GOD IS DEAD

No. 'No Boundary' is specifically defined by Hawkings 'No Boundary Proposal'.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bound.htmlWiki writes,

quote:

---

A universe that is finite in size but did not begin with a singularity is the result of one attempt to combine aspects of general relativity and quantum mechanics. The history of this no-boundary universe in imaginary time is like the surface of Earth, with the Big Bang equivalent to Earth’s North Pole and the size of the universe increasing with imaginary time as you head south toward the equator.

---

quote:

---

Hawking and Hartle then wedded this idea to general relativity’s view that gravity is just a consequence of curved space-time. Under classical general relativity, the universe either has to be infinitely old or had to have started at a singularity. But Hawking and Hartle’s proposal raises a third possibility”that the universe is finite but had no initial singularity to produce a boundary (thus the name).

---

It's not 'imagining time' that Hawkings proposes, it's Imaginary Time.
Imaginary time - WikipediaWiki writes,

quote:

---

Imaginary time is a concept derived from quantum mechanics and is essential in connecting quantum mechanics with statistical mechanics. Imaginary time t is obtained from real time via a Wick rotation

---

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Rahvin,Heres what I could find on the math behind 'Imaginary Time'. Which, in the no-Boundary Proposal, the equations that remove the singularity are done in imaginary time.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/imaginary.htmlFrom link,

quote:

---

Mathematicians are a clever lot. Just because a concept may not make sense at an intuitive level doesn’t mean that it can’t be used to help understand nature. Take imaginary numbers, for example. If you start with any “real” number and multiply it by itself, you get a positive number. For instance, 2 times 2 equals 4 but so does -2 times -2. That means the square root of 4 equals both 2 and -2. But what would the square root of -4 be? Mathematicians invented imaginary numbers to answer this question, defining the number i to equal the square root of -1 (making the square root of -4 equal to 2i).

​

Imaginary numbers can be used to help explain tunnelling, a quantum mechanical process in which, for instance, a particle can spontaneously pass through a barrier. In trying to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics, physicists used a related idea in which they would measure time with imaginary numbers instead of real numbers. By using this so-called imaginary time, physicists Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle showed that the universe could have been born without a singularity.

---

And here's a lecture from Hawkiings about the No-Boundary Proposal and Imaginary Time.The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)I could use some help with this myself so hopefully one of the guru's can help us. From what I read it would be like the geometry for a sphere, or Earth, exept in 4D. In that analogy the BB would be the North Pole; and like the North Pole doesn't have a singularity, nor will the BB have one either.Hope this helped.--Oni

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Conceptually its finite like Earth is finte; yet Earth has no boundaries which prevent you from continuing to walk in a straight line for eternity. Removing the singularity does not remove the BB. The singularity is an mathematically derived concept. It is not a thing that produces universes. In Hawkings' No-Boundary theory the BB is still the beginning of our universe in real time. Before the BB there is no space therefore there is no time, or rather theres no real time before the BB. Thanks for your arm chair mussings. I'd like to see if you can give a better explanation as to how you come to that conclusion without actually understanding the physic, other than 'this just can't be right'. You are applying your own personal concepts of finite and infinite to this. In physics finite and infinite are mathematical expressions...
Finite difference - Wikipedia...which cannot be manipulated to represent theological concepts of eternity. These are mathematical expressions that represent a specific theory, you can't just twist it to fit your concept of infinity. The proposal deals with physics, it expresses it's concepts mathematically. Eternity is a made-up religious concept that is basically meaningless outside of theological conversations. It no more bothers me than any other religious concept of the nature of reality...it just simply lacks any evidence outside of the subjective interpretation, therefore I just ignore it. I suggest trying to understand the theory before you write stuff like this. This does not make sense to me perhaps you can clarify it a bit more. For the purpose of the No-Boundary proposal, yes, however, real time. They are perhaps 2 different words, with 2 seperate definitions, but if we are speaking about the universe space and time are inseparable. You can't be in space without time, and there is no time without space. The Earth bends, right? Its a sphere, right? All spheres have a curvature, yet they are boundaryless. If you think of a no-boundary universe in the same sense that you think of the Earth, as a spherical object, then the eterity you seek would be you walking on this planet in a straight line, never being bounded by anything, just a continuous walk...for eternity. And yet the Earth is finite...are you kinda getting it?Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

