Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[stevevw]

No they do not end up having the same physical parameters as our universe.
In this thread the terms vacuum expectation value and energy expectation value have been used.
Since quantum mechanics in most interpretations is probabilistic in nature the expectation value is the average of all possible outcomes when a measurement is made.

This also extends to quantum fields where the energy of the field is expressed as an expectation value and being an average value means the vacuum decay of local fields to produce bubble universes can occur for different random energies.
The temperature of the hot BB depends on the amount of energy released during vacuum decay associated with inflation, hence the initial conditions for each bubble universe can vary leading to different physics.

When inflation was first proposed in the late 1970s, the inflaton field was thought to be the Higgs field, the idea has persisted with many scientists and as this thread has shown a deviation in the energy of the false vacuum of the Higgs field can lead to drastic changes in the physics.

Ok so if there can be other bubble universes that had different energies and produced different physics in each universe what does that mean for something like time and space. Will they also have different measures from our universe.

I suggest you go back and read what I stated, I asked if you supported ID not creationism.
As you now know ID, YEC and OEC share similar views on creation ex nihilo.
When it comes to my ideology and assumptions, I have made my position perfectly clear as a Christian that God, ID, creationism and the supernatural are unfalsifiable in science.

ID is a very broad term. I mean even with your view there is a degree of ID simply because Christians acknowledge God as creator no matter how everything came about. God doesn't gamble so what we have today is what was programmed in a way into nature.

At some point God had to create something out of nothing (ex nihilo) whether that be the singularity, pre BB void and the conditions for life itself even if using natural processes. So in that sense all Christians are IDist in some sense.

But no I am not an IDist in that I try to prove God with science. Like you I believe this is impossible. This is more a case of faith. The Bible mentions when we look at Gods creation we know in our hearts that God created everything which is faith and not rationality.

You still have an agenda but under a different name which disagrees with the BB because it does not depend on God’s creation and therefore you are in the wrong forum by pushing this agenda.

OK fair enough I am not going to argue over what thread this thread should be in. The question is at what point does it become philosophy. Take consciousness. You cannot speak of the science behind consciousness or Mind without philosophy coming up. As soom as someone claims consciousness is created due to the NCC it becomes philosophical.

I guess I should have labelled the thread 'does the mandelbrot set prove the mind is fundemental to reality'.

You blindly accepted Flemming without any objectivity because his narrative supported your confirmation bias the BB was wrong.
Your repudiation of him while still trying justification because particular parts of his crank theory were supposedly supported by other scientists is not terribly convincing.

If I believed that the BB was wrong as you assume then why would I be talking about what happened before the BB or be trying to argue theories like Inflation are backed by the math and theorectical physics which produce BB's. I don't believe that any idea is right or wrong as I don't really know. I am just questioning some of the aspects that the theories are based on not because of God but because observations and data suggests this.

 

[stevevw]

There's nothing in that reference which says string theory or inflation, permits determination of physical laws in a universe that is not ours.
(Looks like an attempt at the gish gallop fallacy).

Gish gallop, I thought that was when someone posts several or more references. I have linked 2 for specific reasons. The first explains how the various Inflation theories are based on the math and theorectical physics that predicts a Multiverse with difference physical parameters without going into detail. So a summary of what I was trying to point out that a Multiverse has a scientific basis and that there will be universes with different physical laws which sjastro just supported.

The second link is actually from the scientist who developed Eternal Inflation theory and specifically goes into the math and theorectics of how Inflation theory will produce a Multiverse by creating Bubble or what Guth calls Pocket universes with different physical parameters ie

I will discuss eternal inflation, showing how once inflation starts, it generically continues forever, creating an infinite number of “pocket” universes.

Just in case theres any doubt here is another summary of Guth's Eternal Inflation theory.

Inflation theory, proposed by physicist Alan Guth in the 1980s, suggests that there was a period of rapid expansion in the early universe. Eternal inflation takes this concept further by proposing that some regions of space-time continue to inflate, leading to an endless creation of new "bubble" universes.

