothing.

These are word games. Physics is something. So just glibly assuming the existence of physics does not solve the problem.

[bornagainathiest]

 

These are word games. Physics is something. So just glibly assuming the existence of physics does not solve the problem.

 

Then justify why this is a problem in Physics.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Explain why it's a problem for both science and this thread.

 

 

For science because scientists say so. See https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/061891868X

 

I just explained why for this thread.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Then justify why this is a problem in Physics.

You are confused. Physics is a scientific discipline which is used to explain the natural world. No Person who practices Physics will tell you the science is complete in the area of Cosmology.

[bornagainathiest]

 

For science because scientists say so. See https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/061891868X

 

I just explained why for this thread.

 

Is the internet a source of truth?

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/76945-the-internet-as-a-truth/?page=1

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

You are confused. Physics is a scientific discipline which is used to explain the natural world. No Person who practices Physics will tell you the science is complete in the area of Cosmology.

 

Where did I say that Physics was complete?

 

Yes, there are unsolved problems in Physics.

 

I merely asked you to justify why something coming from nothing is such a problem.

 

Please do so.

 

 

[sdelsolray]

 

Something from nothing.

 

Ah yes, the "something from nothing" canard.  

 

Prediction:  OC will invoke the special pleading fallacy when it comes to his set of sky fairies, among other things.

[rjn]

 

The God of the Bible claims to have created the Universe so based on your assumption this would make Him omnipotent. Why do you say the God of the Bible does not demonstrate omnipotence? Just because you think He has other traits does not mean He can not also be omnipotent. 

 

So does a whole bunch of other gods from other religions. This is not an argument, but typical Christianese circular "logic": "A book I believe in says God is omnipotent, so therefor, he is".

 

Many other religions have waaaay more fascinating stories regarding the origins of the universe. I can sorta understand why one would fall for some sort of esoteric symbolic explanation, but the Genesis account is so damn banal it's laughable, especially if one interprets it literally.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

So does a whole bunch of other gods from other religions. This is not an argument, but typical Christianese circular "logic": "A book I believe in says God is omnipotent, so therefor, he is".

 

Many other religions have waaaay more fascinating stories regarding the origins of the universe. I can sorta understand why one would fall for some sort of esoteric symbolic explanation, but the Genesis account is so damn banal it's laughable, especially if one interprets it literally.

 

As far as creation myths go, I like Tolkein's creation mythology in The Simarillion...music created the Universe.

[bornagainathiest]

If Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic (past and future eternal) universe is supported by the data, then will the question of something from nothing even be relevant in Physics?

 

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

[Astreja]

 

You require a universe to have matter and energy.

 

I disagree.  I think that creation ex nihilo is an absurdity, because action requires energy.  Due to the equivalence of matter and energy, if a god existed and wanted to take any action at all, it would be forced to utilize energy.  Therefore, even if gods exist they are incapable of creating from true nothingness.

 

I find the hypotheses of modern physics considerably more plausible than a universe created by a god that got blindsided by a Talking Snake™ and made several clumsy attempts to fix the situation before incarnating itself and temporarily dying in order to forgive people for being people.  Seriously, Ordinary Clay, your beliefs are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of anything but mockery.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

If Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic (past and future eternal) universe is supported by the data, then will the question of something from nothing even be relevant in Physics?

 

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

It's not. That's why you quoted Guth. String theory has zero empirical backing. None. The multiverse is metaphysics and not science. 

 

Quote from your site:

"As a final remark, we feel that it is important to realize that inflationary theory is based on quantum field theory, a well-established theoretical framework, and the model has been carefully studied and vetted for twenty years. Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory and is brand new. While we appreciate the enthusiasm and interest with which the paper has been received, we would suggest some patience before promulgating these ideas in order to leave time for us to produce some follow-up papers that introduce additional elements and to allow fellow theorists time for criticism and sober judgment."

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

I disagree.  I think that creation ex nihilo is an absurdity, because action requires energy.  Due to the equivalence of matter and energy, if a god existed and wanted to take any action at all, it would be forced to utilize energy.  Therefore, even if gods exist they are incapable of creating from true nothingness.

 

I find the hypotheses of modern physics considerably more plausible than a universe created by a god that got blindsided by a Talking Snake™ and made several clumsy attempts to fix the situation before incarnating itself and temporarily dying in order to forgive people for being people.  Seriously, Ordinary Clay, your beliefs are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of anything but mockery.

Modern experimentally backed cosmology is ex nihilo. Science depends on the experimental method. It is not science unless it is subject to experiment. None of the multiverse models are subject to experiment. Hence they are metaphysics.

[Astreja]

 

Modern experimentally backed cosmology is ex nihilo...

 

Hahahahahaha!  You really are a desperate little Bible-Bot, aren't you, Clay?  Tu quoque is still a logical fallacy, last time I checked.

[ag_NO_stic]

Da hell? I would quote someone to respond, but I don't really know where to begin. Bottom line thoughts:

 

1) NO ONE gets to say "My god defies time and space, but your physics can't do that. My god doesn't have to have an origin, but your physics does. No one can explain the inner workings of the mind of god, but you better explain the inner workings of your physics!" You forget we used to spout this stuff at people and no longer find it acceptable. We've heard this argument before, it doesn't add up!

 

2) I can pick up some needle and thread right now and make something with a purpose in mind for said thing. I can see an ant hill and stomp it into the ground. Just because my creation or bugs I can easily destroy see me as almighty, doesn't mean I am all-powerful. Even IF something out there created us, that being does NOT have display omnipotence.

 

3) I have ZERO reason to believe that the being in question is your god. At all. No reason.