First, I am not implying anything, I was explaning Hawkings theory to you. But, to answer your question, nothing. There was nothing before the BB since the BB is the start of spacetime. Now, that is not to equate it to simply meaning nothingness and then poof. In physics, nothingness is not defined equally as in our day to day use of the word.Heres a link to help define,
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.htmlThere are a few leading theories that go different routes in explaining 'before the BB'. String/M-theory seems interesting but I don't know enough about the physics so I understand it at a layman level. But currently I've liked the Loop Quantum Gravity theory.
Loop quantum gravity - WikipediaThere are many speculations however, they are still some years away from anything.But so you understand, since General Relativity breaks down into a singularity, our understanding of spacetime breaks down as well. There is no space or time in that sense. The physics is ALL we have to understand spacetime, period. You can reject it's ability all you wish but, physics is leading society into the next level of technology, so it must be getting a few things right. Physics has changed in the last 100 years. General Relativity showed how you can't have one without the other. GR is pretty well understood to be correct so for you to be right, Einstein and GR would have to be wrong...and I personally don't think they are. We live in reality. Reality has a function within it called time. We use it. Biological organisms function by it. It is affected by gravity. It works in GR. Equations use time as a real function. So to say it is not real or testable is simply wrong. It's almost an arguement from incredulity. I understand the time function in physics quite well. If you want to talk about the BB, or T=O, or any other physics theories, you can't just re-write the understanding of physics to suit your ideas about reality. IN physics, which is the only area the BB, or T=O can be talked about, time is a PROVEN function. In your religious understanding of reality perhaps it is not, but the again, in your religious sense there is no BB, or T=O...because those theories used time to equate them. I really didn't follow this to well. In no way am I suggesting that time is different right now at Alpha Centauri. But remember, if one is going to calculate what took place 13.7 Bya, one is going to have to consider time in the equation. GR is the theory that explains everything going backwards towards T=O. Once we reach T=O, GR breaks down and space and time are no longer understood. That is not to say they don't exist(as per the nothingness link provided), it is just to say that at it's most microscopic level, we can't understand it...yet. To speculate right now is a bit premature. But, physics will understand it one day...and then you guys can manipulate it to prove God any which way you like.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

What does that even mean? I made a comment and i'm implying somethinig else? Huh?Anyways, I'd like for you to define that logical standpoint from an objective PoV, and not from a subjective interpretation. Well not absolute of course. There's Astrophysics, astronomy, astrochemistry. BUt, it is still within the scope of science, and derives it's answers using the scientific method. You are using human evolved language to place significance, in a human sense, to the universe. The 'reason' the universe is here is just another human philosophical type question that we give importance to. It is meaningless to think that there is a purpose, or reason, behind nature. It seems like humans, in their quest for answers from a self-centered perspective, feel a need to think that there is a 'reason' to their existance beyond, procreation and survival. As of yet, no one has made a good argument for the purpose of the universe. It exists. We have come very close to understanding it's functions at the most fundamental levels that we've been able to determine based on our current level of knowledge. That is all we know...purpose does not seem to be required IMO. How did you conclude the latter? The first explanation is derived from the observable, the second explanation is derived from primitive mythologies about God and Goddesses. Why would the second explanation warrent equal inquiry? Should we investigate any imagined deity that hnmans have been able to conjure up? We must let science take us where the evidence points to and explain what it has observed. If we are going to allow anyone to postulate from their own personal logic and reasoning, then there will be no end to the ridiculous claims made by men. That depends on what is meant by infinite. If it is explaning an equation then yes, physics, or mathematics, are required. If you are using the word to mean eternity, or Gods infinite power, or something like that, then sure have as much fun with the word infinite as you want. But then at that point you are no longer talking about physics, or the BB...you have ventured into the realm of theology. We were talking about Hawkings No-Boundary proposal. Philosophical view points of reality have no place within that theory, and does nothing to explain it. The theory deals with physics, and mathematical equations, not with your own personal interpretation of reality. You can't mix philosophy and physics. No, the physics equations, and cosmological models of the univese, is what determines what occured 14 Billion years ago. Reasoning at that point is out the window. What is needed is theoretical physics, good theories, and good mathematics. Other than that, you're just speculating based off of religious beliefs.*The rest of your post seems to focus on the same logic and reasoning that I argued against above so I will end here.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Bertot,Lets sum up your entire post to "logic and reasoning bring you to the belief in God".Cool...But, your goal was to show it to the rest of the class...not to show me how you come to the conclusion that God must have set this universe in motion, but to demonstrate just how that conclusion is plausable.To that you simply argue that your logic and reasoning(and it is only YOUR opinion that you can speak of because MY logic and reasoning do not force me to conclude as you do), bring you to the conclusion that God is the creator.This is un-debatable. How can I debate opinions?If you'd like to hold to those conclusions, enjoy. If you care to give examples of HOW you came to these conclusions, without trying to use technical words like logic and reasoning because frankly you just have an opinion based off of your own personal beliefs, then please put forth your evidence.Your entire position is from incredulity, it's simply an opinion that you have not given proof for, and NO simply saying I use logic and reasoning, just like them scientist do, is not the same as what is done in science.Simply put, deductive reasoning did not bring you to the conclusion that God did it, your own personal belief in God brought you to that conclusion. You can try to argue all you want from a semantical angle, to change YOUR opinion to , YOUR logical conclusion just to give it some validity, but we can all see right through that bs. Science does not limit themselves to deductive reasoning, and for a FACT, theories aren't given validity because they drew their conclusions only with logical reasoning.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

