Heaven - A Fool's Paradise - DPChallenge Forums

04/26/2010 07:46:52 PM · #101

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon, did you not just read the quotes I posted?

The ones from a decade before evidence of the Cosmic Background Radiation even confirmed the Big Bang theory? Sure, and I'll bet you can find quotes declaring the absurdity of a spherical earth, germ theory, heliocentricity, or any other scientific breakthrough. We've moved beyond mere speculation since then, and by the 1970's nearly all cosmologists agreed with the hot big bang model. With multiple, independent lines of evidence, there is now overwhelming consensus regarding the theory. Got any quotes from THIS century?

That makes no sense. I'm not building a case against the Big Bang. I'm talking about how the Big Bang was viewed in a philosophical sense while it was being formulated by the very people who were formulating it. What does CMBR have to do with that? I think it is a theory that very well describes the empirical evidence (including the CMBR), but in a philosophical sense, it is a blow to Materialism for the reasons stated above.

04/26/2010 08:15:45 PM · #102

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm talking about how the Big Bang was viewed in a philosophical sense while it was being formulated by the very people who were formulating it.

Plenty of people have had reservations about the implications of their discoveries. That doesn't mean the concerns have any merit.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

in a philosophical sense, it is a blow to Materialism for the reasons stated above.

What blow? If you mean the model cannot be explained through natural processes, you're committing an Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy: I personally cannot imagine a natural sequence of events whereby X could have come about. Therefore, it must have come about by supernatural means. I have already explained that the same laws of physics likely still apply (and why).

04/26/2010 09:19:23 PM · #103

Go read my post again. You aren't talking to me at all, just saying stuff that doesn't have anything to do with anything.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/26/2010 10:08:49 PM · #104

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Go read my post again. You aren't talking to me at all, just saying stuff that doesn't have anything to do with anything.

Yeah I read it, and I've addressed each and every one of your points. Maybe if you had "bothered to read Shannon's diatribe," you'd notice:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

my point was David wondered about some future mathematical discovery that proved a Supreme Being. I am pointing out that something along those lines has already been had (although the Big Bang model obviously does not "prove" God exists).

Originally posted by scalvert:

Prove? It doesn't even suggest such a thing. Inserting a god as the creator of the universe does nothing to resolve the question of where everything came from. It only moves the goalposts back a step.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Materialism, as a stand-in for the general western atheist's creed (is creedo a word?), took a body blow with the Big Bang. Nothing fatal, of course, but truthfully it has caused problems. Materialism is, by far, at its strongest in a universe that is eternal with the same laws governing it throughout.

Originally posted by scalvert:

What blow? If you mean the model cannot be explained through natural processes, you're committing an Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy: I personally cannot imagine a natural sequence of events whereby X could have come about. Therefore, it must have come about by supernatural means. I have already explained that the same laws of physics likely still apply (and why).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Our universe, as we understand, has a beginning (a point where t=0 (t is time)) and is likely to have an end (at least a heat death). The laws that govern it do not seem to hold for all time. Take the inflationary period or whatever is "before" the Big Bang. It appears different laws govern these periods and the question becomes why? What laws govern the laws?

Originally posted by scalvert:

Because spacetime originates at the Big Bang, it makes no more sense to ask what came before than to ask what's north of the North Pole. It would be perfectly reasonable for the laws governing such an extreme state to be consistent with rational physics, even if they're completely foreign from what we normally experience. You could just as easily ask why different laws apply at the quantum level vs. classical physics, but the explanation (different forces become important at these scales) doesn't involve magic or superstition. Extremes of speed, size, density, temperature, etc. always result in unusual properties, and the Big Bang represents an extreme of all of these extremes.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/26/2010 11:00:24 PM · #105

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Because spacetime originates at the Big Bang, it makes no more sense to ask what came before than to ask what's north of the North Pole.

Let me see if I have this one right: the Doc says "It appears different laws govern these periods and the question becomes why? What laws govern the laws?". And you answer, basically, that it makes no sense to ask the question because we have no way of knowing the answer. And you don't see the problem with this? C'mon... It's a legitimate question, even if it, somewhat inconveniently, is one you can't answer.

R.

Message edited by author 2010-04-26 23:01:33.

04/26/2010 11:31:55 PM · #106

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

No, you don't have this one right. I said it makes no sense to ask what came before the Big Bang because there is no beforeâ�� spacetime begins at that point, just like north begins at the North Pole. As a self-defining point, it makes no more sense to ask what came before time than to ask what's north of the North Pole. The problem lies with the question. In essence, "What came before the beginning," rules out the possibility of an answer because anything before the beginning makes it NOT the beginning. Figure that one out!

