Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[Adrift]

You think that a description of the nature of Time on the B-Theory is "fruitless in terms of what the B-Theory is?" How does that make any sense?

What does any of this word salad actually mean? You're throwing about a bunch of nebulous terms as if they mean something. What do "before" and "after" mean, in the absence of Time? What does "beyond" mean, in the absence of Space? What is a "non-universe" and how can a universe "fade into" it? What is a "Quantum Matrix?" What do you mean by "beginning?" What do you mean by "multiverse?"

The regions between stars are not at absolute zero. The universe has an ambient temperature, so far as we can see.

You are contradicting yourself, here. First you say that these "regions of space are not expanding," then immediately afterward you say that they "will grow as the universe expands." I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but when physicists say that the universe is expanding, they mean that the actual space-- that includes the "regions between stars and all other objects," you know-- is expanding. They are describing the geometry of space-time. They're not simply saying that things are moving away from one another.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Hypothetical philosophical descriptions like being alive one moment and dead the next are fruitless and meaningless as to what B-Theory is. On the Macro scale of our existence time is what it is, and we are not alive one moment and dead the next, even if these are discrete moments.

You don't seem to have any better understanding of B-Theory time than does Seer. Yes, actually, "on the Macro scale" we are alive one moment and dead the next, whether or not time is discrete or continuous, according to the B-Theory. In fact, we are according to the A-Theory, as well, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The "multiverse" is the world of all possible universes that our universe is in.

So, then, you are referring to the whole state of possible universes on the Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of QM. So, in fact, you are referring to the wave function of the universe, as I asked earlier in the thread.

The Matrix of the universe and the multiverse would be one continuous Quantum vacuum zero point energy

You don't seem to understand what quantum vacuum zero point energy is, either.

True, this is the matrix of the universe is the regions between the stars that are at Quantum vacuum zero point energy at absolute zero (ambient temperature).

Dude, seriously. Spitting out random sciencey-sounding terms which you don't understand doesn't make you sound intelligent. Quite the reverse, actually. You were wrong about regions of space being at absolute zero-- the universe has an ambient temperature which is significantly higher than absolute zero, even in the empty regions "between the stars." The "quantum vacuum zero point energy" of a system is merely a potential, theoretical lowest possible energy state for that system. It's not like this is the natural state of empty space. And tossing the word "matrix" into your sentence, unnecessarily, in order to sound cool died out about 10 years ago.

No, these regions will not move as the material of the universe expands. The regions of Quantum vacuum zero point energy will become larger as the material in the universe moves outward from the point of the beginning of the expansion (maybe the Big Bang) and the entropy of the universe increases.

No, they (physicists and cosmologists?) do not mean that the regions of Quantum Vacuum zero point energy expand with the material of the universe. The material of the universe expands through the Matrix of the Quantum Vacuum zero point energy. If it moved and expanded it would not be at Quantum vacuum zero point energy at absolute zero.

If the region of ambient space around the expansion expanded with the matter that formed from the event what replaced it?

Yep. You have absolutely zero understanding of cosmology, including the very basics of General Relativity.

Space-time, itself, expands and contracts. Not just the matter and energy within space-time, but the actual space and time. This was the brilliant and counter-intuitive revelation which allowed Einstein to formulate General Relativity, back in 1916. When scientists speak of the expansion of the universe, they literally are talking about regions of space getting bigger. This is a description of geometry, not of motion.

[seer]

You don't seem to have any better understanding of B-Theory time than does Seer. Yes, actually, "on the Macro scale" we are alive one moment and dead the next, whether or not time is discrete or continuous, according to the B-Theory. In fact, we are according to the A-Theory, as well, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

But on the B-Theory the moment when when I'm alive and the moment I'm dead exist exist together in the universe - correct? So in this universe I'm both dead and alive. And you said that our experience of time - going from past to present to future, was an illusion. But why? Why do we have this illusion only going one way? Why not the illusion of going backward in time? What in the B-Theory of time is causing this one way experience?

[shunyadragon]

Quantum Mechanics does not only deal with Planck units, though much of the mystery and many of the unanswered questions of physics are found at those scales.

[Jichard]

And in Craig's debate with Sean Carroll, Sean pretty much concedes that none of the models for an eternal past work.

He does no such thing. In fact, quite the reverse. He states that there are at least 17 plausible models of a past-infinite universe.

Yup.

No Tass, no model we have get us to an eternal past. And Craig did not misrepresent Vilenkin, Craig wrote him and here is part of Vilenkin's response (the rest is in the link).

Why are you making false claims, again, in the service of your theology? There are at least 17 eternal models of the universe. Sean Carroll's addressed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8

[Tassman]

Quote Originally Posted by seer

And in Craig's debate with Sean Carroll, Sean pretty much concedes that none of the models for an eternal past work.

Why are you making false claims, again, in the service of your theology? There are at least 17 eternal models of the universe. Sean Carroll's addressed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8

Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras

He does no such thing. In fact, quite the reverse. He states that there are at least 17 plausible models of a past-infinite universe.

Yup.

Double yup!

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The fact that the Planck constant is integral to quantum mechanics does not imply that QM only applies at Planck unit scales of space-time. Seriously, dude, you just keep digging yourself deeper holes, here.

Quantum Mechanics has been utilized to describe the behavior of protons, which have a radius at least 8 orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length. It is simply erroneous to pretend that QM only deals with systems at Planck unit scales.