And it is only up to that point that i've said science has explained things...you are the one that has asserted that through logic you can figure out what happened beyond those points.Do not forget your original point was about, You asserted something without any understanding of the theory itself. That is where you make your so-called logical leap into theological conclusions that were never even a concept in the No-Boundary theory.Just to make sure we stay on point, No-Boundary is not the same as infinite or eternal. If you don't understand the former, how can you effectively reason the latter? Perhaps a theoretical physicist can hypothesize about what came before certain 'points', but NOT someone with a laymen understanding of physics...even though you may think you can. Im pretty sure thats why physicist go to school and get degrees and stuff like that for. Im sure this makes sense to you, but this is non-sensical within the frame works of science, and more specifically physics. We are talking about pre-BB conditions(whatever that even means). Matter is not even a thing yet...so how can it be eternal? Thess 2 scenarios maybe the only ones YOU can see fit to accept, but to me it does not make much sense in a way that can be verified, or that can make predictions, or that can be calculated, and as such has no place in physics.Again, you are mixing physics concepts with theological ideology to formulate your own concepts of reality and origin. At the end you are left with a jumbbled up mess of ideas that can't be expressed rationally and you have to say things like "That being that either matter is eternal or a God that is eternal created that matter and set it in motion", when concepts like God or eternity can't be understood outside of the subjective experience. I could no more debate your concept of reality and God than I could someone who believes in Thor or Zeus. So don't feel special. But, do feel creative in the sense that you have created an image of some God like force that is un-contestable by the standards of science...thus you by default remove yourself from the discusion. It seems like you lost focus of what it was that YOU were suggesting. YOU said that through logic you can fill in those gaps, or 'points' as you called them, where science just hasn't been able to cross. You said you can do this because logic and reasoning are just as good as the scientific method in this case, yet it is not since the only reason anyone even knows about things like the BB, or singularities, or an finite or infinite universe IS because the physics shows us just how those things take place, and how they came to those equations. SO, to further explain origin it would only be reasonable and logical to conclude that further theoretical physics is what is needed to understand the universe, and NOT deduced reasoning from a laymans perspective. You cannot possibily feel that your imagined God is as plausable of a solution to understanding the universe since God no more explains the universes origin than General Relativity does.In fact heres your chance, if God did it then how did He do it? When taken in context of our discusion, and only within the context of this discusion, NO. It is YOUR logic. If it were JUST logic then 1. everyone would be in agreement, and 2. physicist would conclude as you do. But they don't, and ALOT of people disagree with you, so don't just tell us that you are using logic, show us how that logic is correct. Science admits it's limits, apparently YOUR logic has no limits. You sir are amazing then. The explanations that you have been given are with the current understanding of physics, they have their limits, they do NOT assume that which is not yet known. Incredulity falls on those who either use their limited understanding AND their beliefs to derive conclusions without evidence, OR those who just feel that if THEY don't understand the theory NO ONE else does either. Pick which one you are... So you used NO facts? Do you understand that we are talking about physics and very technical equations that are really just understood by physicist? Are you telling me that your day to day reasoning is enough to make conclusions about the origin of the universe? Really??? To quote a very horrible joke from another thread " what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china?". My appologies for the horrible, lame joke.No-Boundary proposal, remember? Do you really think you can understand the priciples of theories such as this one with just your day to day reasoning? Explain... Your conclusions have no evidence to back them, they are just YOUR conclusions. Im reminded of this very funny Bertrand Russell story,

quote:

---

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

---

So what do you think, is it turtles all the way down or not? Her logic and reasoning assumes this...why is she wrong then?Edited by onifre, : spelling

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

It will do nothing of the sort. You keep implying this however, you do not seem to be familiar with current theories so you are just throwing words around.Matter, again, did not existant UNTIL the BB, and not until condition were right for the first atoms to form. Whatever state the universe was in prior to that was matterfree. I have choosen nothing, I feel no need to choose anything, you seem to want me to pick a side as you have because you feel there are 2 sides. What if it's one side that includes God AND everything that science explains, then what? Who knows, and frankly I don't care. What we are arguing is for evidence that the very concept of God is something OTHER than man made mythology. You keep saying that it's just as plausable to think God did it. Why?Lets say mythological religions never manifest into the religions of today, would you need to postulate a God-type-entity just to satisfy your need to know about the universes origin, or would you be satisfied with the current pace of science?And please explain how you used entropy to conclude God. Of course it does, whatelse is it going to say? That you're free to choose? , how would the control your thoughts if they didn't tell you things like that? Do you really not see it for the obvious scare tactic that it is? God was used as a logical explanation when humans had a limited understanding of nature, there is no need to postulate a God that makes the universe go round anymore. Science does a fine job of explaining nature. Anyone invoking God now lack an education in science. This is non-sensical. Matter being eternal does not make any sense, can't you understand that? You really must get familiar with what the No-Boundary proposal is saying.All matter comes AFTER the BB. The no-boundary theory includes the BB therefore matter is not eternal within the scope of that theory. Define things. The principle of beginning or end is very real. However, in physics, and when one is speaking of the univrse, beginning and end become a very distorted concept. Take the Uncertainty Principle,

quote:

---

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain.
  —wiki

---

Roughly translated beginning and end is unpredictable. And of course these are waves, NOT matter.So yes concepts such as beginning and end make alot of sense to humans, probably on of the needs for gods, but in physics, and especially in QFT, these words are meaningless. The fact that you feel that logically you can rationalize a beginning to the universe by God is just because you feel a need for a beginning. I didn't say theoretical principles. I said if you don't understand the physics behind the current cosmological models of the universe, how can you begin to postulate what came before? What will happens is whats been happening where you get a convoluted mess of ideas based off of a limited understanding, which don't make any sense to those who have some knowledge of the current physics, and makes even less sense to those like cavediver who taught physics.There is no knowledge of the state of the universe pre-BB, there is not need to go furhter into ideas of beginning and eternal, because those 2 ideas currently do not make sense. Theoretical physicst hypothesize about pre-BB conditions, not laymen, is that better worded for you not to misunderstand it? Do you even know what matter is?

quote:

---

Matter is commonly defined as being anything that has mass and that takes up space.

---

If matter is anything with mass and takes up space wouldn't you think that space needs to exist FIRST before matter? Admission of defeat? Here's a few alternatives, im sure you'll just reduce it to matter existing eternally so im not sure how mush this will help,Loop QG, Loop quantum gravity - Wikipedia
Supergravity, Supergravity - Wikipedia
String theory, String theory - Wikipedia
M-theory, M-theory - Wikipedia
Theory of Everything, Theory of everything - WikipediaThere I hope these helped. 1. God is not a principle, god(s) are mythological as are unicorns and faries. Therefore God is NOT a plausable theory.2. Matter is not eternal, nor does it exist without our universe and thus is also not a plausable theory.You have brought nothing to the table other than assertions. Try to undestand this, you don't know what the no-boundary proposal is even trying to explain. Your problem is that you want an answer to a question that does not exist. You are not satisfied with our current knowledge as a society, you feel the need to fill in the gaps because you feel that there IS an ultimate nature of things. You don't know what there is Bertot, you are speculating, and doing a very bad job at it might I add. Really? Because I was picturing you as the little old lady.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Bertot,The posts are getting ridculously long so I'll try to be brief...key word try. No. This is your assertion and only YOUR assertion. 'Nothing' created anything, the BB is NOT a point of creation. Layman books may call it the beginning, but the BB is no more the beginning of the universe than yesterday was. The BB is just a point in our past, like yesterday was a point in our past. You cannot seriously be this ignorant to what is being told to you? Matter did not come to be till AFTER the BB, so to say that matter existed before is quite simply an ignorant statement that you continue to make just to prove your assertion about there having to be a creator OR eternal matter. Here again is the definition of matter,

quote:

---

Matter is commonly defined as being anything that has mass and that takes up space.