The issue of what laws govern extreme events is a separate matter (and the inflationary period occurred an instant after the Big Bang). Jason correctly suggests that normal physics break down at that point, however that doesn't mean the physics cease to be natural. I gave the example of quantum physics: the "classical" laws of physics break down at subatomic levels because other forces become important at these scales and quantum physics takes over (that's the "why"). Both are still natural, and no door to superstition is opened. Likewise, "normal" physics can break down in black holes, at absolute zero or insanely hot temperatures, at relativistic speeds, and so onâ�� ALL of which apply to the Big Bang. There's no reason to speculate that the physics involved in these extreme conditions suddenly become supernatural for the first time.

04/27/2010 12:01:01 AM · #107

Here's what I am saying Shannon.

Materialism as a formal philosophy has existed for about four hundred years (although the idea may have been around longer). For 300-350 of those years the people who thought about Cosmology (although it was by no means a formal science) thought about the Universe as an eternal, overall unchanging place. Every state was dependent on the state before. The simplest way to think about this is the Newtonian Universe where every molecule is a billard ball colliding with other billard balls according to unchanging natural laws.* This chain of event went back forever as the Universe was eternal. All events had a cause.

In the last 50-70 years Cosmology has changed and now we believe in a Universe that has a moment which does not depend on the state before it. That moment is denoted as t=0. As you say, "before" doesn't make sense. The chain is ended. Materialism, as a philosophy, is wounded by this. We now have to contend with two sets of events. All events which have a cause, and the one event which does not. Can you agree that this is not as comforting as being able to put all events into one single category? I'm not speaking about any other philosophy now, just Materialism.

* At the same time we were introducted to Relativity we had Quantum Mechanics which makes Newton's Universe a bit more complicated. Uncertainty is introduced and so every state is possibly not quite as dependent on the state before, but it is still dependent to a large extent (plus whatever uncertainty is introduced). It is, of course, possible we just do not understand the laws that govern that uncertainty in which case we would then return to a Newtonian Universe with more complicated laws.

04/27/2010 12:58:46 AM · #108

I understand where you're trying to go, but you're grasping at straws here by taking theories beyond their scope. Materialism only states that everything that exists is composed of matter (and interchangeably energy) that follows natural laws. As a description of the existing universe, it is unaffected by whatever may be imagined outside of existence. Similarly, the Big Bang model is a description of the rapid expansion and subsequent events from an earlier hot, dense state. It makes no predictions about the nature of that state or anything "before," so those issues lie outside the scope of the theory. As another example, the theory of evolution describes the process of selective adaptation over time, and it remains valid whether the initial trigger for life is known or not (it's the origin of species, not the origin of life). Germ theory is not "wounded" by failure to explain the origin of germs, either.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/27/2010 01:35:37 AM · #109

Originally posted by scalvert:

Can you tell me have the above jives with your statement below?

Originally posted by Scalvert, the wise:

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, yet God is claimed to have created matter: the intrinsically impossible.

Wouldn't most people assume that God created the matter "before" the Big Bang or when the Universe didn't exist? Since the First Law of Thermodynamics is "unaffected by whatever may be imagined outside of existence", how would it be "intrinsically impossible" for God to be the cause for the Big Bang? I'm asking because I don't get it and you said it. I need an explanation.

You can't have it both ways...

Message edited by author 2010-04-27 01:36:21.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

04/27/2010 06:40:49 AM · #110

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Okay......let's continue down that path.

Where did God come from?

If the universe had to come from something, so did God, right?

Message edited by author 2010-04-27 07:04:05.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

04/27/2010 07:12:04 AM · #111

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Not a good idea to second guess what 'most people think'.

The impossibility of the creation of matter is intrinsic to the opening statement of the same sentence: "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed..." Apparently you consider the very existence of matter to disprove that, which makes some sort of sense, but the questions then of what the nature of the creative event that is circumstantially indicated is, or whether an independent agent is necessary to perform it, remain moot.

04/27/2010 10:11:14 AM · #112

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wouldn't most people assume that God created the matter "before" the Big Bang or when the Universe didn't exist? Since the First Law of Thermodynamics is "unaffected by whatever may be imagined outside of existence", how would it be "intrinsically impossible" for God to be the cause for the Big Bang? I'm asking because I don't get it and you said it. I need an explanation.

Okay......let's continue down that path.

Where did God come from?

If the universe had to come from something, so did God, right?

I'm not a Materialist, so I have no problem with a Prime Mover; an uncaused cause.

04/27/2010 10:13:58 AM · #113

Originally posted by raish:

The impossibility of the creation of matter is intrinsic to the opening statement of the same sentence: "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed..." Apparently you consider the very existence of matter to disprove that, which makes some sort of sense, but the questions then of what the nature of the creative event that is circumstantially indicated is, or whether an independent agent is necessary to perform it, remain moot.

