the origin of the universe - a short exercise

[AdB]

Well that's all well and good. You think that it's rational to believe that nature suggests a creator. But this implies that there's something about reality that nature alone can't account for. So what is it that you think that nature can't account for. Trees? Planets? People? Complexity? What?

This all comes back to what I've been saying all along, you need to demonstrate why the uncaused cause needs to be conscious. If mindless quantum fields can explain the existence of absolutely everything around us, without the need for a conscious agent... then it's irrational to invoke the existence of something that isn't necessary.

I'm wide open to an argument for why that supreme conscious agent needs to exist. But absent such an argument, it's just not rational to assume that such an agent actually does exist.

So, what's your argument for why the uncaused cause needs to be conscious?

While QFT does correctly predict the results of a huge range of experiments to great accuracy, there are many areas where it is known to have crucial shortcomings. So it’s not the wonder wand you seem to think it is and your assertion that it would be a candidate for the uncaused cause of the universe doesn’t hold.

Firstly the quantum fields seem to only be the framework for the existence of the different particles in the universe, so basically just equating to the point that I made about the need for energy to be provided.

Secondly, the quantum fields can’t be eternal with the universe itself not being eternal because they would produce the specific particles as soon as they would get exited, which for eternally self-existent quantum fields would have been an eternity into the past.

Thirdly, the quantum fields are not independent because they need to be “exited" or “energized" to actually produce the specific particles, the cause or source of this is not specified for QFT but would have to be something outside of the quantum fields themselves.

Fourthly, the quantum fields are principally bound to the physical reality because they are the cause of the particles in a very location based manner.

‐---------------------------------------------------
Regarding your question why the uncaused cause of the universe needs to be conscious, as I already indicated the existence of “mind” can’t be explained from solely physical processes.

This term “mind” encompasses everything from consciousness and thought to emotions and intuition. Science can only show correlation between the mind and neurological activity, but no causation in either direction. However there are a great number of phenomena that can only be explained in a substantive manner when these are treated as features of a non physical entity where there is a connection to our physical bodies through the neurological activities. The existence of this non physical entity begs for an origin of its own.

That this origin of mind needs to be conscious itself can be derived from the fact that the universe has all the hallmarks of being designed. From the exact correctly fine tuned constants and the mere existence of the laws of physics to the unimaginable complex logic behind the genetic code and its inescapable pairing with the cytological machinery.
We know that anything that was designed always is the product of a conscious mind.

 

[Hans Blaster]

While QFT does correctly predict the results of a huge range of experiments to great accuracy, there are many areas where it is known to have crucial shortcomings. So it’s not the wonder wand you seem to think it is and your assertion that it would be a candidate for the uncaused cause of the universe doesn’t hold.

QFTs work at the level of individual interactions of fundamental particles. They are not useful tools for large systems.

Firstly the quantum fields seem to only be the framework for the existence of the different particles in the universe, so basically just equating to the point that I made about the need for energy to be provided.

That's exactly what they are. QFTs are about particles.

Secondly, the quantum fields can’t be eternal with the universe itself not being eternal because they would produce the specific particles as soon as they would get exited, which for eternally self-existent quantum fields would have been an eternity into the past.

QFs fill space if there is not space then there is no QF. I really don't see the objection here.

Thirdly, the quantum fields are not independent because they need to be “exited" or “energized" to actually produce the specific particles, the cause or source of this is not specified for QFT but would have to be something outside of the quantum fields themselves.

I'm not sure what your objection is here.

Fourthly, the quantum fields are principally bound to the physical reality because they are the cause of the particles in a very location based manner.

Again, what is your objection to QFs here?

‐---------------------------------------------------
Regarding your question why the uncaused cause of the universe needs to be conscious, as I already indicated the existence of “mind” can’t be explained from solely physical processes.

This term “mind” encompasses everything from consciousness and thought to emotions and intuition. Science can only show correlation between the mind and neurological activity, but no causation in either direction.

The thing about minds is that the only known minds are in animals. The biological blob that is me once did not have a miind, but now it does. These are all consistent with mind as an emergent property of complex neural systems bathed in chemicals. Minds are also irrelevant to the origin of the Universe.

However there are a great number of phenomena that can only be explained in a substantive manner when these are treated as features of a non physical entity where there is a connection to our physical bodies through the neurological activities. The existence of this non physical entity begs for an origin of its own.

I am unaware of these phenomena, nor of the existence of any 'non-physical entity' let alone the measured properties of such.

That this origin of mind needs to be conscious itself can be derived from the fact that the universe has all the hallmarks of being designed.

But it doesn't.

From the exact correctly fine tuned constants and the mere existence of the laws of physics

They are not fine tuned.

to the unimaginable complex logic behind the genetic code and its inescapable pairing with the cytological machinery.

Not at all related to origin of the Universe, or evidently designed.

