Fine tuning, a new approach

[DogmaHunter]

The evidence supports that OUR universe had a beginning. If it began, it wasn't eternal.

Space-time had a beginning.
There's no space-time in a singularity. But that singularity still qualifes as "the universe". It just exists in another "form" or "stage" or whatever you wish to call it. Since we can't go beyond Planck time, as has been explained numerous times now to you, we really can't call it a fact that the universe "had a beginning" or once didn't exist and then did.

We simply don't know that.
We know space-time expanded and we can trace back that expansion all the way to Planck time. At Planck time, both space and time exist.

We then assume that going back that extra fraction to reach T = 0, we end up with a singularity with no space and no time. And as we are at T = 0 there, there is no "before" that point either.

So for all we know, the universe has always existed.
And we assume that space-time didn't exist at T = 0, as the universe had the form of a singularity at that point. Again, we assume this, we don't know this. It's a pretty reasonable assumption perhaps given the things we DO know, sure, but it is not a FACT.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Doesn't matter. He is outside of ours.

I say it does matter a lot.
But it's clear that you don't wish to go down that road, as it would expose the special pleading and arguments from ignorance.

Christian theology makes that claim.

Ha, so you don't know that, you just believe it.
Yet, you stated it as if it were a fact, in the form of a truth claim.

Did you miss it? Again: God is not part of the natural world He created, the laws of physic are what governs the natural world that He created because the laws of physics are laws that the law giver gave.

But.... you just said that that is merely what you believe because your religion dictates it....

And when I ask you questions about this world and that world where your god resides, all I get is an evasive "that doesn't matter"...

So, can you really blame me that, in response to statements like the above quote, I just shrug my shoulders and move on?

The laws of physics make more sense in theism than they do by a purely naturalistic worldview.

You keep saying this.... I asked you why and in response you, once again, just repeat the claim.

The laws would be part of the law giver, the fine tuner and the creator of the natural world and as such would be prior to the natural world existing as they existed in the mind of God prior to His creation.

What world does your god exist in?
Is that world part of reality?
How is it different from the "natural" world?
When you say "natural world", what exactly do you mean? Are you then talking about just our universe? If yes, then why not just call it "the universe"?

The fact that you don't just call it "the universe" leads me to conclude that there is a difference. What is that difference?

Please answer the questions this time...

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not ignoring anything. The explanation of nothing from something still leaves the laws of physics unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time. The point however that I was addressing was the nothing...no space, no matter, no time and no energy.

As I have said to you so many times already, there currently exists no conclusive model about the origins of the universe.

Having said that, this doesn't address what I said at all.
I told you that when physicists talk about "nothing", they don't mean "absolute nothingness". So stop pretending that they do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is after that "time" that we see space, matter, energy and time coming to be.

No. All of it exists at Planck time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes. Regardless, of what they believe (remember it doesn't matter what they believe but what evidence is there)the evidence shows the universe coming from nothing. The evidence we have show the universe had a beginning.

First of all, "the universe having a beginning" and "before the universe, there was absolutely nothing" are two very different statements.

Secondly, what evidence, exactly, supports the idea that before the universe, there was "absolutely nothing"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why is it so important to claim it didn't?

Nobody here made such a claim.
Instead, we are merely pointing out the flaws in YOUR claim. Which does not include, imply or require a claim of the exact opposite of your claim.

However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.

They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.

They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.

The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

How does this support that before the universe existed, there was "absolutely nothing"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm sorry, the reason it is important to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning is that theism (Christianity) predicts that this universe had a beginning.

So does every single other creation myth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't see why God must be fine tuned. You haven't really expounded on the necessity of that part.

It's rather easy though....

I can build sophisticated tools. My cat can't. I'm "fine tuned" to build such tools. My cat isn't.

God would have to be "fine tuned" to build universes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where did those laws of physics originate?

I'ld say that they just "are" and don't require any origination.

Because, in the end, what are they, REALLY?

It's not like they are like written rules that each atom must "obbey" or something.
Rather, what they are is really just descriptive of how matter, energy etc interact / behave.

Things that exist have properties and attributes. By necessity. Things that exist exist in a certain way. These properties and attributes will be the underlying cause of how things interact with eachother. Again, not by "command", but by necessity.

Atoms aren't "meant" or "purposed" to come together and form stars or planets.
Rather, that's just what happens when you have a space-time with matter in it that has mass. The mass will curve space-time, causing gravitational pull. This gravitational pull will then cause matter to come together in ever increasing forces, relative to the amount of mass coming together. Which eventually forms stars and planets.

The way you talk about laws, you make it seem as if this "law giver" would be able to "rewrite" them at any time in however way he pleases.

That's complete nonsense. There is no "law giver" because there is no such thing as "laws". What we mean by "laws of physics" are rather the descriptive models we humans develop while describing how matter and energy interact in space time, based on the properties and attributes of things that exist.

 

[[serious]]

I don't see why God must be fine tuned. You haven't really expounded on the necessity of that part.

I've explained it a few times now. What specifically are you having trouble with?

 

[[serious]]

There is no space for a vacuum. There are no particles. There is nothing.

I thought there was God. (And a whole bunch of universes that don't count for some reason) Hope you aren't having a crisis of faith.

 

[[serious]]

Where did those laws of physics originate?

They didnt, just as God didn't. They exist on a level outside our timeline.

 

[[serious]]

What about Him?

God did not begin at the big bang, therefore not everything began at the big bang. Thus the laws of physics need nor begin at the big bang.

 

[[serious]]

That doesn't give OUR universe no space, no matter, no energy, and no time and nothing prior to the Big Bang. Other universe MIGHT exist but that doesn't provide an explanation for whatever law generator/universe generator that originated the fine tuned parameters.

God is that finely tuned universe generator. We've been over this.

 

[[serious]]

No, he is not. Paul Davies strongly claims that is not the case: Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.

If we are going with a hawking interpretatiom, than the universe has no point of beginning. Read up on the harte-hawking state, there's no initial boundary in time or space.

 

[KCfromNC]

With there being all these questions where the laws of nature originated, I am wondering where the laws of causality originated.

We made them up to describe general macroscopic trends in how things behave. Don't look at the exceptions to them too closely. That way lies madness ... and modern semiconductor fabrication, but I repeat myself.

 

[KCfromNC]

Where did those laws of physics originate?

Or did they at all?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You should get your quotes straight. It was the other guy who said "nothing, nothing at all," and that was what I was responding to.

At any rate, battery is low, the response to the Davies quote will have to wait til after work.

Ok.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, when you talk about the "natural world", what you really mean is just this particular universe?

Can you please answer the questions in the post you are replying to, instead of moving the goalposts...

I answered it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That doesn't sound right in my head. I think it's freedom "from" religion.
Freedom OF religion, sounds to me like you have the freedom of choosing one religion over the other, while freedom "from" religion means that you can simply ignore the entire religious thing and not care about it, nore be influenced by it in any way.

Perhaps it's my limited understanding of english though.

Here it is:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So really we are both sort of right.

In any case, freedom of/from religion also implies that you are free to be not religious at all AND are under no obligation at all to care one bit about any particular religious rules or customs or whatever. Just like I am free to not play soccer and ignore everything that has anything, even only remotely, to do with it.

Yes, you are. You don't, but you are free to.

Yep.

Everyone is free to believe whatever nonsense they wish.

And you are free to claim it is nonsense and millions of others are free to live with God in their lives.