Really my objective was even lower than that. I was pointing out that even if we considered the term "intrinsically impossible" to not mean what was meant ("logically impossible"), the First Law of Thermodynamics only holds sway after the Big Bang which, one would assume, wouldn't include creation ex nihilo when t=0.

04/27/2010 10:39:04 AM · #114

Originally posted by scalvert:

Materialism only states that everything that exists is composed of matter (and interchangeably energy) that follows natural laws. As a description of the existing universe, it is unaffected by whatever may be imagined outside of existence.

Originally posted by DrAchoo, the dense (is this really necessary?):

Can you tell me have the above jives with your statement below?

Originally posted by Scalvert, the wise:

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, yet God is claimed to have created matter: the intrinsically impossible.

Despite what I JUST wrote, you insist on faulting materialism for not explaining the origin of the universe when it doesn't claim to do so. The Big Bang model begins at a fraction of a microsecond after T=0. There is no well-supported model describing the action prior to that. However, there's no reason that natural laws can't still apply and that matter/energy can't still have existed. For example, let's say you managed to get a spaceship moving at the speed of light. At that point, time would stop for an outside observer (there's your T=0). Note that time hasn't begun from our POV, but the matter/energy didn't cease to exist, it's just moving very fast. Now the initial inflation of the Big Bang does indeed involve relativistic speeds, and while it would require an infinite amount of energy for all that matter/energy to reach the speed of light, it doesn't actually have to get there. Even as the mass approaches the speed of light, what happens from our perspective? E = mcÂ²/√(1-vÂ²/cÂ²... it appears to have infinite mass, zero size, and time stopsâ�� sound familiar?

Originally posted by scalvert:

As shown above, matter/energy could have existed "before" the Big Bang, but let's look at it from an "intelligent design" perspective and see how that works out... The assumption of ID is that the universe is too complex to have formed without a creator (we'll set aside for a moment that irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.) The idea is that everything complex must have a creator, but there's no free ride: everything created is also made from raw materials. A god that fashions man from dust and woman from a rib faces the same impossibility of creating something from nothing that's causing you angst above. YOU can't have it both ways!

04/27/2010 11:06:05 AM · #115

How does energy exist without motion? How does one have motion without time? If we ignore that and imagine some suspended animation singularity that exists outside time, what condition triggers it off? How does it work to have a law governing matter and energy exist outside time? It makes zero sense and I'm amused how you are quite willing to imagine these logical conundrums yet you still think it would be "intrinsically impossible" for God to create the energy.

I'm not faulting Materialism as much as the people who claim it explains everything (and we've seen that TONS over the years on these threads). Fine, did you just say that Materialism does not describe the origin of the Universe (t=0)? I'll take that admission any day of the week.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/27/2010 11:33:55 AM · #116

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Who said there was no motion? The Big Bang involves unparalleled velocities, and relativity can make it look like time stops from our perspective. At the speed of light (very rapid motion), time stops for an outside observer. As for the trigger, quantum fluctuations of spacetime arising from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle are suspect.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm not faulting Materialism as much as the people who claim it explains everything (and we've seen that TONS over the years on these threads).

Materialism explains the universe as products of matter and energy. It stakes no claim to the origin. Evolution explains how one species becomes another over time, and engaging in a little happy dance that it fails to explain the origin of life would be similarly misplaced.

Louis

Nikon D800

04/27/2010 11:36:56 AM · #117

Originally posted by scalvert:

I said it makes no sense to ask what came before the Big Bang because there is no beforeâ�� spacetime begins at that point, just like north begins at the North Pole. As a self-defining point, it makes no more sense to ask what came before time than to ask what's north of the North Pole. The problem lies with the question. In essence, "What came before the beginning," rules out the possibility of an answer because anything before the beginning makes it NOT the beginning.

Originally posted by scalvert:

These really are great posts, and I don't see how anything you've put forward, Jason, can resist their simplicity.

04/27/2010 12:14:11 PM · #118

Originally posted by Louis:

These really are great posts, and I don't see how anything you've put forward, Jason, can resist their simplicity.

They are nice posts, I agree. If we could only keep all other posts within their constraints, then we'd have lots less argument. Look at Shannon's point above, he's already trying to weasel his way to implying there was motion "before" the Big Bang:

Shannon: As shown above, matter/energy could have existed "before" the Big Bang...
Jason: How does energy exist without motion? and motion without time?
Shannon: Who said there was no motion?

Do you see how it's like nailing Jell-O to a wall? He tries to get out of it by saying that time is frozen to an external observer, but this is a fallacy because there IS no external observer (as he's pointed out correctly to others the singularity does not exist IN anything). That external observer is as crazy as his "north of north" question. The second fallacy is that the t we speak of is the same t we have now. Currently that t equals 13.5 billion years (give or take). At that state t=0. It doesn't matter if things are travelling at the speed of light or not because the "things" are the very substance that we are made out of. There is no Subject A travelling near the speed of light being observed by Subject B. The Big Bang encompassed the entire Universe so it is Subject A and we are also Subject A.

