Teleology And Human Ethics...

[shunyadragon]

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.

False, misrepresentation of Vilenkin.

[seer]

False, misrepresentation of Vilenkin.

Here are his own wrds again:

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

The only thing that is required are the laws of physics. Preexisting space is not even required. So if you think there was preexisting energy (quantum or otherwise) where exactly would that exist if there is no space? I understand Shuny that this goes against your religious agenda since your faith teaches that matter/energy are co-eternal with God.

[JimL]

Here are his own wrds again:



The only thing that is required are the laws of physics. Preexisting space is not even required. So if you think there was preexisting energy (quantum or otherwise) where exactly would that exist if there is no space? I understand Shuny that this goes against your religious agenda since your faith teaches that matter/energy are co-eternal with God.

The laws of physics are nothing, if there is nothing else existing. Something has to exist and to act in accordance to the physical laws, otherwise the existence of the laws would be meaningless. The description as stated by Vilinken of his theory is irrelevant to common sense. Think about it!

[seer]

The laws of physics are nothing, if there is nothing else existing. Something has to exist and to act in accordance to the physical laws, otherwise the existence of the laws would be meaningless. The description as stated by Vilinken of his theory is irrelevant to common sense. Think about it!

Well not in Vilenkin's mind, in his mind the laws exist in the Platonic sense, independent of matter.

[Tassman]

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!

No seer, you

I understand as a fundy atheist this may shake your faith!

Some of us don't need to misuse science to maintain faith in one's beliefs. .

[seer]

No seer, you

Tass, that is not the point, I have linked this twice or more now and you just refuse to accept it. The vacuum does not pre-exist the creation event, the vacuum comes from the creation event after the creation event, start at about 4:50, it is perfectly clear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSES...tbChannel=null

[shunyadragon]

Well not in Vilenkin's mind, in his mind the laws exist in the Platonic sense, independent of matter.

True, but selectively citing Vilenkin does not justify your world view. It is your your world view and your interpretation to justify what you believe, and not Vilenkin's.

Platonic sense how Vilenkin uses it:

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/

where an abstract object [natural laws] is an object [natural laws] that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental.

© Copyright Original Source

This is the view generally accepted by science that Natural Laws do not exist in time and space, and which are entirely non-physical and non-mental.

[seer]

True, but selectively citing Vilenkin does not justify your world view. It is your your world view and not Vilenkin's.

I selectively cited nothing Shuny, stop lying. I quoted his own words and linked the full context. Does it mean that he thinks therefore God created the universe - no, he made it clear that he had no opinion on that question.

To quote:

Question:Some people claim your work proves the existence of God, or at least of a divine moment of creation. What do you think?


Vilenkin:

I went to a meeting of some theologians and cosmologists. Basically, I realized these theologians have the same problem with God. What was He doing before He created the universe? Why did He suddenly decide to create the universe?

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

[shunyadragon]

I selectively cited nothing Shuny, stop lying. I quoted his own words and linked the full context. Does it mean that he thinks therefore God created the universe - no, he made it clear that he had no opinion on that question.

To quote:

True, but selectively citing Vilenkin does not justify your world view. It is your your world view and your interpretation to justify what you believe, and not Vilenkin's.

Platonic sense how Vilenkin uses it:

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/

where an abstract object [natural laws] is an object [natural laws] that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental. Platonism in this sense is a contemporary view.

© Copyright Original Source

This is the view generally accepted by science that Natural Laws do not exist in time and space, and which are entirely non-physical and non-mental.

It is generally accepted by those here with a good background in science regardless of their belief, that your dishonestly selectively citing Vilenkin to justify your view of Creation 'exnhilo.'

[seer]

Platonic sense how Vilenkin uses it:

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/

where an abstract object [natural laws] is an object [natural laws] that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental.

© Copyright Original Source

This is the view generally accepted by science that Natural Laws do not exist in time and space, and which are entirely non-physical and non-mental.

Right Shuny, you just figuring this out? The laws of physics are non material. And these are the only things that exist prior to the creation of the universe and are the only things necessary for creation.

[shunyadragon]

Right Shuny, you just figuring this out? The laws of physics are non material. And these are the only things that exist prior to the creation of the universe and are the only things necessary for creation.

Seer, this has been the view of science in modern history, Natural Laws are not things that exist. No scientists in any field nor discipline support Naturals Laws being considered as 'things,' and in the platonic sense that they have always existed independent of time nor space, and entirely non-physical and non-mental.

[seer]

Seer, this has been the view of science in modern history, Natural Laws are not things that exist. No scientists in any field nor discipline support Naturals Laws being considered as 'things.'

Shuny, what are you talking about - 'things' is just a word. The point remains, the laws are not physical - and these laws are the only requirement for the creation of the universe according to Vilenkin. Matter, space or time are not required. Only the laws.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, what are you talking about - 'things' is just a word.

No, it is not just a word.It has meaning and a definition. Natural Laws are not 'things.'

The point remains, the laws are not physical

Generally accepted by all scientists in the world. Nothing new here.

- and these laws are the only requirement for the creation of the universe according to Vilenkin. Matter, space or time are not required. Only the laws.

Being the only requirement is basically the belief of all Physicists and Cosmologists. So what?

Nonetheless Vilenkin and Krause describe the Quantum nothing as something that the Natural Laws act on, and it is not equivalent to 'absolutely nothing' as cited. You are perpetually expressing your view and agenda,which is not what Vilenkin and all other scientists in the field believe.

[Tassman]

Tass, that is not the point, I have linked this twice or more now and you just refuse to accept it. The vacuum does not pre-exist the creation event, the vacuum comes from the creation event after the creation event, start at about 4:50, it is perfectly clear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSES...tbChannel=null

[seer]

Vilenkin and Krause describe the Quantum nothing as something that the Natural Laws act on, and it is not equivalent to 'absolutely nothing' as cited. You are perpetually expressing your view and agenda,which is not what Vilenkin and all other scientists in the field believe.

That is false Shuny, Vilenkin is not saying that there is a pre existing quantum nothing that natural laws are acting on, just the opposite, that nothing is the quantum vacuum and that only comes into existence after his creation event, there is no preexisting space or energy. Again, start at 4:50 it is perfectly clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=184s

And again, Vilenkin:

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

The only thing that is required are the laws of physics - and if you think your quantum nothing pre exists the creation of the universe please tell me where such a thing exists without SPACE? But it is obvious Shuny, you have a religious agenda to defend - you need eternal matter and energy because that is what your faith teaches.