| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Scott Erb" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 07:14:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
This response didn't get seem to arrive so I'm re-sending it
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message news:...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ms509au2k773d@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131249862.012526.200870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SquareKnot wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
No, I'm saying the nature of the puzzles suggest there must be
a force outside space-time that is beyond our understanding
which brought
space-time into existence (via the bi g bang). This force
could be
impersonal or have consciousness of some sort. There is no
inherent reason to privilege an impersonal force over the
possibility of a
conscious force. Ergo, logically, there is an equal
probability that there is a 'god' (not the typical religious
notion of god) that is conscious or that the force of nature is
impersonal.
You might want to rethink your idea of what constitutes an
equal probability. If you don't know, that doesn't mean
that all the alternatives you can think of are equal.
Plus the fact that arguing as Scott and friends do, that there
might be a God (Creator of the universe) because there is no proof
that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, is logical
fallacy, argument from ignorance, argument _ad ignorantiam_.
No, if that were the case every scientist who speculates would be
commiting a logical fallacy.
Most of modern physics, including Einstein's idea of relativity,
started with a reflection on the evidence and then, "it might be the
case..."
In any event, I'm simply noting: a) space-time is the realm of
science; b) the big bang created space-time, anything previous to or
causal of the big bang was outside our space-time universe, and thus
not in the realm of current science, and in fact beyond our
understanding;
Not true....
Why do you say that? At one point you tried to use space-time references
as
a way to deny that anything could be out of space-time, which is an error of
reasoning.
We can't know what is or can be outside space-time because we are
psychologically enslaved by it. Mathematics is perhaps the only possible
key to unlocking that, but even with things as complex as string theory,
we're still only trying to get a grip on what the nature of space-time is --
except it is our limited universe, and it is an entity (the Newtonian view
of time as the progression of events and space as the stage on which reality
is played out has long been pushed aside, of course).
.
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
07 Nov 2005 04:46:40 PM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
This response didn't get seem to arrive so I'm re-sending it
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message news:...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ms509au2k773d@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131249862.012526.200870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SquareKnot wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
No, I'm saying the nature of the puzzles suggest there must
be a force outside space-time that is beyond our
understanding which brought
space-time into existence (via the bi g bang). This force
could be
impersonal or have consciousness of some sort. There is no
inherent reason to privilege an impersonal force over the
possibility of a
conscious force. Ergo, logically, there is an equal
probability that there is a 'god' (not the typical religious
notion of god) that is conscious or that the force of nature
is impersonal.
You might want to rethink your idea of what constitutes an
equal probability. If you don't know, that doesn't mean
that all the alternatives you can think of are equal.
Plus the fact that arguing as Scott and friends do, that there
might be a God (Creator of the universe) because there is no
proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, is
logical fallacy, argument from ignorance, argument _ad
ignorantiam_.
No, if that were the case every scientist who speculates would be
commiting a logical fallacy.
Most of modern physics, including Einstein's idea of relativity,
started with a reflection on the evidence and then, "it might be
the case..."
In any event, I'm simply noting: a) space-time is the realm of
science; b) the big bang created space-time, anything previous to
or causal of the big bang was outside our space-time universe,
and thus not in the realm of current science, and in fact beyond
our understanding;
Not true....
Why do you say that? At one point you tried to use space-time
references
as
a way to deny that anything could be out of space-time, which is an
error of reasoning.
Not in realm of current science is simply untrue.
The fact is, any number of people are dealing
scientifically with that possibility. Brane
theory and other work is very much science.
Field theory is science. The cosmology of
people like Linde and Guth is science.
Logocally, nothing cannot create something.
So something had to create the singularity
that started our island Universe.
Fields underlie the phenomenon of virtual particles,
and thus creation of things like the singularity that
created this island universe.
The idea that there was truely nothing before
the big bang simply flies into the face of
all of modern cosmology.
The idea time did not exist at all before
this universe is wrong. The idea of consideration
of that obvious reality is outside scince is nonsense.
Time is very much part of brane theory.
We can't know what is or can be outside space-time because we are
psychologically enslaved by it. Mathematics is perhaps the only
possible
key to unlocking that, but even with things as complex as string
theory,
we're still only trying to get a grip on what the nature of
space-time is -- except it is our limited universe, and it is an
entity (the Newtonian view of time as the progression of events and
space as the stage on which reality is played out has long been
pushed aside, of course).
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
07 Nov 2005 09:27:03 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Logocally, nothing cannot create something.
So something had to create the singularity
that started our island Universe.
I'd be careful here. It's intuitive, sure;
but there's no reason why you can't devise
a logic in which that isn't so. You're falling
into the "it's turtles all the way down" line
of thought.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 12:59:14 AM |
|
|
chris.holt wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Logocally, nothing cannot create something.
So something had to create the singularity
that started our island Universe.
I'd be careful here. It's intuitive, sure;
but there's no reason why you can't devise
a logic in which that isn't so. You're falling
into the "it's turtles all the way down" line
of thought.
You can devise a reason that says something
can come from nothing? Not a good one!
Basically when I read moron scientists
talking about matter coming from nothing
I grit my teach because they know it is not right.
There is an entire Universe out there and
the physics of this Universe beyond our mere
island Universe is certaintly not nothing.
We can make up fairy tale nonsense about god and
leprechauns and fairies but it isn't science.
Nor is loose talk of something from nothing.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 01:05:43 PM |
|
|
wbarwell writes:
wbarwell> chris.holt wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Logocally, nothing cannot create something.
So something had to create the singularity
that started our island Universe.
I'd be careful here. It's intuitive, sure;
but there's no reason why you can't devise
a logic in which that isn't so. You're falling
into the "it's turtles all the way down" line
of thought.
wbarwell> You can devise a reason that says something
wbarwell> can come from nothing? Not a good one!
wbarwell> Basically when I read moron scientists
wbarwell> talking about matter coming from nothing
wbarwell> I grit my teach because they know it is not right.
wbarwell> There is an entire Universe out there and
wbarwell> the physics of this Universe beyond our mere
wbarwell> island Universe is certaintly not nothing.
wbarwell> We can make up fairy tale nonsense about god and
wbarwell> leprechauns and fairies but it isn't science.
wbarwell> Nor is loose talk of something from nothing.
The fact is we do not know where matter came from.
It might be "nothing". We may never know, the apparent
initial singularity is not at all understood, and it is
possible that future theories about its nature will not
be testable.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
What a terrible thing it is to loose one's mind, or not to have
a mind as being very wasteful. How true that is.
-Dan Quayle, trying to paraphrase NAACP motto, "A mind is
a terrible thing to waste."
.
|
|
|
| User: "SquareKnot" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 07:29:07 PM |
|
|
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote
The fact is we do not know where matter came from.
What does 'come from' mean wrt matter? Matter is just a hightly
compressed form of energy, right? Remember e=mc^2?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 11:53:40 PM |
|
|
SquareKnot wrote:
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote
The fact is we do not know where matter came from.
What does 'come from' mean wrt matter? Matter is just a hightly
compressed form of energy, right? Remember e=mc^2?
Virtual particles pop in and out of existance.
Matter/energy comes and goes in a dense quantum foam
that permeates the hardest vaccums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
The real physics sites have better info
than wikipedia but can be difficult reading
in some cases.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 11:38:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
wbarwell writes:
wbarwell> chris.holt wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Logocally, nothing cannot create something.
So something had to create the singularity
that started our island Universe.
I'd be careful here. It's intuitive, sure;
but there's no reason why you can't devise
a logic in which that isn't so. You're falling
into the "it's turtles all the way down" line
of thought.
wbarwell> You can devise a reason that says something
wbarwell> can come from nothing? Not a good one!
wbarwell> Basically when I read moron scientists
wbarwell> talking about matter coming from nothing
wbarwell> I grit my teach because they know it is not right.
wbarwell> There is an entire Universe out there and
wbarwell> the physics of this Universe beyond our mere
wbarwell> island Universe is certaintly not nothing.
wbarwell> We can make up fairy tale nonsense about god and
wbarwell> leprechauns and fairies but it isn't science.
wbarwell> Nor is loose talk of something from nothing.
The fact is we do not know where matter came from.
It might be "nothing". We may never know, the apparent
initial singularity is not at all understood, and it is
possible that future theories about its nature will not
be testable.
Matter is created all around us all the time.
Virtual particles come and go in immense numbers.
We understand why, and we understand the basic physics
behind it. This work goes back to the 20's and 30's.
Its been tested. Hendrick Casimir starting from
first principles understood it well enough to calculate
what sort and how many particles we could expect
from first principles. Finally tested directly just a
few years ago, he turned out to have been within 5% of
actual measured laboratory tests.
This is not just some wild-assed hairy guess or speculation.
Understanding this its not hard to see how the same effect
can give birth to whole Universes. Its a very rare event
on our lifespan scale, but a sure bet given enough time,
which the Universe has plenty of.
Now its just a matter of figuring out how space and time
work as a backdrop for all of this.
That is what the brane theorists are working on now.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/january
22/hofstadter-122.html
Stanford Report, January 22, 2003
Cosmos 'Big Bubble' theorist Alan Guth to deliver
Hofstadter Lecture
BY STEPHANIE CHASTEEN
The universe may have started with a bubble, not a
bang.
In 1980, an unknown physicist named Alan Guth
proposed a modification to the Big Bang theory.
Guth suggested that in the first moments of the
life of our universe it inflated like an enormous
bubble. Inflationary theory has been very
successful at solving many of the problems that
had puzzled scientists for years, including the
fact that the Big Bang would not produce a
universe large enough to hold even a sheet of
paper.
"The bang was there, but it was not big," says
Stanford physics Professor Andrei Linde, a
cosmological theorist.
Guth, who is now the Victor Weisskopf Professor of
Physics at MIT, will deliver a free, public talk
at 8 p.m. Monday, Jan. 27, in the SEQ (Science and
Engineering Quad) Teaching Center, Room 201. His
invited talk, titled "Cosmic Inflation and the
Accelerating Universe," is the 2003 Robert
Hofstadter Memorial Lecture. Hosted by Stanford's
Physics Department, the lecture is the 11th to
honor Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert
Hofstadter, who served on the physics faculty from
1950 until his death in 1990.
Guth also will deliver a more technical
colloquium, "Time Travel and Cosmic Strings: A
Playground for Theoretical Physicists," at 4:15
p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 28, in the same location.
With Linde and Paul Steinhardt of Princeton, Guth
is co-recipient of the 2002 Dirac Medal for
groundbreaking work in cosmic inflation theory. He
is also author of a popular book, The Inflationary
Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic
Origins (1998).
Inflationary theory does not replace Big Bang
theory, but adds an extra stage: Before the Big
Bang, the universe went through a period of
extremely rapid expansion, growing by 30 orders of
magnitude in a fraction of a second. It is
difficult to imagine something becoming this large
this quickly -- picture a pea expanding to the
size of the Milky Way more quickly than the blink
of an eye. After this exponential inflation,
expansion slowed to the sedate pace observed
today.
When he came up with the theory of cosmic
inflation, Guth was a 34-year old physicist at the
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in the
ninth year of a seemingly interminable career as a
postdoctoral fellow. He was working on the problem
of magnetic monopoles: particles that behave like
the North end of a magnet without the South end.
The Big Bang model predicted an abundance of
magnetic monopoles but none have ever been found
-- a source of great concern to theoreticians.
A few years earlier, Linde had suggested that, in
its early stages, the universe had undergone a
series of phase transitions, accompanied by
supercooling. Supercooling is seen quite often in
phase transitions from one form of matter to
another, such as water cooling to ice. In
supercooling, water will remain liquid as it cools
below 32 degrees Fahrenheit -- the temperature at
which it normally freezes -- but at the slightest
disturbance it will immediately freeze. Guth and
Cornell postdoctoral scholar Henry Tye were
working on the problem of how supercooling in the
early universe would affect the production of
magnetic monopoles.
"So I went home one night and did that calculation
and discovered that it would have a dramatic
effect on the evolution of the universe," Guth
says of his revelation. The supercooled matter
would cause gravity to reverse direction, so that
objects would repel each other, resulting in
exponential inflation. It would also make magnetic
monopoles exceedingly rare.
The impact of the theory was immediate.
"People realized that this was a good idea," says
Linde. "You can solve a lot of cosmological
problems just by one simple trick."
One major puzzle solved by inflation is the fact
that the universe has been observed to be
remarkably uniform. NASA's Cosmic Background
Explorer (COBE) has measured cosmic background
radiation -- a sort of cosmic white noise left
over from the early years of the universe. The
data show a picture of a universe that looks
surprisingly similar in all directions, a highly
improbable state viewed from Big Bang theory. In
the inflationary scenario, however, stretching out
a tiny, uniform universe exponentially would
result in a similarly uniform larger universe. And
what about galaxies and stars? Tiny departures
from homogeneity of the energy field of the early
universe -- quantum fluctuations -- may have grown
like spots on an expanding balloon, eventually
forming large-scale structures like galaxies. Data
from COBE seem to support this assumption.
Inflation also explains why parallel lines don't
cross -- something everyone learns in school as a
basic principle of Euclidean geometry. But other
types of geometry are possible. According to
general relativity, spacetime curves around
massive objects, like a sheet of rubber bends or
bulges when you put a rock in it. The universe as
a whole can warp around the matter within it, and
so the density of the universe determines whether
it is "open" -- parallel lines eventually diverge
-- or "closed" -- parallel lines ultimately meet.
Theoretical calculations show that our universe
should be very curved, whereas scientific
observations show the universe as flat and
Euclidean. This so-called "flatness" problem is
solved by inflation.
"If you take any curved space and expand it by a
tremendous factor, and look at any small part of
it, it looks flat," says Guth. "The surface of the
Earth looks perfectly flat to us when we look at
it, even though we know that the Earth is actually
round if you look at it from much further away."
And what's next for inflation? Guth is excited
about current theories of eternal inflation, which
picture the universe as a huge, growing fractal.
"Once started, inflation never stops, but an
eternal inflationary tree spawns a never-ending
succession of bubble universes, each of which
evolves according to the inflationary Big Bang
description," says Guth.
And so, says Linde, "the universe becomes
immortal."
Stephanie Chasteen is a freelancer and doctoral
student in physics at the University of
California-Santa Cruz.
--------------------------------------------
Issue 3.07 - Jul 1995
Big Bang Bust
Physicist Andrei Linde wants to know: Since we
live in this weird universe - fractal,
self-replicating, inflationary - does that imply
that it was created not by God, but by some
physicist-hacker?
By Rudy Rucker
Andrei Linde, a 47-year-old physicist from Moscow,
started teaching at Stanford University in 1990.
He lives there with his wife, Renata Kallosh (also
a Stanford physics professor, specializing in
superstrings and supergravity), and his two sons,
Dmitri and Alex. In 1982, he began formulating a
new theory of the universe - an improvement on the
big-bang model. He uses computer simulations for
much of his research, and he has recently
suggested that our universe may be the result of a
physicist-hacker's experiment.
An attractive, tidily dressed man, Linde speaks
with a thick Russian accent and a colorfully
inverted syntax. His responses to the questions of
mathematician Rudy Rucker have been smoothed by
Rucker's interpolation and editing.
Wired: By now, most of us have become quite
comfortable with the big-bang model of the
universe, the notion that the universe was born as
a cosmic explosion that gave birth to an
ever-expanding ball of space. What's wrong with
this idea?
Linde: There are a number of problems with the
big-bang theory, but I'll start by mentioning two
of a physical nature and two of a philosophical
nature.
If you work out the physical equations governing
the big bang, they predict that such a universe
would be very small, even though we can see that
our universe is large. One way to gauge the size
of a universe is to talk about how many elementary
particles it has in it - how many electrons,
protons, neutrons, and so on are present. When I
look out of my window, the matter I see is made up
of perhaps 1088 elementary particles, but a
typical theoretical big-bang model envisions a
universe with only 10 elementary particles in it!
This is perhaps the most serious problem with the
big-bang model. It gives a false prediction about
the size of the universe. For a number of years,
this mathematical flaw in the big-bang theory was
not taken seriously by many scientists.
But even if a big-bang universe is of the proper
size, the theory doesn't explain why different
regions of the universe resemble each other. In a
big-bang model, it could just as easily have
happened that most of the galactical matter would
wind up, say, in only one half of the sky, but we
can observe that in our universe, the distribution
of distant galaxies is uniform in every
direction.