---

The Big Bang:

quote:

---

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated”certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang",[21] and is considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.73 0.12 billion years.[22] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the CDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe.

​

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10’35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[23] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles

---

Please try to understand these 2 definitions so you don't continue to make ridiculous assertions about matter being eternal. Now if you'd like to say that the universe existed in some other form before the BB, than OK, I think we can all agree on that. But matter as in atomic structures, did not exist.Heres another definition,

quote:

---

The common definition of matter is anything which both occupies space and has mass. For example, a car would be said to be made of matter, as it occupies space, and has mass. In chemistry, this is often taken to mean what atoms and molecules are made of, meaning anything made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. For example, phosphorus sesquisulfide is a molecule made of four atoms of phosphorus, and three of sulfur (see image on right), and is thus considered to be matter.

​

However in physics, there is no broad consensus as to an exact definition of matter, partly because the notion of "taking up space" is ambiguous in quantum mechanics, and partly because mass doesn't lead to a "natural classification" of particles. Therefore physicists generally do not use the term matter when precision is needed, preferring instead to speak of the more clearly defined concepts of mass, energy, and particles.

---

No, this is where your assertions take over. And I see you are now resorting to ad hominem type arguments.Anyone who does not believe in the existance of God simply rejects the human concept of Gods. God, creator, intelligent designer, etc, etc. are just man made concepts that fill in the gaps. They are mythological ideas. They exist because people such as yourself can't see the universe existing without such a being so you cointinue to assert that God MUST be real.You can't just say, 'well the universe exist, either someone made it or it has always existed'. You have to show that God exist AND can create a universe,(not just saying 'yeah He exists and is all powerful'), I mean prove His power and capabilities outside of just your opinions about God. The way you have attempted to do this has failed because it is circular reasoning, "The universe exists, it must have a creator, God is that creator because the universe exists". This is not the proper way to access things, you must go where the evidence takes you and not make leaps of faith about origins. An ad hominem once again. Im not changing the meaning of things, relax theres no conspiracy group changing words to fuck with you. Matter is not eternal, period. No thoery even says that. YOU asserted that no boundary meant eternal, well it does NOT. Do you want to continue to say that no-boundary means eternal or will you concede that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Bertot,You are not even reading my posts and are so wrapped up in winning an internet debate that you fail to see what is being explained. Im debating for the purpose of understanding, not to claim some meaningless victory.Here are my points, if you'd like to debate them in an honest fashion then we'll continue, if not then I see no point in arguing aimlessly.

• 1. You asserted that the No-Boundary Proposal meant the same as eternity, I, and others explained to you that within the scope of that theory no-boundary is the complete opposite of eternity, do you concede that you were wrong on that assertion?
• 2. The BB is not the beginning of anything so you don't know what came before it, nor do you know if it's finite or infinite; it's all speculations. However, what we do know about our universe has been explained to us by physics, wouldn't it be safe to conclude that the correct answers about pre-BB conditions would also come from physics? Do you concede on that, if not then why not?
• 3. You have not shown proof that a highly complex intelligent entity exists, therefore your use of it as an answer is meerly an attempt to answer something that is currently beyond yours/my capability to comprehend, so you are making things up about a powerful creator that exists without proof or verification...I just have to accept it on faith. God has not been proven to exist, so He as answer, at this point, is faith based. Do you concede on that? If you don't then why?
• 4. If we grant you the ability to postulate based off of your logic and reasoning, and do not demand that you show evidence other than subjective evidence, then theres no end to the stories about origin that we'll have to accept as equal to that of sciences, at that point intelligent inquery will be worthless. Do you concede that logic and reasoning alone do not amount to much more than a subjective opinion? Do you concede that the best evidence is that which can at least make predictions and follow the laws of physics? If you don't then why?

