Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
28 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(3)
Message 72 of 301 (722823)
03-25-2014 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Thugpreacha
03-20-2014 2:30 PM


Re: Who Lit The Fuse?
Images such as this confirm the majesty of my belief.

Well isn't that some inflated ego type shit.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-20-2014 2:30 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 73 of 301 (722836)
03-25-2014 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by kbertsche
03-24-2014 7:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
I think we can spend a few posts taking apart John Lennox's opinion, and others have done so. I'll just add a few points.

First:

According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being.

The problem I see is that the laws of physics accurately measure reality. We can make predictions using them and test to see if they're confirmed. Like with the new evidence for inflation.

However, the "will of God" is simply a reference to the desires of a mythical concept.

So to suggest that "the laws of physics provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being" is just the philosophical musings of Hawking, and not a statement based on actual evidence, is flat out wrong. Even if the evidence isn't fully complete yet.

Also:

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a terrible analogy. The main difference between God and Sir Frank Whittle is the is evidence of Frank's existence. So Hawking isn't confusing law with agency because there is no evidence for any agent to consider.

All he is saying is that there is no need to imagine anything else to explain the universe when the laws of physics provide plenty of evidence for how the universe came to be.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kbertsche, posted 03-24-2014 7:28 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 11:27 AM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 88 of 301 (722957)
03-25-2014 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by kbertsche
03-25-2014 11:27 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Says you; note that you are making a philosophical, non-scientific claim.

First, if you have evidence that god is something orther than a mythical concept please present it. However, my point is that using the term "The will of God" is, as you admit, just philosophical musing.

Saying the laws of physicis explains the origin of the universe is not. It is based on facts.

It implies that this is the only, and the complete, explanation for the question.

CS put it perfectly with his lightening/Thor example.

I'll just add that something for which there is evidence for will always be a more complete and accurate explanation than concepts for which no evidence exists. I don't see how you can argue against that.

The fact that the laws of nature give a good description of reality does not and cannot remove God from the picture any more than they remove Whittle from the picture.

Again, we have evidence for Whittle. There is no evidence at all for god. So until there is some, god isn't infered just as magical pixies aren't either.

In a philosophical sense, natural law is descriptive, not causative.

Natural laws are evidenced. Simple as that. The describe the reality we live in accurately and the origin of our universe without positing anything unevidenced or magical.

Think of the lightening example.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 11:27 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(3)
Message 118 of 301 (723244)
03-28-2014 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by kbertsche
03-27-2014 11:47 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself.

Then so would whatever supernatural being you've chosen to be the creator of this particular universe.

If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural.

Not at all. It could be we are part of a multiverse system.

Supernatural has never ever ever ever ever been the answer to any question that we've solved. Why now?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 11:47 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:55 AM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 119 of 301 (723245)
03-28-2014 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by kbertsche
03-27-2014 11:55 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
but the physicist's "vacuum" is very different from the philospher's "nothing".

The philosophers "nothing" has no meaning, so that would quite a difference.

Unless you can provide an actual definition of nothing in the philosophers sense that doesn't become circular i.e. "the absense of anything" of something like that?

How would a philosopher even begin to grasp the true meaning of nothingness? Seems like physicist are the only ones qualified to explain it.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 11:55 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(3)
Message 120 of 301 (723246)
03-28-2014 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jon
03-27-2014 8:36 PM


In fact, I could care less, and cannot imagine this discovery having any impact on me, or anyone really, whatsoever.

Maybe you should go back to your coloring books then.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Jon, posted 03-27-2014 8:36 PM Jon has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 132 of 301 (723284)
03-28-2014 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 10:55 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Of course, if God is eternal with no beginning, then no such cause is necessary.

Great, now let's keep that in mind when we talk about a multiverse system.

I defined "universe" as "all of nature".

Yes, I got that. The universe is 4D spacetime i.e. all of nature, all of reality.

Whatever caused nature to begin to exist must transcend nature. This, by definition, is super-nature (supernatural).

Not at all. It just means it is not governed by the laws of our 4D spacetime.

Your hypothesized multiverse is either a part of nature or it is itself supernatural. Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence.

Since it is not governed by our 4D spacetime, things like time and beginning and end are irrelevant. So a multiverse doesn't begin to exist or anything relating to the functions of time.

It can itself be eternal.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:55 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 136 of 301 (723299)
03-28-2014 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 3:32 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
If nature had a beginning, it needs a cause which is outside itself, i.e. super-nature.

Again, no it does not. A multiverse would cause a universe like ours to emerge and itself not be bound to the function of time or the notion of a beginning.

If "nature" is defined to be the earth, then this cause is "super-nature" by definition.

Wouldn't it just mean that we need to re-define nature to include the Andromeda galaxy?

2) nature (including the process that you propose) is eternal, with no beginning, in which case it has effectively become a god (an impersonal god in this case, similar to Spinoza's and Einstein's)

It simply means it is not bound to any function of time like beginning or end. Same as in Quantum Mechanics.

Is that what god is? Quantum Mechanics?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 3:32 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 6:12 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 138 of 301 (723303)
03-28-2014 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 6:12 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Do you consider the hypothesized multiverse to be part of nature or not?

I've been trying to just deal with your use of the word nature but it's not working out. Nature is where deer and bears live.

What we are talking about is the universe, 4d spacetime, or reality of you'd like.

Now, do I consider a multiverse system where Brains and all that stuff reacts to create universes (I'm paraphrasing) as has been hypothesized to be part of our 4 dimensional spacetime? Then no. They are super small to the point where space and time cease to make any sense. Notions of begin and end are pointless.

