Evolution Lesson

[Job 33:6]

I know that Proboscideans are not one family already. I am not one here calling them all elephants. My question remains, where are species all shown leading to the family of Elephantidae? These show what appear to me to be like connecting dots. I see nothing conclusive for connection of one to another up to Elephantidae. My point that there is not agreement does not mean I have explanation for how they are to be organized.

Here are two species of a genus considered to be ancestral to modern elephants, which lead to the origins of the family elephantidae.

Primelephas - Wikipedia

Primelephas gomphotheroides

Primelephas korotorensis

These being quite clearly elephants.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here are two species of a genus considered to be ancestral to modern elephants.

Primelephas - Wikipedia

Primelephas gomphotheroides

Primelephas korotorensis

These being quite clearly elephants.

The Gomphotheriidae

Looks ancestral to me. Clearly not a modern elephant, yet clearly an elephant none the less.

And remember, nobody can extract dna from fossils to see the exact genetic lineage, but rather cladistics and the fossil record are based off of a transition of morphological features. And I think most people can see the apparent morphological similarity between the above species and modern elephants.

 

[FredVB]

Indeed is there any need of God at all?

What existed before the universe is not the universe. It is still an appeal to whatever is beyond the universe, so the universe is not the necessary existence. Whatever you say it is, that is still undetectable. And it is all any of what could be.

You do not show how it continues on without end, when it would not be in the same form. What could it be? According to what I find is said about it, it would not be the universe anymore, after some great length of time, though it is a matter of different projections. This really does not characterize necessary existence. I did not think I have to spell out the logic. What necessarily must exist would then always exist, that way. The universe itself is contingent, if there was a big bang at the beginning, that shows it.

It is not pompous to say you would not understand more, that is, unless I said I do understand more of that. I don't understand more either, I say that what can be known of necessary existence, which is unlimited, is that it goes beyond what we know, and we can only know that much, from the logic that there is necessary existence. If there was nothing that is necessary existence, there would not be anything at all, there would never be reason for anything if there was not already existence. The existence there always was is that necessary existence, without limit. And being other than the universe, necessary existence has capacity to create, being unlimited, any capacity of necessary existence is without limit. That is spelling out the logic I would think could be understood, hopefully that will be adequate. If you call the universe necessary existence, it falls short of that, it is then not the real necessary existence.

You want to know what imperishable means? It is characterizing what would never perish. The universe itself is not claimed to be characterized with that, it would not then last as the universe, you still do not show anyway what else it would still be. I guess I would have meant the same thing with incorruptible.

And how I described it is not embellishing it, what was said was definitional of necessary existence, what is not with such characteristic of existing necessarily is not necessary existence.

If you conceive that there is a greater universe that is beyond this universe and is eternally existing, with no cause beyond it as it explains itself, necessarily existing, how is that, and what would it be?

That's just semantics - it doesn't matter what you call it, I'm referring to 'all there is', commonly called the universe, the multiverse, the metaverse, the greater universe, or what-have-you. I'm suggesting that the observable universe is just a new phase of a prior physical state.

It is 'necessarily existent' because it exists - it is all that exists, i.e. it can't not be, its existence is not contingent. 'Nothing' can't exist, there can't be nothing; 'nothing' is the concept of negation, not a state of existence.

How it changes is irrelevant, it will still be the universe (all that is). Immediately after the big bang, the universe was in a completely different form to what we see today, even the fundamental forces were different. In the far future of heat-death, it will be more like the universe of today than was the universe immediately after the big bang.

As I said, I'm suggesting that the big bang was only the beginning of the particular phase of the universe we find ourselves in - just as your birth was only the beginning of the particular phase of your lineage that you find yourself in.

It is pompous (and rude) to say 'X is beyond your capacity to understand it' without providing an explanation of X, and it strains credulity that you would say that if you really meant, 'X is beyond our capacity to understand it'.

Why use the term if you think neither of us has the capacity to understand it?

Yep, the universe (as I described above) fits all that very well.

You made this assertion before and I asked you to substantiate it - so far all you've done is repeat it - it is not a logical statement. I've seen a few definitions of necessary existence, but none say anything about capacity to create or 'being unlimited' - if they have a logical connection to necessary existence, you need to make it clear, e.g. "necessary existence implies the capacity to create and being unlimited because... <some explanation>".

So what do you mean by 'perish' in this context?

The universe will not cease to exist in any physical sense, it will either continue expanding indefinitely, becoming ever more empty of matter, or it will undergo another phase transition to a lower energy background state which will continue indefinitely. Either way, it will continue in some form. It can't go away, there's literally nowhere for it to go - it's all there is.