I'd like to keep it in order if you don't mind.PS...If it makes you happy then I agree, your the best debater ever, your a master-debater, your skills are unlike any I've seen! Wow im impressed!*So can we get back to the questions please now that your ego is satisfied?--Oni

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Yes. The NBP does not address any of the 2 proposed solutions because those 2 proposed solutions are not physics derived conclusions. The NBP deals with physics, i.e quantum fields, strings, membranes etc, etc...or no boundary. This is what you are failing to understand. Your proposed solutions does not match anything observable or testable. Those are philosophical solutions and do not deal with physics thus the NBP will not cover them. Eternity, in the NBP theory, is given as an analogy. It does not refer to matter, or material, or stuff. The BB is the beginning of spacetime, our universe. But let me rephrase your statement, "If what happened at the BB was DIFFERENT than what was before,", should read "If the conditions of the BB were different than the conditions before..."You see nothing happened, like as in a starting point, it was and changed its condition to something else that currently is. This 'was' does not indicate eternity, or nothingness, or anything else, by physics standards it is not currently fully understood, so it does not indicate anything yet.There are theories such as Loop QG, String/M-Theory, Theory of Everything that are trying to match the observed to the mathematics and make it understandable to those who can comprehend it, probably not you or I. Matter is not eternal in it's character(whatever that even means), no scientific theory leads to this conclusion, unless the theory is being misunderstood. Matter, is not eternal, matter came into existance after the BB, but, this is using the physics definition of matter. You do understand that a photon is not considered matter, right? Define matter as something observable, not 'stuff' or 'material'. How sub-atomic are you defining matter to be, beyond Quarks? In other words, what do YOU mean by matter.Physics is not God. Outside of religion the word God is meaningless therefore to apply it to another word does not make sense. Clapton is God doesn't really mean much does it? Except to me cuz he is now deal with it!Physics has defined the true nature of things down to the most sub-atomic level that is observed...and it is even going beyond that with QFT, String/M-theory, Loop Qm etc, etc. No, not stories(solutions), just stories, like the stories from all of the different religions and spiritual beliefs that have ever existed. You know, crazy stories about gods and godesses, "turtles all the way down" kinda crap. Deductive logic does not apply to the science of understanding the universe. If you are arguing from a philosophical PoV then fine, I will not try to apply physics as a standard for your reasoning. Feel free to postulate as much as you want, hell for all we know it may actually be turtles all the way down!!! Abogot must be freaking out! Sorry for having evaded this question.Scientifically:

• The BB is all we understand and only to a certain point. Beyond that point GR breaks down as a theory and spacetme is not understood. A unifying theory will likely bring about a better understanding of the physics behind the universe at such a microscale.

Philosophically:

• I think it's invisile turtles all the way down.

I humbly concure...

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

The microscopic world,(quantum fields), can only be understood through physics. It's existence could not have been predicted with logic and deductive reasoning. Yes it is testable by the meer fact that it exists, but you didn't know it existed till physicist told you. Now you want to apply deductive logic to the origin of it, to me this doesn't make much sense. Just beause you say God did it doesn't help you understand how He did it, thats what science does, in this particular case it would be the science of physics. Exactly my point... Again, the 2 possibilities are not science related, they are philosophical. So no, science is not held to your 2 possibilities, no matter how many times you repeat it.Again, even if God did it, how did He do it? And WHAT is eternal? Matter? Matter is not eternal. You are talking about a very microscopic scale, a quantum scale, do you understand this area of science enough to understand what 'nothingness' means? Straggler asked you if you though 'nothing' was stable, you did not seem to understand that question.Here,
Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

quote:

---

That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

---

Basically, particles coming in and out of existance from 'nothingness' because nothingness is unstable. See wiki definition above. Yeah so? Does my logic help physicist understand the complexity of the origin of the universe? No, and neither does yours. All you are doing is justifying your belief. You can't prove anything is eternal, especially not in the quantum world, and you can't prove that a highly complex intelligence just appeared magically out of nothingness...unless you are saying that God is a quantum fluctuation? Because at least that has been observed. Not in the quantum world. See wiki definition above. And explains what from that point? Some philosophical musing about origin? If you can't describe the properties of the conditions of the early universe, then you are not descibing anything. Beyond that you don't even know what the properties of the early universe were so your logic would have no basis, other than your religious beliefs, which are not in any way unique and do nothing to help understand HOW the universe came to be.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky