| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/19/2009 08:29:38 PM · #551 |
Vilenkin sums up the possibility of effect without cause as follows;
Originally posted by Vilenkin:
If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunneling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required. In classical physics, causality dictates what happens from one moment to the next, but in quantum mechanics the behavior of physical objects is inherently unpredictable and some quantum processes have no cause at all. |
|
|
|
|
10/19/2009 08:41:02 PM · #552 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why would something be eternal and then suddenly change? |
Eternal doesn't have to be eternally static. Stars can be a model of continuity for billions of years, and then change in an instant. It only takes one subatomic particle too little or too many to suddenly change everything. Likewise, the universe may be both eternal and eternally changing, even if some processes take billions of years and others occur in a split second. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 08:51:59 PM · #553 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
THESE ARE NOT LAWS! |
You need to read more carefully. I didn't specify what the laws were. Regardless of the current state of our models, natural laws still govern these processes. |
That's BS, with all respect. Your vaunted scientific method regularly upends itself. You act as if what we "know" now is the be-all and end-all. Yet, when some snippet of contradictory information comes along, you adjust your "laws" to accommodate it. You come across as a Neville Chamberlain of rational processes. But there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy...
R. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 08:53:23 PM · #554 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why would something be eternal and then suddenly change? |
Eternal doesn't have to be eternally static. Stars can be a model of continuity for billions of years, and then change in an instant. |
If they can change in an instant, how are they "eternal"?
R. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 08:55:37 PM · #555 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why would something be eternal and then suddenly change? |
Eternal doesn't have to be eternally static. Stars can be a model of continuity for billions of years, and then change in an instant. It only takes one subatomic particle too little or too many to suddenly change everything. Likewise, the universe may be both eternal and eternally changing, even if some processes take billions of years and others occur in a split second. |
But you'd agree with me there is quite a difference between "eternal" and "billions".
At the end of the day I think we still have difficulties juxtaposing the idea of an eternal universe with the currently best known evidence science can provide. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 09:06:11 PM · #556 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
THESE ARE NOT LAWS! |
You need to read more carefully. I didn't specify what the laws were. Regardless of the current state of our models, natural laws still govern these processes. |
That's BS, with all respect. Your vaunted scientific method regularly upends itself. You act as if what we "know" now is the be-all and end-all. Yet, when some snippet of contradictory information comes along, you adjust your "laws" to accommodate it. |
Again, I didn't specify what the laws were, and I didn't say we "know" anything with absolute certainty. Whether or not our understanding of something is correct, incorrect, or continually revised does not change the fact that it follows natural laws. Chemistry and physics don't cease to exist if we fail to fully understand them. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 09:23:08 PM · #557 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Eternal doesn't have to be eternally static. Stars can be a model of continuity for billions of years, and then change in an instant. |
If they can change in an instant, how are they "eternal"? |
Simple: if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then all mass and energy is (and must be) interchangeably eternal regardless of changes in form (however slow or sudden). Stars from eons ago continue to exist as energy, photons, and the "metals" that make up this planet and your body. The universe can expand, contract, convert to matter or energy in many forms, and still exist.
Message edited by author 2009-10-19 21:23:37. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 09:41:15 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Again, I didn't specify what the laws were, and I didn't say we "know" anything with absolute certainty. Whether or not our understanding of something is correct, incorrect, or continually revised does not change the fact that it follows natural laws. Chemistry and physics don't cease to exist if we fail to fully understand them. |
We should remind ourselves that pre-big bang, all "natural laws" break down and have no domain. Gravity, strong force, weak force, etc. etc. mean nothing in a singularity. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 10:09:16 PM · #559 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We should remind ourselves that pre-big bang, all "natural laws" break down and have no domain. |
Correction: matter and energy still follow natural laws even in a singularity. They're just different natural laws than the ones we experience under less extreme conditions (or an extension of the same laws). All rules don't suddenly go out the window and leave a completely arbitrary and unpredictable state. Natural laws of some form still reign, and the physics within one stellar-mass singularity will be exactly the same in every other stellar-mass singularity.
Message edited by author 2009-10-19 22:14:45. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 11:07:20 PM · #560 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We should remind ourselves that pre-big bang, all "natural laws" break down and have no domain. |
Correction: matter and energy still follow natural laws even in a singularity. They're just different natural laws than the ones we experience under less extreme conditions (or an extension of the same laws). All rules don't suddenly go out the window and leave a completely arbitrary and unpredictable state. Natural laws of some form still reign, and the physics within one stellar-mass singularity will be exactly the same in every other stellar-mass singularity. |
As to my understanding, I think this is wrong. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 11:15:21 PM · #561 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Please don't get bogged down in the word evil. We are not talking about a horror movie. |
Sure - I was wondering if you were getting bogged down in the word. You seem to see a binary world of "good" and "evil", whereas we demonstrably live in an analogue world.
