Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 151 of 301 (723356)
03-31-2014 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by kbertsche
03-30-2014 11:51 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
3. A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard.
So Kim Jong Un is god ?

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by kbertsche, posted 03-30-2014 11:51 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by vimesey, posted 03-31-2014 8:28 AM frako has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 152 of 301 (723357)
03-31-2014 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by frako
03-31-2014 8:16 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
So Kim Jong Un is god ?
Heaven is clearly short of a decent barber or two then.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by frako, posted 03-31-2014 8:16 AM frako has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 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 replied

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

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 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 replied

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 155 of 301 (723377)
03-31-2014 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 3:32 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
"Outside nature" is "super-nature", by definition.
At one time, the Earth was thought to be the complete expanse for the natural universe. When we discovered that nature operated outside of what we defined as the natural universe, did that make it supernatural? No. The Andromeda galaxy is not supernatural, even though it exists outside of what we once defined as Nature.
The same would apply to a natural, non-sentient process that produces new universes. It would simply be added to what we consider Nature just as we have always done.
Many would agree that a "deity" is eternal and uncaused (though this wouldn't apply to minor Greek and Roman deities).
This would make naturally occuring universes a deity, which they clearly aren't.
No, you're not making sense. If nature had a beginning, it needs a cause which is outside itself, i.e. super-nature. (The idea that something is self-caused is a logical impossibility.)
The cause would become part of nature. That is how science has always worked.
I only see two possibilities:
1) nature (including the process that you propose) had a beginning to its existence, in which case it needs a super-natural cause
False. That would be a natural cause since it involves nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 3:32 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 156 of 301 (723378)
03-31-2014 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by kbertsche
03-29-2014 12:25 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
No, I label anything outside the "natural world" as supernatural.
Then why can't we define the "natural world" as the universes and the non-sentient, mechanistic processes that produce universes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2014 12:25 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 157 of 301 (723383)
03-31-2014 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by onifre
03-31-2014 11:24 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Oni writes:
kbertsche writes:
"Nature" includes everything that is "natural" and nothing that is not.
So then the universe or more specifically 4d spacetime.
Good?
Yes, fine. And I'll try to use the term "natural world" instead of "nature" to be reduce confusion.
Oni writes:
kbertsche writes:
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.
Is there any experimental evidence for these hypothesized natural causes (m-theory, super string theory, brain theory)? Can there EVER be any direct scientific evidence of a multiverse? If not, is the multiverse even a scientific theory?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by onifre, posted 03-31-2014 11:24 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by onifre, posted 04-01-2014 8:42 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 158 of 301 (723389)
03-31-2014 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by onifre
03-31-2014 11:38 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Oni writes:
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.
We agree that our universe has a finite age, about 13.7 billion years. Thus, it began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. So what is your objection to the use of "beginning"? Yes, we can't extrapolate the physics backward to less than one Planck time of the beginning, but this doesn't mean that there was no beginning (this would be a variant of Zeno's paradox).
IF time began at the Big Bang then I agree that there was no "before". And we could say that our universe has "always existed". But I would not call this "eternal"; our universe has only existed for a finite length of time. (When we talk of God being eternal, we mean that He has existed for an infinite length of time in the past.)
If our universe began to exist, then it needs a cause for its existence. You propose a multiverse as the cause, and you say that this multiverse is part of the "natural world". This raises obvious questions: Do you believe this multiverse had a beginning to ITS existence? If so, what is the cause of the multiverse?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by onifre, posted 03-31-2014 11:38 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 03-31-2014 10:08 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 03-31-2014 10:34 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 161 by vimesey, posted 04-01-2014 5:38 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 163 by onifre, posted 04-01-2014 9:02 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 164 by frako, posted 04-01-2014 9:12 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 165 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2014 9:42 AM kbertsche has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 159 of 301 (723390)
03-31-2014 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by kbertsche
03-31-2014 9:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
But I would not call this "eternal"; our universe has only existed for a finite length of time.
And yet the Bible offers a promise that men can have eternal life in any number of places. Is that promise false?
If our universe began to exist, then it needs a cause for its existence.
So says you.
When a U-238 nuclei decays after having existed for 4.5 billion years, what is the cause for the decay and what is the cause for the existence of the brand new Th-234 nuclei? What caused the nearby, identical U238 atom to decay billions of years ago, while this one did not?
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 have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
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 158 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2014 9:28 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 10:36 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 160 of 301 (723391)
03-31-2014 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by kbertsche
03-31-2014 9:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
If our universe began to exist, then it needs a cause for its existence.
If it does need a cause, how do you go from "needs a cause" to "a deity did it"?
When has "a deity did it" ever turned out to be the right answer in cases where we did discover the cause for a phenomenon?

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

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 161 of 301 (723397)
04-01-2014 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by kbertsche
03-31-2014 9:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
If our universe began to exist, then it needs a cause for its existence.
In an environment where every physical law of our universe seems not to apply, what is it that leads to your conviction that the law of causation continues to apply ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2014 9:28 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 10:45 AM vimesey has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 11:16 AM onifre has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 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 replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 164 of 301 (723402)
04-01-2014 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by kbertsche
03-31-2014 9:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
If our universe began to exist, then it needs a cause for its existence.
Yea and things cant be at 2 places at the same time right, oh wait they can be, and a particle that does not have enough energy to pass a barrier cant pass that barrier right, oh wait it can, "farmers logic" like yours brakes down once you go out of the realm of everyday life, and especially if you go to extremes.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 301 (723403)
04-01-2014 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by kbertsche
03-31-2014 9:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
IF time began at the Big Bang then I agree that there was no "before".
If our universe began to exist, then it needs a cause for its existence.
These two statements are completely inconsistent. If there is no time, then what is the relationship between cause and effect. There is no sense in which we can say that the effect comes before the cause if there is no time. It seems to me that possible ways to resolve that issue is for the to universe either have no cause or to be self-caused.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
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 158 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2014 9:28 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 10:52 AM NoNukes 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