Teleology And Human Ethics...

[shunyadragon]

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.

Krauss and Vilenkin propose that the Quantum nothing is something and describe it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wng6c0oLkQE

Source: http://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

The Beginning of the Universe by Alexander Vilenkin

Quantum creation is similar to quantum tunneling through energy barriers in quantum mechanics. An elegant mathematical description of this process can be given in terms of a Wick rotation. Time is expressed using imaginary numbers, introduced only for computational convenience. The distinction between the dimensions of time and space disappears. This description is very useful, since it provides a convenient way to determine tunneling probabilities. The most probable universes are the ones with the smallest initial size and the highest vacuum energy. Once a universe is formed, it immediately starts expanding due to the high energy of the vacuum.

This provides a beginning for the story of eternal inflation.

One might imagine that closed universes are popping out of nothing like bubbles in a glass of champagne, but this analogy would not be quite accurate. Bubbles pop out in liquid, but in the case of universes, there is no space out of which they might pop. A nucleated closed universe is all the space there is, aside from the disconnected spaces of other closed universes. Beyond it, there is no space, and no time.

What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time, say, a minute. There is no reason why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not another. The process is completely random. No cause is needed for the quantum creation of the universe.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

One might imagine that closed universes are popping out of nothing like bubbles in a glass of champagne, but this analogy would not be quite accurate. Bubbles pop out in liquid, but in the case of universes, there is no space out of which they might pop. A nucleated closed universe is all the space there is, aside from the disconnected spaces of other closed universes. Beyond it, there is no space, and no time.

What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time, say, a minute. There is no reason why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not another. The process is completely random. No cause is needed for the quantum creation of the universe. [/cite]

Right, the universe pops out of a no space condition, and if there is no space there is no place for energy or matter to pre-exist. True nothingness.

[shunyadragon]

Right, the universe pops out of a no space condition, and if there is no space there is no place for energy or matter to pre-exist. True nothingness.

This basically a philosophical/Theological assertion of 'exnhilo' and incomplete. Your answer does not reflect what Vilenkin and Krauss propose concerning the nature of Quantum nothing

[shunyadragon]

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

This remains simply a philosophical/theological assertion of belief,and really relevant to what Krauss and Vilenkin propose

[seer]

This basically a philosophical/Theological assertion of 'exnhilo' and incomplete. Your answer does not reflect what Vilenkin and Krauss propose concerning the nature of Quantum nothing

Nonsense, Vilenkin is claiming creation out of nothing "literally nothing" - the very definition of ex nihilo.

[37818]

This remains simply a philosophical/theological assertion of belief,and really relevant to what Krauss and Vilenkin propose

An assertion of what belief?

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense, Vilenkin is claiming creation out of nothing "literally nothing" - the very definition of ex nihilo.

Basic deficiency in English reading skills.

The Beginning of the Universe by Alexander Vilenkin

Quantum creation is similar to quantum tunneling through energy barriers in quantum mechanics. An elegant mathematical description of this process can be given in terms of a Wick rotation. Time is expressed using imaginary numbers, introduced only for computational convenience. The distinction between the dimensions of time and space disappears. This description is very useful, since it provides a convenient way to determine tunneling probabilities. The most probable universes are the ones with the smallest initial size and the highest vacuum energy. Once a universe is formed, it immediately starts expanding due to the high energy of the vacuum.

This provides a beginning for the story of eternal inflation.

One might imagine that closed universes are popping out of nothing like bubbles in a glass of champagne, but this analogy would not be quite accurate. Bubbles pop out in liquid, but in the case of universes, there is no space out of which they might pop. A nucleated closed universe is all the space there is, aside from the disconnected spaces of other closed universes. Beyond it, there is no space, and no time.

What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time, say, a minute. There is no reason why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not another. The process is completely random. No cause is needed for the quantum creation of the universe.

[seer]

Basic deficiency in English reading skills.

The Beginning of the Universe by Alexander Vilenkin

Quantum creation is similar to quantum tunneling through energy barriers in quantum mechanics. An elegant mathematical description of this process can be given in terms of a Wick rotation. Time is expressed using imaginary numbers, introduced only for computational convenience. The distinction between the dimensions of time and space disappears. This description is very useful, since it provides a convenient way to determine tunneling probabilities. The most probable universes are the ones with the smallest initial size and the highest vacuum energy. Once a universe is formed, it immediately starts expanding due to the high energy of the vacuum.

This provides a beginning for the story of eternal inflation.