Then come the philosophical questions. What came
before the big bang? How did everything appear
from nothing? Another philosophical problem with
the big bang is, Why does it happen that our
universe worked out to be the way it is? Why, for
instance, do we have three dimensions of space and
one dimension of time? The big-bang theory offers
no satisfactory answers. We can begin to resolve
the puzzles in the context of the theory of the
self-reproducing, inflationary universe.
Wired:What is the theory of the inflationary
universe?
Linde:There have been several versions of this
theory. The first was proposed by the Soviet
physicist Alexei Starobinsky, but it was rather
complicated. Then a much simpler theory was put
forth by Alan Guth, a physicist at MIT; we call
his model old inflation now. Guth took the
big-bang model and added the idea that in the
beginning, the universe expanded rapidly - faster
even than the speed of light.
By using the model of the universe rapidly
expanding, you solve the problem of why it's so
big, and why all the regions of the universe we
can see resemble each other. The idea is that the
visible part of the universe was inflated from
some very small and homogeneous region, and this
is why we see large-scale similarities.
However, it turned out that Guth's old inflation
had a theoretical flaw that caused the universes
of his scenario to become extremely homogeneous
after the inflation stopped. I invented a new
inflation theory which worked so-so until I
realized that we could have inflation without the
assumption that the universe began in a hot and
dense state. Therefore, I dropped the idea of the
big bang but kept the idea of inflation. In my
model, inflation can start anywhere. This concept
is called chaotic inflation.
Wired:What causes the inflation?
Linde:There are things called scalar fields.
Scalar is a word physicists use simply to mean a
number - this as opposed to a vector, which means
something like an arrow. If you have a scalar
field, you have a certain number defined at each
point of space. Air pressure can be thought of as
a scalar field: there is a specific number that
measures air pressure at each point. In the same
way, temperature is a scalar field: at each point,
you can measure the value of the temperature.
Two scalar fields that are important for
inflationary theories are sometimes called the
inflaton field and the Higgs field. These fields
fill the universe and show their presence by
affecting the properties of elementary particles.
You don't notice a constant scalar field any more
than you notice a constant air pressure or a
constant electric charge. When there is a large
air pressure, you get wind; when there is a large
electrical charge, you get sparks; and when there
is a large scalar field called the inflaton field,
you get an expansion of space. Quantum mechanics
implies that the scalar fields undergo
unpredictable fluctuations as a result of the
uncertainty principle. If there is a place where
the fluctuations make the inflaton field
sufficiently large, then at this spot the universe
begins expanding very rapidly, which creates so
much space that we can safely live there.
Wired:What about the "self-reproducing" aspect of
your model?
Linde:The fluctuations that increase the speed of
inflation can happen over and over, again because
of the essential fuzziness that the uncertainty
principle of quantum mechanics introduces into the
equation. This makes the universe
self-reproducing; the universe actually replicates
itself in all its forms.
The standard big-bang theory depicts a homogeneous
universe that looks like a single bubble. But if
we take into account quantum effects, the
self-reproducing inflationary universe is a bubble
producing new bubbles producing new bubbles
producing new bubbles and so on. This kind of
repeatedly branching pattern is what
mathematicians call a fractal. A fractal pattern
is characterized by the property that the small
bits of the pattern are exact replicas of the
whole pattern. An oak tree, for example, is like a
fractal in that a single branch of an oak
resembles a scaled-down model of the entire tree.
Another example of a fractal is a mountain range.
If you chop off the top of a mountain and look at
it closely, it resembles the whole mountain range;
a single rock on the mountain resembles a whole
mountain in itself.
So, we think of the self-reproducing inflationary
universe as a fractal. The big bang works as a
description of each particular bubble, but it
cannot describe the growing fractal. In the
fractal model, there is no real reason for the
universe to stop growing - indeed, it is likely to
keep growing and blooming in new regions forever.
Wired:Can you help me visualize this fractal
self-reproducing inflationary universe?
Linde:There are two kinds of pictures I like to
use. In one, I draw something that looks like lots
of separate bubbles connected to each other where
they touch. It looks a little like the linked
flotation bladders on seaweed.
In the other picture - and I've done several
computer simulations of this image - I think of
space as a flat sheet. Our space is
three-dimensional of course, but I represent it in
this picture as a two-dimensional rubber sheet.
Then I add a randomly fluctuating scalar field, an
inflaton field, and I represent the regions where
the inflaton field has a low numerical value by
valleys, and the regions where the scalar field is
large by peaks.
The peaks are the places where inflation takes
place; at these places, the universe will rapidly
expand. I can't show the inflation in my picture,
but I can represent it by putting new, secondary
peaks on top of the first peaks, third-level peaks
on top of those peaks, and so on. It is like a
mountain range.
What is a little hard to grasp is that the two
images represent the same thing. The peaks in one
image correspond to the bubbles in the other. A
peak that rises on top of a peak is like a bubble
that newly swells out from the side of a
pre-existing bubble.
Wired:Can we travel to the other bubbles of our
fractal universe?
Linde:In the future, our sky will look much
different - as the stars in our neighborhood begin
to die. Then we will see into the other parts of
the universe, parts with different laws of
physics. Can we use the energy in our cooled-off
bubble? Can we fly to the other tips of the
fractal? Can we go there and live comfortably? The
theory of cosmic flights over vast distances
suggests that even if you were to travel at the
speed of light, you lose so much time that when
you get to another part of the universe, it will
be cold and empty there.
Wired:You say that some of the different bubble
universes have different laws of physics - how
does that work?
Linde:We've talked about the inflaton field
responsible for the universe's expansion. As I
mentioned before, it seems that there may also be
a second scalar field that creates different kinds
of physics in different regions of the universe.
