Teleology And Human Ethics...

[seer]

No problem with this possibility, because I am a Theist. Your response does not address the main issue, which the reference covers. . Nonetheless you are misrepresenting both Krause and Vilenkin, and the physics and cosmology the origins of our universe, possible multiverse that both Vilenkin and Krauss believe in.

Then tell me exactly what I said wrong concerning Vilenkin. As far as Krauss, given your links, I'm not sure what he position is.

[shunyadragon]

Then tell me exactly what I said wrong concerning Vilenkin. As far as Krauss, given your links, I'm not sure what he position is.

Both Vilenkin and Krauss support a Quantum nothing world where there is no space and no time where Quantum fluctuations produce momentary virtual particles, which with the influence of Quantum gravity based on the Laws of Nature can spontaneously produce universes.

[shunyadragon]

But where do fields come from? And all the fields we know about live in this universe, they are part of space/time furniture. Can they exist part from space? Where exactly would that be?

Our space/time furniture includes the Quantum world and fields where virtual particle arise. These are observed and measured phenomenon that supports Krauss, Guth and Vilenkin hypothesis. You need to read and understand? the references by Krauss, Guth, Vilenkin and other physicists and cosmologists and understand the answers from their perspective.

[seer]

Both Vilenkin and Krauss support a Quantum nothing world where there is no space and no time where Quantum fluctuations produce momentary virtual particles, which with the influence of Quantum gravity based on the Laws of Nature can spontaneously produce universes.

What? Where did Vilenkin say that his theory rested on quantum fluctuations? That his "nothing" included quantum fluctuations? Be specific because in my link he makes clear that a quantum vacuum only comes about after the creation event. And like I said, I don't know where Krauss is on this - he presents a number of different options, but does not seem to commit to one.

[seer]

Our space/time furniture includes the Quantum world and fields where virtual particle arise. These are observed and measured phenomenon that supports Krauss, Guth and Vilenkin hypothesis. You need to read and understand? the references by Krauss, Guth, Vilenkin and other physicists and cosmologists and understand the answers from their perspective.

Yes, we have fields IN our universe, in space. Is there any evidence that they can exist outside of space? And where is this place where there is no space?

[JimL]

But where do fields come from? And all the fields we know about live in this universe, they are part of space/time furniture. Can they exist part from space? Where exactly would that be?

Where exactly would that be? My guess is that fields are everywhere, and so don't come from anywhere. As Vilinken defined it, everywhere outside the universe is a realm of unrestrained gravity, a pre-geometric state in which all of our basic notions of space, time, energy, entropy etc. lose their meaning. Fields are Locke's something rather than nothing, and in answer to his question as to why they exist would be, it's simply a brute fact.

[seer]

Where exactly would that be? My guess is that fields are everywhere, and so don't come from anywhere. As Vilinken defined it, everywhere outside the universe is a realm of unrestrained gravity, a pre-geometric state in which all of our basic notions of space, time, energy, entropy etc. lose their meaning. Fields are Locke's something rather than nothing, and in answer to his question as to why they exist would be, it's simply a brute fact.

I'm not sure where everywhere is if there is no space. I mean the only fields we know of exist in space.

[Tassman]

No Tass, he is saying more that that. That the ONLY necessary condition are the laws of physics:

THINK

Sheesh Tass, it is no secret that you are a fundy atheist!

And one thing that is becoming more clear (see the above link) is that there is not a path for matter and energy being eternal into the past.

[Charles]

Yes Tass, as you fight tooth and nail to defend you atheistic faith.

So, seer, does that mean that you agree to the description Tassman gave of your behaviour? It is a simple question: yes or no?

And while I remember Tassman giving good arguments he is not claiming certainty when it does not exist, so I don't see him fighting tooth and nail but rather sharing his qualified view. And did you loose out on the difference between science and religion?

[seer]

THINK

What are you talking about?


