Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 106 of 357 (545079)
01-31-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by DevilsAdvocate
01-31-2010 4:17 PM


Why? What does religious belief have to do with any of this????
Why are you dragging the existence of a supernatural entity which is not falsifiable into this?
I can drag anything that i think makes sense. It's not falsifiable that the sun will rise tomorrow or that the Earth will not fall apart due to an unobserved yet phenomenon. So what?? Lots of things aren't falsifiable.
You seem to get too upset every time your eyes see the word "god". Is there an underlying reason for your animosity? Something that is not evident?
The existance or non existance of God is not required for nonlocality. If you think so, please tell me why.
The way you worded that sentence reveals that you are not following what we are discussing, but on a side note - in that sentence of yours, there are 3 things that i don't have an understanding of:
1. Existence
2. God
3. The relationship between nonlocality and personal experience
It's wonderful that you have figured it all out and came to your own conclusions on all those 3 points. I'd appreciate it if you keep them to yourself. Thanks
Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-31-2010 4:17 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-31-2010 6:54 PM MatterWave has not replied
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 01-31-2010 8:45 PM MatterWave has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 107 of 357 (545081)
01-31-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by MatterWave
01-31-2010 5:43 PM


I can drag anything that i think makes sense.
Of course you can. This is a free countrie(s).
You can say the universe lies on the back of turtles. However, you saying it does not make it so.
And I of course have the right to challenge your assertions.
It's not falsifiable that the sun will rise tomorrow or that the Earth will not fall apart due to an unobserved yet phenomenon.
Why is the assertion that the sun rising tomorrow not falsifiable? All we have to do is wait until the morning and observe the sun rise. If it doesn't than the assertion/theory that the sun always rises after it sets is proven false and therefore this hypothesis/theory is falsifiable. One day the Earth will possibly be swallowed up by the Red Giant phase of the Sun before going Nova. Then the Sun will not rise in the sky of the Earth. Thus this theory is falsifiable even if we are not there to observe it.
There is a possibility that Earth could 'fall apart' (whatever that means) due to an unobserved phenomena. However this is not a prediction but a probability (even if very small) based on the laws of physics of which they themselves are falsifiable.
So again explain how a supernatural force/entity, itself outside of the natural universe and its laws, is falsifiable.
Lots of things aren't falsifiable.
Sure they are. I am not even saying they aren’t important questions to ask. I am all for free thinking and inquiry. I am just saying that they are not in the realm of scientific verifiability and validation. If so please show me how.
You seem to get too upset every time your eyes see the word "god".
I am only upset in the fact that people like you use the term God as a cop-out to cover gaps in our knowledge. How about being honest and just saying I don’t know. Why do you have to fit your definition of God into this. It could be God, it could be Brahma or any other religious entity. Or it could be a totally natural phenomena. You have no way of proving or disproving this.
The way you worded that sentence reveals that you are not following what we are discussing
How so? Please explain.
It's wonderful that you have figured it all out and came to your own conclusions on all those 3 points
Who said I figured it out. I am not the one claiming ‘God’ to be the answer. My answer is I don’t know. At least I am honest.
1. Existence
2. God
3. The relationship between nonlocality and personal experience
You are the one bringing God into this. Why should I be defining your God?
I do not have to prove the nonexistence of something. The burden of proof lies with the one asserting the existence of something (in this case ‘God’) not vice versa.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by MatterWave, posted 01-31-2010 5:43 PM MatterWave has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 108 of 357 (545087)
01-31-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by MatterWave
01-31-2010 5:43 PM


MatterWave writes:
Why? What does religious belief have to do with any of this????
Why are you dragging the existence of a supernatural entity which is not falsifiable into this?
I can drag anything that i think makes sense.
Actually, here in the science forums the way it works is you can "drag in anything" which is on-topic and for which you have scientific evidence and argumentation. If you have scientific evidence and argumentation for God creating matter and energy then this is the right thread for you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by MatterWave, posted 01-31-2010 5:43 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by MatterWave, posted 02-01-2010 2:30 AM Percy has replied
 Message 116 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 5:49 AM Percy has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 109 of 357 (545099)
02-01-2010 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
01-31-2010 8:45 PM


