The Things That Men Are Willing To Believe....

[seer]

To deny a Creator...

According to Discover Magazine: Vilenkin is one of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists. He has made seminal contributions to the theory of cosmological inflation.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co...worlds-in-one/

Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One:

A striking consequence of the new picture of the world is that there should be an infinity of regions with histories absolutely identical to ours. Yes, dear reader, scores of your duplicates are now holding copies of this book. They live on planets exactly like our Earth, with all its mountains, cities, trees, and butterflies. The earths revolve around perfect copies of our Sun, and each sun belongs to a grand spiral galaxy – an exact replica of our Milky Way. pg 112

So, according to one of the world's leading theoretical cosmologists and his eternal inflation theory we should expect to have and infinite of number copies of myself out there an infinite number of copies of you out there, all doing the same thing - and theism is irrational?

[robertb]

To deny a Creator...

It may help you to enter these discussions without presupposing motive, as it seems to me that this is just poisoning the well.

Perhaps if you simply asked something like, "What is the nature of the evidence being presented to support to such and such a conclusion?", an interesting dialog might occur.

[seer]

It may help you to enter these discussions without presupposing motive, as it seems to me that this is just poisoning the well.

Perhaps if you simply asked something like, "What is the nature of the evidence being presented to support to such and such a conclusion?", an interesting dialog might occur.

What me poison the well! But seriously, it is interesting what unbelievers are willing to believe or put forth - while pointing to the irrational concept of theism. And Vilenkin is one of their bright lights... I think he is actually a minor god to Shuny...

[robertb]

What me poison the well! But seriously, it is interesting what unbelievers are willing to believe or put forth - while pointing to the irrational concept of theism. And Vilenkin is one of their bright lights... I think he is actually a minor god to Shuny...

I see.

Okay, explain to me what led Vilenkin to posit this many worlds scenario? Did he just pull it out of his butt?

[seer]

I see.

Okay, explain to me what led Vilenkin to posit this many worlds scenario? Did he just pull it out of his butt?

From what I understand, the math necessary for his inflation theory kind of demands it.

[robertb]

From what I understand, the math necessary for his inflation theory kind of demands it.

So would you say that it might be correct to say that Vilken might consider this conclusion as necessary, if he accepts his own mathematical premises?

As such, is it really comparable to something just believed to counter some other belief?

[seer]

So would you say that it might be correct to say that Vilken might consider this conclusion as necessary, if he accepts his own mathematical premises?

Yes

As such, is it really comparable to something just believed to counter some other belief?

No quite, but he is still willing to believe and put forth this nonsensical conclusion, and other, so called rational folks, are willing to entertain it. The point is Robert that some men would rather believe any kind of nonsense than to believe in a Creator, God.

[robertb]

Yes



No quite, but he is still willing to believe and put forth this nonsensical conclusion, and other, so called rational folks, are willing to entertain it. The point is Robert that some men would rather believe any kind of nonsense than to believe in a Creator, God.

While this may be true, I don't see how this applies to Vilken's work, or the conclusions he draws from it.

People believe all kind of stuff, in my experience. What really matters are the reasons why they believe it and if those reasons can stand up to scrutiny, if they wish to say anything more than that they simply believe it for the sake of believing it.

[seer]

While this may be true, I don't see how this applies to Vilken's work, or the conclusions he draws from it.

People believe all kind of stuff, in my experience. What really matters are the reasons why they believe it and if those reasons can stand up to scrutiny, if they wish to say anything more than that they simply believe it for the sake of believing it.

To me it just shows what irrational lengths a person will go to try and keep the idea of a creator at bay...

[Leonhard]

To deny a Creator...

According to Discover Magazine: Vilenkin is one of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists. He has made seminal contributions to the theory of cosmological inflation.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co...worlds-in-one/

Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One:



So, according to one of the world's leading theoretical cosmologists and his eternal inflation theory we should expect to have and infinite of number copies of myself out there an infinite number of copies of you out there, all doing the same thing - and theism is irrational?

Ouch, both a poisoning the well and a begging the question fallacy all in one paragraph. And to top it off, it starts out with a tedious character assassination.

From what I understand, the math necessary for his inflation theory kind of demands it.

False premise, I know of his theories and he doesn't start out with a multiverse, but ends up with one as a conclusion from some simpler set of assumptions about physics. If Vilenkin has a model of cosmology, and the necessary conclusions of this model is that such a multiverse exists, how is he being irrational in accepting this?

[pancreasman]

Ouch, both a poisoning the well and a begging the question fallacy all in one paragraph. And to top it off, it starts out with a tedious character assassination.





False premise, I know of his theories and he doesn't start out with a multiverse, but ends up with one as a conclusion from some simpler set of assumptions about physics. If Vilenkin has a model of cosmology, and the necessary conclusions of this model is that such a multiverse exists, how is he being irrational in accepting this?

Because, to use Seer's favourite term, everything is 'nonsense' and irrational if it runs counter to his own beliefs.

