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:   Problems with both Creationism and Evolution
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 69 (51449)
08-20-2003 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by pixelator
08-20-2003 10:30 PM


Further, since the singularity was infinitely dense, it is equivelant to nothing.
How does that make any sense? A singularity isn't nothing. It's something.
Nothing should have remained nothing.
This doesn't even happen in our universe. Nothing becomes something all the time. It's called the Casimir effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by pixelator, posted 08-20-2003 10:30 PM pixelator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 08-21-2003 5:40 AM crashfrog has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 32 of 69 (51465)
08-21-2003 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by pixelator
08-20-2003 10:30 PM


There are some pretty big problems with the kalam argument (there is an argument for a personal cause which has yet to be raised here, which is especially bad).
Here's one. Given that time is finite, if something existed from the very start of time can we say that it definitely did or did not have a beginning from that information alone ? If we need more information to decide then what is it, and how does it apply to our universe ?
The "from eternity" argument is in my view rather silly. What would it mean for our universe to exis "from eternity" and how can we tell that it did not ? (And don't forget that the kalam argument denies the possibility of an infinite past, so you cannot insist that "from eternity" demands an infinite past unless you wish to deny that ANYTHING - includign God - exists "from eternity").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by pixelator, posted 08-20-2003 10:30 PM pixelator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by pixelator, posted 08-21-2003 12:59 PM PaulK has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 33 of 69 (51471)
08-21-2003 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
08-20-2003 10:46 PM


Actually Crash the Casimir effect is the attraction of two plates caused by vacuum fluctuations. The vacuum fluctuations themselves are not the Casimir effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2003 10:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2003 10:44 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 69 (51500)
08-21-2003 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Wounded King
08-21-2003 5:40 AM


Actually Crash the Casimir effect is the attraction of two plates caused by vacuum fluctuations. The vacuum fluctuations themselves are not the Casimir effect.
Well, yes, but it was through the Casimir effect that these vacuum fluctuations can be detected. But my wording was unclear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 08-21-2003 5:40 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by pixelator, posted 08-21-2003 1:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
pixelator
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 69 (51540)
08-21-2003 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
08-21-2003 3:57 AM


quote:
(there is an argument for a personal cause which has yet to be raised here, which is especially bad)
The "from eternity" argument is in my view rather silly. What would it mean for our universe to exis "from eternity" and how can we tell that it did not ? (And don't forget that the kalam argument denies the possibility of an infinite past, so you cannot insist that "from eternity" demands an infinite past unless you wish to deny that ANYTHING - includign God - exists "from eternity").
  —PaulK
I agree that the kalam argument did not show a personal god, and I propose not getting off track on that, since that takes getting into various religious texts and proofs. But I thought it was pretty good in showing an intelligent cause.
I think it is very hard to discuss things outside of time because our language has no words for it. Our every experience is based on time. However, in the kalam argument, I believe the author was using Eternity to mean existence without time, not infinite time. So if something exists without time, it is by definition changeless, since change requires time to occur in. Something in that state should remain in that state eternally (there we go again, not having the words to express the idea, but I think you understand) - so it would be in equilibrium, stasis if you will, and therefore could never begin to expand in the first place. Unless some force acted on it. How could a force act on it without time? It would take an intelligent being/force with a will and ability to act outside of time to cause it to expand.
and to reply to the other poster who said "how could it be nothing?" I meant "nothing" in the sense that 1. It is infinitely small, thereby having no dimensions (that's what a singularity means) 2. Space did not exist before the expansion so there was nothing for the singularity to exist in. Even black holes in our universe exist in space. There was not even space for the BB singularity to exist in. 3. it had no duration, since there was no time.
So, if something isn't there (since there was no "there") and it wasn't there for any time at all (no time) and it had no dimensions, then it is pretty much "nothing"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2003 3:57 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2003 4:00 PM pixelator has replied

  
pixelator
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 69 (51546)
08-21-2003 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
08-21-2003 10:44 AM


quote:
Well, yes, but it was through the Casimir effect that these vacuum fluctuations can be detected. But my wording was unclear.
Crashfrog. I am not sure I am clear on your point, so if I am am misunderstanding you, sorry.
The Casimir effect is not something from nothing. It is fluctuation in energy fields in a vacuum as far as I understand it. Nothing is being created.
Even in quantum mechanics which has theories for particles appearing suddenly in empty space, they are still being converted into mass out of energy, which still means you are not getting something out of nothing.
But in the singularity at the BB there was not even a vacuum, no sub atomic particles, no space, no time. Nothing to act on the singularity (except maybe God?) - so why did it expand? how could it, if time did not exist until it began to expand and create space time?
Where did the singularity come from? If there was nothing and no time, how did such a singularity even exist?
[This message has been edited by pixelator, 08-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2003 10:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2003 5:27 PM pixelator has replied
 Message 68 by NosyNed, posted 08-25-2003 4:36 AM pixelator has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 37 of 69 (51556)
08-21-2003 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cobra_snake
07-04-2002 3:56 PM


