Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 124 of 244 (888429)
09-17-2021 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Christian7
09-17-2021 11:37 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
I won't deal with this slopsist bullshit.
We operate in an objective reality. With properly functioning senses we can discern the reality around us. We have no reason to doubt this and no reason to abandon that principle in favor of some religious wet dream.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 11:37 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 160 of 244 (888466)
09-18-2021 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Christian7
09-18-2021 10:38 AM


If our knowledge that the laws of physics never changed is tentative, and all scientific knowledge is tentative, and nothing is proven, how can you make any claim about the universe, contrary to my "assertions", and be certain that you are right, and that I am wrong?
The amount and quality of the evidence.
Don't have to prove anything. Just the preponderance of the data available is all that is necessary for a tentative conclusion. In the case of our models, we have no evidence that these models violate any of the conservation laws and ample observation from the far reaches of the cosmos that show such processes being conserved.
On the other hand your assertions that our models are position dependant is without any evidence. You have nothing to show on your side. It's all made up in your head trying to justify an untenable desire for your god.
All laws of physics operate the same everywhere in space. Until you can show cause that they do not then your assertions are void.
You are trying to tilt at the edifice of science because the reality of this universe doesn't show your favorite flavor of god. You think that if you can dent science your god will miraculously appear. It won't.
And if you cannot be certain that you are right, and that I am wrong, but are merely confident, there should be doubt in your mind concerning what you affirm.
Merely confident? How about confident to the 5σ level? That's a hell of a lot of assurance that the model is right, especially in light of your having nothing to counter that reality.
And if there is no doubt in your mind concerning what you affirm, then you are trusting in propositions, having faith in those propositions, seeing you know that the truth cannot be otherwise, as there is no proof that it is not.
Just because all science is tentative does not automatically mean your fantasies are viable. You are missing that one vital ingredient absolutely necessary to hold ANY position -- evidence.
You want to dispute the science? Show your evidence.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:38 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 182 of 244 (888489)
09-18-2021 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Christian7
09-18-2021 4:15 PM


gobbledygook
The experience of awareness, thought, emotions, senses, etc, are not physical in nature.
This is foolish. The brain is a physical entity. All our evidence, of which there is much, shows your thoughts, your feelings, your very awareness, are physical responses to physical stimuli.
Mind is an emergent property of matter.
In our present hypothesis of mind, love, for example, is the interplay of the ordered firing of electronic pulses through millions of neurons combined with the release of specific hormones. A complex cascade of matter and energy manifests as the grandest emotion humans can experience.
You care to challenge this hypothesis? We have chemistry and MRIs. What evidence do you have?
But it would be as though there were nothing, for there would be no sight of it, nor hearing of it, nor feeling of it, nor smelling of it, nor perceiving it in any fashion, though there might be many cameras throughout the universe.
That's right. The universe seems to operate quite well without us and our perceptions. It did so quite productively for the first 13.97 billion years before producing us.
What you think your mind is after death, that is what your physical brain should produce.
Say what? You want my dead brain to produce something? Scary.
After death the brain is just a putrid glob of rotting meat. Kinda like yours is now except it usually can't access the internet.
The hypothesis: the mind after death ceases to exist. Yes, we have copious amounts of data that evidence this hypothesis. What have you got? Your personal feels?
For, if a theory could be formed that explained the universe in terms of quantum physics, with a single equation, concerning the physical forces of nature and the movement of particles ... it would not demonstrate that anything consciousness could be formed.
Of course not. That is not what such a theory would be produced to model. But having such a model would tell us better how all those particles and forces interact in such manifestations as minds and singularities.
It would demonstrate that the most sophisticated object in the universe is nothing but changing states and positions of particles.
Welcome to understanding. This is exactly the universe we have.
The happens space, which, as far as I know, is not sentient, nor has any property leading to sentience.
Sentience is another one of those emergent properties of humans, but not rocks. There are reasons why biology is so productive at creating these emergent properties. Has to do with the speed, depth and number of reactive state-and-position changes involved.
You cannot deny that you have a mind, and that it sees colors, which cameras do not, and which androids do not. Though cameras receive light, they do not see anything.
Of course the camera records the light just like the eye. The frequency is the same. The camera is made to react only by recording that frequency in its memory. We biologicals have a much greater range of reactions we can exercise.
But we see, and our sight is not physical.
There is nothing but the physical. You can show nothing else.
Remember, all your emotions and all your ideas are physical constructs in your head so don't try citing emotion or math, or sight, as non-physical. Their manifestations appear to be most certainly physical and you have nothing to evidence otherwise.
For not in bounds alone are our perceptual fields separated, but they are completely unjoinable in any fashion.
gobbledygook
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:15 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 8:33 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 185 of 244 (888493)
09-18-2021 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Christian7
09-18-2021 8:33 PM


