Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 121 of 506 (694791)
03-28-2013 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by designtheorist
03-28-2013 12:11 PM


Proof?
Roger Penrose has mathematically shown any naturalistic cause for the Big Bang to be beyond any realm of chance. As far as I know, no one has even attempted to defeat or contradict his proof.
I can't find any trace of such a proof, and I'm pretty good at Googling. Please provide a working link, preferably to a text site rather than a video.
He definitely does believe in a cyclic universe, but that rather disproves your claim, doesn't it? Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity.
I do find Before the Big Bang: an Outrageous New Perspective and its Implications for Particle Physics wherein he raises an issue of how the low entropy of the early universe came to be, but there is a lot of argument in physics circles about whether this is an issue and how, if it is an issue, it might be resolved. Certainly that paper isn't a proof of impossibility of naturalistic origins and there are plenty of people attempting to "defeat or contradict" the issue.
Given your propensity to add to what people wrote and claim you are quoting, I strongly suspect that you have colossally misrepresented Penrose's position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by designtheorist, posted 03-28-2013 12:11 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 122 of 506 (694792)
03-28-2013 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Percy
03-28-2013 1:13 PM


Re: ABE
But he said this back in 1981. Given that as recently as 2010 he was proposing that the Big Bang may have been preceded by an earlier universe, have you considered the possibility that he doesn't today and never did view has work from 30 years ago as precluding natural causes?
The paper I linked to is from 2006. So his view of the low entropy problem remained the same more recently than 30 years ago. I don't know when, if ever, he changed his mind.
Of course, if indeed that's what DT is hanging his hat on, it doesn't fly (mixing my metaphors muchly).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 03-28-2013 1:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 03-28-2013 3:06 PM JonF has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 123 of 506 (694794)
03-28-2013 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by JonF
03-28-2013 2:25 PM


Re: ABE
JonF writes:
I don't know when, if ever, he changed his mind.
I doubt Penrose ever changed his mind. As is his wont, DesignTheorist has claimed something that has no support in fact. He has claimed that Roger Penrose proved that the Big Bang could not have had a naturalistic cause when it is very, very much in doubt that Penrose believed he ever proved any such thing. Penrose probably thought, and still thinks, "What incredibly low entropy! How on earth could that have happened?" He never thought, "My God, what incredibly low entropy! This could not possibly have had a natural cause."
No doubt most scientists, Penrose certainly among them, view the cause of the Big Bang as yet another puzzle for which we don't yet have firm answers, only hypotheses. I'm sure very, very few scientists have concluded that the cause was non-natural.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by JonF, posted 03-28-2013 2:25 PM JonF has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 124 of 506 (694796)
03-28-2013 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by NoNukes
03-28-2013 11:15 AM


Did I say any such thing? Seriously JBR, you are completely out of your depth here. You didn't even address the two possibilities that designtheorist did include before writing your woof ticket.
Hmmm... I'm not sure what post you read but of the two mentioned I did address the most popular one of quantum fluctuations. You seemed to be dismayed by the fact that he hadn't gone into any detail as to why they don't work, and I was merely trying to address this. So I appologize if I in anyway misinterpreted what you meant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2013 11:15 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2013 10:07 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 129 by JonF, posted 03-29-2013 7:54 AM Just being real has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 506 (694797)
03-28-2013 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Just being real
03-28-2013 6:02 PM


I did address the most popular one of quantum fluctuations
You addressed quantum fluctuations by asking me the inane question of where the metal plates for generating the fluctuations for the Big Bang would come from.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Just being real, posted 03-28-2013 6:02 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 2:05 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 126 of 506 (694802)
03-29-2013 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by NoNukes
03-28-2013 10:07 PM


You addressed quantum fluctuations by asking me the inane question of where the metal plates for generating the fluctuations for the Big Bang would come from.
I'm sorry to inform you that you are mistaken. I asked how you would get around the problem of needing the parameters (such as the two metal plates in a vacuum) to be in place in order to have a quantum fluctuation? I would never ask "where the metal plates for generating the fluctuations for the Big Bang would come from." That would be stupid. My question is posed around this thought process.
Since the quantum fluctuations observed in the casimir experiments require certain parameters in order to "fluctuate" (such as the metal plates), then this therefore would logically require some sort of universes parameters to exist in order to have a quantum fluctuation. Thus the chicken egg dilemma. You need the parameters to create the universe... but wait you need the universe to set up the parameters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2013 10:07 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2013 2:48 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 128 by Percy, posted 03-29-2013 7:52 AM Just being real has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 127 of 506 (694804)
03-29-2013 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Just being real
03-29-2013 2:05 AM


