Teleology And Human Ethics...

[Tassman]

False, his and Guth's work pretty much demonstrate that a multiverse would violate the Hubble constant

[seer]

That is not the point Tass, you falsely accused me. Vilenkin was speaking of the multiverse not just this universe, and the boundary that Vilenkin referenced meant that the multiverse "can not be eternal into the past" - his words not mine! And you are wrong about the nothing that Vilenkin was speaking of.

[shunyadragon]

That is not the point Tass, you falsely accused me. Vilenkin was speaking of the multiverse not just this universe, and the boundary that Vilenkin referenced meant that the multiverse "can not be eternal into the past" - his words not mine! And you are wrong about the nothing that Vilenkin was speaking of.

The problem remains you only chose to selectively cite Velinkin to justify your agenda, and misrepresent Krauss concerning the nature of the cosmological nothing.

[seer]

The problem remains you only chose to selectively cite Velinkin to justify your agenda, and misrepresent Krauss concerning the nature of the cosmological nothing.

Shuny, you are the one with the religious agenda here since your religion teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with God. So you need an eternal past for matter and energy. As a Christian it makes little difference to me. God could have created millions of universes for all I know, scripture is silent on that issue. So your very faith hinges on an eternal past for matter and energy.

[seer]

The quantum world is the quantum world, we use common sense in trying to understand it. The point is that the quantum vacuum that Krauss is describing isn't nothing. I'm not sure, but it sounds as though, Vilenkin isn't refering to that same nothing, but rather to a platonic realm of absolute nothingness outside of the observable spacetime where only physical laws exist. But again, I have no idea what he could mean by his tunnelling hypothesis if there is nothing there to do the tunnelling and nothing there to tunnell through. It would seem that just like Krauss' nothing, Vilenkins nothing is not exactly nothing either

You are right about Krauss but Vilenkin's nothing really is nothing except the laws of physics, he makes that perfectly clear towards the end of the video that I linked.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you are the one with the religious agenda here since your religion teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with God. So you need an eternal past for matter and energy. As a Christian it makes little difference to me. God could have created millions of universes for all I know, scripture is silent on that issue. So your very faith hinges on an eternal past for matter and energy.

My faith does not depend on a scientific conclusion which most likely can never be known. I have made no attempt to interpret science to fit my religious view. Your agenda is Creation exnhilo, and our physical existence must be Created from nothing with a definite beginning.

Again . . .

You obviously care . . .

The problem remains you only chose to selectively cite Velinkin to justify your agenda, and misrepresent Krauss concerning the nature of the cosmological nothing.

Again, as far as science is concerning the question of beginnings and'r no beginnings cannot ever be answered, because any evidence or theory can only go so far, and beyond this it becomes a subjective assumption and conclusion.

[JimL]

You are right about Krauss but Vilenkin's nothing really is nothing except the laws of physics, he makes that perfectly clear towards the end of the video that I linked.

Perhaps, but he would be wrong then, and I doubt you can find even one phycisist that would agree with that hypothesis. You can't have a tunnelling process, which is what Vilenkin espouses, unless there is something. And again, the laws of physics are not some-thing, they are simply laws, and laws don't do anything.

[seer]

My faith does not depend on a scientific conclusion which most likely can never be known. I have made no attempt to interpret science to fit my religious view. Your agenda is Creation ex nihilo, and our physical existence must be Created from nothing with a definite beginning.

Actually Shuny, even if I believe that God created matter or energy ex nihilo it doesn't necessarily mean that this universe was created ex nihilo. It could just as well be that a larger multiverse was created ex nihilo, and we are just part of that. Like I said the bible is silent on the issue.

so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Again . . .

So you have a lot more to lose with your religious agenda.

[seer]

Perhaps, but he would be wrong then, and I doubt you can find even one phycisist that would agree with that hypothesis. You can't have a tunnelling process, which is what Vilenkin espouses, unless there is something. And again, the laws of physics are not some-thing, they are simply laws, and laws don't do anything.

He wrote a paper on how this would be possible, Tass actually linked it a while back - it is pretty difficult to understand though...

[Anomaly]

Laws that govern a universe can't also create that universe because laws are not existing things in themselves, they, the laws, don't do anything.

In my thinking, the design argument may well center on this distinction. I believe the laws are quite real and do just what we perceive their doing. How is this wrong?

[JimL]

In my thinking, the design argument may well center on this distinction. I believe the laws are quite real and do just what we perceive their doing. How is this wrong?

Laws are descriptive of the way matter moves, they are not things in themselves.

[Charles]

So Charles since June I have asking you for "proof" of your objective morality, and nothing. And I'm not asking for your subjective, relative, moral "foundation." The reason why you won't encapsulate view here is because it doesn't exist. And you know it. So until you offer your objective non-circular definition of "good" I'm done.

Yet another one with no answer.

As regards your wrong statements about my view, you are of course free to disagree but you are not even capable of giving a fair presentation of my view. So your objections get you nowhere.

[Anomaly]

Laws are descriptive of the way matter moves, they are not things in themselves.

How is this proven?

[seer]

Yet another one with no answer.

As regards your wrong statements about my view, you are of course free to disagree but you are not even capable of giving a fair presentation of my view. So your objections get you nowhere.

Well Charles, since you won't answer the question about objective ethics I have been asking since June, I'm done. You are now on ignore... If you care to actually answer the question just PM me and I will take you out of purgatory.

[Charles]

Duh! Did you even listen to the video? Vilenkin is talking about the laws quantum mechanics and physics not the quantum world itself. That they (the laws) exist prior to the creation of the physical world. And they exist in the Platonic sense (i.e. non physical.) And where did Vilenkin say that the universe can arise spontaneously within a multiverse ? Where does he say that - exactly, at what time? Remember Charles you said I was mistaken about the multiverse thing, to quote: Let me give you the key words: multiverse theory.... So Charles where was I wrong about the multiverse thing? Exactly.

Since I gave you the quote from the video I of course listened to it. I know exactly what he pointed to. What you point to in those first sentences is mainly in the quote itself so no need to present it as new facts or facts undermining my points.

And it is rather funny that you want me to point to the multiverse part of the video when the word was actually used in Shuny's post in which he quoted:

What Shuny said was: "In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero." You wanted to make it sound as if Shuny claimed the multiverse itself gave rise to new universes. You said: "Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe:" You are mixing up "within" with "giving rise to". To put it short the Multiverse comprise everything that exists and can exist. It does not give rise to new universes but new universes happen to be a part of everthing that exists and before that they are a part of everything that can exist. Could you image a universe existing outside the sum of everything that exists? I would not think so...

So you just did not know the proper use of the word multiverse which was what I pointed to.