Failures to Comprehend the Implications of General Relativity
Cobra snake writes:
Ok, but the universe HAS NOT NECCESARILY always been, by definition.
Quite not. "The universe," defined as "all that exists," and "always," defined as "the set of all extant time values," clearly validate the statement "the universe has always existed." You appear to be using uncommon or overly simplified definitions for your terms.
Cobra snake writes:
there is good evidence that the universe DID have a beginning.
Which evidence is that?
Cobra snake writes:
It is true that the universe COULD have already existed, but again, this flies in the face of scientific knowledge.
Methinks you're failing to keep up with the rapidly advancing cosmological scientific knowledge lest you you would not make such statements. Consider for a moment that space-time seems to be continuous: Do you realize how many moments in time there are on an interval between any two non-simultaneous space-time coordinates? Do you know how many points are there on a continuous line in geometry? Infinitely many. The consequences of General Relativity -- probably the best supported and most useful theory in physics -- reduce space-time to basically a tensor field, or an abstraction of the relation between objects. Moments in time have no real temporal duration.
Now, I realize that the next best supported theory in physics -- Quantum Mechanics -- places limits on the observability of space-time continuity. It is important to realize that this is inherent in our mechanisms for observation, and not necessarily a property of objective reality. Indeed, the wave equation, which is now regarded as the most complete description of quantum states, is also continuous which gives us good reason to believe that space-time is in fact continuous below the limits of observability (i.e. the Planck scale).
Blessings,
::

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cobra_snake, posted 07-04-2002 3:56 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by John, posted 08-21-2003 5:21 PM :æ: has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 38 of 69 (51594)
08-21-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by pixelator
08-21-2003 12:59 PM


No, "from Eternity" cannot mean "out of time", because if it did the claim that if the cause existed from eternity, the effect must also exist from eternity does not follow. After all producing the effect IS a change and therefore the move from cause to effect would be locked, given a changeless state.
Moreover, on that reading how can a personal cause get around the issue ? If we assume an unchanging and non-temporal personal cause then the act of creation that is the immediate cause of the universe must also exist "from eternity" from which it would follow that we still come to the conclusion that the effect - our universe - would exist "from eternity".
Having seen the more detailed version of the argument for a personal cause it seems quite clear that the idea is of a cause acting within time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by pixelator, posted 08-21-2003 12:59 PM pixelator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by pixelator, posted 08-21-2003 5:41 PM PaulK has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 69 (51623)
08-21-2003 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by :æ:
08-21-2003 1:36 PM


Re: Failures to Comprehend the Implications of General Relativity
You are going to have to back up some of your physics. For example...
quote:
Quantum Mechanics -- places limits on the observability of space-time continuity.
This isn't an accurate portrayal of quantum theory. It isn't about observability. Quantum theory is the idea the energy comes in chunks-- quanta, hence the name. The universe is bumpy in QM. This doesn't mesh with general relativity, which implies a smooth universe. Me thinks it is you who has your physics confused.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by :æ:, posted 08-21-2003 1:36 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by :æ:, posted 08-21-2003 6:18 PM John has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 69 (51625)
08-21-2003 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by pixelator
08-21-2003 1:09 PM