Since the quantum fluctuations observed in the casimir experiments require certain parameters in order to "fluctuate" (such as the metal plates) ...
No they don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 2:05 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 9:04 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 128 of 506 (694809)
03-29-2013 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Just being real
03-29-2013 2:05 AM


It is believed that virtual particles (quantum fluctuations) flit in and out of existence continuously everywhere throughout the universe, including the nearly empty expanse of space between galaxies and at the time of the Big Bang. The Casimir effect is just the most easily detectable example of this phenomenon.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 2:05 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 9:19 AM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 129 of 506 (694810)
03-29-2013 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Just being real
03-28-2013 6:02 PM


I did address the most popular one of quantum fluctuations
The Casimir effect is due to quantum fluctuation, but is not in itself a quantum fluctuation. "Quantum fluctuation" covers a lot more ground than "Casimir effect".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Just being real, posted 03-28-2013 6:02 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 9:22 AM JonF has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 130 of 506 (694813)
03-29-2013 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Dr Adequate
03-29-2013 2:48 AM


No they don't.
Lol. Oh, oh... I got this... are you ready?
...yes they do.
Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2013 2:48 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2013 9:21 AM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 131 of 506 (694814)
03-29-2013 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Percy
03-29-2013 7:52 AM


It is believed that virtual particles (quantum fluctuations) flit in and out of existence continuously everywhere throughout the universe...
So what is it exactly that makes this "belief" any more valid than your typical run of the mill creationist? Also this still doesn't answer the question. Some sort of universes parameters are needed to have a fluctuation and yet you need the fluctuation in order to have a universe to have the parameters. Which came first? Then you still have to solve the problem of how anything could have occurred to begin with. Since most physicists tell us the universe is quantized and nothing smaller than a planck can theoretically exist. This is a problem trying to have a zero point of energy fluctuate where there is no "where" to fluctuate. There was no time or space.
And finally, if we are really observing new particles form in the casimir experiments then you've got to trash the entire law of conservation of energy which says this is impossible. In a closed system energy can not be created or destroyed... it can only be converted. That means at the very most we are merely seeing some yet unexplained conversion process... not the creation of completely new particles from nothing.
Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Percy, posted 03-29-2013 7:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2013 10:24 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 03-29-2013 10:31 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 138 by JonF, posted 03-29-2013 10:42 AM Just being real has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 506 (694815)
03-29-2013 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Just being real
03-29-2013 9:04 AM


Lol. Oh, oh... I got this... are you read?
You received several polite messages correcting you on your error regarding the casimir effect. What do you think a response of 'yes they do' accomplishes at this point? I know you want to get back at Dr. Adequate, but at the cost of looking not unlike a buffoon?
If you aren't prepared to discuss how physics works at energy densities and temperatures so high that all physics as we understand the subject are inapplicable, then blathering about in a positive, certain, fashion about what is impossible, plank lengths, and such is, er unjustifiable. The fact that you continue to do so suggests that you are out of your depth.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 9:04 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 9:25 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 133 of 506 (694816)
03-29-2013 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by JonF
03-29-2013 7:54 AM


The Casimir effect is due to quantum fluctuation, but is not in itself a quantum fluctuation. "Quantum fluctuation" covers a lot more ground than "Casimir effect".
So are you trying to say there is some other process we have "observed" that indicates how we might get something from nothing? Because the casimir effect is the only one I've heard of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by JonF, posted 03-29-2013 7:54 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2013 10:09 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 139 by JonF, posted 03-29-2013 10:49 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 03-30-2013 11:59 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 134 of 506 (694817)
03-29-2013 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by NoNukes
03-29-2013 9:21 AM


What do you think a response of 'yes they do' accomplishes at this point?
Ummm... the same thing his response of "no they don't" accomplishes. Absolutely nothing. And that was the only point I was making.
Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2013 9:21 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 135 of 506 (694819)
03-29-2013 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Just being real
03-29-2013 9:22 AM


Because the casimir effect is the only one I've heard of.
As has been pointed out several times, the Casimir experiment is a demonstration that zero point energy is real. It is not an experiment in which quantum fluctuations are created, but is instead an experiment in which the fluctuations associated with a small volume of space are made to generate a measurable effect.
And your equivocation on the term "believed" is .... below the standard for intellectual honesty for even a blog debate. 'Believed' in Percy's statement means predicted by the theory of quantum electrodynamics, said theory being well verified by experiment, and not "accepted through faith." The Casimir effect itself is further confirmation.
I'll read any response you may have, but I'm otherwise done with this buffoonery.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Just being real, posted 03-29-2013 9:22 AM Just being real 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