The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

It is hypocritical to do so and then complain when someone who disagrees (to some degree) with their view does the same.

Who is doing that?

What does than mean to you?

than
T͟Han,T͟Hən/
conjunction & preposition
conjunction: than; preposition: than

1. 1.
   introducing the second element in a comparison.
   "he was much smaller than his son"
2. 2.
   used in expressions introducing an exception or contrast.
   "he claims not to own anything other than his home"

 

[KCfromNC]

He is going against principles that are known.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, if anything.

 

[KCfromNC]

So you are disagreeing with Paul Davies?

Your quote has nothing to do with the point you are attempting to responding to. You were corrected on your claim that there were no laws of physics in the first second of the universe. There are and we know quite a lot about them. Why you'd quote something talking about how the rules of this universe don't apply outside of it is anyone's guess.

 

[KCfromNC]

I linked the whole article...false accusation as usual.

You make these accusations quite often. You also often fail to respond when people ask you for the details of exactly what is false. That's a pretty interesting pattern.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who is doing that?



than
T͟Han,T͟Hən/
conjunction & preposition
conjunction: than; preposition: than

1. 1.
   introducing the second element in a comparison.
   "he was much smaller than his son"
2. 2.
   used in expressions introducing an exception or contrast.
   "he claims not to own anything other than his home"

Classy, a typo and you do this. Says a lot about your character.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your quote has nothing to do with the point you are attempting to responding to. You were corrected on your claim that there were no laws of physics in the first second of the universe. There are and we know quite a lot about them. Why you'd quote something talking about how the rules of this universe don't apply outside of it is anyone's guess.

That is not what I said. I claimed that they didn't exist before that.

 

[[serious]]

So you are disagreeing with Paul Davies?

Of course, this attempt to explain the origin of the universe is based on an application of the laws of physics. This is normal in science: one takes the underlying laws of the universe as given. But when tangling with ultimate questions, it is only natural that we should also ask about the status of these laws. One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- any more than they exist north of the North Pole. In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it. However, this does not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the universe. If they did -- if the entire package of physical universe plus laws just popped into being from nothing -- then we cannot appeal to the laws to explain the origin of the universe. So to have any chance of understanding scientifically how the universe came into existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character. The alternative is to shroud the origin in mystery and give up.
Paul Davies link I provided.
It might be objected that we haven’t finished the job by baldly taking the laws of physics as given. Where did those laws come from? And why those laws rather than some other set? This is a valid objection. I have argued that we must eschew the traditional causal chain and focus instead on an explanatory chain, but inevitably we now confront the logical equivalent of the First Cause -- the beginning of the chain of explanation.

When does Paul Davies say we can't know what happened during the let on epoch?

 

[Oncedeceived]

When does Paul Davies say we can't know what happened during the let on epoch?

He says that the laws of physics didn't exist as you are implying.

 

[[serious]]

He says that the laws of physics didn't exist as you are implying.

Source for him, or any physicist saying something so far into big bang cosmology as the let on epoch didn't have laws of physics. The laws of physics stretch back all the way to a plank time at which the laws of physics prevent us from know what happened at such small time scales.

Seriously though, the difference between a Planck time and a second is greater than the difference between a second and the entire history of the universe. I don't even mean the current age of the universe, I mean the eventual cessation of all star formation and the ejection of all stellar remnants from the central black holes of galaxies. That's how wrong that statement is.

 

[KCfromNC]

Classy, a typo and you do this. Says a lot about your character.

When one's posting history is full of attempts to change the topic when questions get too difficult one shouldn't be surprised when people take off topic statements as if they were intentional.

But sure, get as huffy about it as you want. That'll be sure to convince people you have a rational, well thought out point.

Or you could, I don't know, admit you made a mistake and ask whatever it is you intended to ask in the first place rather than lashing out at others in frustration.

 

[KCfromNC]

That is not what I said. I claimed that they didn't exist before that.

Remember, there's a written record of your claims that anyone can go back and see :

The reason he says they must be taken on faith is when we look back into the earliest second of our universe there are no laws of physics

Like I said, you were claiming that the laws of physics didn't exist during the first second of or universe. That's plainly wrong.

I anxiously await you ignoring this or trying to change the subject. Or maybe pretend you're being persecuted?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Source for him, or any physicist saying something so far into big bang cosmology as the let on epoch didn't have laws of physics. The laws of physics stretch back all the way to a plank time at which the laws of physics prevent us from know what happened at such small time scales.

Seriously though, the difference between a Planck time and a second is greater than the difference between a second and the entire history of the universe. I don't even mean the current age of the universe, I mean the eventual cessation of all star formation and the ejection of all stellar remnants from the central black holes of galaxies. That's how wrong that statement is.

