Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?

[JimL]

The evidence is in the BVG Theory, which is based on the existence of the Zero-state field and quantum tunneling for which there is no direct evidence that these exist. If you reject this evidence, you reject both Craig's and your argument based on an unethical selective use of evidence for the beginning of the universe from the field which you claim there is no evidence for its existence..

There is definitely evidence that they could be eternal and infinite. You simly have to read the references for which you are apparently clueless on the subject. What is lacking is any theory nor hypothesis that would demonstrate that they could not.

Again, your arguing for an 'appeal to ignorance' in your argument, which does not work, unless you can present a coherent argument for this claim.

I'm wondering Shunya, can you define for me what exactly a field is in and of itself? If as you have defined it, if there is what you call a zero state field in an otherwise empty space, or in other words, if a zero state field is all that exists, how exacly would you define that field. What is it?

[seer]

Oh you pretty much denied that scalar fields exists. Let me quote you back "Shuny, there is absolutely zero evidence for scalar fields in the first place, and there certainly is not any evidence that said fields were eternal into the past." I can also add the pion field that mediates the strong force between nuclei.

No Leonhard, I know what I meant and I was not denying that such fields could or did in this present universe, I was answering Shuny's claim: All the evidence at present, indicates that the zero-state field is possibly infinite in time and space. I was denying that there is any evidence that these fields first, existed before this universe and if they did that they were eternal into the past.

[seer]

The evidence is in the BVG Theory, which is based on the existence of the Zero-state field and quantum tunneling for which there is no direct evidence that these exist. If you reject this evidence, you reject both Craig's and your argument based on an unethical selective use of evidence for the beginning of the universe from the field which you claim there is no evidence for its existence..

There is definitely evidence that they could be eternal and infinite. You simly have to read the references for which you are apparently clueless on the subject. What is lacking is any theory nor hypothesis that would demonstrate that they could not.

This is nuts Shuny. There is clear evidence for the Big Bang theory, observable evidence. Like an expanding universe and red shift. There is zero evidence that the big bang came out of a zero-state field via quantum tunneling. And there certainly is no evidence that a such field is eternal into the past.

Again, your arguing for an 'appeal to ignorance' in your argument, which does not work, unless you can present a coherent argument for this claim.

No Shuny, you are making the claim for a eternal physical existence.

And you did not answer this:

And Shuny, since you read his book perhaps would you care to tell us if you agree with this quote from p. 117

In the worldview that has emerged from eternal inflation, our Earth and our civilization are anything but unique. Instead, countless identical civilizations are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. With humankind reduced to absolute cosmic insignificance, our descent from the center of the universe is now complete.

So there are countless copies of me out there and countless copies of you?

[shunyadragon]

I'm wondering Shunya, can you define for me what exactly a field is in and of itself? If as you have defined it, if there is what you call a zero state field in an otherwise empty space, or in other words, if a zero state field is all that exists, how exacly would you define that field. What is it?

Zero-state field is the lowest possible energy state region with the temperature at absolute zero. It is sometimes called the vacuum, but is misunderstood as being empty or absolutely nothing, though at times referred to as 'nothing.' No distinct energy or matter particles exist at this point, all is theoretically at zero-state. Quantum particles have been observed as arising from what may be called close to zero-state field, but I do not believe we have reached absolute zero experimentally. Apparently it is believed that this state is not totally stable. According to the BVG theory universes arise from this state through Quantum tunneling, and not from singularities, which has fallen out of favor, because of theoretical contradictions.

Even though we have observed states close to zero-state, the formation of universes from a zero-state field remains based on indirect evidence and not observed evidence. It is called the BVG theory, and is probably the best theory we have at present. It was picked up by apologists like Craig, because they misunderstood what the theory meant by the description of the universe arising from 'nothing,' or expanding from a beginning in 'nothing,' which is not what the theory proposes.

[shunyadragon]

This is nuts Shuny. There is clear evidence for the Big Bang theory, observable evidence. Like an expanding universe and red shift.

No, the observations of the red shift, indicate the universe is expanding. It has not been directly observed as to what it is expanding from. There are a number of theories over the years that proposed what the early state of the universe actually was like or what happened, but no there is nothing observed directly that can be used to explain the first moments of the universe. The saying 'Big Bang theory' is misleading, because there is not just one theory. There are a number of different theories that have come and gone out of favor, but all are based on 'indirect evidence' concerning what happened. It just at present the BVG theory is one of the best explanations we have at present.

There is zero evidence that the big bang came out of a zero-state field via quantum tunneling.

This what the BVG theory describes that Craig claims as supports the universe has a beginning. That is the main problem, Craig, other apologists, and you are totally clueless as to the academic knowledge required to simply understand the basics as what the theory actually claims.

And there certainly is no evidence that a such field is eternal into the past.

Arguing from 'appealing to ignorance,' and an ignorance of the basics of math, physics and cosmology does not help your case.

No Shuny, you are making the claim for a eternal physical existence.

Yes, I am based on the evidence and the consensus of how most cosmologists understand the evidence. You are simply making a false illogical argument based on an 'appeal to ignorance' in a subject you are voluntarily clueless to understand.

By the way, what are your qualifications to make such judgments? So far you have been clueless to understand the simple basics of the BVG theory.

[JimL]

Zero-state field is the lowest possible energy state region with the temperature at absolute zero. It is sometimes called the vacuum, but is misunderstood as being empty or absolutely nothing, though at times referred to as 'nothing.' No distinct energy or matter particles exist at this point, all is theoretically at zero-state. Quantum particles have been observed as arising from what may be called close to zero-state field, but I do not believe we have reached absolute zero experimentally. Apparently it is believed that this state is not totally stable. According to the BVG theory universes arise from this state through Quantum tunneling, and not from singularities, which has fallen out of favor, because of theoretical contradictions.

Even though we have observed states close to zero-state, the formation of universes from a zero-state field remains based on indirect evidence and not observed evidence. It is called the BVG theory, and is probably the best theory we have at present. It was picked up by apologists like Craig, because they misunderstood what the theory meant by the description of the universe arising from 'nothing,' or expanding from a beginning in 'nothing,' which is not what the theory proposes.

Okay, but, you seem to be defining one thing, i.e. a zero state field, or to simplify it, lets just say a field, by giving it another name, i.e. energy. So how would you define energy in and of itself, in an otherwise empty space. What is it?

[seer]

This what the BVG theory describes that Craig claims as supports the universe has a beginning. That is the main problem, Craig, other apologists, and you are totally clueless as to the academic knowledge required to simply understand the basics as what the theory actually claims.

First that is nonsense, I'm willing to bet that Craig understands this way better than you Shuny. Second, even if the universe rose out of such a quantum field it doesn't mean that said field is eternal. This is pure speculation. And Shuny what makes you think that there is a natural explaination for the universe as opposed to a supra-natural explaination?

But here is Craig's take on it, tell me what he got wrong:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5741

Yes, I am based on the evidence and the consensus of how most cosmologists understand the evidence. You are simply making a false illogical argument based on an 'appeal to ignorance' in a subject you are voluntarily clueless to understand.

Really Shuny, I thought the BVG theory was held by a minority of cosmologists? Are you saying that a majority of cosmologists hold to this theory? Do you have evidence for this?

By the way, what are your qualifications to make such judgments? So far you have been clueless to understand the simple basics of the BVG theory.

What is your qualification Shuny? You read a book? Is this your field of study? Are you a cosmologist?


And Shuny, you KEEP AVOIDING THIS QUESTION.Vilenkin claims in his book is that he theory leads to this:

In the worldview that has emerged from eternal inflation, our Earth and our civilization are anything but unique. Instead, countless identical civilizations are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. With humankind reduced to absolute cosmic insignificance, our descent from the center of the universe is now complete.

So there are countless copies of me out there and countless copies of you?

[magellan004]

First that is nonsense, I'm willing to bet that Craig understands this way better than you Shuny. Second, even if the universe rose out of such a quantum field it doesn't mean that said field is eternal. This is pure speculation. And Shuny what makes you think that there is a natural explaination for the universe as opposed to a supra-natural explaination?

But here is Craig's take on it, tell me what he got wrong:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5741



Really Shuny, I thought the BVG theory was held by a minority of cosmologists? Are you saying that a majority of cosmologists hold to this theory? Do you have evidence for this?



What is your qualification Shuny? You read a book? Is this your field of study? Are you a cosmologist?


And Shuny, you KEEP AVOIDING THIS QUESTION.Vilenkin claims in his book is that he theory leads to this:

In the worldview that has emerged from eternal inflation, our Earth and our civilization are anything but unique. Instead, countless identical civilizations are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. With humankind reduced to absolute cosmic insignificance, our descent from the center of the universe is now complete.

So there are countless copies of me out there and countless copies of you?

It's the classical time-traveller question: If there are multiple universes why haven't we seen them yet? If there are multiple instances of 'this' then why haven't they already appeared at the beginning of this? How come our awareness coincides so perfectly with what is out there?

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

Okay, but, you seem to be defining one thing, i.e. a zero state field, or to simplify it, lets just say a field, by giving it another name, i.e. energy. So how would you define energy in and of itself, in an otherwise empty space. What is it?

I would not call it energy. When it gets to absolute zero consider everything frozen. There is no energy nor particles of matter. It would be the lowest possible energy state, called zero state. It is a region of 'no geometry.

[shunyadragon]

First that is nonsense, I'm willing to bet that Craig understands this way better than you Shuny. Second, even if the universe rose out of such a quantum field it doesn't mean that said field is eternal. This is pure speculation. And Shuny what makes you think that there is a natural explaination for the universe as opposed to a supra-natural explaination?

But here is Craig's take on it, tell me what he got wrong:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5741

A number of things. His IF statements should be highly qualified that he uses to reach his conclusions, such as the following. . .

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5741

Wholly apart from its speculative nature, however, the multiverse hypothesis faces a potentially lethal problem, which Vilenkin doesn’t even mention. Simply stated, if our universe is but one member of an infinite collection of randomly varying universes, then it’s overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe.

© source where applicable

I highlighted the IF above, because it is a matter of fact we do not come even close to knowing that we are one member of an infinite collection of randomly varying universes, and at present it is not a view widely held by cosmologists. In reality all we can know by the evidence is that this is the universe we have, and not that it should be something else.

No, Craig does not necessarily know more about cosmology than me. Relying on the statement above brings his conclusions seriously to question.

Really Shuny, I thought the BVG theory was held by a minority of cosmologists? Are you saying that a majority of cosmologists hold to this theory? Do you have evidence for this?

You think too much, no BVG is widely but not universally accepted. I said it is one of the best models we have at present. Do your own homework. I do not spoon feed.

What is your qualification Shuny? You read a book? Is this your field of study? Are you a cosmologist?

Apparently much better than yours. I have a masters in science with the basic math and science understand what is going on. I do not attempt to make the absolute conclusions you do. I rely on physicists and cosmologists. I read lots of books, and have a considerable library next ot my computer.

AGAIN, what is your qualifications to make the absolute statements you are making.

And Shuny, you KEEP AVOIDING THIS QUESTION.Vilenkin claims in his book is that he theory leads to this:

In the worldview that has emerged from eternal inflation, our Earth and our civilization are anything but unique. Instead, countless identical civilizations are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. With humankind reduced to absolute cosmic insignificance, our descent from the center of the universe is now complete.

So there are countless copies of me out there and countless copies of you?

Possibly, but not likely. I do not think this an absolute statement as to what a multiverse existence would actually be like.This is too much of a IF hypothetical statement of one scenario of multiverses which I question. I am more inclined to consider something in between Craig's IF there is an infinite number of random universes, and the IF possibility that they are all the same.

Math wise, the chaos model would probably determine that 'all universes would look like universes, but no two would be exactly alike,' just as with snow flakes, 'all snow flakes would look like snow flakes, but no two snow flakes would ever be exactly alike,'

the chaos theory is an important concept to understand. Not much outside Quantum behavior could be considered 'random.' Even quantum behavior follows clearly predicable patterns even though individual events are not predictable, nor do they have a predicable pattern.

[seer]

Even though we have observed states close to zero-state, the formation of universes from a zero-state field remains based on indirect evidence and not observed evidence. It is called the BVG theory, and is probably the best theory we have at present. It was picked up by apologists like Craig, because they misunderstood what the theory meant by the description of the universe arising from 'nothing,' or expanding from a beginning in 'nothing,' which is not what the theory proposes.

This is just false Shuny, talk about clueless. Craig only uses that term because Vilenkin did. Craig has, a number of times, explained:

Vilenkin's whole multiverse scenario depends, it will be recalled, on the hypothesis of eternal inflation, which in turn is based upon the existence of certain primordial scalar fields which govern inflation. Although Vilenkin observes that "Inflation is eternal in practically all models suggested so far" (p. 214), he also admits, "Another important question is whether or not such scalar fields really exist in nature. Unfortunately, we don't know. There is no direct evidence for their existence" (p. 61). One would have thought that this lack of evidence would have tempered the confidence with which Vilenkin promotes the multiverse hypothesis.

So Craig has pointed to the fact that Vilenkin's theory does depend on the universe rising from these primordial scalar fields.

[seer]

No, Craig does not necessarily know more about cosmology than me. Relying on the statement above brings this seriously to question.

Of course he does, have you ever published in a peer review journal in this field? He has, here is one example.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j66361146539wh38/

You think too much, no BVG is widely but not universally accepted. I said it is one of the best models we have at present. Do your own homework. I do not spoon feed.

I asked you if it was a majority view. Obviously not. If it really is one of the best theories out there why don't more accept it?

Apparently much better than yours. I have a masters in science with the basic math and science understand what is going on. I do not attempt to make the absolute conclusions you do. I rely on physicists and cosmologists. I read lots of books, and have a considerable library next ot my computer.

So this is not your field of study. You are a layman. Thanks...

AGAIN, what is your qualifications to make the absolute statements you are making.

Same as yours - I read a lot.

Possibly, but not likely. I do not think this an absolute statement as to what a multiverse existence would actually be like.This is too much of a IF hypothetical statement of one scenario of multiverses which I question. I am more inclined to consider something in between Craig's IF there is an infinite number of random universes, and the IF possibility that they are all the same.

But Vilenkin said that is what his theory would predict! So you believe him elsewhere but not here?

[Leonhard]

No Leonhard, I know what I meant

But we don't Seer. You can't expect us to be psychic. The general procedure for when other people have misunderstood something one has written is to acknowledge the one has made a mistake (which you haven't), and then explain what was meant by it. This is better than just blaming people for not reading you correctly. A frank reading of what you wrote would be that you denied that scalar fields exists. Its not my mistake that you wrote this Seer. Blaming me just makes it look like you were caught red handed, and decided to post hoc change your statement.

[seer]

But we don't Seer. You can't expect us to be psychic. The general procedure for when other people have misunderstood something one has written is to acknowledge the one has made a mistake (which you haven't), and then explain what was meant by it. This is better than just blaming people for not reading you correctly. A frank reading of what you wrote would be that you denied that scalar fields exists. Its not my mistake that you wrote this Seer. Blaming me just makes it look like you were caught red handed, and decided to post hoc change your statement.

No Leonhard, I can see why you misunderstood my point. It could have been worded differently. And I'm not blaming you, but after I explained the first time you still came back at me. I have no problem with scalar fields existing, it makes no difference to me either way. I showed you the point I was responding to with Shuny, and that had to do with the preexistence of these fields. If one claims that they existed before this universe came into being (since they are a feature of this universe) and that they were eternal into the past then I would question the rational.

[shunyadragon]

Of course he does, have you ever published in a peer review journal in this field? He has, here is one example.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j66361146539wh38/

False, this an article based on the philosophical aspects, and absolutely nothing to with competence in scientific or math of the field of cosmology

I asked you if it was a majority view. Obviously not. If it really is one of the best theories out there why don't more accept it?

More? there are a number of theories out there, I believe it is the most widely accepted. What's the problem. Craig cites it dishonestly and does not understand it. That is enough for me.

So this is not your field of study. You are a layman. Thanks...



Same as yours - I read a lot.

I doubt. I question how you can make so many absolute judgments on the conclusions of our cosmos and you are clueless on the evidence, quote mine sources unethically. I do not make such judgments as you. You are apparently clueless on the nature of infinities.

But Vilenkin said that is what his theory would predict! So you believe him elsewhere but not here?

No I believe he viewed as one of the possible predictions. I do not necessarily disagree with him, but prefer to describe a range of possibilities as I have done.