Each bubble universe forms when a region of space stops inflating. This cessation of inflation is triggered by a process called quantum tunneling, which results in a local drop in energy. The energy drop leads to a hot and dense state—the same conditions from which our own universe evolved following the Big Bang. Hence, each bubble universe may undergo its own Big Bang and subsequent evolution, possibly leading to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets.

https://www.miragenews.com/bubble-universes-multiverse-theory-a-new-look-1024566/

 

[stevevw]

You won't believe what just happened. I walked to the front door and at that exact moment a young girl with red hair drove past in a white Toyota with the rego 909GWN. Now what were the chances that that happened as it did exactly when it did? There are an infinite number of events going back decades, centuries, millions of years that had to happen exactly as they did for it to happen.

There must be some galactically important reason for it. What do you think it is?

The conditions that allowed conscious intelligent beings needs far more things to line up than a red head in a white sports car to go past your door.

Lets add some more. How about she actually stopped and came back and she knew what you did that morning. What about she wore the same dress as your wife that day, she went to the same school as you, got her car serviced at the same place you did, was the same age as you down to the time of birth, in the same hospital and her parents had the same name as your parents. Oh and they had the same number of kids with the same ages and names. Thats just a few. The odds begin to increase then.

You would not be blamed for thinking that this women has done some painstakingly thorough research to find someone like herself so she could freak you out with these coincidences and not some random women who just happen to drive past your door.

 

[SelfSim]

.. The first explains how the various Inflation theories are based on the math and theorectical physics that predicts a Multiverse with difference physical parameters without going into detail. So a summary of what I was trying to point out that a Multiverse has a scientific basis and that there will be universes with different physical laws which sjastro just supported.

Regardless of all that, there was nothing in that reference which says string theory or inflation, permits determination of physical laws in a universe that is not ours.

Current understandings of theoretical physics, upon which some consequences can be pondered by some, can easily change. The consequences are very fluid speculative propositions. (I wouldn't call them predictions, as you have either).
Also, (for eg), I personally cannot even begin to imagine the impacts of a different electron mass, which implies a complete alteration of what we understand as the Standard Particle Model.

I, like @sjastro, am left trying to understand your motives in pursuing this line of inquiry(?) It appears as like trying to milk blood out of a stone, (or something akin)?
I suppose at the end of the day, I really don't care about the consequences of speculation based on yet more speculation, regardless of whether its based on valid Physics, or not.

 

[SelfSim]

The conditions that allowed conscious intelligent beings needs far more things to line up than a red head in a white sports car to go past your door.

Lets add some more. How about she actually stopped and came back and she knew what you did that morning. What about she wore the same dress as your wife that day, she went to the same school as you, got her car serviced at the same place you did, was the same age as you down to the time of birth, in the same hospital and her parents had the same name as your parents. Oh and they had the same number of kids with the same ages and names. Thats just a few. The odds begin to increase then.

You would not be blamed for thinking that this women has done some painstakingly thorough research to find someone like herself so she could freak you out with these coincidences and not some random women who just happen to drive past your door.

This is a not-too-convincing ID straw man argument.

 

[Bradskii]

The conditions that allowed conscious intelligent beings needs far more things to line up than a red head in a white sports car to go past your door.

No. Everything from conscious intelligence onwards needed a further practically infinite number of things to happen to have the car passing.

So the redhead driving past is even more improbable than intelligence coming into existence. But we both know that her driving past is completely inconsequential. It was something that was an accidental result of initial conditions. If I had nominated in advance that it would happen then the odds against it happening at random would be such that it must have been preordained. Designed. But I didn't.

So the emergence of human intelligence is just as accidental. Just as random.

 

[Kylie]

So you disbelieve the articles that say inflation theory for example predict a multiverse.