Please provide a reference for your definition - i.e. one that involves the 'capacity to create' and 'being unlimited'. I'm curious to know your source.

Clearly, since it necessarily exists, there is no 'how', it just is; what it is, is the 'greater universe' (if that's the term you prefer - metaverse and multiverse are other options), a physical state following physical laws. That's all that's necessary.

Calling it always the universe is just semantics. It is clearly not all the same thing at all times. We can agree at least that there could never have been just nothing existing, there is what is necessarily existing. That is not us, we do not necessarily exist, we were brought into existence and our existence is contingent. The same for the universe, the one I mean is claimed to have started with a big bang. There is what always existed beyond that, but clearly that is not the same thing. You want to call that the universe, though it is not the same, I call that something other than the universe.

Changing necessary existence is what you claim is possible, but I do not see that existence that is really necessarily existing would ever change, but necessity of that existence must persist.

There can be much more to the necessary existence, with that necessarily existing, there would not be limitation as that view is arbitrarily limiting that necessity. So that goes beyond what we can know from our own logic. If that offends you so be it, that is the way it is. It is semantics to claim "you" is offensive other than "we" or "us". Clearly "you" can be understood in ways other than personally and it is not wrong. I have never claimed to understand all, or even anything better. What I do know of anything better that I might I just have not brought up.

We can still understand there is existence necessarily existing, even with not knowing all about that from our logic.

It is logic that necessary existence creates, and that if that creates it is without limit, if necessary existence is other than this universe.

Perishing means that what there is does not persist as such that there is.

KomatiiteBIF you are new in responding here to me, you clearly have not read through my posts, as you are not really answering what I ask, and I am not rehashing what I have been saying all over again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Calling it always the universe is just semantics. It is clearly not all the same thing at all times.

An acorn is clearly not the same thing as an oak tree, but to give some conceptual continuity of identity, we call them both 'oak'.

We can agree at least that there could never have been just nothing existing, there is what is necessarily existing. That is not us, we do not necessarily exist, we were brought into existence and our existence is contingent. The same for the universe, the one I mean is claimed to have started with a big bang. There is what always existed beyond that, but clearly that is not the same thing. You want to call that the universe, though it is not the same, I call that something other than the universe.

I did give various options - the multiverse, the metaverse, and what you suggested, the greater universe.

Changing necessary existence is what you claim is possible

I don't recall making that claim - please quote me.

There can be much more to the necessary existence, with that necessarily existing, there would not be limitation as that view is arbitrarily limiting that necessity.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there.

So that goes beyond what we can know from our own logic. If that offends you so be it, that is the way it is.

Assertions that are 'beyond logic' don't offend me, they're simply either invalid, ill-defined, or unsupported.

It is semantics to claim "you" is offensive other than "we" or "us". Clearly "you" can be understood in ways other than personally and it is not wrong. I have never claimed to understand all, or even anything better. What I do know of anything better that I might I just have not brought up.

A simple apology for clumsy phrasing that sounded rude would have been more honest than this protracted wriggling. What you said was, "Real necessary existence is beyond your capacity to understand it." This comes across as a personal put-down or insult. Just man up and own it.

Perishing means that what there is does not persist as such that there is.

Top marks for opacity and obfuscation - I interpret that as 'perishing' means that things change - is that what you're saying?

 

[FredVB]

An acorn is clearly not the same thing as an oak tree, but to give some conceptual continuity of identity, we call them both 'oak'.

Even so both being definable as an oak, they are not the same thing as each other, even with continuity. That existence which is necessarily as it is will always be as it is, logically. Necessity of existence would not be changing to something different.

I did give various options - the multiverse, the metaverse, and what you suggested, the greater universe.

I don't recall making that claim - please quote me.

I certainly was speaking with your own terms.

You said

How it changes is irrelevant, it will still be the universe (all that is). Immediately after the big bang, the universe was in a completely different form to what we see today, even the fundamental forces were different.

You are the one saying that is the necessary existence, so... changing necessary existence is what you claim is possible.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there.

That which is necessary existence cannot be nonexistent anywhere, any time. So that existence is unlimited. It is probably why you (generically) want to think of the universe as being unlimited. But there is no evidence to conclude that it is. If gravitation is a force throughout all the universe, I expect that it would not be. I mean existence that is necessary, being unlimited, is not a simplicity that we could understand, certainly not from logic that we know there is existence that is necessary. There would be qualities to necessary existence without those being limited, which we would just not know from our logic. That we conclude that is not so would be an arbitrary limitation.