We know that anything that was designed always is the product of a conscious mind.

 

[AdB]

That's exactly what they are. QFTs are about particles

So we agree that QFs are not a candidate for the uncaused cause the other arguments point to the same conclusion.

I am unaware of these phenomena, nor of the existence of any 'non-physical entity' let alone the measured properties of such

Just look around you and read some... And yes, non-physical entities can't be measured by the scientific method...

But it doesn't

Not a really strong counter argument.

They are not fine tuned

Well, if one would be off just less than a percentage then the whole universe would collaps.

Not at all related to origin of the Universe, or evidently designed

Well if you want to deny the obvious design in genetics and that this all came to be by pure chance, then you need to have a bigger faith than I need to believe in Jesus...

 

[Hans Blaster]

So we agree that QFs are not a candidate for the uncaused cause the other arguments point to the same conclusion.

Not the specific ones we have physical models for (described in the Standard Models). For physics beyond the Standard Model, I cannot say.

Just look around you and read some... And yes, non-physical entities can't be measured by the scientific method...

Perhaps you don't know what constitutes "physical", but no there is no evidence for non-physical entities.

Not a really strong counter argument.

The Universe only looks designed to those who presuppose such.

Well, if one would be off just less than a percentage then the whole universe would collaps.

How much would the cosmological constant have to change for this to happen?

Well if you want to deny the obvious design in genetics and that this all came to be by pure chance, then you need to have a bigger faith than I need to believe in Jesus...

Genetics is far to messy and convoluted to be the product of good design, or most likely any design at all.

 

[AdB]

Not the specific ones we have physical models for (described in the Standard Models). For physics beyond the Standard Model, I cannot say.

Perhaps you don't know what constitutes "physical", but no there is no evidence for non-physical entities.

The Universe only looks designed to those who presuppose such.

How much would the cosmological constant have to change for this to happen?

Genetics is far to messy and convoluted to be the product of good design, or most likely any design at all.

Let me just end with this parable.

Would you be able to determine exactly how Grannies cake was baked, let alone know the reason why it was baked when you are not allowed to deduct this from any information that would be related to Grannie herself?

The obvious answer is no you can't. You may get pretty close regarding ingredients and baking temperatures, but you may never get to know about some of the specialties of her receipt and definitely not the reason why she baked it.

So if the universe was created by God, then you will never know how, let alone why He did it. You may come a long way by just looking at the result, but you are doing yourself a disfavor in trying to figure out the whole picture.

Wishing you all the best

 

[Tinker Grey]

Let me just end with this parable.

Would you be able to determine exactly how Grannies cake was baked, let alone know the reason why it was baked when you are not allowed to deduct this from any information that would be related to Grannie herself?

The obvious answer is no you can't. You may get pretty close regarding ingredients and baking temperatures, but you may never get to know about some of the specialties of her receipt and definitely not the reason why she baked it.

So if the universe was created by God, then you will never know how, let alone why He did it. You may come a long way by just looking at the result, but you are doing yourself a disfavor in trying to figure out the whole picture.

Wishing you all the best

Grannie could tell me. God could tell me.

Grannie spoke to me. She said God doesn't exist.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let me just end with this parable.

Would you be able to determine exactly how Grannies cake was baked, let alone know the reason why it was baked when you are not allowed to deduct this from any information that would be related to Grannie herself?

The obvious answer is no you can't. You may get pretty close regarding ingredients and baking temperatures, but you may never get to know about some of the specialties of her receipt and definitely not the reason why she baked it.

So if the universe was created by God, then you will never know how, let alone why He did it. You may come a long way by just looking at the result, but you are doing yourself a disfavor in trying to figure out the whole picture.

Wishing you all the best

The Universe is not a cake. Analogizing it as such will not make whatever argument you are attempting. Assuming a god that creates universes is bad science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Assuming a god that creates universes is bad science.

So then science can take a hike ... right?

And do you realize that a lot of science relies on "evidence of things not seen"?

And that said unseen evidence generates "the substance of things hoped for"?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[AdB]

Assuming a god that creates universes is bad science

The pioneers of modern science thought different about that...

 

[Hans Blaster]

The pioneers of modern science thought different about that...

Science isn't based on such an assumption.

 

[Astrid]

The pioneers of modern science thought different about that...

Live and learn. Newton was an alchemist.

" Floid" was
a given.

 

[AdB]

Science isn't based on such an assumption.

Actually it was, the pioneers expected law in nature exactly because they believed it was created by the Lawgiver

 

[Astrid]

1. How do you know

2 Was and is arent t

3 western history of thought has little to with non western hietory.

4 Religious opposition to source overshados any contribution

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...

Thirdly, the quantum fields are not independent because they need to be “exited" or “energized" to actually produce the specific particles, the cause or source of this is not specified for QFT but would have to be something outside of the quantum fields themselves.