The theory of parallel universes is not just maths – it is science that can be tested

The theory of parallel universes is not just maths – it is science that can be tested

The existence of parallel universes may seem like something cooked up by science fiction writers, with little relevance to modern theoretical physics. But the idea that we live in a "multiverse" made up of an infinite number of parallel universes has long been considered a scientific possibility...

phys.org

Here is the original paper by Alan Guth on Inflation theory but I don't know why you would want it as I don't think you would understand it. I know its over my head. But nevertheless the maths is there for those who know.

Inflation

https://sites.astro.caltech.edu/~ccs/Ay21/guth_inflation.pdf

Why do you think this supports your "we can determine the laws of nature that exist in separate universe" idea?

The only thing it says in that article about other universes is at the end, where it says:

The universes predicted by string theory and inflation live in the same physical space (unlike the many universes of quantum mechanics which live in a mathematical space), they can overlap or collide. Indeed, they inevitably must collide, leaving possible signatures in the cosmic sky which we can try to search for.​

​

The exact details of the signatures depends intimately on the models – ranging from cold or hot spots in the cosmic microwave background to anomalous voids in the distribution of galaxies. Nevertheless, since collisions with other universes must occur in a particular direction, a general expectation is that any signatures will break the uniformity of our observable universe.​

​

These signatures are actively being pursued by scientists. Some are looking for it directly through imprints in the cosmic microwave background, the afterglow of the Big Bang. However, no such signatures are yet to be seen. Others are looking for indirect support such as gravitational waves, which are ripples in space-time as massive objects pass through. Such waves could directly prove the existence of inflation, which ultimately strengthens the support for the multiverse theory.​

​

It's talking about just finding indications that other universes are out there. It says nothing about determining what the laws of nature are in those universe. They haven't even found evidence for the other universes. And even if they do (which would be very cool, I agree), it does NOT follow that we will be able to determine what the laws of nature are in those universes.

And the actual paper you provided doesn't talk about the multiverse at all.

In short, nothing what you provided says what you think it says, and you have nothing but wishful thinking.

Of course, if you disagree, please quote the EXACT SENTENCE OR SENTENCES that you think show that we can detect other universes and determine what laws of nature govern them.

 

[stevevw]

Why do you think this supports your "we can determine the laws of nature that exist in separate universe" idea?

The only thing it says in that article about other universes is at the end, where it says:

The universes predicted by string theory and inflation live in the same physical space (unlike the many universes of quantum mechanics which live in a mathematical space), they can overlap or collide. Indeed, they inevitably must collide, leaving possible signatures in the cosmic sky which we can try to search for.​

​

The exact details of the signatures depends intimately on the models – ranging from cold or hot spots in the cosmic microwave background to anomalous voids in the distribution of galaxies. Nevertheless, since collisions with other universes must occur in a particular direction, a general expectation is that any signatures will break the uniformity of our observable universe.​

​

These signatures are actively being pursued by scientists. Some are looking for it directly through imprints in the cosmic microwave background, the afterglow of the Big Bang. However, no such signatures are yet to be seen. Others are looking for indirect support such as gravitational waves, which are ripples in space-time as massive objects pass through. Such waves could directly prove the existence of inflation, which ultimately strengthens the support for the multiverse theory.​

​

It's talking about just finding indications that other universes are out there. It says nothing about determining what the laws of nature are in those universe. They haven't even found evidence for the other universes. And even if they do (which would be very cool, I agree), it does NOT follow that we will be able to determine what the laws of nature are in those universes.

And the actual paper you provided doesn't talk about the multiverse at all.

In short, nothing what you provided says what you think it says, and you have nothing but wishful thinking.

Of course, if you disagree, please quote the EXACT SENTENCE OR SENTENCES that you think show that we can detect other universes and determine what laws of nature govern them.

I never said that we can actually detect other universes with different laws of physics but rather that the theory itself, the maths and theorectical physics explains how this is a prediction of the theory. As the article also states

We have not waved our hands and said: "Let there be a multiverse". Instead the idea that the universe is perhaps one of infinitely many is derived from current theories like quantum mechanics and string theory.

and more specifically relating to String Theories math and predictions it clearly states that this will mean positing universes with different physical laws

for string theory to work mathematically, it requires at least ten physical dimensions. Since we can only observe four dimensions: height, width, depth (all spatial) and time (temporal), the extra dimensions of string theory must therefore be hidden somehow if it is to be correct. To be able to use the theory to explain the physical phenomena we see, these extra dimensions have to be "compactified" by being curled up in such a way that they are too small to be seen. Perhaps for each point in our large four dimensions, there exists six extra indistinguishable directions?