Re: gobbledygook
You care to challenge this hypothesis? We have chemistry and MRIs. What evidence do you have?
The evidence shows no such thing. It simply shows that mental states may correspond to physical brain states. It does not show that mental states are themselves physical, or are the same as brain states.
Yes, the evidence shows that mental state is dependent on physical brain state.
So if you challenge this and the mental state is not dependent on physical state then what is it and what evidence do you cite?
Was it able to defy logic before we existed?
Since logic was born with us the answer is no. Before us there was no logic to defy.
What your mind after death will be is what your living brain should produce if materialism is true. It would have no mind, just chemicals.
Your mind won't be after death and your brain has no other option than matter/energy. Your mind is just chemicals.
If you are trying to say the mind transcends death then show us your evidence. Right now oblivian is the only evidenced path we can see.
... ?????? ... So how can our minds be minds without our minds?
What a twisted pile of crap.
They have no color. Just because photons hit them get absorbed and bounce off doesn't mean they have any qualitative color. These are percepts, and percepts require sentience.
Color is one of those human constructs we use to define the perception we experience when we record various frequencies from the EM spectrum. I don't know what an ant sees but it sure does perceive its world with eyes and optic sensory neurons just like us. We could argue whether an ant was sentient.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 8:33 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 1:55 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 187 of 244 (888495)
09-19-2021 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Christian7
09-18-2021 11:07 PM


Tell me, how is it, that when nothing was, there appeared physical things with physical laws. Without cause, objects emerged out of nowhere, and not without cause they went through many eras.
Hell, I don't know. Neither do you. You can't even begin to analyse this nothing since you don't know that it really existed as you so vividly imagine. Nobody knows if there was nothing or not. That's what "don't know" means.
There was no cause for the beginning, why should there be any cause for the end, even one to occur in a moment?
First, of course there had to be a cause. We just don't know what that cause was, and neither do you. May as well be a quantum spark from nothing as well as any other speculations people care to imagine.
Second, endings are different from beginnings. Totally different sets of rules.
But, what you're trying to claim is: if the universe sprang from nothing with no cause then the universe may as well return to nothing, disappear, just as well from no cause.
Answer: Maybe. Nobody knows.
If it gives you nightmares then just remember the void IS out to get you.
And if nothing was, no potential was ... yada yada
Since we don't know (and we includes you) your creation angst is unwarranted. I think it might actually be unhealthy. It can't be easy on the blood pressure and your psyche to constantly raise a vein in your neck over 'nothing' which is something you don't know.
Without things, there is nothing.
Did jesus teach you that?
You believe in oblivion after death. Will your mind rise again without cause, while you are nothing?
Probably not. I am rather unique. Once the thermal excess of my mind dissipates into the surrounding aether QFT makes it near impossible to put it all back together. I am a one-off never to be repeated.
Why is it that a mind was not first formed?
Facts are that it took the universe 14 b yrs to evolve the vessel to develop our mind. Do you not appreciate all the stuff that had to happen first before mind could emerge? You know how many suns had to blow up to make the stuff of mind? And all the chemistry from DNA to the Krebs cycle had to develop first. As for any why, it's a useless question so I'll leave that to the philosophers.
Why is it that no non-physical things were formed?
I don't know from why. See your local horde of garden gnomes. What we do know is that, in this universe, it appears that everything is physical and nothing of a non-physical nature (whatever that might be) is evident.
Our best laws of the universe, our models, do not account for anything non-physical because there is no observation, fact, reason, logic, hint, to evidence anything non-physical exists. If there were a non-physical thing as the religious weenies would define it then there most certainly would be evidence. Lots of it.
Why should the universe be so organized, and have such levels of function, among so many objects in our universe, commonly? Is this truly all an accident?
Given the workings and relationships of particles and their energies the universe didn't have much choice. Matter was going to clump, fuse, explode and, in one case at least, make life and intellect. As for where those relationships came from, they came from the same place the universe came from. We no friggin' idea, and, again, to emphasize the point, neither do you.
The rest of your post is just drivil.
You go on and on about nothing, literally, when it is not nothing that is evident. As for cosmic genesis, what is evident is 'we don't know'. That is considerably different from this 'nothing' you get so much heartburn over.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 11:07 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 11:32 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 200 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 2:10 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 195 of 244 (888503)
09-19-2021 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
09-19-2021 11:32 AM