This is the Higgs field. There is one overall law
of physics for the whole universe, but the Higgs
field makes for different realizations of this
law. The principle is similar to that of water
existing in different phases.
Wired:What if I could somehow fly up to the edge
of a region of the universe with different
physics? How would it look?
Linde:Between the different regions of the
universe, there are boundaries called domain
walls. There is a tendency of the domain walls to
smooth out. You might think of them as being a
little like the boundaries of soap bubbles in a
foam, with the regions of different physics the
insides of those bubbles. The domain walls might
be irregular to start with, but over time they
straighten out. In addition, the regions will tend
to shrink or expand, and this expansion is in fact
very rapid - it is at a speed approaching the
speed of light. This means that the domain walls
will be moving in one direction or another with a
speed approaching that of light.
So, first of all, it would be difficult for you to
reach a domain wall if it is moving away from you
at any speed. And if it is moving toward you, it
would be difficult to run from it because it will
be moving very fast. In fact, if a wall moves
toward you at the speed of light, then you first
see it only at the moment it hits you. And then
you would almost definitely die, since the physics
on the other side of the wall would be different
and unlikely to support your form of life. You
will be exactly like a fish out of water.
But we don't need to worry too much; the distance
from us to this next domain wall is typically
estimated to be much greater than 10 billion light
years, so we may live for now.
Wired:Might we say that the regions with different
physics compete with each other?
Linde:The regions of the universe that grow faster
contain more volume, so perhaps they contain more
inhabitants. This looks like Darwinian fitness.
Should we discriminate and say those with greater
volume are winners? There is a lot of place for
losers as well; everything that can exist tends to
have room for its existence in the
self-reproducing inflationary universe. We can
think of a Darwinian process without hate and
killing.
Wired:How did the whole process begin?
Maybe the universe didn't have a beginning. There
are some philosophical problems with the idea of
the universe having a beginning. When the universe
was just created, where were the laws of physics
written? Where were the laws of physics written if
there was no space and no time to write them?
Maybe the universe was created without obeying any
laws, but then I don't understand. Well, maybe the
laws and the universe came into existence
simultaneously. Quantum mechanics might say that
our universe together with its physical laws
appeared as a quantum fluctuation, but how were
the laws of quantum mechanics written before
creation?
Wired:In one of your papers, you talk about
relating the nature of our consciousness to our
universe. What do you mean?
Linde:For me, the investigation of the universe is
mainly a tool for understanding ourselves. The
universe is our cosmic home. You may imagine you
can learn something about your friend by looking
at how his house is built. My final purpose is not
to understand the universe, but to understand
life.
An example of this is the question of why we
humans see time as passing. According to the
branch of physics called quantum cosmology, the
universe is best represented as a pattern called a
wave function that does not depend on time. But
then why do I see the universe evolving in time?
The answer may be that as long as I am observing
the universe, the universe breaks into two pieces:
me and the rest of the universe. And it turns out
that the wave function for each of these separate
pieces does depend on time. But if
I merge with the universe, my time stops.
Wired:You've suggested that it might be possible
to create a universe in the laboratory by
violently compressing matter, that 1 milligram of
matter may initiate a self-reproducing universe.
How would this work?
Linde:It would be hard. You have to do more than
just compress the matter. But with high
temperatures and quantum effects, there is a
chance of creating a universe. Our estimates
indicate that you would need a very good
laboratory indeed. And it is not dangerous to try.
This new universe would not hurt our universe; it
would only expand within itself - like bulging a
bubble out from the side of our space.
Wired:Can you imagine there being any kind of
economic or spiritual gain from creating new
universes? Might this lead to a Silicon Valley
industry or to a cosmological cult?
Linde:The question is, Is it interesting to create
a universe? Would you have a profit or benefit?
What would be the use? Suppose life in our
universe is dying, and we make a small private
universe we can jump into so we have a place to
live. But it's not easy to jump between universes.
When we create a universe, it is connected to our
universe by a very narrow bridge of space - we
can't jump through it, and the new universe will
repel us because it is expanding.
Well, maybe you can get energy from the new
universe? No, you can't get energy because of the
law of energy conservation. The new universe gets
its energy internally, and the energy has to stay
inside there. We can't get in, we can't use the
energy, but maybe we can do like we do with our
children: we teach them and we live on in them.
Maybe we can give knowledge and information to the
new little universe.
Wired:Would you be able to communicate? To send
information to and from that universe you helped
create?
Linde:It is not so easy to send information
inside. Say I wrote a message on the surface of an
inflationary universe. But then the letters expand
so much that for billions of years to come, each
race of people in the universe will be living in
the corner of just one letter. They will never see
the message. The only way I have found to send
information is strange and unusual. If I create an
inflationary universe with a small density, I can
prepare the universe in a particular state that
corresponds to different laws of physics, masses
of particles, interactions, etc. I can imagine a
binary code describing all possible laws of
physics; this would be quite a long sequence. So,
if I am preparing a universe in some peculiar
state, I can send the message encoded in the laws
of physics.
Can I send a long message in this way? Let's think
about our own universe. Let's imagine that someone
made our universe as a message. If our universe is
perfect, with all particles having equal masses
and charges, then the laws of physics would really
be trivial, and it would be a very short message.
But our particle physics looks weird, and it has a
lot of information. We get these strange numbers;
there is no harmony when we try to make sense of
it all. There is information instead of harmony.
Perhaps it would be more precise to say the
harmony is there, but it is very well hidden.
