Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 61 of 244 (888364)
09-16-2021 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Christian7
09-15-2021 9:04 PM


You are again replying to a 4-year-old message.
Christian777 writes:
How do you know the laws of physics are the same as what they were yesterday?
Can you think of a law of physics so subtle that we wouldn't notice were it to change?
How do you know the laws of physics never changed?
How can you ask this after a) Stile explained that we look at them to see if they changed; and b) Stile used extremely tentative phrasing throughout to indicate the uncertain nature of our knowledge, never stating that we "know the laws of physics never changed"?
You either have faith in God's word or you have faith in something else.
You're declaring that we have to believe in something. If by "faith" you mean a religious faith, then no, we don't have to have faith in something. We can simply take the world as it is rather than as believers in fantastical unseeable things say it is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Christian7, posted 09-15-2021 9:04 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 62 of 244 (888365)
09-16-2021 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Christian7
09-15-2021 11:03 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian777 writes:
If the universe had a beginning, it had a cause,...
And you probably think that if a particle pair like a positron and an electron flitted into existence that there must have been a cause. But there was no cause. They're appearance as virtual particles is just a quantum fluctuation of the sort that happen everywhere throughout space and time, as far as we know, and could be any equal/opposite particle pair.
...but this cause is not subject to the laws of nature,...
We already know of one phenomenon with no cause, virtual particles, and so there is no requirement that the beginning of the universe had a cause.
...for the laws of nature are bound to the place of this universe.
This is an odd way of saying it, if you mean what I think you do. The way I would say it is that we have not as of this writing observed natural physical laws being one way in one time/place, and another way in a different time/place.
Therefore whatever caused the cosmos, might also cause its destruction,...
Since we don't know what, if anything, caused the cosmos, I suppose it's not impossible that the same thing that caused it could also destroy it. One idea for the end of the universe that many cosmologists are willing to consider as a possibility is that dark energy could cause the demise in a "big rip," but no one's yet thought of a role for dark energy in the creation of the universe.
...and we don't know when that destruction will be.]
For the big rip, there are various estimates. One is about 22 billion years from now.
For the cause of the universe is unobservable, and therefore unpredictable.
You're declaring as true without evidence things you couldn't possibly know.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Christian7, posted 09-15-2021 11:03 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:18 PM Percy has replied
 Message 67 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:20 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 63 of 244 (888367)
09-16-2021 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Christian7
09-15-2021 11:03 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Interesting change of name. The AWB in South Africa liked the number 777. They used it in their party flag. Which seems to bear a resemblance to another infamous party flag. I don’t think that’s an association you want to make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Christian7, posted 09-15-2021 11:03 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 9:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 64 of 244 (888368)
09-16-2021 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by AZPaul3
09-16-2021 12:12 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
quote:
Says who?
I know of nothing that restricts our physics to only our side of creation. Just ask Kip Thorne about the physics of wormholes that transcend our universe.
And even in a multiverse the speculation is that a universe COULD (note: not would) have different physics. There is nothing in these scenarios keeping the physics we all know and love from being propagated across other universes.
Nothing can begin without a cause; the beginning of something is not in itself, therefore an outside being or object began it.
Our physical laws can transcend only as far as there is a space to contain it; beyond that space, the laws of physics are absent. That space either had a beginning, or possess eternal existence. This is obvious from the fact that, the Laws of Physics applies to what is physical. What is not physical is not governed by physical laws, even as non-physical realities, such as mathematical and logical laws, limit all natural physical behavior.
quote:
... or not. In my speculative fantasy it can't. My speculative physics doesn't work that way. You're such a pessimist.
I believe in a loving God; you believe in a cold universe. I believe in eternal life; you believe in everlasting oblivion.
quote:
That's right. Nobody knows, which means your conclusions, based on your observations of nothing but speculative (and faulty) what-ifs, are not supported and are not allowed.
If nobody knows if the cosmos might suddenly change into an elephant, then nobody can depend on science to tell them the truth of things, because nobody knows. And therefore, there is faith, not in God, but in empiricism, among all scientific atheists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 09-16-2021 12:12 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 09-17-2021 10:18 AM Christian7 has replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 65 of 244 (888369)
09-16-2021 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ringo
09-16-2021 11:53 AM