A problem, or some would say, a feature, of string theory is that there are many ways of doing this compactification –10500 possibilities is one number usually touted about. Each of these compactifications will result in a universe with different physical laws – such as different masses of electrons and different constants of gravity.

While the exact details of the theory are still being hotly debated, inflation is widely accepted by physicists. However, a consequence of this theory is that there must be other parts of the universe that are still accelerating. However, due to the quantum fluctuations of space-time, some parts of the universe never actually reach the end state of inflation. This means that the universe is, at least according to our current understanding, eternally inflating. Some parts can therefore end up becoming other universes, which could become other universes etc. This mechanism generates a infinite number of universes.

By combining this scenario with string theory, there is a possibility that each of these universes possesses a different compactification of the extra dimensions and hence has different physical laws.

 

[SelfSim]

I never said that we can actually detect other universes with different laws of physics but rather that the theory itself, the maths and theorectical physics explains how this is a prediction of the theory. As the article also states

We have not waved our hands and said: "Let there be a multiverse". Instead the idea that the universe is perhaps one of infinitely many is derived from current theories like quantum mechanics and string theory.

and more specifically relating to String Theories math and predictions it clearly states that this will mean positing universes with different physical laws

for string theory to work mathematically, it requires at least ten physical dimensions. Since we can only observe four dimensions: height, width, depth (all spatial) and time (temporal), the extra dimensions of string theory must therefore be hidden somehow if it is to be correct. To be able to use the theory to explain the physical phenomena we see, these extra dimensions have to be "compactified" by being curled up in such a way that they are too small to be seen. Perhaps for each point in our large four dimensions, there exists six extra indistinguishable directions?

A problem, or some would say, a feature, of string theory is that there are many ways of doing this compactification –10500 possibilities is one number usually touted about. Each of these compactifications will result in a universe with different physical laws – such as different masses of electrons and different constants of gravity.

While the exact details of the theory are still being hotly debated, inflation is widely accepted by physicists. However, a consequence of this theory is that there must be other parts of the universe that are still accelerating. However, due to the quantum fluctuations of space-time, some parts of the universe never actually reach the end state of inflation. This means that the universe is, at least according to our current understanding, eternally inflating. Some parts can therefore end up becoming other universes, which could become other universes etc. This mechanism generates a infinite number of universes.

By combining this scenario with string theory, there is a possibility that each of these universes possesses a different compactification of the extra dimensions and hence has different physical laws.

Err .. so what? What exactly is your point in all of this?

A popsci article discusses extrapolations of the string theory abstraction and its implications .. but string theorists do this in order to better understand the string theory modelling toolset itself, using the universe as the template ... and not in order to say that any of these extrapolations are true.

Are you at the point where you think what string theory has piled on, is real and exists? If so, I seriously doubt that any string theorist/physicist would think that. In fact, I've seen a Youtube lecture by Leonard Susskind where, after explaing the Holographic Principle, he overtly comes out explicitly (and emphatically) stating that he doesn't believe any of it. Brian Greene is always very careful to couch his dissertations in terms of raising more questions in theoretical physics .. and never with the purpose of answering them in reality.

All of which brings me back to: 'What, exactly, is your point?'

 

[sjastro]

Ok so if there can be other bubble universes that had different energies and produced different physics in each universe what does that mean for something like time and space. Will they also have different measures from our universe.

Since bubble universes hypothetically emerged from the same fabric of space-time where only the local vacuum energy varied there is no likely reason for space and time to be different.

