Hans Blaster
Hood was a loser.
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,624
- 16,321
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
A theologian and an ancient historian debate cosmology?
Pass. This is not science.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What do you think?
A theologian and an ancient historian debate cosmology?
Pass. This is not science.
A theologian and an ancient historian debate cosmology?
Pass. This is not science.
Interesting video. Thanks. I watched the first half.Mathematicians and physicists will tell you there is no such thing as nothing.
Nothing is something.
Here is the mathematical description for nothing.
Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.
Here is the physics description of nothing.
What blows me away is some dude thinking he can resolve a self invented conundrum, by way of a thought experiment, without first recognising the existence of his own mind in, (and its obvious total influence over), his mental picture of 'Nothing'!
This is the very reason why philosophy, (for philosophy's sake), acquires the reputation of being a complete waste of time.
Good question.There obviously is Something. Why be concerned with Nothing?
But there was 'a something' in that very statement ... you gave it a name: 'Nothing'. You also asserted it existed. The word 'Nothing' carries a meaning and so does 'was' (or 'existed' or 'real', or 'really'). You then asserted that 'Nothing' existed by using those words together in a sentence. All these words convey meanings/concepts. Who are those meanings/concepts intended for in the hypothetical image portrayed in the statement? An English speaking human of course, so we have someone speaking words with a pre-existing meanings, ie: 'Nothing', which is conveyed to a human listener, who is able to comprehend that meaning. 'Really was Nothing', there, just went up in a puff of smoke! The conditional part, (the 'if') is completely moot.Why is it not valid to say that, if there really was Nothing,
Well given there is all the stuff I mention above in the hypothetical, including perceiving human minds, then there must also exist the potential for them to also invent Laws from those perceptions.doubtingmerle said:there would then be no physical laws that prevent universes from popping up out of nothing?
So are you saying we need to assume that the science of our universe necessarily needs to exist? If so where does God fit in? Are universal processes something that necessarily needs to exist in all possible universes?In that imagined situation where there isn't even such a thing as for example multiverses or any other such initiators of a particular new universe, you are imagining a universe coming into existence without any kind of initiating factor/impulse....
You'd have to imagine a truly non-physical (non real)...'process' (for lack of a word, when no processes even exist) which is unlike all scientific theories of every kind.
Put another way, what is it that would cause the TrueNothing to stay what it is?Put another way, what is it that would cause the TrueNothing to suddenly not be what it is?
Yes, we have a universe. Somehow it came into existence. Whatever it is that caused it is sometimes referred to as God by scientists, even though they don't believe in the Christian God. If you want me to define whatever it is that caused the universe as God, I could do that.So, imagining such a non-physical initiating thingy, you have in effect something sorta like...'God' by another name.... It's like you didn't want to use the word 'God', so you just described a version of creationism without using the term 'God'....
Science does not work with "proof".Interesting video. Thanks. I watched the first half.
The video is working under the assumption that the laws of physics apply. Yes, if the laws of physics apply as we know them, then there can be no such thing as a state of nothing in which there is no matter and no energy. There will always be quantum fields that can create virtual particles.
But can we say that our laws of physics need to work in all possible universes? If so, why is it that these laws of physics absolutely need to be, and could not be otherwise?
Observing that the laws of physics are constant, as far as we can tell, in all the known universe, is not a proof that these laws must always apply to any possible universe.
But if we assume that the laws of physics must apply in any possible universe, then the state of Nothing is really a state of Nothing-plus-the-laws-of-physics. In such a state, virtual particles can and do pop in and out of existence. If these same laws apply always, even outside our universe, is it possible that, instead of popping particles in and out of existence, they can occasionally pop universes in and out of existence?
Yup.For it is creationists who keep wanting to talk about a state of nothing.
Absolutely.doubtingmerle said:They state that if there was once nothing then there could be no universe. Ergo, God.
Ok, but we cannot state that, since an explanation was made by a theologian or an ancient historian, therefore that explanation is not science.
Why is it not valid to say that, if there really was Nothing, there would then be no physical laws that prevent universes from popping up out of nothing?
In a way, the hypothesiser, in the hypothetical where there's supposed to be a 'TrueNothing', has actually taken on the role of God as an observer and then denied their own existence in that scenario! Its completely sick, twisted .. and completely intellectually dishonest!.. Using the word "God" as an arbitrary name for the processes that started the universe does not prove that the processes that started the universe have a mind, or consists of three persons.