[bornagainathiest]

 

These are word games. Physics is something. So just glibly assuming the existence of physics does not solve the problem.

 

No, these are not word games.

 

They are condensed quotes from Guth concerning the energy cost of one universe coming into existence or an infinite quantity of universes coming into existence. 

 

The energy cost is still the same... nothing.

 

That is what Guth said and what he means.

 

Clearly you didn't grasp that.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

It's not. That's why you quoted Guth. String theory has zero empirical backing. None. The multiverse is metaphysics and not science. 

 

Quote from your site:

"As a final remark, we feel that it is important to realize that inflationary theory is based on quantum field theory, a well-established theoretical framework, and the model has been carefully studied and vetted for twenty years. Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory and is brand new. While we appreciate the enthusiasm and interest with which the paper has been received, we would suggest some patience before promulgating these ideas in order to leave time for us to produce some follow-up papers that introduce additional elements and to allow fellow theorists time for criticism and sober judgment."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

 

You are confused.

By supporting Inflationary theory you are committing yourself to the proper usage of the Copernican principle (CP).  The CP underpins the standard model of cosmology, which incorporates Big Bang and Inflationary theory.  

 

The CP requires that no observer consider themselves to occupy a privileged or special location in the cosmos.

Under the CP, all observers and all locations are considered as equal.  Therefore, in the context of Inflationary theory, the CP requires us to assume that our universe is merely one of many generated by an on-going process of inflation that began long before our pocket universe came to be.  We cannot view the inflationary process from just our viewpoint, but must consider our viewpopint to be one of many - all of which are equally valid.  No data or empirical evidence about these separate universes is needed for us to make this assumption.  Yet, if we support modern cosmology, we are obliged to make that assumption. 

 

By your logic OC, the Copernican principle is metaphysics.

Which means that for you, the standard model of modern cosmology is metaphysics.  

Which means that by supporting Inflationary theory, you are supporting metaphysics and not science.  

 

Also, if you do consider the CP to be metaphysics and not science, then you can hardly give your support to Inflationary theory, can you?

As I said, the CP underpins Inflationary theory.  It is integral to it and cannot be divorced from it.  You cannot support one and deny the other.  

 

As I said, you are confused.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

I find the hypotheses of modern physics considerably more plausible than a universe created by a god that got blindsided by a Talking Snake™ and made several clumsy attempts to fix the situation before incarnating itself and temporarily dying in order to forgive people for being people.  Seriously, Ordinary Clay, your beliefs are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of anything but mockery.

 

Remembering that in one of these attempts he ends up regretting he made man, so decides to send an impossible flood to wipe everything clean, but saves some people, then a few years later find they are building a tower, feels threatened so then alters the language. How anyone reads this literally rather than an ancient way of explaining evolution of language is beyond me.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

 

You are confused.

By supporting Inflationary theory you are committing yourself to the proper usage of the Copernican principle (CP).  The CP underpins the standard model of cosmology, which incorporates Big Bang and Inflationary theory.  

 

The CP requires that no observer consider themselves to occupy a privileged or special location in the cosmos.

Under the CP, all observers and all locations are considered as equal.  Therefore, in the context of Inflationary theory, the CP requires us to assume that our universe is merely one of many generated by an on-going process of inflation that began long before our pocket universe came to be.  We cannot view the inflationary process from just our viewpoint, but must consider our viewpopint to be one of many - all of which are equally valid.  No data or empirical evidence about these separate universes is needed for us to make this assumption.  Yet, if we support modern cosmology, we are obliged to make that assumption. 

 

By your logic OC, the Copernican principle is metaphysics.

Which means that for you, the standard model of modern cosmology is metaphysics.  

Which means that by supporting Inflationary theory, you are supporting metaphysics and not science.  

 

Also, if you do consider the CP to be metaphysics and not science, then you can hardly give your support to Inflationary theory, can you?

As I said, the CP underpins Inflationary theory.  It is integral to it and cannot be divorced from it.  You cannot support one and deny the other.  

 

As I said, you are confused.

The CP only applies to this universe. It says absolutely nothing about any postulated multiverse. The multiverse has no empirical science behind it. None. There is no paper anywhere showing the existence of a multiverse.

[bornagainathiest]

 

The CP only applies to this universe. It says absolutely nothing about any postulated multiverse. The multiverse has no empirical science behind it. None. There is no paper anywhere showing the existence of a multiverse.

 

You are confused and wrong.

By your logic, exoplanets orbiting stars in far distant galaxies WITHIN this universe are metaphysical constructs - because there is no empirical evidence for their existence.  We cannot observe them and can never observe them.  Yet, the CP requires us to assume their existence and this is done so by scientists.  Perhaps you'd better these erring scientists that they are doing metaphysics and not physics?

 

Furthermore, Inflation is not assumed to have begun here, in our pocket universe, 13.7 billion years ago.

Applying the CP, the inflationary process is assumed to have begun long before that and our pocket universe is not the first, but one of many.  To assume that inflation began here, with us, is to violate the CP because then we would be raising our status above that of any other observers of the process in other pocket universes.  We would then be saying that we are first and therefore special and privileged. Yet, inflation is a process that appears the same to ALL observers.

 

Guth says...

"Even with only a single episode of inflation, essentially all evidence of what came before inflation is erased.

But if inflation has been happening for an arbitrarily long time, and our universe is not the first but the 10^1000th pocket universe to come into existence. then any hope of learning about how it all began by observing our universe seems totally futile."

 

This limitation would apply to ALL observers, anywhere in the multiverse.

Therefore, application of the CP to the entire inflationary process (and not just within our observable universe) is the measure accepted and used in modern cosmology.