Our own universe went through a series of phase transitions where the physics changed, the electroweak transition being confirmed in particle accelerator experiments, yet the passage of cosmological time and the growth of the universe does not indicate time and distance having been different.
The chronology of our universe and its size at any given time greater than the Planck time 10⁻⁴³ s is well defined for distance and time to remain as is.

If I believed that the BB was wrong as you assume then why would I be talking about what happened before the BB or be trying to argue theories like Inflation are backed by the math and theorectical physics which produce BB's. I don't believe that any idea is right or wrong as I don't really know. I am just questioning some of the aspects that the theories are based on not because of God but because observations and data suggests this.

If you didn’t believe the BB was wrong then what was the point of posting Flemming’s video and using the galaxy formation problem as further evidence the BB was wrong.

 

[Kylie]

I never said that we can actually detect other universes with different laws of physics but rather that the theory itself, the maths and theorectical physics explains how this is a prediction of the theory. As the article also states

We have not waved our hands and said: "Let there be a multiverse". Instead the idea that the universe is perhaps one of infinitely many is derived from current theories like quantum mechanics and string theory.

and more specifically relating to String Theories math and predictions it clearly states that this will mean positing universes with different physical laws

for string theory to work mathematically, it requires at least ten physical dimensions. Since we can only observe four dimensions: height, width, depth (all spatial) and time (temporal), the extra dimensions of string theory must therefore be hidden somehow if it is to be correct. To be able to use the theory to explain the physical phenomena we see, these extra dimensions have to be "compactified" by being curled up in such a way that they are too small to be seen. Perhaps for each point in our large four dimensions, there exists six extra indistinguishable directions?

A problem, or some would say, a feature, of string theory is that there are many ways of doing this compactification –10500 possibilities is one number usually touted about. Each of these compactifications will result in a universe with different physical laws – such as different masses of electrons and different constants of gravity.

While the exact details of the theory are still being hotly debated, inflation is widely accepted by physicists. However, a consequence of this theory is that there must be other parts of the universe that are still accelerating. However, due to the quantum fluctuations of space-time, some parts of the universe never actually reach the end state of inflation. This means that the universe is, at least according to our current understanding, eternally inflating. Some parts can therefore end up becoming other universes, which could become other universes etc. This mechanism generates a infinite number of universes.

By combining this scenario with string theory, there is a possibility that each of these universes possesses a different compactification of the extra dimensions and hence has different physical laws.

You sure seem to be moving the goalposts a lot.

In post 346 you specifically stated that you could provide a long list of scientists who believed that time existed before the Big Bang. You never provided such a list.

In post 405 you claimed that string theory says that time existed before the Big Bang. You also mentioned the completely hypothetical idea that universes spawn other universes that could have laws of nature based on the parent universes. However, this is a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence to support all the IFs it requires.

And I would go on, but suffice it to say that it's clear that once again you have been caught out and are desperately backpedaling to try to change your tune because the song you were singing is completely unsupportable.

 

[stevevw]

You sure seem to be moving the goalposts a lot.

In post 346 you specifically stated that you could provide a long list of scientists who believed that time existed before the Big Bang. You never provided such a list.

In post 405 you claimed that string theory says that time existed before the Big Bang. You also mentioned the completely hypothetical idea that universes spawn other universes that could have laws of nature based on the parent universes. However, this is a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence to support all the IFs it requires.

lol post 405 isn't even my post and as the actual person who you were talking to said you havn't done your research on time the possibility of time before our universe you also havn't researched my posts. The poster gave you examples of scientists who think that our universe was preceeded by other universes with time ie

eg String theory predicts time before the big bang, and there are many involved in string theory!

eg many multiverse advocates think universes spawn others, so why should ours be first?
.
eg Penrose nobel laureate has written a lot on time before big bang - you will find many others if you look. But you didnt.

As I said its the theories ie String and Inflation theory that predict from the same maths and theorectical physics that there will be other universes created with different physical laws including time itself. I even gave you the original paper from Guth and Linde on Inflation theory which states that Bubble or what he calls Pocket universes with different physical constants. Even sjastro said the same thing more or less.

