Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9159 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 914,890 Year: 2,147/9,624 Month: 1,580/567 Week: 188/338 Day: 60/12 Hour: 2/4


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: 22283
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 151 of 244 (888457)
09-18-2021 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Christian7
09-16-2021 6:20 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian7 writes:
You have even observed the core of Mars.
Yes, we have observed the core of Mars. For just one example, Mars’s core has been measured — and it’s surprisingly large.
You seem unaware of how insipid your argument is. Everywhere we've looked throughout the universe the laws of nature appear the same, yet you're hoping that the places we haven't yet looked could contain different laws. Good luck with that.
The truth is, you don't know. You have faith.
The one who's demonstrated the least knowledge is you. You never seem able to muster an argument of the form, "The world is this way because..." The best you can do is, "The world is this way because I say so."
So how did you arrive at this truth? Evidence-based arguments only, please, if you don't mind.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:20 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 220 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 152 of 244 (888458)
09-18-2021 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
09-18-2021 9:41 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
quote:
There is no evidence of any cause of virtual particles or of the time of nuclear decay or of what state an entangled particle will take up once observed.
Why are you offering useless evidence-free declarations of what you wish were true? It appears that you claim everything has a cause simply because you think it supports other things you believe true without evidence, so you simple declare, over and over again without support or rationale, that everything has a cause.
Everything does not have a cause, so far as we can tell.
--Percy
Then what is stopping the universe from suddenly changing into an elephant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 9:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:16 AM Christian7 has not replied
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 5:08 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 220 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 153 of 244 (888459)
09-18-2021 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Christian7
09-18-2021 10:06 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
quote:
There is no evidence of any cause of virtual particles or of the time of nuclear decay or of what state an entangled particle will take up once observed.
Why are you offering useless evidence-free declarations of what you wish were true? It appears that you claim everything has a cause simply because you think it supports other things you believe true without evidence, so you simple declare, over and over again without support or rationale, that everything has a cause.
Everything does not have a cause, so far as we can tell.
--Percy
Obviously all you believe in is space, time, matter and energy, all physical, that's it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:06 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22283
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 154 of 244 (888460)
09-18-2021 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Christian7
09-16-2021 6:26 PM


Christian7 writes:
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.
...
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.
Your "this is all a dream" argument would invalidate your own position and says you don't believe that, so why would you say it?
You're obviously avoiding the topic. Stile explained that we can see natural laws being followed everywhere we look, and his phrasing was tentative, so why would you ask, "How do you know the laws of physics never changed?" when he very carefully explained our knowledge is consistent with observation yet still tentative.
You're also responding to detailed arguments with single sentences that tend toward the cryptic. Please stop approaching the discussion this way and participate in good faith. There are people here interested in discussing the topic, but you seem to be trying your best to stymie them. Will you discuss in good faith or just prove you're still the same messed up kid inside?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:26 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:38 AM Percy has replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 220 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 155 of 244 (888461)
09-18-2021 10:21 AM


If everything is made of physical energy, then there should be no consciousness. Is a hand a hand because at some level it is a hand, or because the constituting elements behave together as a hand. The whole is not more than the sum of its parts, rather, its behavior emerges from the contribution of its parts. And since the parts of a brain are physical, there can be no mental reality in a purely materialistic universe.

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 5:12 PM Christian7 has replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 220 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 156 of 244 (888462)
09-18-2021 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Percy
09-18-2021 10:17 AM


quote:
Your "this is all a dream" argument would invalidate your own position and says you don't believe that, so why would you say it?
You're obviously avoiding the topic. Stile explained that we can see natural laws being followed everywhere we look, and his phrasing was tentative, so why would you ask, "How do you know the laws of physics never changed?" when he very carefully explained our knowledge is consistent with observation yet still tentative.
You're also responding to detailed arguments with single sentences that tend toward the cryptic. Please stop approaching the discussion this way and participate in good faith. There are people here interested in discussing the topic, but you seem to be trying your best to stymie them. Will you discuss in good faith or just prove you're still the same messed up kid inside?
I did not avoid the topic, but used an argument to respond to an argument. I dealt with the topic.
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? 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. 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. And this is evident, because all scientific knowledge is tentative, and can therefore be revised, even rejected, by future scientific findings.
I have no idea what you mean by what you are saying. I did nothing to thwart discussion of the topic at hand. I engaged in discussion with everyone that responded to my posts as far as I was able to, and I responded to their arguments with arguments and explanations. If I responded with a single sentence, it is because I was getting tired, as it was late last night when I was on the forum. Perhaps I should not be debating when I am tired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 10:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by AZPaul3, posted 09-18-2021 12:06 PM Christian7 has not replied
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 8:53 PM Christian7 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22283
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 157 of 244 (888463)
09-18-2021 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Christian7
09-16-2021 6:43 PM


