Teleology And Human Ethics...

[seer]

Again, Vilenkin is mistakingly assuming that because our universe is zero point energy, that it must have emerged from nothing. If you think about that for half a second you would realise that even zero point energy doesn't amount to nothingness, in our case it amounts to a 14 billion light year across universe.

No Jim, that was not his point. That because the universe is at zero point energy his theory is possible, not that is necessarily had to happen. One of the reasons why he is even proposing this is because there are real difficulties with the idea that matter and energy are past eternal, perhaps insurmountable difficulties. He speaks to that in Tass' link a couple of pages back.

[shunyadragon]

That is a complete falsehood Shuny - where does he say that this universe came from the multiverse - EXACT TIME PLEASE.

It nucleates as Vilenkin describes.

2:04

[seer]

It nucleates as Vilenkin describes.

2:04

Yes he says the universe spontaneously nucleates (comes into being) nothing at all about this universe coming from a previous multiverse - Jim got what he was saying - why not you? Blinded by your religious agenda?

[shunyadragon]

Yes he says the universe spontaneously nucleates (comes into being) nothing at all about this universe coming from a previous multiverse - Jim got what he was saying - why not you? Blinded by your religious agenda?

No scientists, cosmologists, physicists, nor I ever said anything of the sort like 'coming from a previous multiverse. All possible universals come into being by natural processes within a multiverse. My referenced section describes as I stated before.

"Listen to Vilenkin completely he does not say that. He does describe how a universe can arise spontaneously from the Quantum world from nothing, which is the total energy equals zero, and not that no energy exists. It exists as potential energy.


What you asserted concerning what Vilenkin said is false as demonstrated in the section I cited beginning 2:04. Yes, Vilenkin proposes that multiverse contain and 'give rise' to many universes which spontaneously from from cosmological matrix of the multiverse. That is actually the definition of a multiverse.

And you are completely clueless - how can a Quantum world exist without time or energy or space? Where can it exist? Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

[seer]

No scientists, cosmologists, physicists, nor I ever said anything of the sort like 'coming from a previous multiverse. All possible universals come into being by natural processes within a multiverse. My referenced section describes as I stated before. What you asserted concerning what Vilenkin said is false.

But Vilenkin said nothing about a multiverse, and there is zero evidence for this fictional multiverse. And what Vilenkin said is clear, even JimL got it, that the only prior condition necessary for the creation of the universe were the laws of physics, in the Platonic sense (i.e. non physical). But Shuny you can't accept that possibility because you have a religious agenda - that is obvious.

[seer]

Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of timeThis is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe[/cite]

Are you kidding Shuny, Vilenkin is making the point that the "egg" is not past eternal. And in the very link you just quoted Vilenkin makes the point that the multiverse can not be eternal into the past.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I have listened to Carrol in the past, and perhaps you can school Shuny on what Vilenkin actually said. It may be difficult, he has a religious agenda to defend.

As per the reference you cited beginning at ~2:04 you do not know what Vilenkin actually said. Your assertion was false.

Are you saying Vilenkin does not support the existence of the multiverse which contains and gives rise to many universes?

[JimL]

No Jim, that was not his point. That because the universe is at zero point energy his theory is possible, not that is necessarily had to happen.

Anything is possible seer, it's just that it's highly unlikely.

One of the reasons why he is even proposing this is because there are real difficulties with the idea that matter and energy are past eternal, perhaps insurmountable difficulties. He speaks to that in Tass' link a couple of pages back.

What makes you think the above is so? Let me ask you this, do you think that some-thing can become absolutely nothing?

[seer]

As per the reference you cited beginning at ~2:04 you do not know what Vilenkin actually said. Your assertion was false.

Are you saying Vilenkin does not support the existence of the multiverse which contains and gives rise to many universes?

No Shuny, I'm saying what I have been saying for pages now - that Vilenkin teaches that a multiverse can not be past eternal. Your own link proved that and now I see that you dishonestly removed the link in that post. From your link that you tried to hide:

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time (see diagram).But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn't work ( Physical Review Letters, DOI: 103/physrevlett.90.151301). "You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the past," says Vilenkin."There must be some kind of boundary."

[seer]

Anything is possible seer, it's just that it's highly unlikely.


What makes you think the above is so? Let me ask you this, do you think that some-thing can become absolutely nothing?

Well Jim, like I posted to Shuny, a past eternal multiverse may be just as unlikely or improbable.

[JimL]

No Shuny, I'm saying what I have been saying for pages now - that Vilenkin teaches that a multiverse can not be past eternal. Your own link proved that and now I see that you dishonestly removed the link in that post. From your that you tried to hide:

Hes not speaking to the existence of the multi-verse here per se, he's only saying that from his perspective Guth's inflationary multi-verse can't be past eternal. The multi-verse hypothesis itself didn't arise out of Guths inflation, it arose out of quantum mechanics.

[JimL]

Well Jim, like I posted to Shuny, a past eternal multiverse may be just as unlikely or improbable.

No not really, just the opposite. It is more likely than not that the universe is past eternal rather than that it just puffed into existence from out of nothing. We have no reason to believe that anything comes from nothing.

[seer]

Hes not speaking to the existence of the multi-verse here per se, he's only saying that from his perspective Guth's inflationary multi-verse can't be past eternal. The multi-verse hypothesis itself didn't arise out of Guths inflation, it arose out of quantum mechanics.

That is not what he is saying Jim, there is no model that gets us to an eternal past, quantum mechanics or otherwise. There is no model that avoids a beginning: https://iweb.langara.bc.ca/rjohns/fi...s_creation.pdf

[seer]

No not really, just the opposite. It is more likely than not that the universe is past eternal rather than that it just puffed into existence from out of nothing. We have no reason to believe that anything comes from nothing.

And we have no evidence for eternal matter and energy.

[JimL]

That is not what he is saying Jim, there is no model that gets us to an eternal past, quantum mechanics or otherwise. There is no model that avoids a beginning: https://iweb.langara.bc.ca/rjohns/fi...s_creation.pdf

That there is no existing model that gets us there does not mean that the universe is not eternal. We don't know the answer yet in any case, but it is more likely than not that the universe emerged from out of a substratum existence rather than from out of nothing. You are still basing the notion of a created universe on ignorance. But like I said, we still don't have absolute answers so you are still free to believe what you want, but unlike the notion of an eternally existing universe, creationism is pure belief and nothing else.

Also, just curious and you neglected to answer my question in the previous post so here you go: Do you believe that an existing thing can become absolutely nothing?