Our universe is surrounded by a particle horizon beyond which nothing is observable as a photon emitted from a receding object exceeding the speed of light will never reach us.Interesting video. Thanks. I watched the first half.
The video is working under the assumption that the laws of physics apply. Yes, if the laws of physics apply as we know them, then there can be no such thing as a state of nothing in which there is no matter and no energy. There will always be quantum fields that can create virtual particles.
But can we say that our laws of physics need to work in all possible universes? If so, why is it that these laws of physics absolutely need to be, and could not be otherwise?
Observing that the laws of physics are constant, as far as we can tell, in all the known universe, is not a proof that these laws must always apply to any possible universe.
But if we assume that the laws of physics must apply in any possible universe, then the state of Nothing is really a state of Nothing-plus-the-laws-of-physics. In such a state, virtual particles can and do pop in and out of existence. If these same laws apply always, even outside our universe, is it possible that, instead of popping particles in and out of existence, they can occasionally pop universes in and out of existence?
The weak anthropic principle (WAP) is the truism that the universe must be found to possess those properties necessary for the existence of observers. The WAP is not a theory of physics. Rather, it is a methodological principle.
Exactly. So could there be realms with different physics?Our universe is surrounded by a particle horizon beyond which nothing is observable as a photon emitted from a receding object exceeding the speed of light will never reach us.
Exactly! That is what I have been saying.Other universes are well beyond this horizon and their existence or otherwise is unfalsifiable making any claims about the laws of physics being the same or different unsupportable.
Really? Why can it not be that there was a realm with different physics in which universes pop up out of Nothing? If that was so, then yes, I could still be here asking if that is so.The same principle can be applied in addressing your thread; if the laws of physics didn’t exist there would be no one asking the question whether a universe can pop out of nothing!
In what way does the opening post take on the role of God? I ask 9 questions in the opening post. It is all about us not knowing, and asks questions about it. If you think there was any sentence that dogmatically takes on the role of God, then please echo that sentence back to me. I cannot find it.In a way, the hypothesiser, in the hypothetical where there's supposed to be a 'TrueNothing', has actually taken on the role of God as an observer
In what way is it sick and twisted to ask questions? In what way is that dishonest? If I made a statement that was sick and twisted, then please echo it back so we know what you are talking about.and then denied their own existence in that scenario! Its completely sick, twisted .. and completely intellectually dishonest!
Also, cause and effect is a concept our minds create in order to make sense of our perceptions/observations. In scientific thinking, it is frequently referred to as 'time's arrow'. Whenever its invoked, by necessity, the existence of a human mind is implied ... (unless one is expected to simply skim over and completely ignore that inconvenient truth). There is no evidence that 'cause and effect' exists independently from a human mind. The idea that it does, can be shown as being a pure belief via the scientific method.
I'm not saying their discussion is unworthy of consideration in the whole, I'm just saying it doesn't belong in the "physical science" section of CF.
I think it's the latest theory by atheists trying to prove that God isn't necessary... I also think it's ridiculous.Why does the universe exist? Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?
For a minute, let's think about Nothing. When I will use the word "Nothing" with a capital N in this thread, I will refer to a state of reality in which there truly is nothing. No matter. No energy. No spacetime. No God. No laws of physics. No second law of thermodynamics. No law of conservation of energy. No law that says universes don't spontaneously spring into existence out of nothing. No...
Wait, What?
If there is nothing that prevents universes from spontaneously springing into existence, then in our hypothetical state of Nothing, what prevents universes from popping into existence? If Nothing exists, do universes keep popping up?
Perhaps you would say it is actually impossible for the state of Nothing to exist in such a way that it has no law preventing it from generating multiple universes. But in that case we don't really have Nothing. We do have a state that excludes some things like matter and energy, yes, but which does have some laws, such as a law stating that "no thing comes from Nothing". If Nothing cannot exist without having such a law, then we have our answer as to why there is something rather than Nothing. There is something rather than Nothing, because some things (or some laws) absolutely need to exist.
If some things or some laws absolutely need to exist, then which laws need to exist? Must the law that prevents universes from spontaneously creating themselves exist? How do you know?
You might say that the law that states universes do not come from Nothing has to be true, for that is what we observe in our universe. But how is this relevant to our hypothetical state that we will call Nothing? The fact that some event is not observed in The Milky Way does not prove it is impossible in Nothing.
Richard Carrier discusses this at Koons Cosmology vs. The Problem with Nothing.
What do you think?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?