If t=0 there is no time. If there is no time there is no motion. If there is no motion there is no energy. That is your simplified argument right there.

04/27/2010 12:31:05 PM · #119

For those reading, do this little thought experiment:

Imagine our Universe as it is today and then remove time. In other words, freeze it. Utterly. All molecules have a temperature of absolute zero. Nothing moves. Quantum particles do not pop in and out of existence. Time does not progress.

Questions to ask:

1) Does this frozen Universe have energy?
2) Is there any motion when time is frozen?
3) What mechanism could the Universe use to "unfreeze" itself?

This scenario represents t=0. Of course the Universe looks very different. No molecules, no dimensionality, etc. but the important thing is the same. Time does not exist.

Who wants to answer questions 1-3?

Message edited by author 2010-04-27 12:32:08.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/27/2010 12:45:41 PM · #120

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

He tries to get out of it by saying that time is frozen to an external observer, but this is a fallacy because there IS no external observer (as he's pointed out correctly to others the singularity does not exist IN anything). That external observer is as crazy as his "north of north" question.

Relativity specifies what happens from the point of view of an external observer (not that there must be one). That said, we sort of ARE external observers as a quirk of the speed of light and distances involved: looking at an object 10 billion light years away is the same as if we were standing here watching it happen 10 billion years ago. Gamma ray bursts have been observed to within 4% of the age of the universe, and the Cosmic Microwave Background has a redshift of more than 1,000, corresponding to an age of approximately 379,000 years after the Big Bang. Ionization prevents observations further back than that, but if the universe were not opaque during this period, an external observer would see time stop at the point of inflation due to relativity (even though the expansion itself represents energy in extremely rapid motion).

I'll make it simple for you: let's say the Axiom of Wall-E hypothetically engages hyperdrive from earth orbit and cruises around near the speed of light for 500 years before returning. Tens of generations would have elapsed on board the ship, but it would return to earth within seconds of leaving because time stopped from the point of view of earth. T=0 from here because OUR motion stops relative to the ship.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

04/27/2010 01:07:51 PM · #121

Just want to interject a few corrections to this otherwise great conversation:

Shannon, you've got you're relativity time-dilation backwards. The folks on Earth would go through several generations while those on the Axiom would seem to age much slower. See //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox.

Jason, energy does not require motion. See Potential Energy. I believe that the current thinking is that the state prior to the big bang involved energy stored in either the strong or weak force (don't remember which at the moment).

Carry on...

Message edited by author 2010-04-27 13:08:05.

04/27/2010 01:12:10 PM · #122

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He tries to get out of it by saying that time is frozen to an external observer, but this is a fallacy because there IS no external observer (as he's pointed out correctly to others the singularity does not exist IN anything). That external observer is as crazy as his "north of north" question.

Relativity specifies what happens from the point of view of an external observer (not that there must be one). That said, we sort of ARE external observers as a quirk of the speed of light and distances involved: looking at an object 10 billion light years away is the same as if we were standing here watching it happen 10 billion years ago. Gamma ray bursts have been observed to within 4% of the age of the universe, and the Cosmic Microwave Background has a redshift of more than 1,000, corresponding to an age of approximately 379,000 years after the Big Bang. Ionization prevents observations further back than that, but if the universe were not opaque during this period, an external observer would see time stop at the point of inflation due to relativity (even though the expansion itself represents energy in extremely rapid motion).

I'll make it simple for you: let's say the Axiom of Wall-E hypothetically engages hyperdrive from earth orbit and cruises around near the speed of light for 500 years before returning. Tens of generations would have elapsed on board the ship, but it would return to earth within seconds of leaving because time stopped from the point of view of earth. T=0 from here because OUR motion stops relative to the ship.

I understand how relativity works Shannon, I just disagree that it applies. First, in my mind you cannot postulate an external observer where there cannot be one. Relativity works because of the properties of spacetime. If you postulate that one of the observers is outside spacetime (which you are doing) then in my view all bets are off. Second, the t=0 problem is mathematical and not an experimental observation. All your experimental citations don't matter at all. Third, galaxies are not moving away from us at nearly the speed of light in a real sense of speed, but mainly because of the expansion of the universe. This is different. If it wasn't then inflation would violate the fact nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

04/27/2010 01:12:38 PM · #123

Originally posted by eqsite:

Shannon, you've got you're relativity time-dilation backwards. The folks on Earth would go through several generations while those on the Axiom would seem to age much slower.

Yeah, you're right. I have a hard time keeping those straight. However, for the purpose of the conversation the point remains that time and motion are experienced normally for both parties. It's only from a relative perspective that T=0.