The NT God and the NT God are the same God.
And you believe this why?
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.
What is your evidence that God didn't change? Giving something a label isn't evidence.
quote:
The OT God was exceptionally capricious, and the NT God was not without his capricious moments.
What did God do that was capricious?
The OT God or the NT God? For the OT God I think Job all by himself is a sufficient example. For the NT God there's the cursed fig tree and the death of Ananias and Sapphira. It's all in the Bible, as you like to say as if it settles anything.
quote:
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.
Oh, I guess those poor OT people deserved the anger and retribution, had it coming. Too bad they didn't live in the NT era of greater love and compassion.
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.
Ah, so much love.
quote:
This is a bald declaration without evidence.
It's in the Bible.
That's as good an argument as, "It's in The Hobbit." Your argument that "there is no possibility that God in caprice would violate nature's Laws" is still a bald declaration without evidence. You don't even have evidence that God exists, yet you're claiming he's the cause of everything.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:43 PM Christian7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 09-18-2021 11:25 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 158 of 244 (888464)
09-18-2021 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
09-18-2021 10:40 AM


It's hilarious when folks like Guido point to the Pharaoh without admitting that that story shows God to be capricious, evil, and cruel beyond any possible redemption.

My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 10:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22283
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 159 of 244 (888465)
09-18-2021 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Christian7
09-17-2021 11:16 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian7 writes:
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.
You appear to have lost the thread of your own argument. You argued that everything has a cause. My language that you're pointing to only indicates that we have no evidence of any cause for certain things. Therefore, how do you know they have a cause? You don't say.
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.
So all you're saying is that things that don't exist also have no physical laws. How is that relevant to whatever point you're making?
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”.
I don't believe there's anything to understand. It's that you don't understand that your internal religious mumbo jumbo is nonsense to others.
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.
That was very clarifying in showing hopelessly confused you are. No, the laws of physics are not constrained by logic and math. Logic and math are human constructs. They are used to model reality and can in no way constrain it. Many of our mathematical models are highly accurate and can be used to predict what will happen, such as the time and affected area of an eclipse, but they don't control reality.
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.
You're confused again. It was AZPaul3 who called you a pessimist, when you said that whatever caused the cosmos might also cause its destruction. How is "I believe in a loving God" in any way a response about the universe's eventual demise, which you yourself postulated.
What I’m saying is: Since you don’t know that the physical reality is all there is,...
It seems that in your thinking there's both physical reality and non-physical reality. If that's correct then how could we inhabitants of physical reality become aware of things in non-physical reality? Please describe this process in detail.
...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.
Not impossible, I suppose, but you're way out on a speculative limb, and to what purpose? The sun could go nova tomorrow and wipe us all out, but how is that speculation an argument for anything?
You accept by faith that the physical reality is all there is.
Nobody here has said anything that would support this conclusion. You say this not because you have any support for it but because your religious mindset needs it to be true. It's based upon nothing.
What people have actually said is that we accept that for which we have evidence. Provide the evidence that caused you to accept what you think true about reality and we might accept it, too, depending upon the quality of the evidence. "The Bible says so," is not evidence.
You have not observed anything beyond this physical reality, according to your empirical claims.
True. Are you implying that unlike us you *have* made observations of non-physical reality?
Therefore, wherever there is a lack of knowledge, you yield an assumption,...
No one here has provided any support for this statement. Where we lack knowledge we say we don't know. Saying that all evidence we have supports the constancy of physical laws across time and space is not the same thing as saying that we know physical laws are constant across time and space. We're saying the former, not the latter, and you are continually confusing the two.
...at least in this matter, proving that, what you think you know, you merely accept by faith.
Since your premise was wrong, so are your conclusions.
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.
What we've observed of you so far is that you reject evidence from "the physical world, which this God has created," when it conflicts with your personal beliefs about God.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 11:16 AM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 5:03 PM Percy has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8449
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22283
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 161 of 244 (888467)
09-18-2021 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Christian7
09-17-2021 1:34 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
You had a couple replies to this already, but I'm a sucker for nonsense posts and can't resist.
Christian7 writes:
quote:
What is so funny and typical of the Christian Cult of ********* is that if they truly believed such nonsense they also make the God they market irrelevant and impossible.
God has no beginning and no end; therefore your conclusion is false.