Actually, here in the science forums the way it works is you can "drag in anything" which is on-topic and for which you have scientific evidence and argumentation. If you have scientific evidence and argumentation for God creating matter and energy then this is the right thread for you.
--Percy
MatterWave writes:
Why? What does religious belief have to do with any of this????
Why are you dragging the existence of a supernatural entity which is not falsifiable into this?
I can drag anything that i think makes sense.
Actually, here in the science forums the way it works is you can "drag in anything" which is on-topic and for which you have scientific evidence and argumentation. If you have scientific evidence and argumentation for God creating matter and energy then this is the right thread for you.
--Percy
I cannot present "scientific evidence and argumentation" for the 'world' we observe . No one can. Nobel Prize winners cannot as well. It is not known if the macro world of objects can be derived from the likely mathematical constituents of matter. Before we can prove God exists, if we are to remain consistent and rational, we must first address what it is that actually exists and then move on to much higher, if not impossible, targets like supreme beings and such. So, there are really two ways in which we can discuss where matter originated:
1. We stop here and say we don't know what matter really is or where it came from, and return to this topic in 100 or 500 years when we'll possibly have a more thorough and very likely different understanding of Matter,
or
2. We gather all the evidence at hand about what matter is and make a similar conclusion to that of Max Planck - There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
If we are to stop at number 1, why is a "Where did the matter and energy come from?" thread even allowed in the science forums, when it is very obviously NOT a scientific question?
Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 01-31-2010 8:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-01-2010 7:20 AM MatterWave has not replied
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 02-01-2010 7:54 AM MatterWave has not replied
 Message 117 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 5:56 AM MatterWave has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 110 of 357 (545108)
02-01-2010 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by MatterWave
02-01-2010 2:30 AM


I cannot present "scientific evidence and argumentation" for the 'world' we observe . No one can. Nobel Prize winners cannot as well. It is not known if the macro world of objects can be derived from the likely mathematical constituents of matter. Before we can prove God exists, if we are to remain consistent and rational, we must first address what it is that actually exists and then move on to much higher, if not impossible, targets like supreme beings and such. So, there are really two ways in which we can discuss where matter originated:
1. We stop here and say we don't know what matter really is or where it came from, and return to this topic in 100 or 500 years when we'll possibly have a more thorough and very likely different understanding of Matter,
or
2. We gather all the evidence at hand about what matter is and make a similar conclusion to that of Max Planck - There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
If we are to stop at number 1, why is a "Where did the matter and energy come from?" thread even allowed in the science forums, when it is very obviously NOT a scientific question?
How about #3. I don't know but lets discuss what we do know. Why the leap of faith to some unseen, unverifiable, unsubstantiatable, supernatural designer?
Bringing a capricious, supernatural entity into the discussion results in dodging around important scientific questions that must be asked i.e. why does nonlocality exist at the quantum level, etc. So instead of trying to answer these, some super religious zealots just evoke the 'God of the Gaps' cop-out as an unseen and unknowable force that moves the universe.
I am not even saying this isn't or can't be true. However, it does nothing to answer the question of non-locality (or any other inquiry) in scientific (natural) terms. In essence, evoking the supernatural is a scientific cop-out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by MatterWave, posted 02-01-2010 2:30 AM MatterWave has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 111 of 357 (545110)
02-01-2010 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by MatterWave
02-01-2010 2:30 AM


Hi MatterWave,
I actually had a simpler point than you were making of it. If you want to argue that God is the creator of matter and energy in a science forum then that's fine as long as you support your arguments with scientific evidence.
But if you instead want to argue philosophical issues about what it's possible to really know, then since that issue can be raised in literally any thread we normally restrict discussion of such viewpoints to threads in the Is It Science? forum. Discussion of Max Planck's views on this topic in particular belong there.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by MatterWave, posted 02-01-2010 2:30 AM MatterWave has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 112 of 357 (545147)
02-01-2010 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by MatterWave
01-31-2010 2:27 PM