The other option would be to keep our definition of nature, in which case the Andromeda galaxy is "super-nature".

So basically supernatural means even naturally existing galaxies too? That's nonsense.

As I understand it, this is essentially the impersonal "god" of Einstein and Spinoza

Then it is no god at all, as both of these guys have clearly stated before.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 6:12 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:59 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 153 of 301 (723365)
03-31-2014 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 10:59 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
"Nature" includes everything that is "natural" and nothing that is not.

So then the universe or more specifically 4d spacetime.

Good?

Do you consider a hypothesized "multiverse" to be part of the "natural world"? Would you consider a multiverse to have a beginning to its existence?}

Yes and yes. But, I have not yet seen evidence or any hypothesis that doesn't address said beginning to be natural causes. Such as m-theory, super string theory, brain theory, etc.

The point being that while we can all agree there was a beginning, it seems, at least for our specific universe, to be perfectly explained by natural causes.

Also, for something supernatural to be considered as a possible creator of this universe, there would need to exist evidence of some kind of supernatural force.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:59 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2014 8:58 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 154 of 301 (723367)
03-31-2014 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by kbertsche
03-29-2014 8:12 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
By which I mean that the person would probably not refer to X or Y their "god", yet the person ascribes unique characteristics to X or Y, characteristics which are traditionally ascribed only to gods (externality, pre-existence, ultimate causation, uncaused existence).

No one is ascribing any characteristics to the process that would cause a 4d universe like ours to emerge. These are simply equations that yeild results. So for example, say super string theory is absolutely correct and works perfectly as the ultimate unifying theory of everything, that is not a diety or a god. It is simply an equation/s that works.

When I use the word "eternal" I use it for your sake not mine. I am perfectly fine understanding that 'before' or 'beginning' before the universe is pointless because time itself isn't a factor. To make that universally understood by the theist I will flavor it with the word eternal. But I agree it is not the proper term. It is better to say that space and time break down at units smaller than Planck scale therefore 'before' and 'after' or 'beginning' and 'end' are irrelevant.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2014 8:12 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2014 9:28 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 162 of 301 (723400)
04-01-2014 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by kbertsche
03-31-2014 8:58 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Is there any experimental evidence for these hypothesized natural causes (m-theory, super string theory, brain theory)?

As I understand it, and this is purely from reading about it, the equations are working to some degree and while physicist don't have the answers yet they are getting closer.

But some do say it might be that we never truly understand everything about it. Some say a unifying theory might never come by.

Can there EVER be any direct scientific evidence of a multiverse? If not, is the multiverse even a scientific theory?

Man never thought he could fly.

It is a hypothesis. As with everything in science, data and testable results - and of course time - will tell if they work.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2014 8:58 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 11:16 AM onifre has acknowledged this reply

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 163 of 301 (723401)
04-01-2014 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by kbertsche
03-31-2014 9:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
So what is your objection to the use of "beginning"?

I have no objection to the use of the word beginning if we are only talking about the universe. But this conversation has gone, as it tends to do, to "before" the universe.

Some of the hypothesis being proposed as a unfying theory such as super string or brains in m-theory aim to explain this "before" period. However, this before period would not be subjected to notions of time or space or before and after - in other words, no beginning and no need for causation. If these equations ever work this is what they are projected to yield as a result.

So, the universe began 13.7 billion years ago emerging from some super string or brain which itself had no beginning or cause. It also may or may not have sprung out other universes and we are then part of a multiverse system with, what I've read, can be infinite possible universe variations

I only object to the use of the word beginning when you apply it to the string or brain (or whatever physicist discover to be the universe generator) because you have to accept that notions of time and beginning or end is not applicable to these theories.

If our universe began to exist, then it needs a cause for its existence.

See above.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2014 9:28 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 199 of 301 (723519)
04-03-2014 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by 1.61803
04-03-2014 10:26 AM


Re: Go North Young Man!
But somehow energy/matter became sentient.
It wasn't and now it is.

Not somehow - we have a very clear detailed history of how human life emerged. Like every other living organism we had a slow gradual process of evolution.

Is it a science experiment from some super intelligent alien race? That we have been mistakenly calling God? Is it even knowable?

We could be the experiment of another race of sentient beings. But those beings would also have evolved througha gradual slow process and not just popped up out of nowhere and existed forever without any kind of emergence process.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by 1.61803, posted 04-03-2014 10:26 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by 1.61803, posted 04-03-2014 12:53 PM onifre has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 206 of 301 (723550)
04-03-2014 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by 1.61803
04-03-2014 12:53 PM


Re: Go North Young Man!
Evolution and natural selection occured and is occuring but has nothing to say about abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis and the emergence of sentience are separated by over 4 billion years. Your point was that of sentience NOT how single cell organisms emerged.

That was the point I was addressing.

However it is still unknown how the big bang occurred. It is unknown if or how inflation occured, It is unknown how exactly how and by what mechanisms, abiogenisus occured.

You're brushing over it with a very broad brush. For each of those things there are some things we know - like inflation (hence this thread) and possible hypothesis for how universes can emerge. For abiogenesis there is a ton of evidence, but sure, there isn't a complete theory.

The point is scientist are not blindly waving a stick hoping to hit something or imagining a super being that can create these things.

Or do you have information I am unaware of?

Apparently you are unaware of all the work being done in these fields you've mentioned.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by 1.61803, posted 04-03-2014 12:53 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by 1.61803, posted 04-03-2014 4:00 PM onifre has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019