My question is, is this really a 'belief'? I suspect Vilenkin is well aware of assumptions he is making and using those following the Math he reaches this particular conclusion. This process is in the form of 'If X then Y'. Does he 'believe' Y must be the case? I don't know but I suspect not. When anyone makes a mathematical model of a complex phenomena then one is well aware that the conclusion reached is tentative. To go further, it would be useful for the model to produce some prediction that could confirm or falsify it. This is in the same vein as the famous Einstein general relativity prediction:

The orientation of Mercury's orbit is found to precess in space over time, as indicated in the adjacent figure (the magnitude of the effect is greatly exaggerated in this figure). This is commonly called the "precession of the perihelion", because it causes the position of the perihelion to move. Only part of this can be accounted for by perturbations in Newton's theory. There is an extra 43 seconds of arc per century in this precession that is predicted by the Theory of General Relativity and observed to occur (a second of arc is 1/3600 of an angular degree). This effect is extremely small, but the measurements are very precise and can detect such small effects very well.

from http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l.../einstein.html

I suspect if Seer had been with us in 1915 he also would have found Einstein 's theories and proposals 'nonsense' and 'irrational' and further symptoms of man running away from God.

[seer]

Ouch, both a poisoning the well and a begging the question fallacy all in one paragraph. And to top it off, it starts out with a tedious character assassination.

What me poison the well! Never let it be said...

False premise, I know of his theories and he doesn't start out with a multiverse, but ends up with one as a conclusion from some simpler set of assumptions about physics. If Vilenkin has a model of cosmology, and the necessary conclusions of this model is that such a multiverse exists, how is he being irrational in accepting this?

Of course the theory is irrational Leonhard. Generally rational men can believe irrational things. Do you really believe that it is rational to entertain the idea that there are an infinite number of identical universes where an infinite number of Seers and Leonhards are having this exact same exchange? Really Leonhard - you would consider that possibility? But you would have a problem with theism?

[seer]

My question is, is this really a 'belief'? I suspect Vilenkin is well aware of assumptions he is making and using those following the Math he reaches this particular conclusion. This process is in the form of 'If X then Y'. Does he 'believe' Y must be the case? I don't know but I suspect not. When anyone makes a mathematical model of a complex phenomena then one is well aware that the conclusion reached is tentative. To go further, it would be useful for the model to produce some prediction that could confirm or falsify it.

Of course he believes it, did you read the opening quote from his book?

A striking consequence of the new picture of the world is that there should be an infinity of regions with histories absolutely identical to ours. Yes, dear reader, scores of your duplicates are now holding copies of this book. They live on planets exactly like our Earth, with all its mountains, cities, trees, and butterflies. The earths revolve around perfect copies of our Sun, and each sun belongs to a grand spiral galaxy – an exact replica of our Milky Way. pg 112

[Leonhard]

What me poison the well! Never let it be said...

I'm confused, you agree that you're poisoning the well? But in a weird joking fashion as if it doesn't matter? You're starting to worry me, seriously.

Of course the theory is irrational Leonhard.

You're begging the question again.

Generally rational men can believe irrational things.

Agreed.

Do you really believe that it is rational to entertain the idea that there are an infinite number of identical universes where an infinite number of Seers and Leonhards are having this exact same exchange?

Yes. Whether or not the world we live in is actually like that I don't know.

Really Leonhard - you would consider that possibility? But you would have a problem with theism?

Yes I would. The fact that you're not willing to entertain these ideas isn't a good indication whether the ideas are sound. So far you've simple said "Look at these ideas, I find them really absurd, therefore the people who entertain them must be irrational". Why should I take an objection of that form serious? Having gone through a college education, I've had many powerful stomach reactions against ideas that I later found to be perfectly sound based on the evidence. Even if my intuition was strongly against the idea of a multiverse of the form that he's proposing, I'd still rationally examine the idea.

If your gut is screaming "His theory is false, it simple can't be", then that's fine Seer. I can't argue rationally with your gut. I can only tell you that my gut doesn't have much to say on those ideas. I'm not saying that a gut reaction is worthless, it can be an okay starting point, but it should be supplanted with reasoned out judgements. And I'm not sure how you go beyond your gut without rationally entertaining Vilenkins ideas. Even if you disagree with him, and have derived unsolvable paradoxes or problems in it, you'd still have to think the concept through to get there. What else are you suggesting?

[seer]

I'm confused, you agree that you're poisoning the well? But in a weird joking fashion as if it doesn't matter? You're starting to worry me, seriously.

Thanks for the concern but poisoning the well is a mere convention.

Yes I would. The fact that you're not willing to entertain these ideas isn't a good indication whether the ideas are sound. So far you've simple said "Look at these ideas, I find them really absurd, therefore the people who entertain them must be irrational". Why should I take an objection of that form serious? Having gone through a college education, I've had many powerful stomach reactions against ideas that I later found to be perfectly sound based on the evidence. Even if my intuition was strongly against the idea of a multiverse of the form that he's proposing, I'd still rationally examine the idea.

What can I say Leonhard, you think that is it possible for there to be an infinite number of Leonhards and Seers having this exact same discussion. You wouldn't, out of hand, dismiss that possibility - I would.

If your gut is screaming "His theory is false, it simply can't be", then that's fine Seer. I can't argue rationally with your gut. I can only tell you that my gut doesn't have much to say on those ideas. I'm not saying that a gut reaction is worthless, it can be an okay starting point, but it should be supplanted with reasoned out judgements. And I'm not sure how you go beyond your gut without rationally entertaining Vilenkins ideas. Even if you disagree with him, and have derived unsolvable paradoxes or problems in it, you'd still have to think the concept through to get there. What else are you suggesting?

Let me repeat, I believe that sinful men will entertain any kind of nonsense to deny a Creator God.