One non-cause theory is that the universe sprang from random alignments/collisions between mulitverses.
Then brane collisions, or interaction among multiverses, would be the cause, would it not?
We may not know the cause. We'll have to go find it, but there is one there, somewhere. In the mean time our best response is to admit ignorance and study harder.
I don't think, philosophically, that anything about this universe is un-caused. We're just too ignorant of how this place operates to have figured it out, yet.
Rather than put these things in the 'un-caused' bin I prefer to leave them in the 'ignorance' bin for a few more centuries to see what happens.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 11:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 2:14 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 199 of 244 (888508)
09-19-2021 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Christian7
09-19-2021 1:25 PM


They believed in their theory more than the evidence, so they made up a concept, and filled in the gap, without any empirical observation.
Again, poor Vera Rubin's work is given short shrift by the ignorant.
We saw the evidence, thank you Vera. There is A LOT more gravitational force around a galaxy then it's constituent matter, which we can see, could produce. Since the only venue we know of for gravity is matter there must be a hell of a lot of something like matter around galaxies that we have, yet, not directly detected.
We know something is there but we can't see it directly. Analysis of the Bullet Cluster - Wikipedia clearly shows the presence of this stuff.
There are real intellectual reasons to hypothesize a form of matter that is, presently, unknown and invisible to us. It is dark to us. We can see it's there. So stop with this bullshit about we just made it up to fix some equation.
Ignorant git.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 1:25 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 203 of 244 (888515)
09-19-2021 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Christian7
09-19-2021 1:55 PM


Re: gobbledygook
There is no evidence that consciousness is the result of brain activity.
This is just fucking dumb.
Kill the brain and all evidence of consciousness stops. That's pretty definitive.
A soul is not a physical object.
Since you cannot show that such a thing exists you are, for once, correct. Non-existent things are not physical objects.
Physcial objects do not have the ability to have qualitative experiences.
.
.
.
If consciousness is at all physical, it must be a property of physical things to begin with; it cannot be an emergent property of things which have no property leading to consciousess.
And you know this how? Gut feel? Incredulity? Do you have any type of evidence that consciousness is not physical?
Therefore, seeing that logic is universal, it has existence independent of physical objects, and therefore its existence is non-physical. This means that logic did in fact exist before we created it, and the universe did in fact conform to it.
Logic is not universal. Your contention is illogical since logic is a human construct. Also, if you look at human history you'll find that this universe has never conformed to our logic but its operation has informed and altered our sense of what is logical and what is not.
If my mind is just chemicals than it is not a mind.
Even in your case, as strong as the impulse is to deny it, you do have a mind. And it is all chemical. We have the analyses. We have the evidence for our position.
What you got?
Surely a pile of crap is easy to refute; but you have not done it.
Why should I? It was all semantic slop with no clear meaning worth the read. Your syntax is terribly disjointed and nonsensical.
How can anything physical assign meaning? Meaning is not a property of the physical universe, according to your claims.
We're not talking meaning. Labeling an object or a perception is not assigning meaning. It is a description, which conscious meat machines like humans do with aplomb. But, yes, since we are conscious meat machines with undisciplined human logic we are habit prone to assign (assume) meanings where not is warranted.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 1:55 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 3:16 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 206 of 244 (888518)
09-19-2021 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Christian7
09-19-2021 2:10 PM


