Teleology And Human Ethics...

[Tassman]

Jim I don't think he is confused, he is just learning more and coming to different conclusions, the one I linked being the more recent - last year.

Ah, he's coming to the god-did-it ex nihilo conclusion. Hallelujah!

You're so transparent seer.

[seer]

Ah, he's coming to the god-did-it ex nihilo conclusion. Hallelujah!

You're so transparent seer.

Right Tass, ex nihilo. And I said nothing about God doing it, but let's face it Tass as an atheist you hate this idea, you need matter and energy to be past eternal or your faith may fall apart.

[seer]

This is where science is currently at, and your attempts to use Vilenkin as the final solution are misguided. There are many possible solutions at present but as yet, no unified grand theory.

Tass even in your own link it is clear that we don't know, but what is becoming more clear is that there is no path for an eternal past for matter and energy:http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

This is probably why people like Vilenkin, Krauss, etc... are looking for a creation event from nothing, or close to nothing.

[Charles]

Ah, he's coming to the god-did-it ex nihilo conclusion. Hallelujah!

You're so transparent seer.

Yes, seer has surely got a religious agenda and he seems rather open to ignoring difficult questions and making false claims.

[Charles]

Right Tass, ex nihilo. And I said nothing about God doing it, but let's face it Tass as an atheist you hate this idea, you need matter and energy to be past eternal or your faith may fall apart.

So you think we can conclude that if matter and energy are not eternal then god exists? If so then give then please show us how this follows. I promise to show you why it does not apply. Up for the challenge, seer?

[Tassman]

Right Tass, ex nihilo. And I said nothing about God doing it, but let's face it Tass as an atheist you hate this idea, you need matter and energy to be past eternal or your faith may fall apart.

From your link:

"For many physicists, the beginning of the universe is uncomfortable, because it suggests that something must have caused the beginning, that there should be some cause outside the universe. In fact, we now have models where that’s not necessary—the universe spontaneously appears, quantum mechanically.

In quantum physics, events do not necessarily have a cause, just some probability.

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."

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

This is pretty well what Shunya, Jim and I have been saying all along.

[Tassman]

Yes, seer has surely got a religious agenda and he seems rather open to ignoring difficult questions and making false claims.

He shoehorns it all in to fit his religious presuppositions.

[seer]

From your link:

"For many physicists, the beginning of the universe is uncomfortable, because it suggests that something must have caused the beginning, that there should be some cause outside the universe. In fact, we now have models where that’s not necessary—the universe spontaneously appears, quantum mechanically.

In quantum physics, events do not necessarily have a cause, just some probability.

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."

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

This is pretty well what Shunya, Jim and I have been saying all along.

"but there will not be a particular cause for any of it" really Tass, no cause? No cause and effect? Sounds like a miracle to me!

[seer]

He shoehorns it all in to fit his religious presuppositions.

And Tass you shoehorn everything to fit your atheistic presuppositions. Everyone here - including you - has an agenda. People like you and Shuny just dishonestly pretend otherwise. You even falsely accused me on the universe/multiverse thing - did you offer an apology - no! At least JimL has been honest and open minded.

[shunyadragon]

"but there will not be a particular cause for any of it" really Tass, no cause? No cause and effect? Sounds like a miracle to me!

Not in Quantum Mechanics it is simply the underlying Natural Laws that are the cause.

[shunyadragon]

And Tass you shoehorn everything to fit your atheistic presuppositions. Everyone here - including you - has an agenda. People like you and Shuny just dishonestly pretend otherwise. You even falsely accused me on the universe/multiverse thing - did you offer an apology - no! At least JimL has been honest and open minded.

I do not believe you read JimL's last post on this.

Here is Vilinkens own words shunya: I say "nothing" in quotations because the nothing that we were refering 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.

So, there is no space, there is no matter popping in and out of existence, and there is no time, there is only the laws of physics. Now, I don't believe that myself from a strictly intuitive perspective, and Vilinken gives no explanation as to how the laws of physics alone could create anything, let alone a universe, but those are his words. His only assertion is that such an event doesn't violate the laws of physics, therefore its a possibility. So, for that reason, that he gives no explanation of process, I don't put much credence in it.


Okay, I take it all back. You can find other quotes from Vilenkin where he seems to contradict himself, and that's the problem I have with his definition of the Universe spontaneously emerging from nothing.

Here is another quote of Vilenkins from 1983: Where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical spacetime. "Nothing" is a realm of unrestrained quantum gravity, a pre-geometric state in which all of our basic notions of space, time, energy, entropy etc., lose their meaning.

So, I take it back seer, nothing is a pre-geometric state, a realm of quantum gravity. That's not exactly nothing. I don't blame you for misunderstanding Vilenkin though, I misunderstood as well, he doesn't always make it clear what he means by nothing.

There are no apologies forth coming.

[Charles]

And Tass you shoehorn everything to fit your atheistic presuppositions. Everyone here - including you - has an agenda. People like you and Shuny just dishonestly pretend otherwise. You even falsely accused me on the universe/multiverse thing - did you offer an apology - no! At least JimL has been honest and open minded.

Do you admit that you shoehorn everything to fit your theistic agenda, seer? And that you have got an agenda that colours your interpretation? And will you offer an apology for falsely accusing me?

[seer]

I do not believe you read JimL's last post on this.

No Shuny, Jim did a little more investigation - this is actually his last post:

Yep, you are right seer, thats what Vilinken says. But he also says what I posted, that the vacuum pre-exists classical spacetime, so take your pick I guess. Apparently Vilinken is himself confused. Ultimately, no matter how you see it, it's still a mystery anyway. Personally speaking his earlier explanation is more plausable to me, like Lucretius, as far as i'm concerned, nothing comes from nothing, unless it is somehow proven otherwise.

Vilenkin's position has changed over time. And Vilenkin's "not nothing" are simply the laws of physics:

For many physicists, the beginning of the universe is uncomfortable, because it suggests that something must have caused the beginning, that there should be some cause outside the universe. In fact, we now have models where that’s not necessary—the universe spontaneously appears, quantum mechanically.

In quantum physics, events do not necessarily have a cause, just some probability.

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

[seer]

There are no apologies forth coming.

I did not ask for an apology from you Shuny, I ask you to back up your claim that Krauss held to the "no space" model like Vilenkin rather than the "empty space" model.

[shunyadragon]

I did not ask for an apology from you Shuny, I ask you to back up your claim that Krauss held to the "no space" model like Vilenkin rather than the "empty space" model.

You need English comprehension lessons. Krauss is specific:

"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."