To send a long message, you must make a weird
universe with complicated laws of physics. It is
the only way to send information. The only people
who can read this message are physicists. Since we
see around us a rather weird universe, does it
imply that our universe was created not by God,
but by a physicist-hacker?
I don't entirely think of this possibility as a
joke. Even if something seems counterintuitive,
you must be honest and follow the thought line and
not be influenced by the common point of view. If
you agree with everything everybody else thinks,
you never move.
Rudy Rucker (rucker@jupiter.sjsu.edu) has written
a novel The Hacker and the Ants about near-future
Silicon Valley. To e-mail Andrei Linde:
linde@physics.stanford.edu.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 01:18:42 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Basically when I read moron scientists
talking about matter coming from nothing
I grit my teach because they know it is not right.
I bet you grit your teach because "moron scientists"
haven't recognized your obvious genius. No one has.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 02:56:46 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Logocally, nothing cannot create something.
So something had to create the singularity
that started our island Universe.
I'd be careful here. It's intuitive, sure;
but there's no reason why you can't devise
a logic in which that isn't so. You're falling
into the "it's turtles all the way down" line
of thought.
You can devise a reason that says something
can come from nothing? Not a good one!
Basically when I read moron scientists
talking about matter coming from nothing
I grit my teach because they know it is not right.
There is an entire Universe out there and
the physics of this Universe beyond our mere
island Universe is certaintly not nothing.
We can make up fairy tale nonsense about god and
leprechauns and fairies but it isn't science.
Nor is loose talk of something from nothing.
As far as I can tell, there are three different ways of looking at this
basic conundrum:
1. Time extends infinitely into the past, and the universe (or some
universe) has always existed.
2. Something exists outside of time, and the universe came from that
something.
3. The universe sprang into existence from nothing.
None of these three is explicable at our current state of scientific
knowledge, and I don't see any reason to prefer one of the others.
Something coming from nothing is no more and no less mysterious than
infinite time, or existence without time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 10:55:22 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper <mad@my.mama> said:
<...>
1. Time extends infinitely into the past, and the universe (or some
universe) has always existed.
2. Something exists outside of time, and the universe came from that
something.
3. The universe sprang into existence from nothing.
None of these three is explicable at our current state of scientific
knowledge, and I don't see any reason to prefer one of the others.
Something coming from nothing is no more and no less mysterious than
infinite time, or existence without time.
Try:
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~govind/stories/finitude.html
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/infinity_and_the_past.htm
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
09 Nov 2005 01:15:57 AM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
Malibu Skipper <mad@my.mama> said:
<...>
1. Time extends infinitely into the past, and the universe (or some
universe) has always existed.
2. Something exists outside of time, and the universe came from that
something.
3. The universe sprang into existence from nothing.
None of these three is explicable at our current state of scientific
knowledge, and I don't see any reason to prefer one of the others.
Something coming from nothing is no more and no less mysterious than
infinite time, or existence without time.
Try:
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~govind/stories/finitude.html
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/infinity_and_the_past.htm
Thanks. I was already familiar with some of this; I won't pretend to
understand the math entirely, but they seem to show that it's possible
that the past extends into infinity. That doesn't surprise me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
09 Nov 2005 01:22:42 AM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
Malibu Skipper <mad@my.mama> said:
<...>
1. Time extends infinitely into the past, and the universe (or some
universe) has always existed.
2. Something exists outside of time, and the universe came from that
something.
3. The universe sprang into existence from nothing.
None of these three is explicable at our current state of scientific
knowledge, and I don't see any reason to prefer one of the others.
Something coming from nothing is no more and no less mysterious than
infinite time, or existence without time.
Try:
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~govind/stories/finitude.html
I read this a found much to disagree with!
I do not accept that there is a meaningful distinction between "actual"
and "potential" infinite - and so nothing based on this distinction has
any meaning.
Lots of loose thinking.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/infinity_and_the_past.htm
This is much more interesting/meaty.
This guy knows his stuff.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 04:10:23 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Logocally, nothing cannot create something.
So something had to create the singularity
that started our island Universe.
I'd be careful here. It's intuitive, sure;
but there's no reason why you can't devise
a logic in which that isn't so. You're falling
into the "it's turtles all the way down" line
of thought.
You can devise a reason that says something
can come from nothing? Not a good one!
Basically when I read moron scientists
talking about matter coming from nothing
I grit my teach because they know it is not right.
There is an entire Universe out there and
the physics of this Universe beyond our mere
island Universe is certaintly not nothing.
We can make up fairy tale nonsense about god and
leprechauns and fairies but it isn't science.
Nor is loose talk of something from nothing.
As far as I can tell, there are three different ways of looking at
this basic conundrum:
1. Time extends infinitely into the past, and the universe (or some
universe) has always existed.
2. Something exists outside of time, and the universe came from that
something.
3. The universe sprang into existence from nothing.
None of these three is explicable at our current state of scientific
knowledge, and I don't see any reason to prefer one of the others.
Something coming from nothing is no more and no less mysterious than
infinite time, or existence without time.
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
This is something the ancient Greeks figured out 2600
years ago.
If there was no time, there is no change possible
since change since change implies before and after.
You could not go from no time to time because there
is again, no before, no after.
Again, the ancient Greeks figured that out 2600
years ago.
The question is, what is the nature of the
Universe. Paul Dirac, pondering why electrons
do not spontaneously dump all energy to achieve
the lowest energy state possible, came up with
the idea of a sea of positive and negative energy.
This is a field, which proved to be teh source of
virtual particles, because of the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle. We know that virtual particles
taht represent the particles that mediate forces between
particles often borrows some of this energy for
short periods of time and that entire particle-antiparticle
pairs pop in and out of existance all around us.