A simple apology for clumsy phrasing that sounded rude would have been more honest than this protracted wriggling.

I interpret that as 'perishing' means that things change - is that what you're saying?

There were offensive remarks to me in this forum before, more than once, mentioning that never had anyone ever apologize to me in this forum, I was at least once told to just move on and forget about it. I was not doing something wrong in this communication previously and do not consider that I did that now. I am not going to just go along with a demand for an apology from me now, I really do not see why I should, with not having done something wrong.

Perishing is a change with corruption to what had been before. It is claimed that particles, at least down to atoms, after a great amount of time beyond the time we would consider when stars would no longer shine, would decay, with the process of entropy, with things like quantum tunneling happening.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even so both being definable as an oak, they are not the same thing as each other, even with continuity. That existence which is necessarily as it is will always be as it is, logically. Necessity of existence would not be changing to something different.

Word games. What necessarily exists need not be unchanging; however it changes it still necessarily exists, it cannot stop being necessarily existent, by definition. OTOH if what is necessarily existent cannot change, then it must necessarily be static, inert, inactive - so it cannot act, e.g. create - which rules it out as creator too.

You are the one saying that is the necessary existence, so... changing necessary existence is what you claim is possible.

What is necessarily existent must be able to change, see above.

That which is necessary existence cannot be nonexistent anywhere, any time. So that existence is unlimited. It is probably why you (generically) want to think of the universe as being unlimited. But there is no evidence to conclude that it is.

There is no evidence to the contrary. Having said that, it depends on what you mean by 'unlimited' - the greater universe could be spatially infinite or spatially finite but unbounded. Its temporal configuration has a variety of possibilities but has no beginning or end.

If gravitation is a force throughout all the universe, I expect that it would not be.

Cosmologists don't agree. Please explain why you think that.

I mean existence that is necessary, being unlimited, is not a simplicity that we could understand, certainly not from logic that we know there is existence that is necessary. There would be qualities to necessary existence without those being limited, which we would just not know from our logic. That we conclude that is not so would be an arbitrary limitation.

That's an unjustified and circular assertion - if we can't understand existence that is necessary (why not?) then how can we make any claims about it - how can we say what qualities it has or whether they would be logical?

If you're claiming that necessary existence is unlimited in all respects, i.e. absolutely infinite - I would refer you to Spinoza's 'Ethics - Part 1: Concerning God' in which, from a few simple definitions and propositions - including an 'absolutely infinite' being - he logically derives a panentheist god; an impersonal deterministic universe that he calls 'God'. It's an interesting exercise - I wonder if you can see any logical flaw.

There were offensive remarks to me in this forum before, more than once, mentioning that never had anyone ever apologize to me in this forum, I was at least once told to just move on and forget about it. I was not doing something wrong in this communication previously and do not consider that I did that now. I am not going to just go along with a demand for an apology from me now, I really do not see why I should, with not having done something wrong.

I expected as much; I just wanted it on the record.

Perishing is a change with corruption to what had been before. It is claimed that particles, at least down to atoms, after a great amount of time beyond the time we would consider when stars would no longer shine, would decay, with the process of entropy, with things like quantum tunneling happening.

It's not clear that all fermions would decay, but it's possible. It might end with only photons. What part do you think quantum tunnelling might play?

So perishing with 'corruption', in this context, simply means reducing in complexity, becoming simpler, reducing to the most fundamental state?

Nevertheless, when thermodynamic equilibrium is reached and all is a sea of far-infrared photons close to absolute zero, it will still be all there is, and it will still be necessarily existent.

 

[FredVB]

Word games.

Dismissal. You do not follow the logic.

What necessarily exists need not be unchanging; however it changes it still necessarily exists, it cannot stop being necessarily existent, by definition. OTOH if what is necessarily existent cannot change, then it must necessarily be static, inert, inactive - so it cannot act, e.g. create - which rules it out as creator too.

What is necessarily existent must be able to change, see above.

There is no evidence to the contrary. Having said that, it depends on what you mean by 'unlimited' - the greater universe could be spatially infinite or spatially finite but unbounded. Its temporal configuration has a variety of possibilities but has no beginning or end.

Cosmologists don't agree. Please explain why you think that.

That's an unjustified and circular assertion - if we can't understand existence that is necessary (why not?) then how can we make any claims about it - how can we say what qualities it has or whether they would be logical?