Your gut feeling (or your god given moral compass, as you conceive it) is the simplistic and animalistic response mechanism that for millennia kept savannah dwelling hunter gatherers safe. It is powerful because it controls some of the strongest electro chemical responses in the body like adrenaline (hence being a mental process that is felt in the gut). It is also demonstrably easy to fool and manipulate.
For example, if we are made aware of a particular threat regularly, our gut tells us that this threat is very likely and we become afraid of it. We also think something is riskier if it is notable than if it is prosaic. In the world of the hunter gatherer, these processing mechanism would have worked well to protect us from harm. But the modern media spends a hugely disproportionate time focussed on unusual threats â so we become very afraid of child abduction (risk: less than 1 in a million) but ignore the far higher risk caused by, say, speeding.
Your gut feeling is a miracle of nothing more than evolutionary pressure.
In your world, I guess this translates into labelling child abductors âevilâ while speeding culture is not even on the moral radar.
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Generosity is indeed a personality trait... in my opinion this is given to you by God and through no effort of your own did you acquire it. |
Still very depressing. Out of interest, how do you reconcile this with the concept of free will? |
First let me say I appreciate your answer. It is very thoughtful and sincere and I do not feel like my beliefs are being demeaned. I definitely understand why you see the world as you do. I respect your thoughts. While I agree there are areas that outwardly can be very gray in nature and many areas are disputable as to whether they are inside or outside of God's will on the face, it is motive that God judges even more so than the actual actions themselves. The Bible itself recognizes that those who outwardly appear moral are often not. That door swings both ways. That is why we are not to be the judge of a person as we do not have all the information necessary to make a right judgment as God does. There really is a black and white right or wrong but it is not always discernible by those of us that cannot see into a man's heart and know his motives and his thoughts. That is my belief.
Free will is easily reconciled to a person who has been given generosity as a personality trait. I can give you a brand new camera but I can't make you use it. It is up to you to decide you will take what has been given and do something with it. Maybe that's not a great example but I think you see what I am saying. (e.g. what if someone you were generous to turned around and hit you in the head and you decided that you would never be generous again because of the fear of being attacked.) You certainly do have free will to suppress the gifts that God has given you. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 11:49:41 PM · #562 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Correction: matter and energy still follow natural laws even in a singularity... |
As to my understanding, I think this is wrong. |
You actually believe that there are NO laws of physics at play in a singularity? Fascinating. So what holds the object together and keeps light from escaping... duct tape? morals? ;-) |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 12:02:41 AM · #563 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Correction: matter and energy still follow natural laws even in a singularity... |
As to my understanding, I think this is wrong. |
You actually believe that there are NO laws of physics at play in a singularity? Fascinating. So what holds the object together and keeps light from escaping... duct tape? morals? ;-) |
No, not quite that. I don't believe we know any of the laws that hold it together. All of the laws we know of break down (as far as I know, and this may include E=MC^2). Basically it's a whole new ballgame and we have no window to see within. By definition, however, we can say they aren't "natural laws" because we know those governing our universe now don't work then. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 12:26:32 AM · #564 |
| My understanding of the big bang is that it is a singularity where the theory of relativity breaks down, not natural laws themselves. That is, the "singularity" of the big bang (in the sense of a mathematical singularity) simply represents the point in the universe that the theory cannot address, and fails. We already know that the relativity is flawed, but that doesn't mean that natural laws cease to exist simply because our theorizing about them fails. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 12:46:48 AM · #565 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
By definition, however, we can say they aren't "natural laws" because we know those governing our universe now don't work then. |
Singularities don't exist in our universe? LOL
You're regurgitating an oversimplification. It's simply not true to say that ALL laws of physics break down at a singularity. The apparent "breakdown" occurs with numbers that can't be firmly defined (like infinity and limits of zero). At certain limits, new sets of laws must take over. Classical physics doesn't apply at subatomic scales, for example, because the infinitesimal distances and masses involved increase the role of forces that wouldn't be as important on larger scales. You have to switch to quantum mechanics: new rules for tiny masses in really close proximity, but rules nonetheless. Likewise, the regular laws of gravity would have to switch to quantum gravity & string theory in a singularity. We don't have a good understanding of that yet, but natural laws of some form must still apply or light would be free to escape, the gravitational pull of black holes would be arbitrary, and energy could poof into mallard ducks. Unless you think quarks can turn into quacks, then you tacitly acknowledge that there are still limits and natural laws involved in a singularity (even if we don't understand them):
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't believe we know any of the laws that hold it together. |
Message edited by author 2009-10-20 00:49:39. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 12:48:51 AM · #566 |
Originally posted by Louis:
My understanding of the big bang is that it is a singularity where the theory of relativity breaks down, not natural laws themselves. That is, the "singularity" of the big bang (in the sense of a mathematical singularity) simply represents the point in the universe that the theory cannot address, and fails. We already know that the relativity is flawed, but that doesn't mean that natural laws cease to exist simply because our theorizing about them fails. |
Well, I'm not sure. If gravity, according to relativity suddenly has a gravitational field measurement of "infinity", something is broken. Given that gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, I'd speculate (in my armchair physics mode) that "natural laws" would "cease to exist" in any recognizable form. Likewise, things like the strong force mean nothing when no nuclei exist (they've been ripped to shreds).