Re: Actual Big Bang Theory
quote:
That's an odd conclusion. One of the central characteristics of science is that it IS dependable. We throw out the bits that don't work - like alchemy, astrology and young-earth creationism. If science wasn't dependable, we couldn't get to the moon and back; we couldn't generate power from nuclear fission; we couldn't even have cars powered by exploding hydrocarbons.
Science does work.
So your conclusion is obviously wrong, like concluding that bumblebees can't fly.
There must be some flaw in your logic. Maybe all your if if if if ifs aren't true?
Is not science dependable, in so far as it is done properly, because it draws right conclusions concerning the physical world, which, for some reason, continues from the beginning and still continues, according the the Laws that govern it? But, by what power, or by what governor, do these laws subsist? Is it not God, who said that Jesus is "upholding all things by the word of his power." If it is not God, then by what or under what does the universe subsist, in which or in whom you can trust? And if you trust in it, then you trust not in science anymore, but have faith in that thing or being which causes the universe to move. And if nothing causes the universe to move, but the universe moves itself, then you trust in the universe, and have faith in it. Without trust their is no certainty. And without certainty there is no knowledge. For knowledge is certainty of truth. Therefore, to know the truth of the world, is to trust in something that upholds the world. And therefore, without trust in that true thing or being that does it, there is not knowledge of the truth of the world. So, your knowledge depends on faith, whether it is faith in the true or the untrue.
So in what or in whom is your faith? In the God of the Bible, or in the universe? Without that faith, you have no confidence that the world has ever existed.
Edited by Christian777, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian777, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 09-16-2021 11:53 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 09-17-2021 9:01 PM Christian7 has replied
 Message 214 by ringo, posted 09-20-2021 11:51 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 66 of 244 (888370)
09-16-2021 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
09-16-2021 1:19 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
quote:
And you probably think that if a particle pair like a positron and an electron flitted into existence that there must have been a cause. But there was no cause. They're appearance as virtual particles is just a quantum fluctuation of the sort that happen everywhere throughout space and time, as far as we know, and could be any equal/opposite particle pair.
The virtual particles do that, because something caused them to appear. They did not pop into reality of their own accord. They cannot come into reality of their own accord, without before hand existing. Nothing can act that does not exist. To begin to exist is to act.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 09-16-2021 1:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 9:41 AM Christian7 has replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 67 of 244 (888371)
09-16-2021 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
09-16-2021 1:19 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
quote:
This is an odd way of saying it, if you mean what I think you do. The way I would say it is that we have not as of this writing observed natural physical laws being one way in one time/place, and another way in a different time/place.
You have even observed the core of mars.
quote:
Since we don't know what, if anything, caused the cosmos, I suppose it's not impossible that the same thing that caused it could also destroy it. One idea for the end of the universe that many cosmologists are willing to consider as a possibility is that dark energy could cause the demise in a "big rip," but no one's yet thought of a role for dark energy in the creation of the universe.
The truth is, you don't know. You have faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 09-16-2021 1:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 9:53 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 68 of 244 (888372)
09-16-2021 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
09-16-2021 12:45 PM


quote:
How can you ask this after a) Stile explained that we look at them to see if they changed; and b) Stile used extremely tentative phrasing throughout to indicate the uncertain nature of our knowledge, never stating that we "know the laws of physics never changed"?
You remember yesterday, but only trust that yesterday happened. You do not know that it happened. Likewise, you trust that the laws of physics never changed. You do not know they never changed.
quote:
You're declaring that we have to believe in something. If by "faith" you mean a religious faith, then no, we don't have to have faith in something. We can simply take the world as it is rather than as believers in fantastical un
You don't know that the world is like that. You could be dreaming, and your mind could be inventing each new level of reality as you discover it. And you don't know that the same world you remember is the world you live in today or if it even exists.
Sorry about the quote. The web page's text box was behaving strangely.
Edited by Christian777, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 09-16-2021 12:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 10:17 AM Christian7 has replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 69 of 244 (888373)
09-16-2021 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
09-16-2021 11:57 AM


quote:
The OT or the NT God?
The NT God and the NT God are the same God.
quote:
He seemed to change a great deal between the OT and the NT.
He didn't change. God deals with people in different time periods in different ways. This is explained by the doctrine of dispensationalism.
quote:
The OT God was exceptionally capricious, and the NT God was not without his capricious moments.
What did God do that was capricious. He said to obey His commandment or face judgment. He said to repent or face judgment. He said to believe the gospel or face judgment. (I'm not talking about dispensations right now.) When did God act capriciously?
quote:
Yeah, but that OT again, more anger and retribution than glory.
Yeah, but that OT again, more anger and retribution than glory.
God showed the people of the Old Testament signs and wonders, and they refused to trust and obey Him.
The people of the Old Testament that God judged had broken His laws, and many of them were extremely wicked. He gave them plenty of time to repent but they did not.
Pharaoh knew that enslaving the Jews was wicked. He practiced wickedness all his life, and he had a chance to repent. But he refused. God sent ten plagues on a wicked nation, and gave them the opportunity to repent. But they did not.
quote:
You could reasonably argue that people of the OT received his justice, less so his love.
God loved the whole world even in the Old Testament. The wicked nations of the Old Testament had time to repent but they did not. So the Israelites, God's instrument of judgment, wiped them out.
quote:
This is a bald declaration without evidence.
It's in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 09-16-2021 11:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 10:40 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 70 of 244 (888374)
09-16-2021 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
09-16-2021 4:31 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
quote:
Interesting change of name. The AWB in South Africa liked the number 777. They used it in their party flag. Which seems to bear a resemblance to another infamous party flag. I don’t think that’s an association you want to make.
I never heard of that party, and I'm not using the number 777 to represent it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2021 4:31 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2021 2:05 AM Christian7 has replied