If you're claiming that necessary existence is unlimited in all respects, i.e. absolutely infinite - I would refer you to Spinoza's 'Ethics - Part 1: Concerning God' in which, from a few simple definitions and propositions - including an 'absolutely infinite' being - he logically derives a panentheist god; an impersonal deterministic universe that he calls 'God'. It's an interesting exercise - I wonder if you can see any logical flaw.


I expected as much; I just wanted it on the record.

It's not clear that all fermions would decay, but it's possible. It might end with only photons. What part do you think quantum tunnelling might play?

So perishing with 'corruption', in this context, simply means reducing in complexity, becoming simpler, reducing to the most fundamental state?

Nevertheless, when thermodynamic equilibrium is reached and all is a sea of far-infrared photons close to absolute zero, it will still be all there is, and it will still be necessarily existent.

Necessary existence necessarily exists as it is. Existence that is necessary would not have to change and come to a heat death, and being eternal, how could it? Any needed change, though it is not a logical characteristic, with necessary entropy assumed, would have been changing eternally, and we would not have the highly ordered we find, it could not be, with eternal existence before it. Necessary reduction to the most simple "fundamental" state is then not logical to necessary existence. It must be other than this.

Capacity to create would not be changing the Creator, that does not logically follow.

I may read Spinoza at length, but it would not be relevant to this. It is not your view, why would you be interested if it could become mine? But then I do not know really why you seem to dismiss any consideration of a will beyond that provides all the order and the universal constants that work for the universe to exist with us and everything. It does not leave the puzzling illogical changing to heat death from eternity.

 

[Job 33:6]

KomatiiteBIF you are new in responding here to me, you clearly have not read through my posts, as you are not really answering what I ask, and I am not rehashing what I have been saying all over again.

Seems like a cop-out. But ok.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Necessary existence necessarily exists as it is. Existence that is necessary would not have to change and come to a heat death, and being eternal, how could it?

'Heat death' is thermal equilibrium; the 'death' part refers to the end of complexities such as life. The universe continues.

Any needed change, though it is not a logical characteristic, with necessary entropy assumed, would have been changing eternally, and we would not have the highly ordered we find, it could not be, with eternal existence before it. Necessary reduction to the most simple "fundamental" state is then not logical to necessary existence. It must be other than this.

There are numerous cosmological models consistent with our universe and its 'heat death' being part of a temporally infinite timeline. I've already outlined several types.

Capacity to create would not be changing the Creator, that does not logically follow.

I don't know what you're saying here - if you assume a creator, then you imply active creative agency. A 'creator' that does nothing is a contradiction. Action implies change.

I may read Spinoza at length, but it would not be relevant to this. It is not your view, why would you be interested if it could become mine?

I think it is relevant. I don't agree with the detail of his argument, but his conclusion broadly matches mine. I thought you might find an ontological argument that comes to a different conclusion than the traditional ones interesting.

But then I do not know really why you seem to dismiss any consideration of a will beyond that provides all the order and the universal constants that work for the universe to exist with us and everything.

I don't dismiss any consideration of such a will, but I'm sceptical of the need for it; the arguments for it are either logically flawed, question-begging (e.g. faith-based), or equally applicable to the greater universe without such a will. IOW it is, so far, lacking justification. The principle of parsimony applies.

It does not leave the puzzling illogical changing to heat death from eternity.

There's nothing inherently puzzling or illogical about it. Entropy increases as energy distribution becomes more uniform until thermodynamic equilibrium is reached. On current evidence, the universe will continue to expand indefinitely; there is a possibility that its current state is a 'false vacuum', i.e. metastable, in which case, it will at some point, change to a lower energy state, a 'true vacuum', which will, AFAIK, continue indefinitely.

p.s. It would be helpful if you split the post you're quoting separate points an respond to them individually so that it's clear what each of your points refers to. Just ensure that each quoted section is enclosed by the 'start quote' and 'end quote' codes.

 

[FredVB]

Seems like a cop-out.

Damn, my posts can actually be looked at, so that I am not still repeating myself. I ask for continuous ancestors shown for any biological family, that is still not shown to me. Other elephants shown from fossils is not answering that.

Is it so hard to read a few other post of one being responded to, if that is what they say they would want?

'Heat death' is thermal equilibrium; the 'death' part refers to the end of complexities such as life. The universe continues.

Your idea of necessary existence is that it reaches a heat death, somehow from eternally existing. It is not how I can conceive of existence that is necessary. From existing eternally necessary existence would not change to another state.