Perhaps a good compromise is to quote the wiki for Black Holes (under singularity). It might give the sense you are going after:
The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory.[41] This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum mechanical effects should describe these actions due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory. It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities.
So everything we currently know fails to work and we hope to have answers in the future. But at this point, frankly, that starts to sound scarily like some scientific version of faith. :)
So once again we're back to the point that everything we know points to a beginning known as a singularity. Beyond that we can know nothing, so to speculate that such a singularity need not be created is no better than to speculate that it does.
Message edited by author 2009-10-20 00:52:35. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 12:57:08 AM · #567 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities. |
Basically what that means is that there may be no such thing as infinityâ the matter in black holes is not compressed into a single point, but merely into a REALLY tiny space. That wouldn't surprise me at all since it's analogous to quantum mechanics: describing actions at a super tiny distances vs. just assuming classical physics works at zero scale. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 01:06:40 AM · #568 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So once again we're back to the point that everything we know points to a beginning known as a singularity. Beyond that we can know nothing, so to speculate that such a singularity need not be created is no better than to speculate that it does. |
That doesn't follow any logic whatsoever. Just because we don't know everything does not make speculation of magic equally valid to any other possibility, and requiring the existence of a creator for everything except itself merely dodges the question. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 01:27:39 AM · #569 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So once again we're back to the point that everything we know points to a beginning known as a singularity. Beyond that we can know nothing, so to speculate that such a singularity need not be created is no better than to speculate that it does. |
That doesn't follow any logic whatsoever. Just because we don't know everything does not make speculation of magic equally valid to any other possibility, and requiring the existence of a creator for everything except itself merely dodges the question. |
Here's where Bear's call of "hubris" comes into play Shannon. You are assuming your own view isn't "magic" when everything we currently know says it is. What is invoking a whole new set of laws and processes if not "magic"?
Message edited by author 2009-10-20 01:28:40. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 02:33:12 AM · #570 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So once again we're back to the point that everything we know points to a beginning known as a singularity. Beyond that we can know nothing, so to speculate that such a singularity need not be created is no better than to speculate that it does. |
That doesn't follow any logic whatsoever. Just because we don't know everything does not make speculation of magic equally valid to any other possibility, and requiring the existence of a creator for everything except itself merely dodges the question. |
Here's where Bear's call of "hubris" comes into play Shannon. You are assuming your own view isn't "magic" when everything we currently know says it is. What is invoking a whole new set of laws and processes if not "magic"? |
I disagree. If you took your statement back even a couple centuries it could be applied to thousands of instances that were inadequately understood. Was Pasteur full of hubris when he guessed there was something going on other than divine hatred making people sick? Just because the exact solution can't be fully explained currently doesn't mean it won't in the future. And even if the "laws" of a singularity are unable to be determined because we can't adequately replicate them to understand the situation fully does not mean there isn't an explanation. I find it far more ludicrous that you are saying exactly what the explanation for an unknown is before facts are known than  Scalvert's position that intricacies and peculiarities could be known.
ETA: Or more to the point, that specifics even exist!
Message edited by author 2009-10-20 07:14:52. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 06:43:46 AM · #571 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I am just blown away that any rational person could conceive that there is no God.
If you believe in science, you must believe and an order of the universe and thus a God. It's pretty simple. |
Except for that niggling little item......you cannot prove God's existence.
Therefore, on what rational level is the existence of God supported?
Your black and white approach also leaves out agnostics.....those that are willing to accept the possibility, but just cannot reconcile the idea without a glimmer of proof.
So......if you're the rational one with the answer, perhaps you could share the key to this problem of the ages. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 06:57:59 AM · #572 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
With all due respect I do not agree with you that I must accept the possibility that I am wrong in order to share this journey of life with those of different faiths. I do it everyday. Nor do I ask others to share my views but even if I did I would not think it unkind. At the most one should simply see me as misguided but well intentioned. I don't ask that others share my views or my beliefs or that they obtain the 'knowledge' of God that I have. I am merely pointing out that morality does not equate to laws or rules. There are many laws that protect immorality as a choice. I am merely pointing out that if the capacity for morality is built into us that someone must have 'built' us. These are my thoughts. Take them or leave them. |
Okay.......that's fine.