The ontology of Non-local realism is not well-defined yet, and at least one of its iterations stands at odds with GR
Sorry, I don't know what that means. Could you explain?
From what I recall reading though, and from what the experts here have explained iirc, quantum entanglment does work fine with relativity.
Only the perception of Now exists, the past, it never existed.
I agree that there is no universal time clock from where we could go back in time from, but the past never existed? That sounds a bit like a load of shit.
Where the dinosaur bones and evidence of the Rome Empire come from, is too Big a question.
Not at all. Bones are in the ground and historians from the times of Rome left plenty of information. What are you trying to get at?
If you were religious, you'd consider it an act of God and if you were an atheist, it seems a major revision would be due.
Or you'd consider it an act of nature - like every single other thing.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by MatterWave, posted 01-31-2010 2:27 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:06 AM onifre has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 113 of 357 (545185)
02-02-2010 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by onifre
02-01-2010 5:47 PM


Sorry, I don't know what that means. Could you explain?
It means that what appears to be spatially separated objects(in the modern view these would be treated 'events') are not truly separated. You may want to have a look at bohmian mechanics(rival theory to quantum mechanics), its founder managed to construct a deterministic model of the universe based on nonlocal realism that matches the predictions of quantum mechanics. His take on the matter in 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' was that the world(the expicate order) was a manifestation of something implicit(consciousness) and that at a deeper level they are one and the same. If you don't have the book, skim throught this wikipedia article for the basics:
Implicate and explicate order - Wikipedia
There are other variations of nonlocal realism, but they seem to me to require a new definition of the word 'real'.
From what I recall reading though, and from what the experts here have explained iirc, quantum entanglment does work fine with relativity.
No, this is one of the reasons for the tension between GR and QM. It would work fine only if you drop certain human intuitions and preconceived notions of the world. Or if you subscribe to the view that we live in a superdeterministic universe(Bell noted this possibility in his celebrated 1964 paper).
I agree that there is no universal time clock from where we could go back in time from, but the past never existed? That sounds a bit like a load of shit.
There was a statement by cavediver earlier in the thread that we live in a static 4D universe. Did you miss it?
In the context of QM, the GR's General Covariance strongly implies that there is no distinction between past and future events and no time flow. Einstein was aware(though he didn't like it) that his own relativity suggests that the distinction lies in our heads. The circumstantial evidence implies that time does not flow and the puzzling question is why we remember the past and not the future. This cannot be answered without an understanding of the mechanism behind the arrow of time.
Not at all. Bones are in the ground and historians from the times of Rome left plenty of information. What are you trying to get at?
Cavediver was certainly right that it's much easier to say what things are not than what they are. In the case of the bones out there - if i can borrow a legendary physicist's own expression - "there is no out there, out there". This position is much easier to maintain than the assumption of "out there"(which in most iterations is 1:1 with the hypothesis of local realism).
Or you'd consider it an act of nature - like every single other thing.
"Nature" is just a label and i have no problem with attaching it to anything.
Anyway, back to the topic - Where did the matter and energy come from?
My point was that the question is much harder to answer than it seems at first glance. We will surely go through a few revolutions in our understanding of what you call 'nature' before we can give an answer that will not make us look like neanderthals in the eyes of the future generations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by onifre, posted 02-01-2010 5:47 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 02-02-2010 6:50 PM MatterWave has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 114 of 357 (545257)
02-02-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
01-30-2010 7:11 PM


Re: Universe = Obsolete Model
Buzsaw,
I will admit string theory is theoretical but Genesis as it stands is no more than speculation. So, I will give you a tip. Admit that the Bible is just a gospel and not an account then move to the next step of realizing that perhaps Science is discovering how our great biblical God has done its marvelous works. Another thing, all views even scientific are just probable ideas in reality we have NO idea EXACTLY how things came to be.. Perhaps everything is wonderfully pointless or beautifully created.. (This is my only argument with you as I know I cant argue with a fundamentalist.) -no punt intended.....
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2010 7:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 115 of 357 (545276)
02-02-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 5:06 AM