I don't know what you're saying here - if you assume a creator, then you imply active creative agency. A 'creator' that does nothing is a contradiction. Action implies change.

Not to the self existence. Existence changes with contingent existence coming into being while necessary existence with capacity to create does not change from that. With the unlimited capacity for it that capacity is still there, as any quality of necessary existence persists.

I think it is relevant. I don't agree with the detail of his argument, but his conclusion broadly matches mine. I thought you might find an ontological argument that comes to a different conclusion than the traditional ones interesting.

So you then use the word God to mean the unlimited impersonal existence that can be called the universe, that you consider unlimited? That raises many more questions for me, and not just how the universe can exist just right for actual persons to be in it, as we assume we are. What is all that universe that you consider infinite, and eternal? What is observed of the universe has a lot of stars, and there are many galaxies. There are other bodies in the observed universe, and there is conclusion that there is the termed dark matter, and the theorized dark energy. Is that through all the infinite universe being considered? Is that all there is, and it can have us with it, and have existed from eternity, all coming to a heat death? It seems strange to believe, more than what I believe.

I don't dismiss any consideration of such a will, but I'm sceptical of the need for it; the arguments for it are either logically flawed, question-begging (e.g. faith-based), or equally applicable to the greater universe without such a will. IOW it is, so far, lacking justification. The principle of parsimony applies.

I do believe in the personal God. But I am not pushing argument for that here, so it is not faith-based. My faith depended on the believability of there being the existence that there is the Creator. The faith is affirmed, but not with logic I am discussing here.

You still do not show what the greater universe is, other than more of the same seen of the observable universe.

There's nothing inherently puzzling or illogical about it. Entropy increases as energy distribution becomes more uniform until thermodynamic equilibrium is reached. On current evidence, the universe will continue to expand indefinitely; there is a possibility that its current state is a 'false vacuum', i.e. metastable, in which case, it will at some point, change to a lower energy state, a 'true vacuum', which will, AFAIK, continue indefinitely.

What do you think happens with mass? And do you think there is infinite mass? I admittedly see problems with that.

It would be helpful if you split the post you're quoting separate points an respond to them individually so that it's clear what each of your points refers to.

This is a whole lot of extra work with my phone to respond to you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your idea of necessary existence is that it reaches a heat death, somehow from eternally existing. It is not how I can conceive of existence that is necessary. From existing eternally necessary existence would not change to another state.

So you say, without justification. But, as I mentioned previously, given a potentially infinite time, if anything can possibly change the state, something inevitably will, such as the decay of the false vacuum in various ways, or, perhaps quantum gravity leading to the creation of a stream of new 'baby' universes with their own low entropy big bangs. There are also models where our universe is just a 'bubble' in an ever-expanding multiverse that produces an infinite number of other 'baby' or 'pocket' universes, each with its own big bang... Other models are available.

Not to the self existence. Existence changes with contingent existence coming into being while necessary existence with capacity to create does not change from that. With the unlimited capacity for it that capacity is still there, as any quality of necessary existence persists.

Gobbledygook. Creation requires action, i.e. change; if that which has necessary existence creates, then it must change.

So you then use the word God to mean the unlimited impersonal existence that can be called the universe, that you consider unlimited?

No, I don't use the word, but Spinoza did (probably partly because in his situation it was prudent to do so). But I find his description of the universe reasonable, for his time.

That raises many more questions for me, and not just how the universe can exist just right for actual persons to be in it, as we assume we are.

Well, it's only 'just right' for actual persons on this relatively tiny speck of a planet at this particular time (on geological timescales); to the best of our knowledge, the universe is almost universally inimical to life. There may be other habitable planets out there with life on them, but they'll still be a vanishingly small percentage of the whole.

What is all that universe that you consider infinite, and eternal? What is observed of the universe has a lot of stars, and there are many galaxies. There are other bodies in the observed universe, and there is conclusion that there is the termed dark matter, and the theorized dark energy. Is that through all the infinite universe being considered? Is that all there is, and it can have us with it, and have existed from eternity, all coming to a heat death? It seems strange to believe, more than what I believe.

Yes, things beyond our immediate experience, and at spatial and temporal scales beyond our everyday lives, can seem strange and unfamiliar. It would be nice to think that there's more to the future than that - and as I say, given infinite time, if it's possible, it will happen.

You still do not show what the greater universe is, other than more of the same seen of the observable universe.

As I have said, a variety of models have been proposed. I've described some of the most popular ones.

What do you think happens with mass? And do you think there is infinite mass? I admittedly see problems with that.