No they do not end up having the same physical parameters as our universe.
In this thread the terms vacuum expectation value and energy expectation value have been used.
Since quantum mechanics in most interpretations is probabilistic in nature the expectation value is the average of all possible outcomes when a measurement is made.

This also extends to quantum fields where the energy of the field is expressed as an expectation value and being an average value means the vacuum decay of local fields to produce bubble universes can occur for different random energies.
The temperature of the hot BB depends on the amount of energy released during vacuum decay associated with inflation, hence the initial conditions for each bubble universe can vary leading to different physics.

And I would go on, but suffice it to say that it's clear that once again you have been caught out and are desperately backpedaling to try to change your tune because the song you were singing is completely unsupportable.

The truth is the evidence has been given. I have continuously said it is the math and theorectical physics that the theories are based on is what predicts the multiverse and varying universes with different physical parameters which means different time and space. If the theories are good enough to stand as theories of science then so is what they predict.

 

[SelfSim]

... The truth is the evidence has been given. I have continuously said it is the math and theorectical physics that the theories are based on is what predicts the multiverse and varying universes with different physical parameters which means different time and space. If the theories are good enough to stand as theories of science then so is what they predict.

No .. 'different physical parameters' does not mean different time and space.
Time and space are dimensions of the spacetime which all these universes share in their in-common descriptions. They are not physical parameters in the context we are discussing. If time and space were different, we would have incoherence between descriptions of possible other bubble universes.

Different physical parameters, which if their values were to vary from ours, would produce new physics .. the physical constants, for instance: Gravitational, Speed of Light, Planck, Couplings for Quarks and Leptons (or rest masses), Higgs field potential, etc. (There can be others, depending on the model being selected).

 

[stevevw]

No .. 'different physical parameters' does not mean different time and space.
Time and space are dimensions of the spacetime which all these universes share in their in-common descriptions. They are not physical parameters in the context we are discussing. If time and space were different, we would have incoherence between descriptions of possible other bubble universes.

Different physical parameters, which if their values were to vary from ours, would produce new physics .. the physical constants, for instance: Gravitational, Speed of Light, Planck, Couplings for Quarks and Leptons (or rest masses), Higgs field potential, etc. (There can be others, depending on the model being selected).

Ok that doesn't make sense. If for example in relativity time is relative to the observer depending on speed and direction then if an alternative universe has different physics to ours where perhaps they are moving through space at a different speed or direction then they will experience time differently to us on earth.

In fact technically this would happen even in opur own universe with someone in another location that ended up with different conditions to our planet in our solar system.

 

[SelfSim]

Ok that doesn't make sense. If for example in relativity time is relative to the observer depending on speed and direction then if an alternative universe has different physics to ours where perhaps they are moving through space at a different speed or direction then they will experience time differently to us on earth.

There is no causal contact between bubble universes .. so don't worry about your scenario .. no-one would ever know what the other is experiencing. SR is conceived within our universe. It may also work in some other universe and it may not work in others.

If you add in string theory's speculative ideas, one of them is that other universes occupy the same space as our own, yet they are out of causal contact! Ponder that one!

In fact technically this would happen even in opur own universe with someone in another location that ended up with different conditions to our planet in our solar system.

Oh boy .. I can see we're already in different universes because my brain just refuses to engage with that bit of reasoning ..

 

[stevevw]

There is no causal contact between bubble universes .. so don't worry about your scenario .. no-one would ever know what the other is experiencing. SR is conceived within our universe. It may also work in some other universe and it may not work in others.

If you add in string theory's speculative ideas, one of them is that other universes occupy the same space as our own, yet they are out of causal contact! Ponder that one!

So does that mean there are other universes perhaps beyond the limits of our universe in the dark void that our universe began from. This whole alternative universe idea is doing my head in.

Oh boy .. I can see we're already in different universes because my brain just refuses to engage with that bit of reasoning ..

Yeah sorry lol. I just find time a slippery concept. I guess I'm not the only one.