This energy is now considered as fields, and is
part of the underlying reality of matter and energy
as we now it, which relies on fields for its very
existance.
People investigating branes are actually investigating
how such fields and hoow they interact to give us
dimensions as we know them, time, matter, energy and
their interactions.
We know that there is a bigger Universe outside our
island universe and these fields pervade it and create it.
Roots of this work go back to the 1920's. We are now
seeing Science get serious about this and there is a
lot of work to be done.
Its going to be tough but its where science is
today. We have a hard bunch of work before us,
but in the last 100 years we figured out far, far
more since the Greeks started asking the right
questions 2600 years ago.
2500 years ago, the Athenian know-nothings ran
Anaximander out of town when he suggested the Sun
was a ball of fire and the stars were similar but
far more distant.
Today know-nothings attack evolution.
Science struggles on.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 04:56:15 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but a
lot of beliefs that seem intuitively true have dropped like flies in the
last century or so. A hundred years ago, scientists thought they had
the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since then, we've
stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of particles
smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark matter, extra
dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among other things. I
think you're probably right; but I'm not going to bet my life savings
that some physicist somewhere doesn't come up with a mathematical
formula proving that something CAN be produced from nothing.
Philosophically, it seems like nonsense; but then, so does most of the
twentieth century.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
08 Nov 2005 05:09:21 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but
a lot of beliefs that seem intuitively true have dropped like flies
in the
last century or so.
Not this. We know that empty space is empty only of matter,
the fields that underlie all existance are there.
This is the unintuitive something that is now known
to exist.
A hundred years ago, scientists thought they
had
the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since then, we've
stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of particles
smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark matter,
extra
dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among other things.
We march on following the evidence. And that is the clue about
science, its bottom up. It follows the evidence. Al this started
with a few Greeks wondeering about matter, Coins got worn, stones
used as pavement got worn, the smell of the baker's shop wafted
down the street, what was happening here? Was matter granular and was
there a point were it stopped being divisble? What was it that
we smelled when we smelled baking bread?
This lead to atoms, and eventually chemistry and physics as we know
it. Bottom up, following a trail of evidence.
We are now following evidence about deeper levels of evidence,
branes, what gives us time and space and matter and energy at
a deeper level.
Quantum physics followed the evidence. So did Einstein and
other physicists.
The point is, all of this is understandable if you follow the
evidence.
Nothing does not come from nothing and there is something
behind even a hard vaccum. We are on teh rail to understanding
that.
Which is when you think about it, amazing.
What is really amazing is how much we have unravelled
all of this in a little over a century.
With that in mind, I wil lgo with the thoughts of those
who gave us this. After 2600 years, the idea that something
cannot come from nothing, holds, there is something, our
task is to follow the evidence and understand that.
Whether you call it physics, or god, all agree in
the end. Some people want to say it was nothing
to make room for god, forgetting when we say Universe,
we mean all, including god.
This sort of cheap rhetoric simply creates errors.
I think you're probably right; but I'm not going to bet my life
savings that some physicist somewhere doesn't come up with a
mathematical formula proving that something CAN be produced from
nothing. Philosophically, it seems like nonsense; but then, so does
most of the twentieth century.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
09 Nov 2005 01:19:51 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but
a lot of beliefs that seem intuitively true have dropped like flies
in the
last century or so.
Not this. We know that empty space is empty only of matter,
the fields that underlie all existance are there.
This is the unintuitive something that is now known
to exist.
Yes, I agree.
A hundred years ago, scientists thought they
had
the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since then, we've
stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of particles
smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark matter,
extra
dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among other things.
We march on following the evidence. And that is the clue about
science, its bottom up. It follows the evidence. Al this started
with a few Greeks wondeering about matter, Coins got worn, stones
used as pavement got worn, the smell of the baker's shop wafted
down the street, what was happening here? Was matter granular and was
there a point were it stopped being divisble? What was it that
we smelled when we smelled baking bread?
This lead to atoms, and eventually chemistry and physics as we know
it. Bottom up, following a trail of evidence.
Yup.
We are now following evidence about deeper levels of evidence,
branes, what gives us time and space and matter and energy at
a deeper level.
Quantum physics followed the evidence. So did Einstein and
other physicists.
The point is, all of this is understandable if you follow the
evidence.
Again, I agree.
Nothing does not come from nothing and there is something
behind even a hard vaccum. We are on teh rail to understanding
that.
Which is when you think about it, amazing.
What is really amazing is how much we have unravelled
all of this in a little over a century.
With that in mind, I wil lgo with the thoughts of those
who gave us this. After 2600 years, the idea that something
cannot come from nothing, holds, there is something, our
task is to follow the evidence and understand that.
Whether you call it physics, or god, all agree in
the end. Some people want to say it was nothing
to make room for god, forgetting when we say Universe,
we mean all, including god.
This sort of cheap rhetoric simply creates errors.
Again, I agree with almost everything you've said -- particularly the
point that if God existed before the Universe, then the Universe can't
be said to have come from nothing. The only thing you haven't presented
evidence for is your assertion that nothing can come from nothing. I
thing the assertion is probably correct, but I don't think it's been proven.
I think you're probably right; but I'm not going to bet my life
savings that some physicist somewhere doesn't come up with a
mathematical formula proving that something CAN be produced from
nothing. Philosophically, it seems like nonsense; but then, so does
most of the twentieth century.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
09 Nov 2005 02:19:51 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but
a lot of beliefs that seem intuitively true have dropped like flies
in the
last century or so.
Not this. We know that empty space is empty only of matter,
the fields that underlie all existance are there.