If the universe is infinite, isotropic, and homogenous, then yes, there is infinite mass. What are the problems?

To be honest, I am not particularly attached to any particular universe/multiverse/metaverse model - we simply don't yet know, and may never know, what kind of universe we're part of; but it is the case that there are physical models that fit the criteria you suggest (to the extent that they are logically coherent) without invoking creator deities, personal or otherwise.

This is a whole lot of extra work with my phone to respond to you.

I appreciate it. It makes a big difference.

 

[FredVB]

So you say, without justification. But, as I mentioned previously, given a potentially infinite time, if anything can possibly change the state, something inevitably will, such as the decay of the false vacuum in various ways, or, perhaps quantum gravity leading to the creation of a stream of new 'baby' universes with their own low entropy big bangs. There are also models where our universe is just a 'bubble' in an ever-expanding multiverse that produces an infinite number of other 'baby' or 'pocket' universes, each with its own big bang... Other models are available.

Yes, things beyond our immediate experience, and at spatial and temporal scales beyond our everyday lives, can seem strange and unfamiliar. It would be nice to think that there's more to the future than that - and as I say, given infinite time, if it's possible, it will happen.

I say what I did because necessary existence outside the universe is not subject to laws of physics in the universe that came into being. So it is not unjustified. Everything of necessary existence is necessary, none of that being necessary would go away, all of necessary existence persists, necessarily. This is understanding the meaning of necessary here correctly.

A subsequent generation of universes will be necessarily lesser, with less mass, with less energy, if it were possible.

You are not understanding infinity rightly in concluding that. All possible infinities are not the same. Consider, or learn where you can, aleph zero, aleph 1, and aleph 2, referring to infinities. Sorry I cannot make the symbol for it with my phone access. Ongoing time would correspond to aleph 0, the other infinities are greater. All possibilities corresponds to Aleph 2, a greater infinity. Given infinite time would not mean all possibilities will happen. More possibilities will not happen than will, that infinity is much greater.greater.

Creation requires action, i.e. change; if that which has necessary existence creates, then it must change.

This is where physical laws of the universe which came into being are applied to necessary existence, the conclusion of which is not logical. What is necessary necessarily persists. What is necessary is without limit.

I don't use the word, but Spinoza did (probably partly because in his situation it was prudent to do so). But I find his description of the universe reasonable, for his time.

I understand there can be different perspectives.

Well, it's only 'just right' for actual persons on this relatively tiny speck of a planet at this particular time (on geological timescales); to the best of our knowledge, the universe is almost universally inimical to life. There may be other habitable planets out there with life on them, but they'll still be a vanishingly small percentage of the whole.

Yes, most of the universe is not right for our existence. Yet with slight difference of parameters in the universe coming from a big bang no life would be possible anywhere in it. The point I mean is that what we attribute to personhood has no justified explanation from only impersonal sources producing that.

If the universe is infinite, isotropic, and homogenous, then yes, there is infinite mass. What are the problems?

What I understand is that all matter has forces, including weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force. Gravitation is cumulative, the more mass anywhere the more gravitation on all bodies of mass there. The mass of larger stars, and anything larger, is enough to collapse into a black hole, that can draw more in but from which nothing moves out or away from, within an event horizon. More mass than that would not eliminate this. I do not see that infinite mass could not be explained from the universe coming into being, or not collapsing ever.

To be honest, I am not particularly attached to any particular universe/multiverse/metaverse model - we simply don't yet know, and may never know, what kind of universe we're part of; but it is the case that there are physical models that fit the criteria you suggest (to the extent that they are logically coherent) without invoking creator deities, personal or otherwise.

Still nothing logically excludes the creator being necessary existence, which explains things of the known universe, and us, as personal beings with what we attribute to that, very well.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I say what I did because necessary existence outside the universe is not subject to laws of physics in the universe that came into being.

The universe is all there is, so there is no 'outside the universe'.

A subsequent generation of universes will be necessarily lesser, with less mass, with less energy, if it were possible.

No, it doesn't work like that. In General Relativity, the total energy of a closed, compact universe is zero (if you account for gravity, which balances matter & energy). So a microscopic phase change 'bubble' can expand into a universe as big as you like without any overall energy change. The energy of the expansion itself produces the matter and energy (also, energy is not conserved in GR at scales where the dynamism of spacetime is significant - how much difference that makes, I couldn't say, not being an expert).