Nonsense Tass, that is not what Vilenkin is saying at all. The quantum vacuum only comes into existence after the creation event, they only thing necessary are the laws of physics in the "Platonic sense." There are no physical things necessary:

The vacuum does not pre-exist the creation event, the vacuum comes from the creation event, start at about 4:50, it is perfectly clear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSES...tbChannel=null

And it is creation from a condition of no space or time. What exists where there is no space? Where does it exist?

That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

[Tassman]

What are you talking about?

Nonsense Tass, that is not what Vilenkin is saying at all. The quantum vacuum only comes into existence after the creation event, they only thing necessary are the laws of physics in the "Platonic sense." There are no physical things necessary:

And it is creation from a condition of no space or time. What exists where there is no space? Where does it exist?

That is an intuitive question belonging to the realm of classical physics; it has no meaning in the non-intuitive world of quantum mechanics where the quantum vacuum, refers to "nothing" i.e. the absence of matter, space and time as we normally understand them to be. "we now know that even empty space is filled with energy, vibrating with electromagnetic fields and so-called virtual particles dancing in and out of existence on borrowed energy courtesy of the randomness that characterizes reality on the smallest scales, according to the rules of quantum theory". And " Following a similar quantum logic, theorists have proposed that whole universes, little bubbles of space-time, could pop into existence, like bubbles in boiling water, out of this nothing".

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/sc...m-nothing.html

[seer]

Oh stop Tass, he is clearly saying that a universe can come about from no prior physical conditions, he not only said this in the video but in the articles I have linked. The only necessary requirements are the laws of physics - in the platonic sense. Does all this shake your atheistic faith?

That is an intuitive question belonging to the realm of classical physics; it has no meaning in the non-intuitive world of quantum mechanics where the quantum vacuum, refers to "nothing" i.e. the absence of matter, space and time as we normally understand them to be. "we now know that even empty space is filled with energy, vibrating with electromagnetic fields and so-called virtual particles dancing in and out of existence on borrowed energy courtesy of the randomness that characterizes reality on the smallest scales, according to the rules of quantum theory". And " Following a similar quantum logic, theorists have proposed that whole universes, little bubbles of space-time, could pop into existence, like bubbles in boiling water, out of this nothing".

What is your point? Vilenkin's nothing has no prior space, Krauss doesn't commit to either model - space or no space, and I see you dishonestly misquoted the article!

Second is nothing, without even space and time. Following a similar quantum logic, theorists have proposed that whole universes, little bubbles of space-time, could pop into existence, like bubbles in boiling water, out of this nothing.

You conveniently left out the "Second is nothing, without even space and time.." And on this second nothing a universe can pop into being without a pre-existing space! So what is this "stuff" that is causing this? Where does it exist if there is no pre-existing space?

[37818]

Absolute nothingness - has no existence. Else it would not be nothingness. And of course it never was.

[Tassman]

Oh stop Tass, he is clearly saying that a universe can come about from no prior physical conditions, he not only said this in the video but in the articles I have linked. The only necessary requirements are the laws of physics - in the platonic sense. Does all this shake your atheistic faith?

What is your point? Vilenkin's nothing has no prior space, Krauss doesn't commit to either model - space or no space, and I see you dishonestly misquoted the article!

My point is that you are attempting to draw fixed conclusions that reinforce your religious presuppositions, from theoretical physics still in the process of formulation.

You conveniently left out the "Second is nothing, without even space and time.." And on this second nothing a universe can pop into being without a pre-existing space! So what is this "stuff" that is causing this? Where does it exist if there is no pre-existing space?

[seer]

Tass, but it is ex nihilo - creation from nothing (literally nothing to use Vilenkin's words). Not that Vilenkin believes that God did it, he said he had no opinion on that subject. And Tass like it or not, all this is getting closer to the theological ex nihilo model. And it is not that I think Scripture even demands an ex nihilo event for our present universe.


Tass, you were caught with your pants down again. You misquoted the article, and left an important distinction out (creation from a condition where there was no pre-existing space). Just as you falsely accused me on the Vilenkin universe/multiverse question. That the multiverse, not just our universe, needs a beginning.