Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ho hum. The "If the universe wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here," argument. Unfortunately it misses the point. There is only a very narrow range of parameters which allows the universe to a.) exist in the first place, and b.) for that universe, if it does exist, to support any kind of chemistry.
Without chemistry, not only can life not exist in any shape or form, but b- all else can either.
I said evidence, not the opinion of a certain scientist.
If the machine used in the British National Lottery spat out the same six numbers for ten weeks in succession you could (in theory) argue that that outcome is as likely as any other, and there is nothing which needs explaining. In practice, however, nobody would buy that, and they would be demanding that the machine be examined to find out where the fault was.
You cannot simply write off the fact we live in a universe where chemistry is possible, when the chances against that being the case are many orders of magnitude greater than the analogous improbability mentioned above.
No, it doesn't. If there were the trillions and trillions of universes needed to eliminate our universe's fine tuning, we would still be faced with the fine tuning of the universe generator that permits a life permitting one.
Assuming the values even could have been any different in the first place, off course.
Then please try and explain it without resorting to 'Goddidit', because 'Goddidit' is not an answer it's a cop out, it's like saying the 'winkledeesquink' did it, it answers nothing.That, however, has got zilch to do with whether or not the universe is full of huge I probabilities that call out for explanation.
Who specifically was embarrassed by learning that if things were different they would be different?I will leave that to the astrophysicists who tripped over the fact that the universe seems to be very finely tuned - to the embarrassment of some of them.
That is not what your link says
From the link:
But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.
Because as others have said, if there are an infinite number of other universes ours must exist no matter how unlikely it is.And that matters why?
Yes, but God is not of the physical world and a natural generator would still have to be part of a natural world.Any universe generator by definition must be outside our universe.
Evidence that he says he has:Either way, he posits that something existed before our universe, and that the natural laws in that earlier universe, expansion in this case, created our universe. If you've actually come around to accepting this possibility, great. Otherwise, I don't follow how earlier universes can exist with expansion happening, yet somehow still allow for nothing existing and no laws, like expansion, existing.
He says in the same piece: he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself. So as I said even he says the evidence shows there was nothing.Because clearly, according to that scientist, our universe did not just pop out of "nothing." It was spawned by another universe. If statements like his is what causes you to think that "most scientists" believe the universe started from nothing, then you are misapplying the statement and coming to an incorrect conclusion. I would agree that most scientists think the universe had a beginning (though certainly not all. There are infinite universe models). That is not the same thing as saying that they believe there was nothing else. Usually, they are careful with how they word it, including the scientist you linked: “We have very good evidence that there was a Big Bang, so the universe as we know it almost certainly started some 14 billion years ago. " The reason they use that 4 word caveat is because we know far to little about quantum physics, and we just don't know what else there could have been (or what else there IS).
Why would it need to be part of the physical world?Yes, but God is not of the physical world and a natural generator would still have to be part of a natural world.
That simply is false. Look it up. ALL scientists agree that there was no space, energy, matter or time until our universe comes into existence.That is not a "known". That is an assumption.
I have supplied numerous examples from actual scientists to support what I've claimed. What have you given but assertions?It's good that you demand evidence for claims about unkowns like "before" the universe.
Now if only you would apply such standards to your own claims....
And did a factory or computer just naturally pop out of nothing or do they arise from intelligence?The obvious answer seems "yes", considering what it is that you mean by "fine tuned".
You'ld have to comply to a whole bunch of criteria to even only be able to conceptualize what a factory or computer is, let alone design and build one.
I have given scientist's account of such, they are not my claims.It's good that you demand evidence for claims about unkowns like "before" the universe.
Now if only you would apply such standards to your own claims....
When Krauss says nothing is something he is going against what other scientists claim and he has gotten criticism from them for it. Nothing means nothing. And yes, complete nothing...no space, no matter, no energy, no time.It's called a "hypothesis".
Also, to make clear that when a physicist like him speaks about "nothing", he doesn't mean the same thing as when lay-people, like you, use that word (in the sense of "complete nothingness").
"Nothing" has very different meanings when applied to different contexts / levels.
For example, in day to day life, I can take an empty box and say "there is nothing in the box". And for everyday conversation, that's fine.
But is there really "nothing" in the box? Off course not... There's ALL KINDS OF THINGS in that box. There're molecules, atoms, bacteria, etc in that box.
Then we can also say "there is nothing in the vacuum of deep space".
Sure. Correct again in day-to-day conversation.
Not so much when you get technical... There's space in there and I'm sure quite some quantum freakiness as well.
What people like Krauss try to say with statements like "nothing is something", is that we might not have reached the end level of what constitutes "nothing".
The question asked is that if we remove everything we "know" of: matter, energy, space itself, etc.... is what we are left with REALLY "nothing", as in: complete nothingness?
Is "absolute nothingness" even a state of affairs that is überhaupt even possible to begin with?
Words mean what they mean. I understand you would like to change the definitions of some of them.You should replace the word "explain" in that statement by the word "claim".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?