One might imagine that closed universes are popping out of nothing like bubbles in a glass of champagne, but this analogy would not be quite accurate. Bubbles pop out in liquid, but in the case of universes, there is no space out of which they might pop. A nucleated closed universe is all the space there is, aside from the disconnected spaces of other closed universes. Beyond it, there is no space, and no time.

What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time, say, a minute. There is no reason why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not another. The process is completely random. No cause is needed for the quantum creation of the universe.

What is your dishonest point? His theory has no preexisting matter or space or time. And if there is no space there is no place for preexisting energy, quantum or otherwise, to do anything. Certainly not create a universe.

[shunyadragon]

An assertion of what belief?

The belief in the necessity of Creation 'exnhilo.'

[shunyadragon]

What is your dishonest point? His theory has no preexisting matter or space or time. And if there is no space there is no place for preexisting energy, quantum or otherwise, to do anything. Certainly not create a universe.

This is your belief, and not the view of Krauss nor Vilenkin.

The bold is not true of the Quantum world according to Krauss and Vilenkin.

Source: The Beginning of the Universe by Alexander Vilenkin

Quantum creation is similar to quantum tunneling through energy barriers in quantum mechanics. An elegant mathematical description of this process can be given in terms of a Wick rotation. Time is expressed using imaginary numbers, introduced only for computational convenience. The distinction between the dimensions of time and space disappears. This description is very useful, since it provides a convenient way to determine tunneling probabilities. The most probable universes are the ones with the smallest initial size and the highest vacuum energy. Once a universe is formed, it immediately starts expanding due to the high energy of the vacuum.

Actually I am not taking sides. All I am interested in here is that the views of Krauss and Vilenkin are honestly and corrected here.

This provides a beginning for the story of eternal inflation.

One might imagine that closed universes are popping out of nothing like bubbles in a glass of champagne, but this analogy would not be quite accurate. Bubbles pop out in liquid, but in the case of universes, there is no space out of which they might pop. A nucleated closed universe is all the space there is, aside from the disconnected spaces of other closed universes. Beyond it, there is no space, and no time.

What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time, say, a minute. There is no reason why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not another. The process is completely random. No cause is needed for the quantum creation of the universe.

© Copyright Original Source

Krauss and Vilenkin describe the Quantum nothing as something from which universes spontaneously result according to Natural Laws.

The concept of the sum of all energy equals zero dos not translate to no energy exists. The negative energy of Quantum gravity and the positive energy of mass and energy will have a sum equal to zero universally including the universe we live in. The energy of the Quantum nothing is potential energy that has been observed to give rise to virtual particles with a momentary existence that can be measured in terms of time and mass.

[seer]

This is your belief, and not the view of Krauss nor Vilenkin.

The bold is not true of the Quantum world according to Krauss and Vilenkin.

[cite=The Beginning of the Universe by Alexander Vilenkin]

Quantum creation is similar to quantum tunneling through energy barriers in quantum mechanics. An elegant mathematical description of this process can be given in terms of a Wick rotation. Time is expressed using imaginary numbers, introduced only for computational convenience. The distinction between the dimensions of time and space disappears. This description is very useful, since it provides a convenient way to determine tunneling probabilities. The most probable universes are the ones with the smallest initial size and the highest vacuum energy. Once a universe is formed, it immediately starts expanding due to the high energy of the vacuum.

Shuny, you are being dishonest again, I have proved time and time again that Vilenkin's theory only requires that the laws of physics (in the Platonic sense) preexist the creation of the universe.

As such, there is some probability for the universe to pop out of “nothing.” You can find the relative probability for it to be this size or that size and have various properties, but there will not be a particular cause for any of it, just probabilities.

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. 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

There is no prior space, matter or time. Only the laws of physics. Now stop fudging to defend your religious agenda!

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you are being dishonest again, I have proved time and time again that Vilenkin's theory only requires that the laws of physics (in the Platonic sense) preexist the creation of the universe.




There is no prior space, matter or time. Only the laws of physics. Now stop fudging to defend your religious agenda!

This is your belief, and not the view of Krauss nor Vilenkin.

The bold is not true of the Quantum world according to Krauss and Vilenkin.

Source: The Beginning of the Universe by Alexander Vilenkin


Quantum creation is similar to quantum tunneling through energy barriers in quantum mechanics. An elegant mathematical description of this process can be given in terms of a Wick rotation. Time is expressed using imaginary numbers, introduced only for computational convenience. The distinction between the dimensions of time and space disappears. This description is very useful, since it provides a convenient way to determine tunneling probabilities. The most probable universes are the ones with the smallest initial size and the highest vacuum energy. Once a universe is formed, it immediately starts expanding due to the high energy of the vacuum.