But don't you think it's strange at all that there are so many others who because they don't share your beliefs who by your understanding and faith will never achieve salvation?
Doesn't your own theory that the implanted morality could go so awry that more than half the population is doomed to burn in Hell seem at least to be sort of odd?
What about all those incredible humanists? Jews? Muslims? Are all the people through history, theoretically created by God destined to NOT achieve salvation because they don't meet your standards?
There's the fly in the ointment. Since I wasn't brought up to blindly believe the credo of one faith, and I do believe that there is inherent good in the human animal, what am I supposed to think about all you fervent people who believe that YOUR brand of answer is the only one?
How can so many be so wrong when their structure is fundamentally the same, yet allows no room for what each sect feels is misguided?
For me, there is no other choice than to entertain the possibility that whatever concept I have of God could be completely and totally wrong.
That doesn't make my faith any less, but it sure as heck ensures that I don't wander around spouting that I have the answer and am certain that you're not going to achieve salvation 'cause you don't do it my way.
I think faith is a thing of beauty; I find most religions to be obnoxious and arrogant.....and in some cases, terrifiying.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2009 07:02:30 AM · #573 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's where Bear's call of "hubris" comes into play Shannon. You are assuming your own view isn't "magic" when everything we currently know says it is. What is invoking a whole new set of laws and processes if not "magic"? |
To me, Shannon isn't claiming magic......merely that it's inexplicable.
He, like many of us, doesn't have to have an explanation for everything when it's obvious that over many years, the answer will most likely be discovered.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2009 09:15:55 AM · #574 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
That doesn't follow any logic whatsoever. Just because we don't know everything does not make speculation of magic equally valid to any other possibility, and requiring the existence of a creator for everything except itself merely dodges the question. |
Here's where Bear's call of "hubris" comes into play Shannon. You are assuming your own view isn't "magic" when everything we currently know says it is. What is invoking a whole new set of laws and processes if not "magic"? |
Everything we currently know SUPPORTS the idea that different physics come into play under extreme conditions (relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.). It's the polar opposite of magic: at every point in history, without exception, we have found that previously unknown processes (lightning, disease, comets, magnetism, earthquakes...) have logical, natural explanations, and it's not unreasonable to expect future discoveries to continue that trend. Not one single mystery has ever been solved with a supernatural explanation. Religion and superstition serve as convenient default "answers" for anything currently without a rational explanation (a pool that gets smaller every day)... and declaring a answer without supporting evidence is hubris indeed.
Ironically, the word "hubris" originally meant defiance of Greek gods. ;-) |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 09:20:55 AM · #575 |
Though I'm not sure of the author, this piece provides for some interesting conversations. It isn't always easy for persons of faith to consider (most I've encountered become quite defensive, regardless how it is presented.) Take a look:
---------------------------------------------------
Religion is a bit like a prison you grow up in. All the people in your prison tell you it's the best place to live and that the world outside is horrible and cruel. Some of the people will dare to look out a window from time to time and think about what they see outside. But nothing could ever convince them to step out the door because they know the prison is the best place to live. When others get a note through a window telling them to look outside for a moment, they yell back "Don't attack us! We know exactly what you want to show us! We know you want to convince us to leave! But we are staying!"
There are many such prisons and the people in them all behave similarly. They are all convinced that their prison is the best place to live and they would never leave it. They all believe certain (many of them mutually exclusive) things about the outside world and are absolutely sure that this information is correct. Most of them know that there are other people living in other prisons thinking that their prison is the best, but nobody ever much thinks about the fact that they simply chose their prison because they grew up there and that they do not know much about the other prisons or the outside world except for a few rumors.
Now I prefer to live outside the prisons. I visit some of them from time to time to discuss with the people there and to see their point of view. And sometimes I tell them about the outside world and encourage them to look out the window or maybe even go for a walk outside. They can always go back if they want to.
Some of them try to convince me to stay at their prison and never leave it. I don't find this proposition very appealing. I'm curious, I would like to continue to explore the world and be exposed to different ideas. And even if I considered living in a prison, how would I choose one? They are all similar, people in each of them are equally convinced that theirs is the best and their beliefs about the outside world are all different, but about equally weird and they do not correspond to what I've seen with my own eyes in the outside world. I ask some of the people in one prison why I shouldn't choose some other prison. Nobody was ever able to give me a convincing reason. They all say "You just have to try! Come and live with us forever and you'll feel it's the best place to be!" But again, this claim is the same everywhere and I can't try all of the prisons forever. So I'll keep visiting, but I'll spend most of my time in the outside world. And sometimes I throw a note inside one of the windows of a prison to encourage people in there to have a look outside.
----------------------------------------------------
Would anyone like to share their thoughts on this?
side note - Louis' contribution to the discussion is yet another "unexpected religious conversation", given that his appearance wasn't, um... expected.
|
|