This is the unintuitive something that is now known
to exist.
Yes, I agree.
A hundred years ago, scientists thought they
had
the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since then, we've
stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of particles
smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark matter,
extra
dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among other
things.
We march on following the evidence. And that is the clue about
science, its bottom up. It follows the evidence. Al this started
with a few Greeks wondeering about matter, Coins got worn, stones
used as pavement got worn, the smell of the baker's shop wafted
down the street, what was happening here? Was matter granular and
was there a point were it stopped being divisble? What was it that
we smelled when we smelled baking bread?
This lead to atoms, and eventually chemistry and physics as we know
it. Bottom up, following a trail of evidence.
Yup.
We are now following evidence about deeper levels of evidence,
branes, what gives us time and space and matter and energy at
a deeper level.
Quantum physics followed the evidence. So did Einstein and
other physicists.
The point is, all of this is understandable if you follow the
evidence.
Again, I agree.
Nothing does not come from nothing and there is something
behind even a hard vaccum. We are on teh rail to understanding
that.
Which is when you think about it, amazing.
What is really amazing is how much we have unravelled
all of this in a little over a century.
With that in mind, I wil lgo with the thoughts of those
who gave us this. After 2600 years, the idea that something
cannot come from nothing, holds, there is something, our
task is to follow the evidence and understand that.
Whether you call it physics, or god, all agree in
the end. Some people want to say it was nothing
to make room for god, forgetting when we say Universe,
we mean all, including god.
This sort of cheap rhetoric simply creates errors.
Again, I agree with almost everything you've said -- particularly
the point that if God existed before the Universe, then the Universe
can't
be said to have come from nothing. The only thing you haven't
presented
evidence for is your assertion that nothing can come from nothing.
I thing the assertion is probably correct, but I don't think it's
been proven.
Sighhhhhhhhh....
I don't think you are getting this logic business.
If there is nothing, it cannot create something because
there is nothing to create something from.
Logic proves that.
Its like 2 + 2 = 4, not 5.
Prove that.
Its simply the way things are.
you observe that and that is the proof.
Something cannot come from nothing, because
logically it cannot. Its proven because its
logically necessary.
So obviously, there has always been something.
This is why I hate it when monkey-boy scientists
wax cute with words like nothing and god, because
it puts bad ideas into everybody's heads.
There has always been something because logically,
there cannot have been truely nothing.
If you cannot see the hard logic in that, I can
only give up.
And yes, logic does mean something.
Its the heart of science.
There has always been something, the only problem
now it to investigate and find out what that
something is. It can be explained as we have found
out in the last century.
I think you're probably right; but I'm not going to bet my life
savings that some physicist somewhere doesn't come up with a
mathematical formula proving that something CAN be produced from
nothing. Philosophically, it seems like nonsense; but then, so does
most of the twentieth century.
0 = 0.
0 =/= >0.
There. All you need.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
09 Nov 2005 04:00:13 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Basically, nothing can come from nothing.
So the Universe has always existed in some fashion.
It seems intuitively true that nothing can come from nothing -- but
a lot of beliefs that seem intuitively true have dropped like flies
in the
last century or so.
Not this. We know that empty space is empty only of matter,
the fields that underlie all existance are there.
This is the unintuitive something that is now known
to exist.
Yes, I agree.
A hundred years ago, scientists thought they
had
the whole physics thing pretty well wrapped up. Since then, we've
stumbled across relativity, quantum mechanics, scads of particles
smaller than the "basic building blocks of matter", dark matter,
extra
dimensions, and a finite but unbounded universe, among other
things.
We march on following the evidence. And that is the clue about
science, its bottom up. It follows the evidence. Al this started
with a few Greeks wondeering about matter, Coins got worn, stones
used as pavement got worn, the smell of the baker's shop wafted
down the street, what was happening here? Was matter granular and
was there a point were it stopped being divisble? What was it that
we smelled when we smelled baking bread?
This lead to atoms, and eventually chemistry and physics as we know
it. Bottom up, following a trail of evidence.
Yup.
We are now following evidence about deeper levels of evidence,
branes, what gives us time and space and matter and energy at
a deeper level.
Quantum physics followed the evidence. So did Einstein and
other physicists.
The point is, all of this is understandable if you follow the
evidence.
Again, I agree.
Nothing does not come from nothing and there is something
behind even a hard vaccum. We are on teh rail to understanding
that.
Which is when you think about it, amazing.
What is really amazing is how much we have unravelled
all of this in a little over a century.
With that in mind, I wil lgo with the thoughts of those
who gave us this. After 2600 years, the idea that something
cannot come from nothing, holds, there is something, our
task is to follow the evidence and understand that.
Whether you call it physics, or god, all agree in
the end. Some people want to say it was nothing
to make room for god, forgetting when we say Universe,
we mean all, including god.
This sort of cheap rhetoric simply creates errors.
Again, I agree with almost everything you've said -- particularly
the point that if God existed before the Universe, then the Universe
can't
be said to have come from nothing. The only thing you haven't
presented
evidence for is your assertion that nothing can come from nothing.
I thing the assertion is probably correct, but I don't think it's
been proven.
Sighhhhhhhhh....
I don't think you are getting this logic business.
If there is nothing, it cannot create something because
there is nothing to create something from.
How about this:
"Nothing" cannot create or be the cause of the universes existence.
But does that preclude:
The universe exists, is finite in time, and has no cause whatever.
I dont see The Big Bang universe being causeless
as identical to
The Big Bang universe came from nothing.
(The universe was caused by nothing)
Do You?
I think it is po | | | | | | | | | | |