Actually I am not taking sides. All I am interested in here is that the views of Krauss and Vilenkin are honestly and corrected here.

Source: The Beginning of the Universe by Alexander Vilenkin

This provides a beginning for the story of eternal inflation.

One might imagine that closed universes are popping out of nothing like bubbles in a glass of champagne, but this analogy would not be quite accurate. Bubbles pop out in liquid, but in the case of universes, there is no space out of which they might pop. A nucleated closed universe is all the space there is, aside from the disconnected spaces of other closed universes. Beyond it, there is no space, and no time.

What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time, say, a minute. There is no reason why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not another. The process is completely random. No cause is needed for the quantum creation of the universe.

© Copyright Original Source

Krauss and Vilenkin describe the Quantum nothing as something from which universes spontaneously result according to Natural Laws.

The concept of the sum of all energy equals zero dos not translate to no energy exists. The negative energy of Quantum gravity and the positive energy of mass and energy will have a sum equal to zero universally including the universe we live in. The energy of the Quantum nothing is potential energy that has been observed to give rise to virtual particles with a momentary existence that can be measured in terms of time and mass.

This view is not equivalent to 'exnhilo.' Vilenkin denies that they are equivalent.

Source: https://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/alexander-vilenkins-model-of-cosmic-origins/

In a nutshell, Vilenkin’s model is a variation on Edward Tryon’s “vacuum fluctuation” model, but instead of the universe appearing within a background of space, the universe appears from an empty geometry (i.e. “nothing”). As Vilenkin’s colleague Alan Guth explains,

Putting [general relativity and quantum mechanics] together, one can imagine that the universe started in the total empty geometry – absolute nothingness – and then made a quantum tunneling transition to a nonempty state. Calculations show that a universe created this way would typically be subatomic in size, but that is no problem . . . Vilenkin was able to invoke inflation to enlarge the universe to its current size.

The Inflationary Universe (1997), Page 275

But perhaps calling this creation from “absolute nothingness” is a bit confusing. As Guth points out, Vilenkin’s “absolute nothingness” is “mathematically well-defined, and can be used as a starting point for theories of creation” (Pg. 273). In fact, Vilenkin himself seems to dislike the terminology.

The state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.

– Alexander Vilenkin in his book Many Worlds in One (2006), Page 181

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

Shuny, you are being dishonest again, I have proved time and time again that Vilenkin's theory only requires that the laws of physics (in the Platonic sense) preexist the creation of the universe.


There is no prior space, matter or time. Only the laws of physics. Now stop fudging to defend your religious agenda!

You are using the word “nothing” in a way that does not apply in the quantum world. Granted it can be confusing, given that our language and concepts evolved at a time when quantum mechanics was unknown, but “mathematically” it is perfectly coherent according to theoretical physicists. For you to argue that Vilenkin uses “nothing” the same way you do is a disingenuous and dishonest attempt to invalidly shoehorn science to support your religious presuppositions of creation ex nihilo.

[seer]

But perhaps calling this creation from “absolute nothingness” is a bit confusing. As Guth points out, Vilenkin’s “absolute nothingness” is “mathematically well-defined, and can be used as a starting point for theories of creation” (Pg. 273). In fact, Vilenkin himself seems to dislike the terminology.

The state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.

– Alexander Vilenkin in his book Many Worlds in One (2006), Page 181 [/cite]

The state of “nothing” cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.

Right Shuny, the laws of physics ONLY preexisted the creation of the universe, there was NOTHING else or necessary as my link to Vilenkin proved. There is no preexisting energy because there was no "space" where they could exist. And the laws of physics are not physical things, they exist as Vilenkin says in the Platonic sense.

[seer]

You are using the word “nothing” in a way that does not apply in the quantum world. Granted it can be confusing, given that our language and concepts evolved at a time when quantum mechanics was unknown, but “mathematically” it is perfectly coherent according to theoretical physicists. For you to argue that Vilenkin uses “nothing” the same way you do is a disingenuous and dishonest attempt to invalidly shoehorn science to support your religious presuppositions of creation ex nihilo.

Tass, you have been deeply dishonest in this thread twice, and in both cases I have proved you wrong. And now you are doing it again, Vilenkin's nothing only includes the laws of physics (which are not material things) there is no SPACE or TIME in his nothing so there is no place where some preexisting energy could exist to give rise to a universe. I understand as a fundy atheist this may shake your faith!