You are not understanding infinity rightly in concluding that. All possible infinities are not the same. Consider, or learn where you can, aleph zero, aleph 1, and aleph 2, referring to infinities. Sorry I cannot make the symbol for it with my phone access. Ongoing time would correspond to aleph 0, the other infinities are greater. All possibilities corresponds to Aleph 2, a greater infinity. Given infinite time would not mean all possibilities will happen. More possibilities will not happen than will, that infinity is much greater.greater.

No, we don't need Cantor; I'm talking about specific events. Over an infinite time, any event that has a non-zero probability will occur, as long as the probability remains above zero. For example, every atom will decay, and every particle (that can decay) will decay. This applies to parts of the false vacuum too.

This is where physical laws of the universe which came into being are applied to necessary existence, the conclusion of which is not logical. What is necessary necessarily persists. What is necessary is without limit.

It doesn't matter what the physical laws are, a creation is an event - something that happens, a change initiated by the action of what in this context is often called the 'First Cause'. Tautologically, what is necessary necessarily persists, but if it exercises agency it must change to do so.

Yet with slight difference of parameters in the universe coming from a big bang no life would be possible anywhere in it.

No life as we know it, perhaps; but possibly other types of organised complexity. However, as the Weak Anthropic Principle says, intelligent observers will inevitably find themselves in a universe capable of supporting intelligent observers.

It's interesting that inflation theory (where an eternally inflating universe continually produces 'pocket' universes), was proposed before the apparent fine-tuning of our universe was discovered, and provides a statistical explanation for such fine-tuning, albeit somewhat intellectually unsatisfying...

The point I mean is that what we attribute to personhood has no justified explanation from only impersonal sources producing that.

I can't make sense of that; if you're suggesting that the material of the universe can't produce people, that's an assertion that contradicts all the available evidence - people are grown from that material. Going further down that rabbit hole would need another thread.

What I understand is that all matter has forces, including weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force. Gravitation is cumulative, the more mass anywhere the more gravitation on all bodies of mass there. The mass of larger stars, and anything larger, is enough to collapse into a black hole, that can draw more in but from which nothing moves out or away from, within an event horizon. More mass than that would not eliminate this.

That's all true, but remember that gravity is by far the weakest force, its strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the relevant objects, and the universe is expanding. Only gravitationally-bound structures can resist moving apart due to this expansion. Beyond galaxy clusters, possibly superclusters, gravity is too weak to overcome this expansion. So these galaxy clusters will eventually become black holes, and those black holes will become more an more distant from each other until they finally evaporate.

I do not see that infinite mass could not be explained from the universe coming into being, or not collapsing ever.

I can't parse that... but I'll guess - it won't collapse because it's expanding (see above). Even a 'bubble' universe can be infinite - General Relativity effectively allows infinite mass and infinite volume to be produced from a finite volume in a finite time; it's a mathematical result of relativity - from a viewpoint inside the bubble universe, it is infinite. Max Tegmark gives a fuller description in 'Our Mathematical Universe' pp.114-117.

Still nothing logically excludes the creator being necessary existence, which explains things of the known universe, and us, as personal beings with what we attribute to that, very well.

Of course, it's an unfalsifiable claim; the same applies to any of the origin myths that have been created through history, and any other origin story you care to invent. What they all have in common is that they're unfalsifiable, ill-defined, invoke fanciful ontologies, and are redundant.

The models I've described may not be directly testable, but are indirectly falsifiable, are derived from well-established physical theory, and are metaphysically parsimonious.

 

[Speedwell]

There is what always existed beyond that, but clearly that is not the same thing. You want to call that the universe, though it is not the same, I call that something other than the universe.

And neither of you knows anything about it.

 

[FredVB]

The universe is all there is, so there is no 'outside the universe'.

Again, how you define the universe is relevant to any conclusion about that. And the observable universe is all that is seen, so what is beyond it is not known, and saying what there is further is the universe still, without limit, infinitely, is a guess.

In General Relativity, the total energy of a closed, compact universe is zero (if you account for gravity, which balances matter & energy). So a microscopic phase change 'bubble' can expand into a universe as big as you like without any overall energy change. The energy of the expansion itself produces the matter and energy (also, energy is not conserved in GR at scales where the dynamism of spacetime is significant - how much difference that makes, I couldn't say, not being an expert).

I can understand necessary existence, which is without limit, creating contingent existence without affecting change of necessary existence, but this process of bubble universes with as much matter and energy being produced without affect to the parent universe is not what I can understand, why should I prefer that explanation?