Your original statement was, "Nothing can begin without a cause; the beginning of something is not in itself, therefore an outside being or object began it."? Jar called this nonsense, and in response you argue that your God has no beginning and no end. How is that even relevant, let alone a rebuttal?
The universe must have a beginning, because it is animate. If something is animate; it cannot have always been, for change cannot occur eternally in the past, otherwise the present would never come.
We accept that the universe had a beginning because the evidence tells us it had a beginning, not because it is animate. Until Hubble's evidence of an expanding universe it was thought eternal.
The universe is limited and governed by non-physical reality, like logic and math.
You're using "non-physical reality" in two different ways. Sometimes you use it to refer to God and his realm, and other times, like now, you use it to refer to conceptual ideas like logic and math. God and heaven are not the same kind of thing as logic and math. I don't think you should use the same term for both.
These are not physical; these are mental. Therefore, being mental, they must have predated the universe.
Do you think you maybe left out a few steps of logic and argument there?
In fact, they never had a place in time; they are eternal, not from the present to the future, but in a timeless fashion.
You're just declaring things true without evidence. You're preaching, not discussing. We are not congregants in your church but equals in a discussion. You keep forgetting that and revert to making baseless declarations in the manner of fanatical street corner preacher.
Seeing the universe is governed and limited by them, it must have had its origin with them; but since they cannot act, they could not have created them. Therefore, since no inanimate mental object could have produced them, and all animate objects must begin, an eternal mind must have created them, not in time, but as part of time, a thing originating from this timeless, eternal mind.
This is word salad, signifying nothing.
This is not doctrine, but logic, derived from the premises, but likely not against sound doctrine.
If you think that was logic then you are very confused.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 1:34 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22283
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 162 of 244 (888468)
09-18-2021 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Christian7
09-17-2021 4:21 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
Christian7 writes:
The universe is limited by logic and math,...
God, over and over. Christian, no, the universe is not limited by logic and math. Claiming it is over and over and over again will not change that.
Your post is the same nonsense word salad you've been repeating for a while now. People have tried to explain that it is filled with gaps in reasoning and logic and isn't based on anything we actually know, but you ignore all that and just say it again. Would you please stop repeating yourself and attempt to engage with what people are telling you?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 4:21 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22283
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 163 of 244 (888469)
09-18-2021 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Christian7
09-17-2021 5:03 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
This thread accelerated since I posted yesterday afternoon and I don't think I'll be replying to most posts, but this caught my attention:
Christian7 writes:
quote:
Again you are making assertions without explaining. I’m still waiting for your explanation of these supposed limits and why you think they are imposed by math and logic - or indeed how they could be imposed by math or logic.
One plus two is three. Put an apple on the table. Then add two apples. How many apples do you have? Can it be any different?
You're like a chess player who can't see more than one move ahead. When a response demands that you recall the conversation back more than one post, you get lost. How is the universe limited by logic and math? Please tell us. The world wants to know.
In other words, your answer (and many of your answers) completely misses the point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 5:03 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22283
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 164 of 244 (888470)
09-18-2021 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Christian7
09-17-2021 9:33 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
Christian7 writes:
quote:
What BS. Minds are not required. They are the key to our understanding but our understanding is not necessary for the universe to exist. It was here before us. It will be here after us.
At this point your two therefores in the first sillyjism are dead.
Minds are not required for the universe to make sense. Wow. So, sense exists independently of minds, and is not mental? So, to whom would the universe make sense then?
You're following the dictum, "Always change a losing strategy," which is one of the few signs of rational thought you've demonstrated in this thread. But abandoning irrational declarations to instead engage in misrepresentations of what people say probably isn't advisable. Go back to irrational declarations until you can think of something better.
AZPaul3 never said minds are not required for the universe to make sense. He said the universe exists regardless whether our minds are present or not. "It was here before us. It will be here after us." That's pretty clear.
I don't understand why you persist in arguing. It isn't that we disagree with you. It's that you're not even making any sense. You've expressed no rational position that people can assess, especially given your preference for bald declarations lacking any evidence. You have made a number of statements that can clearly be identified as wrong, but that's about it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 9:33 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22283
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 165 of 244 (888471)
09-18-2021 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Christian7
09-17-2021 10:32 PM


Christian7 writes:
How do I do the blue box quotes?
You're in essence asking, "How do I click on the help link that appears next to 'dBCodes On' to the left of the text box where I'm typing my reply?"
I'm addressing your question in as direct a fashion as you are ours.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 10:32 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024