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


Message 71 of 244 (888375)
09-17-2021 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Christian7
09-16-2021 9:34 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Then trust me. Stop using the number unless you are happy to be associated with them. I don’t think you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 9:34 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 7:34 AM PaulK has replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 72 of 244 (888376)
09-17-2021 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
09-17-2021 2:05 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
quote:
Then trust me. Stop using the number unless you are happy to be associated with them. I don’t think you are.
If people wish to associate me with them, that is up to them; I have already declared that I'm not associating myself with them. When you count from 1 to 1,000, after you have counted to 776, then you say, 777. This is a number.
Stop paying $666 dollars for items in the store unless you want to be associated with the devil. Don't go inside and stand were there are three six feet apart signs unless you want to be associated with the devil. Numbers are meant for counting. Though they can represent things, they are primarily quantities.
I am using the number 7 because God's number is seven.
Just be mindful that if you worship the Antichrist and take his mark, his number being 666, then you're going to the Lake of Fire and there's no way out.
Edited by Christian777, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2021 2:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2021 7:56 AM Christian7 has not replied

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


Message 73 of 244 (888377)
09-17-2021 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Christian7
09-17-2021 7:34 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
quote:
If people wish to associate me with them, that is up to them; I have already declared that I'm not associating myself with them. When you count from 1 to 1,000, after you have counted to 776, then you say, 777. This is a number.
A number you choose to identify yourself by. Obviously it’s not just a number to you.
quote:
Stop paying $666 dollars for items in the store unless you want to be associated with the devil. Don't go inside and stand were there are three six feet apart signs unless you want to be associated with the devil.
If you called yourself 666 you WOULD be intentionally trying to associate yourself with the Devil.
quote:
I am using the number 7 because God's number is seven.
7 is not 777. But thanks for admitting that is is not just a number to you.
So you’re doing a good job of raising suspicions that you DID mean it to refer to the AWB.
quote:
Just be mindful that if you worship the Antichrist and take his mark, his number being 666, then you're going to the Lake of Fire and there's no way out.
Are you using 777 (rather than 7) as a symbol of opposition to the Antichrist?
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 7:34 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 74 of 244 (888378)
09-17-2021 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Christian7
09-16-2021 6:03 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian7 writes:
Nothing can begin without a cause; the beginning of something is not in itself, therefore an outside being or object began it.
What's makes you think this? We know of no causal event for the Big Bang, for virtual particles, or for the time when a radioactive atom decays. Our observations of the natural world reveal some phenomena with causes and some without.
Our physical laws can transcend only as far as there is a space to contain it; beyond that space, the laws of physics are absent.
This is either nonsense or poorly expressed. Are you trying to say that outside our universe the laws of physics don't exist? If that's what you're saying, how would you know that?
That space either had a beginning, or possess eternal existence.
Again, this is either nonsense or poorly expressed. Our universe began at the Big Bang, but whether there was something prior to that is unknown. There's no way to know what you mean by the external existence of space.
This is obvious from the fact that, the Laws of Physics applies to what is physical.
If you're including photons and quantum probability equations as part of "physical" then you might want to choose a better word. Perhaps you meant to say that as far as we can tell the laws of physics apply throughout the universe.
What is not physical is not governed by physical laws, even as non-physical realities, such as mathematical and logical laws, limit all natural physical behavior.
I'm not even going to try to decipher this. I think the main reason I can't figure out what you mean is that you have no idea what you mean, either. Your entire paragraph is a mostly unintelligible word salad, as if you're just stringing together jargon that you don't understand into unsupported declarations.
I believe in a loving God;
That's nice. How does that relate to the origin of the universe and the constancy of physical laws?
You believe in a cold universe.
Copious observational evidence indicates an average background temperature for the universe of around 5°K, which is 451°F below zero. The facts say the universe is cold.
I believe in eternal life;
That's nice. How does that relate to the origin of the universe and the constancy of physical laws?
You believe in everlasting oblivion.
We accept that for which there is evidence, and there's no evidence for an existence after death.
quote:
For the cause of the universe is unobservable, and therefore unpredictable.