The quantum fields interact with each other; that's all that's required.

Fourthly, the quantum fields are principally bound to the physical reality because they are the cause of the particles in a very location based manner.

There are reasons to think that spacetime itself is an emergent property of quantum entanglement (something along the lines of a high degree of entanglement equating to being more local). So it may well be that the quantum fields are physical reality.

This area is too speculative at present to use as support for anything.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually it was, the pioneers expected law in nature exactly because they believed it was created by the Lawgiver

Sigh. SMH. You probably think science needed Christianity to happen too, don't you?

 

[partinobodycular]

QFs fill space if there is not space then there is no QF.

I realize that when it comes to QF's you're a whole lot smarter than me, but it seems far more likely to me that space is simply an emergent property of quantum fields, and those fields only appear to have a spatial component from the perspective of something within that emergent space. Viewed from within three dimensional space, those fields will appear to have three dimensions, viewed from within four dimensional space they'll appear to have four dimensions, etc...

But the fields themselves don't have any dimensions at all... none, which is why there's phenomena such as entanglement and superposition, because from the field's perspective everything exists in the same place at the same time. Neither do the fields fluctuate, again, that's only something that appears to be true from the perspective of something within that emergent spacetime.

So it seems likely to me that spacetime is simply the product of entanglement, but then the question is... entanglement of what? The obvious answer would seem to be entanglement of the field with physical reality. But that leads to a glaring Catch-22, because if physical reality is the product of entanglement, and entanglement requires physical reality, then physical reality becomes its own first cause.

Having said all that woo, other than the idea that quantum fields have spatial dimensions what is it that you think disqualifies quantum fields from being the first cause... the thing from which physical reality emerges?

 

[Astrid]

Sigh. SMH. You probably think science needed Christianity to happen too, don't you?

We see that claim.
a lot.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I realize that when it comes to QF's you're a whole lot smarter than me, but it seems far more likely to me that space is simply an emergent property of quantum fields, and those fields only appear to have a spatial component from the perspective of something within that emergent space. Viewed from within three dimensional space, those fields will appear to have three dimensions, viewed from within four dimensional space they'll appear to have four dimensions, etc...

I am aware of such theories, but I have no familiarity with them, so I can't really comment.

But the fields themselves don't have any dimensions at all... none, which is why there's phenomena such as entanglement and superposition, because from the field's perspective everything exists in the same place at the same time. Neither do the fields fluctuate, again, that's only something that appears to be true from the perspective of something within that emergent spacetime.

So it seems likely to me that spacetime is simply the product of entanglement, but then the question is... entanglement of what? The obvious answer would seem to be entanglement of the field with physical reality. But that leads to a glaring Catch-22, because if physical reality is the product of entanglement, and entanglement requires physical reality, then physical reality becomes its own first cause.

Having said all that woo, other than the idea that quantum fields have spatial dimensions what is it that you think disqualifies quantum fields from being the first cause... the thing from which physical reality emerges?

I don't know how that works out. There are cosmologies I can understand, and those I can't. But none of the physical cosmologies require an intentional act.

 

[AdB]

The quantum fields interact with each other; that's all that's required.

The QFs are assumed to be able to exchange energy amongst each other, but not to produce the energy

There are reasons to think that spacetime itself is an emergent property of quantum entanglement (something along the lines of a high degree of entanglement equating to being more local). So it may well be that the quantum fields are physical reality.

One way or the other the QF are not a candidate for the uncaused cause of the universe

This area is too speculative at present to use as support for anything.

Indeed, the whole QFT, even though very accurate in the results, is still a theory.

 

[AdB]

Sigh. SMH. You probably think science needed Christianity to happen too, don't you?

yes indeed...

Natural science as we know it today originated in the 17th century from the concept
that nature is governed by mathematical laws.
This concept was based on the theological consideration that God had made creation
orderly and thus was subject to "laws of nature“.
From this concept it was reasoned that an experiment, when repeated in the same way
over and over, would always yield the same result. This method of performing science
is called “empirical science” and is the basis for modern science.

The pioneers of modern science clearly were motivated in their endevours by their firm faith in God the Creator as we can learn from what they have stated about their work.

• “Thinking God's thoughts after Him.” Johann Kepler (1571 - 1630)
• “God would not have made the universe the way it is unless He intended us to understand it.” Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691)
• “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.” Isaac Newton (1643 - 1727)
• “From these observations we discern the incomprehensible perfection, perfect order and inscrutable providence with which the wisest Creator and Lord of the Universe has formed the bodies of these animalcules (micro-organisms).” Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632 - 1723)
• “The observer of nature sees with admiration that the whole world is full of the glory of God.” Carl Linnaeus (1707 - 1778)
• “You may fly to the ends of the world and find no God but the Author of Salvation. You may search the Scriptures and not find a text to stop you in your explorations." James Clerk Maxwell (1831 - 1879)