But in the singularity at the BB there was not even a vacuum, no sub atomic particles, no space, no time.
But you don't know there was nothing. It was outside the universe. Who's to say what was there? Some kind of meta-spacetime, maybe?
For all we know, nothing can't even exist. We certainly don't see any "nothing" in this universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by pixelator, posted 08-21-2003 1:09 PM pixelator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by pixelator, posted 08-21-2003 5:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
pixelator
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 69 (51631)
08-21-2003 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
08-21-2003 4:00 PM


quote:
No, "from Eternity" cannot mean "out of time", because if it did the claim that if the cause existed from eternity, the effect must also exist from eternity does not follow. After all producing the effect IS a change and therefore the move from cause to effect would be locked, given a changeless state.
I think that was the point! Anything natural that could cause the singularity to expand would be limited by two things:
1. Nothing natural existed outside the singularity
2. Time did not exist until the expansion began.
This means that any natural cause (whether internal or external to the singularity) could not actually do anything, because it would be locked in the changeless state.
Conclusion?
1. Something DID cause the universe to expand. We are here to argue about it.
2. Nothing natural could have because there was no time to act within. and everything was within the singularity, which had no time. Stasis. Unchangable.
3. God is supernatural, He exists outside of any physical reality, he needs no "Time" to work in. Only such a being could have effected the state of the singularity. Whether he is personal or not, that is for other discussions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2003 4:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 08-21-2003 5:55 PM pixelator has replied
 Message 44 by John, posted 08-21-2003 6:10 PM pixelator has replied

  
pixelator
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 69 (51635)
08-21-2003 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
08-21-2003 5:27 PM


quote:
But you don't know there was nothing. It was outside the universe. Who's to say what was there? Some kind of meta-spacetime, maybe?
For all we know, nothing can't even exist. We certainly don't see any "nothing" in this universe.
Nothing can't even exist... Hmmm.... Hey, that's pretty good! If it did exist it wouldn't be nothing anymore would it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2003 5:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 43 of 69 (51639)
08-21-2003 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by pixelator
08-21-2003 5:41 PM


I see the argument - in your view - is (or amounts to) it is logically impossible, therefore God did it.
I think a better view is to take time as a dimension - much like the spatial dimensions, as in modern physics.
Then we can take some alternative possibilities. For instance in Stephen Hawking's no boundary condition theory the universe itself exists timelessly - time is a component of the universe.
Or we can take Linde's "Eternal Inflation" in which our universe is one of many bubbles in a greater, infinite space-time. If we take time as a dimension we can even do away with the necessity to traverse an infinite past. Why should there be any need to do so if time is a dimension and any acausal event may happen at any point on the infinite continuum ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by pixelator, posted 08-21-2003 5:41 PM pixelator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by pixelator, posted 08-21-2003 7:21 PM PaulK has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 69 (51642)
08-21-2003 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by pixelator
08-21-2003 5:41 PM


quote:
1. Something DID cause the universe to expand.
Not necessarily. Causality breaks down at a singularity. Cause and effect no longer apply. None of our physics and mathematics work at a singularity, so it is very hard to tell what must have happened.
quote:
2. Nothing natural could have because there was no time to act within. and everything was within the singularity, which had no time. Stasis. Unchangable.
Same problem as above really. No one quite knows what happens at a singularity. Also note that 'no time' is not the same as 'time stopped' just as 'no water in the river' is not the same as 'the water in the river stopped flowing.'
quote:
3. God is supernatural, He exists outside of any physical reality, he needs no "Time" to work in. Only such a being could have effected the state of the singularity. Whether he is personal or not, that is for other discussions.
You are just making up something to fill in a blank in knowledge. There is no support for any of this.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by pixelator, posted 08-21-2003 5:41 PM pixelator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by pixelator, posted 08-21-2003 7:37 PM John has replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 45 of 69 (51648)
08-21-2003 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by John
08-21-2003 5:21 PM


Re: Failures to Comprehend the Implications of General Relativity
John writes:
This isn't an accurate portrayal of quantum theory. It isn't about observability. Quantum theory is the idea the energy comes in chunks-- quanta, hence the name.
My apologies for my sloppy language. I concur that what you've said above is true. My point was that the Planck length and the uncertainty principle have established that there is a lower bound to observable space-time metrics, and these are aspects of quantum theory. IIRC, there were some recent deep space observations which returned images that were surpisingly smooth when they had expected them to be grainy as a result of the "bumpiness" of the quantum-scale universe. I'm struggling to recall the details. If I can find the article, I'll provide a link. Basically it reduced the smallest measureable space-time metric to beneath the Planck length indicating that space-time is continuous below where we previously thought it was discrete.
John writes:
The universe is bumpy in QM. This doesn't mesh with general relativity, which implies a smooth universe. Me thinks it is you who has your physics confused.
I think not. You're speaking of the quantified nature of objects in the universe, whereas I'm speaking of the continuous nature of the manifold in which those objects are observed.
Blessings,
::

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by John, posted 08-21-2003 5:21 PM John has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024