Really?

 

[Oncedeceived]

When one's posting history is full of attempts to change the topic when questions get too difficult one shouldn't be surprised when people take off topic statements as if they were intentional.

But sure, get as huffy about it as you want. That'll be sure to convince people you have a rational, well thought out point.

Or you could, I don't know, admit you made a mistake and ask whatever it is you intended to ask in the first place rather than lashing out at others in frustration.

You are the one that took a typo to make a point, what that point was....who cares. I've not once changed the topic when questions get too difficult and so forth. People aren't as stupid as you seem to believe. You seem to be under the false assumption that if you make bizarre accusations that people will somehow just believe it to be true even though they can read all this themselves. So I said I wouldn't respond to stuff like this at least you can feel somewhat satisfied that I did once again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Remember, there's a written record of your claims that anyone can go back and see :

Exactly.

Like I said, you were claiming that the laws of physics didn't exist during the first second of or universe. That's plainly wrong.

I anxiously await you ignoring this or trying to change the subject. Or maybe pretend you're being persecuted?

I gave you the link, take it up with Paul Davies.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are the one that took a typo to make a point, what that point was....who cares. I've not once changed the topic when questions get too difficult and so forth. People aren't as stupid as you seem to believe. You seem to be under the false assumption that if you make bizarre accusations that people will somehow just believe it to be true even though they can read all this themselves. So I said I wouldn't respond to stuff like this at least you can feel somewhat satisfied that I did once again.

Here you are trying to change the topic away from discussing that naturalism is the metaphysical underpinning of science. And you're doing it by ranting that you never change the topic when things get difficult for you. Congratulations on the irony, anyway.

 

[KCfromNC]

I gave you the link, take it up with Paul Davies.

Which of his links supports your claim that "when we look back into the earliest second of our universe there are no laws of physics"?

I'll also remind you that you asked:

why not just be polite and post the link when you are referring to it?

I'll ask you the same here.

That not only hints that you don't really believe some of the stuff you're posting - if lack of links really mattered to you it would be bad form for you not to post them. It also is also a good example of a dodge made up to avoid answering questions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which of his links supports your claim that "when we look back into the earliest second of our universe there are no laws of physics"?

I'll also remind you that you asked:


I'll ask you the same here.

That not only hints that you don't really believe some of the stuff you're posting - if lack of links really mattered to you it would be bad form for you not to post them. It also is also a good example of a dodge made up to avoid answering questions.

Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point.

Of course, this attempt to explain the origin of the universe is based on an application of the laws of physics. This is normal in science: one takes the underlying laws of the universe as given. But when tangling with ultimate questions, it is only natural that we should also ask about the status of these laws. One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- any more than they exist north of the North Pole. In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it. However, this does not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the universe. If they did -- if the entire package of physical universe plus laws just popped into being from nothing -- then we cannot appeal to the laws to explain the origin of the universe. So to have any chance of understanding scientifically how the universe came into existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character. The alternative is to shroud the origin in mystery and give up.

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/20/what-came-before-the-big-bang.html

 

[[serious]]

Really?

Yup. We can calculate back to one Planck time or ~1e-42 seconds. Going the other way, 1e+42 seconds would be enough time for all star formation to stop

 

[[serious]]

Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point.

Of course, this attempt to explain the origin of the universe is based on an application of the laws of physics. This is normal in science: one takes the underlying laws of the universe as given. But when tangling with ultimate questions, it is only natural that we should also ask about the status of these laws. One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- any more than they exist north of the North Pole. In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it. However, this does not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the universe. If they did -- if the entire package of physical universe plus laws just popped into being from nothing -- then we cannot appeal to the laws to explain the origin of the universe. So to have any chance of understanding scientifically how the universe came into existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character. The alternative is to shroud the origin in mystery and give up.

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/20/what-came-before-the-big-bang.html

No where in that does he discuss the first second of the universe.

 

[KCfromNC]

Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point.

Of course, this attempt to explain the origin of the universe is based on an application of the laws of physics. This is normal in science: one takes the underlying laws of the universe as given. But when tangling with ultimate questions, it is only natural that we should also ask about the status of these laws. One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- any more than they exist north of the North Pole. In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it. However, this does not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the universe. If they did -- if the entire package of physical universe plus laws just popped into being from nothing -- then we cannot appeal to the laws to explain the origin of the universe. So to have any chance of understanding scientifically how the universe came into existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character. The alternative is to shroud the origin in mystery and give up.

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/20/what-came-before-the-big-bang.html

How does any of that support your claim that "when we look back into the earliest second of our universe there are no laws of physics"?