That's right. Nobody knows, which means your conclusions, based on your observations of nothing but speculative (and faulty) what-ifs, are not supported and are not allowed.
If nobody knows if the cosmos might suddenly change into an elephant, then nobody can depend on science to tell them the truth of things, because nobody knows.
Your answer is nonsense. You first said we can't know the cause of the universe (you called it "unobservable" and "unpredictable"), and AZPaul3 agreed with you, also pointing out that your "speculative what-ifs" (such as that there must be a cause) are unwarranted. But you then go off the deep end saying that if we don't know the cause then we don't know that the universe won't suddenly change into an elephant.
You keep repeating the mistake of thinking that because there's something science doesn't know that therefore science doesn't know anything. And you don't have evidence for anything you say, just a bunch of words strung together into what looks like nonsense.
And therefore, there is faith, not in God, but in empiricism, among all scientific atheists.
No large group is homogenous, so your generalization is of course false. Those with an empirical world view cannot be said to possess a faith anything like a religious faith. Certainly all the trappings of anything resembling religion are absent.
You yourself accept empiricism, but you wouldn't say you have faith in empiricism, right? You would say that your faith is in God. Nonetheless, empiricism says that you must breath, that you must eat, and that you mustn't jump in front of speeding cars. You accept all these empirical facts and many others, just like us.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:03 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 11:16 AM Percy has replied
 Message 76 by jar, posted 09-17-2021 11:22 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 75 of 244 (888379)
09-17-2021 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
09-17-2021 10:18 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
quote:
What's makes you think this? We know of no causal event for the Big Bang, for virtual particles, or for the time when a radioactive atom decays. Our observations of the natural world reveal some phenomena with causes and some without.
You said, “We know of no casual event for the Big Bang”, not, “We know that for the Big Bang there is no casual event.” The truth is, in the absence of knowledge, you make assumptions which are not evidence-based.
quote:
This is either nonsense or poorly expressed. Are you trying to say that outside our universe the laws of physics don't exist? If that's what you're saying, how would you know that?
Outside the physical, which includes the multiverse, and outside any groups of multiverses and however high a level of grouping you want to go, (for there is certainly a highest level), there is no physical reality, and therefore no physical laws.
quote:
Again, this is either nonsense or poorly expressed. Our universe began at the Big Bang, but whether there was something prior to that is unknown. There's no way to know what you mean by the external existence of space.
Do you not understand that “to possess eternal existence” means the same thing as “exist eternally”.
quote:
I'm not even going to try to decipher this. I think the main reason I can't figure out what you mean is that you have no idea what you mean, either. Your entire paragraph is a mostly unintelligible word salad, as if you're just stringing together jargon that you don't understand into unsupported declarations.
To be more specific and clear: The form and behavior of physical objects are limited by non-physical things. Energy and matter are limited by logic and math. The laws of physics depend on logic and math; it is impossible for the laws of physics to violate logic and math.
quote:
That's nice. How does that relate to the origin of the universe and the constancy of physical laws?
I’m responding to your claim of me being a pessimist.
quote:
Your answer is nonsense. You first said we can't know the cause of the universe (you called it "unobservable" and "unpredictable"), and AZPaul3 agreed with you, also pointing out that your "speculative what-ifs" (such as that there must be a cause) are unwarranted. But you then go off the deep end saying that if we don't know the cause then we don't know that the universe won't suddenly change into an elephant.
What I’m saying is: Since you don’t know that the physical reality is all there is, you don’t know if you can depend on it to remain as it is, because you don’t know if something beyond it might destroy it. You accept by faith that the physical reality is all there is. You have not observed anything beyond this physical reality, according to your empirical claims. Therefore, wherever there is a lack of knowledge, you yield an assumption, at least in this matter, proving that, what you think you know, you merely accept by faith.
quote:
You yourself accept empiricism, but you wouldn't say you have faith in empiricism, right? You would say that your faith is in God. Nonetheless, empiricism says that you must breath, that you must eat, and that you mustn't jump in front of speeding cars. You accept all these empirical facts and many others, just like us.
My faith is in God, who created the physical world, able to be observed and understood according to the scientific method, but I also have trust that the physical world, which this God has created, can be observed and understood, not apart from my faith in God, but in line with it.
Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 09-17-2021 10:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 11:43 AM Christian7 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