It means that what appears to be spatially separated objects(in the modern view these would be treated 'events') are not truly separated.
If you mean "macro" objects then you are wrong. We live in a universe with decoherence, which keeps macro objects away from the quantum world - as I understand it.
But this is beyond my level of knowledge in this field so I won't pretend any longer that I know what I'm talking about.
No, this is one of the reasons for the tension between GR and QM. It would work fine only if you drop certain human intuitions and preconceived notions of the world.
You said that non-locality (quantum entanglement) had issues with GR, but the problem is it doesn't. Could you provide evidence to support that assertion of yours?
What human intuitions and preconceived notions are you refering to? Can you be more clear...
In the context of QM, the GR's General Covariance strongly implies that there is no distinction between past and future events and no time flow.
Yes, I agree with that. But that's irrelevant because you and I experience time. Therefore to humans, there is a past, present and future - we have a history, so does this planet, solar system, etc. There is a time flow for ALL things with mass.
The circumstantial evidence implies that time does not flow and the puzzling question is why we remember the past and not the future. This cannot be answered without an understanding of the mechanism behind the arrow of time.
I believe you have allowed this to confuse you a bit much. Time flows for anything with mass. We experience time. It is real.
There is no universal time clock, that I agree with in accordance with relativity. In other words, you couldn't get in a time machine and go to the year 1975 - there is no 1975.
Now, that is one thing. But you are claiming that history doesn't exist, that is incorrect and a misunderstanding of relativity.
Anyway, back to the topic - Where did the matter and energy come from?
If you are still asking this question, then you may need to re-read this thread from the beginning (no pun intended).
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:06 AM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:55 PM onifre has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 116 of 357 (545317)
02-03-2010 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
01-31-2010 8:45 PM


Percy,
is it really more evident that things were done via chaos than via order and determination? I think not. So, perhaps everything from quantum physics to the TOE is simply the way "god" created everything. Assuming that macroevolution is responsible for biological change is much the same as assuming it was stimulated by unknown forces... Science opperates mostly on two assumptions. 1. Uniformity of place and time. 2. Mans limited understanding of the universe.
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 01-31-2010 8:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 02-03-2010 7:37 AM Sasuke has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 117 of 357 (545319)
02-03-2010 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by MatterWave
02-01-2010 2:30 AM


Matterwave,
Science can't prove myth. Science is reportedly repeated observation. No matter what, all ancient texts are simply myth regardless of what you think as there is no way to observe any of it as happening. It is better to be aware of evidence and be extreamly objective with it than to adopt any specific view of evolution or creation.
I adopt christ simply because of revelation but I also know it could be coincidence... Be objective...
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by MatterWave, posted 02-01-2010 2:30 AM MatterWave has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 118 of 357 (545333)
02-03-2010 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Sasuke
02-03-2010 5:49 AM


Hi Sasuke,
I can't see much relationship between your response and what I said, so I'll just comment on this:
Sasuke writes:
Science opperates mostly on two assumptions. 1. Uniformity of place and time. 2. Mans limited understanding of the universe.
I don't know what you mean by #1, and #2 is just tentativity, but modern science also includes evidence from the natural world gained by observation and experimentation, replicability, and peer review. Bald assertions and revelations have no place in science.
My only point in my last couple posts is that here in the science forums we discuss ideas supported by scientific evidence and argument. There are other non-science forums here at EvC for those who wish to discuss ideas that extend beyond the realm of science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 5:49 AM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 5:11 PM Percy has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 119 of 357 (545433)
02-03-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
02-03-2010 7:37 AM


Percy,
I am simply saying that Science makes simple assumptions even with the fact that its process is observation(speculation), hypothesis, prediction, experiment and verification....
You said in your prior post if somebody has evidence of god to present it.. I am saying that the assumption of things to be random is much the same to assume its due to "god"...
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 02-03-2010 7:37 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 5:32 PM Sasuke has replied
 Message 128 by Percy, posted 02-03-2010 8:22 PM Sasuke has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 120 of 357 (545438)
02-03-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Sasuke
02-03-2010 5:11 PM


I am saying that the assumption of things to be random is much the same to assume its due to "god"...
Not even close to the same.
Evidence is the only thing that can lead to an assumtion. Scientific research is due largely to provisional explanations which are constructed by, as you said, speculation, but such hypotheses must be framed in relation to previously ascertained facts and in accordance with the principles of the particular science.
So it is not a blind assumtion to think things are random, it is "framed in relation to previously ascertained facts."
Assuming something is due to god would first require evidence for god. There must be some previously ascertained fact that lead to this assumtion. But there isn't, obviously, because it is a belief. So it IS a blind assumtion, where as assuming randomness (or natural means) is not because, again, it is "framed in relation to previously ascertained facts."
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 5:11 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 6:26 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024