What caused the quantum spark?
Someone's speculation caused the spark.
You really don't comprehend what you read post to post, do you.
Why does there need to be a physical process for a mind to exist?
What other medium is available?
Either the universe doesn't make sense, or it is being animated by power.
Typical religious false dichotomy. The universe has often not conformed to our ideas of what makes sense. Making sense is another one of those human constructs that is ill defined and has no place in science. And, yes, it is animated by power. See the gauge bosons in the Standard Model - Wikipedia. They are the powers that move the stuff of the universe.
So, how is it that you can have two apples in two different places, if numbers aren't non-physical.
Well first, the apples have to be separate because of the Pauli exclusion principle. Don't bother looking that up. You'll only misunderstand it and confuse yourself, again.
Because numbers have their physical instantiation within the physical confines of the human brain is no reason to posit we cannot use the underlying concepts and their utility in counting other physical things. That's just dumb.
Look, atheists affirm the universe sprang from nothing.
Again with the nothing. You're obsessed.
Listen up. You have read a speculative musing and taken it to be gospel. No, atheists affirm no such thing. We can't. Like you, we don't know the cosmic origin.
You're telling me it wasn't nothing. If nothing is not nothing then it isn't nothing, which makes it something. If then, there was something, and before that was not nothing, then the universe never had a beginning.
What part of "we don't know" do you not comprehend? You are such an idiot it's amazing you can operate a keyboard.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 2:10 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 208 of 244 (888520)
09-19-2021 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Christian7
09-19-2021 3:16 PM


Re: gobbledygook
I ignored it because it was obvious crap that had already been refuted. You are obsessed and without the mental discipline to comprehend corrections.
I think I need a break. The bullshit is too deep.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 3:16 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 221 of 244 (888553)
09-20-2021 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Percy
09-20-2021 2:14 PM


Uncertainty
Quantum uncertainty involves a very specific set of circumstances.
What Heisenberg showed is that with subatomic particles we cannot measure to the same accuracy both the position and momentum. Because of the relation between the two, if you increase your measure of the one the more uncertain will be your measure of the other. This goes for energy/time and other complementary variables.
Quantum uncertainty does not refer to virtual pairs or entanglement unless you are trying to measure some aspect of a specific particle's properties.
The big bang has nothing to do with quantum uncertainty since we are not trying to measure the properties of a specific particle. Quantum uncertainty is not involved in virtual pairs, wave-function collapse (if that even happens) or the double slit experiment.
What has become pop-sci is the errant view that quantum uncertainty refers to any unknown in our knowledge of QFT. It does not.
The 'uncertainty' in which slit a photon will pass through is not an issue. When we want to see this we can do so with fantastic accuracy. The problem we are having with this is that the whole system seems to change from wave-like behavior to particle-like behavior just trying to detect which slit was used.
That's not an 'uncertainty' in QFT. It's a 'WTF is going on here' in QFT.
I hope I never implied that I've concluded the Big Bang was uncaused.
Com'on, Percy. We know you're smarter than that.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 2:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 5:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 224 of 244 (888556)
09-20-2021 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Percy
09-20-2021 5:51 PM


Re: Uncertainty
I hope I never implied that I've concluded the Big Bang was uncaused.
Com'on, Percy. We know you're smarter than that.
?
Yeah, that was sloppy.
You are too smart to have settled the issue in your mind given the evidence or lack thereof. And we know it.
Sorry for the slop.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 5:51 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 226 of 244 (888560)
09-20-2021 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Christian7
09-20-2021 6:44 PM


Re: Is this hard to grasp?
Now that was quite understandable and sensible. So, it can be done. You can clearly, if rather uniquely, get your point across.
I understood you, every word, every juxtaposition and the flow of your ideas. Now, I have to wonder if the prior disconnects were you or me.
Ok, I've stopped wondering. They were you.
Go get some good learning and thinking and I'll try to not be so testy when you get back.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Christian7, posted 09-20-2021 6:44 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 229 of 244 (888564)
09-20-2021 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Percy
09-20-2021 5:51 PM


Re: Uncertainty
I assumed that quantum uncertainty underlay quantum fluctuations.
Yes, it does. You are correct.
It's a math thing. Using the uncertainty principle the math showed the possibility of such accounting machinations with energy as to create the virtual pair. Turns out the math of virtual particles was super useful in explaining a lot of unexplained transitions between particles in the labs.
Then comes Feynman with his hand scribbling stick figures and the case was sealed. Virtual particles have to be real, at least for a brief moment. We say this because the equations generated by the Feynman diagrams with virtual particle interactions included, not just match but predict the values generated in the lab.
As for precise mechanism, well, that's still in dispute.
I am amazed by how much we know. But this quantum fluctuation thing is another hole in our knowledge along with so many others. It's kinda like mother nature is sprinkling goodies to all the physicists and cosmologists and mathematicians.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Ok, I'm done


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 5:51 PM Percy has seen this message but 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