No, we don't need Cantor; I'm talking about specific events. Over an infinite time, any event that has a non-zero probability will occur, as long as the probability remains above zero. For example, every atom will decay, and every particle (that can decay) will decay. This applies to parts of the false vacuum too.

This was about it stated that with infinite time all possibilities would happen, there are different infinities and so infinite time would not have all possibilities happen.

I understand that IF decay happens, there is a half-life in which all constituent particles will decay to the resulting product. That is not the same thing.

It doesn't matter what the physical laws are, a creation is an event - something that happens, a change initiated by the action of what in this context is often called the 'First Cause'. Tautologically, what is necessary necessarily persists, but if it exercises agency it must change to do so.

This assumes what is necessary existence is physical with physical laws, without basis to know that, it disregards that anything about necessary existence is necessary to it. As that would be the case, what there is necessary to the necessary existence, that is, any of it, would not change. As necessary existence is unlimited, there is not less of necessary existence with creation of contingent existence, there is still as much necessary existence. That which is necessary, all of it, persists, that is there is no change with it all being necessary.

No life as we know it, perhaps; but possibly other types of organised complexity. However, as the Weak Anthropic Principle says, intelligent observers will inevitably find themselves in a universe capable of supporting intelligent observers.

That attraction forces would have been different from the big bang starting the universe that we know about would make atomic particles not possible, or have the universe from it collapse soon afterwards, or have matter completely dissipate, suggests that there would not be such organized complexity.

The weak anthropic principle seems dismissive.

I can't make sense of that; if you're suggesting that the material of the universe can't produce people, that's an assertion that contradicts all the available evidence - people are grown from that material.

Evolution is used to explain the development, though I have asked for conclusive links of fossils adequate to show me convincingly that there really is enough basis for that and it is not shown to me yet. But that natural selection of reproductive material explains our minds with all they do and truly knowing truths defies understanding that I can grasp. I can only see that there is more than physical processes that produce them.

That's all true, but remember that gravity is by far the weakest force, its strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the relevant objects, and the universe is expanding. Only gravitationally-bound structures can resist moving apart due to this expansion. Beyond galaxy clusters, possibly superclusters, gravity is too weak to overcome this expansion. So these galaxy clusters will eventually become black holes, and those black holes will become more an more distant from each other until they finally evaporate.

Nothing escapes from a black hole however fast it would go. Gravitational force is weaker at greater distances, but not gone entirely. With infinite mass with gravity though there would be unlimited gravity with which our existing universe is without explanation as far as I see. The more gravity there is the more there would be to collapse, infinitely it would collapse everything.

I can't parse that... but I'll guess - it won't collapse because it's expanding (see above). Even a 'bubble' universe can be infinite - General Relativity effectively allows infinite mass and infinite volume to be produced from a finite volume in a finite time; it's a mathematical result of relativity - from a viewpoint inside the bubble universe, it is infinite. Max Tegmark gives a fuller description in 'Our Mathematical Universe' pp.114-117.

I don't understand this math. Perhaps it can be explained in an understandable way?

Of course, it's an unfalsifiable claim; the same applies to any of the origin myths that have been created through history, and any other origin story you care to invent. What they all have in common is that they're unfalsifiable, ill-defined, invoke fanciful ontologies, and are redundant.

Without appeal to an origin story being appealed to, that there is mind behind what is seen can be understood.

You can't see them, but there are minds, still. Don't you think so?

The models I've described may not be directly testable, but are indirectly falsifiable, are derived from well-established physical theory, and are metaphysically parsimonious.

That does not adequately establish them.

And neither of you knows anything about it.

You should try praying, in sincerity. You can find that God is there.

 

[Speedwell]

You should try praying, in sincerity. You can find that God is there.

I know God is there. I don't need your cosmology to find Him.

 

[FredVB]

And neither of you knows anything about it.
I know God is there.

What does this mean? What do you believe?
??

I don't need your cosmology to find Him.

What is meant about my cosmology? I do not think we were discussing my cosmology.

 

[Speedwell]

What does this mean? What do you believe?
??



What is meant about my cosmology? I do not think we were discussing my cosmology.

Whose cosmology were we discussing?

 

[Kylie]

I know God is there. I don't need your cosmology to find Him.

What do you mean by "know"? Do you mean it in the same way we can know the distance between two points (being that we can verify our result and get others to make the same measurement and they get the same result), or is it just a really strong opinion?

 

[Speedwell]

What do you mean by "know"? Do you mean it in the same way we can know the distance between two points (being that we can verify our result and get others to make the same measurement and they get the same result), or is it just a really strong opinion?

Neither--it's an emotion.