Time is fundamental, space is emergent – why physicists are rethinking reality | Aeon Videos

We need to rethink the relationship between space and time: the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin on a fundamental mystery

aeon.co

 

[carloagal]

Well I suppose it is progresss that finally you are engaging with evidence , which is why I reply instead of the usual straw man attacks against those whose opinions violate your beliefs.

So pointing out your first straw man -at one level it doesn’t matter whether the samples were cardiac or not, they are all still bread became human flesh. None are disputing that. That is the essence of a Eucharistic miracle.
Cardiac is the fascinating detail.

But even on that you are wilfully misleading Our readers:
The first investigator they sent it to was not a cardiac specialist, who thought it epithelial, as did a second . But you conveniently fail to tell our readers how the story ended - that he in the end concluded it was Cardiac.!!!

The CARDIAC SPECIALISTS thought it was cardiac -As they did elsewhere - notice there are multiple cardiac specialists In the different groups.

so Why The dispute?

The reason the histological presentation Was unusual and twisted out of shape was - as zugibe stated - the cells were traumatized, as happens after a beating! Thats why there were leucocytes too. One of many extraordinary facts They were living In vivo which also should not happen. But it did.

And the slides are out there to see. Intercalated disks, nuclear pyknosis etc. the defining characteristics.
It takes true specialists such as zugibe was to know the unusual presentation.

So Mystery solved to the satisfaction of the first investigator who CHANGED HIS MIND after specialist examination - that is how science works. Why don’t you mention that He changed his mind?

So I use the word consensus correctly.
Across all the samples the overwhelming consensus is cardiac. And for so called eucharistic miracle - it is sufficient bread became human flesh.

Another error on your part: It wasnt even castarnon who was the lead in sending out the samples -
I have several books by the man who did.
I also have several books by castarnon Too.
When you have read ALL of it, and checked the science , then You too can have an opinion.

Even on that I am ahead of you. My other half is a molecular biologist at director level who specialised in immunology, and knows plenty about human tissue structure, and those leucocytes. - my source for specialised explanation.

Well done Mike. Great evidences of creation of hearts tissue. Eucharistic Miracles 5 proves and 0 of abiogenesis and evolution theory is destroyed. But the skeptic Massimo Polidoro insist that any miracles occurred yet.

 

[Kylie]

lol post 405 isn't even my post

Yeah, sorry about that. I debate with Mike often as well. Got it mixed up.

and as the actual person who you were talking to said you havn't done your research on time the possibility of time before our universe you also havn't researched my posts. The poster gave you examples of scientists who think that our universe was preceeded by other universes with time ie

eg String theory predicts time before the big bang, and there are many involved in string theory!

eg many multiverse advocates think universes spawn others, so why should ours be first?
.
eg Penrose nobel laureate has written a lot on time before big bang - you will find many others if you look. But you didnt.

Yeah, if someone is going to make the claim that such-and-such a theory predicts time before the Big Bang, then they are going to need to present the actual paper that shows it.

As I said its the theories ie String and Inflation theory that predict from the same maths and theorectical physics that there will be other universes created with different physical laws including time itself. I even gave you the original paper from Guth and Linde on Inflation theory which states that Bubble or what he calls Pocket universes with different physical constants. Even sjastro said the same thing more or less.

Yeah, inflation is about the rapid expansion of our universe very shortly after it formed. It does not talk about other separate universes.

No they do not end up having the same physical parameters as our universe.
In this thread the terms vacuum expectation value and energy expectation value have been used.
Since quantum mechanics in most interpretations is probabilistic in nature the expectation value is the average of all possible outcomes when a measurement is made.

This also extends to quantum fields where the energy of the field is expressed as an expectation value and being an average value means the vacuum decay of local fields to produce bubble universes can occur for different random energies.
The temperature of the hot BB depends on the amount of energy released during vacuum decay associated with inflation, hence the initial conditions for each bubble universe can vary leading to different physics.

Yeah, this talks about VERY DIFFERENT PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS. If you are claiming that time existed before the Big Bang and also exists in completely separate universes, then this actually damages your position.