[shunyadragon]

The fact that the Planck constant is integral to quantum mechanics does not imply that QM only applies at Planck unit scales of space-time. Seriously, dude, you just keep digging yourself deeper holes, here.

Quantum Mechanics has been utilized to describe the behavior of protons, which have a radius at least 8 orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length. It is simply erroneous to pretend that QM only deals with systems at Planck unit scales.

I did not say QM only deals with systems at Planck unit scales. Misrepresentation on your part. I said moments in QM are Planck units.

You said, "Quantum Mechanics does not only deal with Planck units, though much of the mystery and many of the unanswered questions of physics are found at those scales."

Which is false.

[seer]

Double yup!

Yes Skywalker your faith is deep. But I'm not sure why you would amen this. As I have been saying there are no workable models that actually get us to an eternal past, and in the debate Mr. Carroll agreed with that.

So whether or not the universe can be eternal does not come down to a conversation about abstract principles. It comes down to a conversation about building models and seeing which one provides the best account for what we see the universe to be doing.

And Craig's response:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-a...rary-cosmology

[shunyadragon]

Yes Skywalker your faith is deep. But I'm not sure why you would amen this. As I have been saying there are no workable models that actually get us to an eternal past, and in the debate Mr. Carroll agreed with that.



And Craig's response:



http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-a...rary-cosmology

Again, it remains that Vilenkin was referring to our present universe and not physical existence as a whole. Again, Vilenkin's model is only one of many, not all conclude that our present universe has a definite beginning, and none including Vilenkin's conclude our physical existence has a definite beginning.

It does not matter whether there is evidence or not for the infinite multiverse, there is no evidence that can definitely define a beginning of anything.

[seer]

Again, it remains that Vilenkin was referring to our present universe and not physical existence as a whole. Again, Vilenkin's model is only one of many, not all conclude that our present universe has a definite beginning, and none including Vilenkin's conclude our physical existence has a definite beginning.

Shuny you have no idea what you are talking about, the eternal inflation theory is a multiverse theory. And that multiverse needs a beginning as Vilenkin makes perfectly clear in the You Tube talk. It is not just about our present universe. Just as the cyclical universe also needs a beginning.

Eternal inflation is an inflationary universe model, which is itself an outgrowth or extension of the Big Bang theory. In theories of eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever in at least some regions of the universe. Because these regions expand exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating. All models of eternal inflation produce an infinite multiverse, typically a fractal. The eternal nature of new inflation was discovered independently by Paul Steinhardt and Alexander Vilenkin in 1983.[1]

[shunyadragon]

Shuny you have no idea what you are talking about, the eternal inflation theory is a multiverse theory. And that multiverse needs a beginning as Vilenkin makes perfectly clear in the You Tube talk. It is not just about our present universe. Just as the cyclical universe also needs a beginning.

You keep quoting Vilenkin like a broken record, There are other models that are infinite. An absolute beginning of our physical existence is not an assumption of any model including Vilenkin. Please cite a source of a cyclic model that has a beginning. You do not accept the science multiverse models of the cosmos, therefore your reasoning is hypocrisy par excellence.

[seer]

You keep quoting Vilenkin like a broken record, There are other models that are infinite. An absolute beginning of our physical existence is not an assumption of any model including Vilenkin. Please cite a source of a cyclic model that has a beginning. You do not accept the science multiverse models of the cosmos, therefore your reasoning is hypocrisy par excellence.

Shuny, are you this dense? In the video Vilenkin also explains why the cyclic model also needs a "beginning." His words, not mine. The fact is there are not workable theories that get us to an eternal past. That is science today...

Let me quote Carroll again:

So whether or not the universe can be eternal does not come down to a conversation about abstract principles. It comes down to a conversation about building models and seeing which one provides the best account for what we see the universe to be doing.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes Skywalker your faith is deep. But I'm not sure why you would amen this. As I have been saying there are no workable models that actually get us to an eternal past, and in the debate Mr. Carroll agreed with that.

Dr. Carroll says precisely the opposite of what you are claiming, in the passage which you quoted. You're attempting to claim that there are "no workable models." Dr. Carroll talks about presenting workable models. We do not know if these are the right models, yet, but they are most certainly workable ones.

And Craig's response:

Craig is absolutely wrong, in that claim. Once again, there are a number of past-eternal models which have not been shown to be untenable, as Vilenkin, himself, has told Craig. You seem to enjoy selectively quoting Dr. Vilenkin. When something he has said seems to agree with the claim you are making, you repeat it as if it is an unassailable truth. However, when Vilenkin says something which contradicts your claim, you ignore it entirely.

[Jichard]

Dr. Carroll says precisely the opposite of what you are claiming, in the passage which you quoted. You're attempting to claim that there are "no workable models." Dr. Carroll talks about presenting workable models. We do not know if these are the right models, yet, but they are most certainly workable ones.

Craig is absolutely wrong, in that claim. Once again, there are a number of past-eternal models which have not been shown to be untenable, as Vilenkin, himself, has told Craig. You seem to enjoy selectively quoting Dr. Vilenkin. When something he has said seems to agree with the claim you are making, you repeat it as if it is an unassailable truth. However, when Vilenkin says something which contradicts your claim, you ignore it entirely.

That's a common tactic of seer's: he'll quote-mine sources on topics he's not very familiar with, and intentionally leave out any claims inconvenient for his position. So it's no surprise that he's doing it again for his quote-mines of Vilenkin and Carroll.