"Yeah, the other universes have very different laws of nature, except for time. Time is always the same!"

The truth is the evidence has been given. I have continuously said it is the math and theorectical physics that the theories are based on is what predicts the multiverse and varying universes with different physical parameters which means different time and space. If the theories are good enough to stand as theories of science then so is what they predict.

Nah, you haven't. Show me where you posted a paper that claims time existed before the Big Bang, or in a different universe.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, sorry about that. I debate with Mike often as well. Got it mixed up.

That's alright, I've just jumped from child abuse, to Trans and now Math and physics so I don't know whats going on.

Yeah, if someone is going to make the claim that such-and-such a theory predicts time before the Big Bang, then they are going to need to present the actual paper that shows it.

I suppose any paper that proposes a multiverse will do for that. So I would imagine String theory.

The concept of a multiverse is not new, but string theory provides a possible framework for its existence. The theory suggests that our universe is just one “brane” or “membrane” in a higher-dimensional space, known as the “bulk.” Other branes or membranes could exist in the bulk, each with its universe. This would mean an infinite number of parallel universes, each with different physical laws and constants and each with its version of reality.

Supporters of the multiverse theory argue that it is a logical implication of string theory and that it could be tested through observations of the cosmic microwave background or the detection of gravitational waves.

https://zainabmosunmola.medium.com/string-theory-and-the-multiverse-e31eceba1495

So if the Multiverse is true then its obvious that there are other universes with time and that at least 1 if not many came about before ours did and therefore so did time exist before ours did.

This paper is an introduction to String Theory but its over my head.
Introduction to String Theory

https://math.berkeley.edu/~kwray/papers/string_theory.pdf

So perhaps Wiki can help as it explains things for the layperson.
String theory

String theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, inflation is about the rapid expansion of our universe very shortly after it formed. It does not talk about other separate universes.

Actually its Eternal Inflation Theory which is different as Inflation Theory as it the universe continues to expand after the Big Bang.

According to eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever throughout most of the universe. Because the regions expand exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating. Eternal inflation, therefore, produces a hypothetically infinite multiverse, in which only an insignificant fractal volume ends inflation.

Eternal inflation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, this talks about VERY DIFFERENT PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS. If you are claiming that time existed before the Big Bang and also exists in completely separate universes, then this actually damages your position.

Actually just as the above link states infinite number of parallel universes, each with different physical laws and constants and each with its version of reality.

So if there are other universes then they must have time. Unless our universe was the very first universe then some of those universes had time before our universe.

"Yeah, the other universes have very different laws of nature, except for time. Time is always the same!"

I don't know about that. In the movie Interstella there was the part where after they went through the worm hole to another part of the universe where gravity was a lot stronger and this meant after only spending a few hours there when they came back years had gone by. This was evidently based on real science.

The Science of 'Interstellar' Explained (Infographic)

Wormhole travel across the universe and supergiant black holes are just some of the wonders seen in the film 'Interstellar.' Here's how it works.

www.space.com

So I could imagine another universe with different physical constants including gravity where perhaps the force is stronger and this slows time down compared to our universe. If the physical constants are different then so is gravity and therefore as stronger gravity slows time then a universe with a stronger force of gravity will have a different time to us.

Nah, you haven't. Show me where you posted a paper that claims time existed before the Big Bang, or in a different universe.

Ah you want those exact words. So lets break it down.

Do you agree that a Multiverse or Paraelle universe is theorectically possible according to some theories like String Theory or Eternal Inflation Theory.

 

[carloagal]

Creating animal tissues by "miracle" doesn't determine in anyway how life generally was created on Earth. It just doesn't. If it is a real miracle, it doesn't mean that that is how life started on Earth. If it is fraudulent, it doesn't mean a god didn't create life. It is irrelevant to the origin of Earth life and even more so to evolution.

The only EM I am interested in involves Maxwell's equations.

Are not animals, are human tissues created in a consacrated host.