the origin of the universe - a short exercise

[AdB]

Having said all that woo, other than the idea that quantum fields have spatial dimensions what is it that you think disqualifies quantum fields from being the first cause... the thing from which physical reality emerges?

Possibly QFs are the method through which particles are being produced, but it falls short as a candidate for the uncaused cause

 

[Astrid]

The QFs are assumed to be able to exchange energy amongst each other, but not to produce the energy

One way or the other the QF are not a candidate for the uncaused cause of the universe

Indeed, the whole QFT, even though very accurate in the results, is still a theory.

And what else but a theory could it be?

 

[Hans Blaster]

yes indeed...

Sigh, that's what I thought.

Natural science as we know it today originated in the 17th century from the concept
that nature is governed by mathematical laws.
This concept was based on the theological consideration that God had made creation
orderly and thus was subject to "laws of nature“.
From this concept it was reasoned that an experiment, when repeated in the same way
over and over, would always yield the same result. This method of performing science
is called “empirical science” and is the basis for modern science.

The pioneers of modern science clearly were motivated in their endevours by their firm faith in God the Creator as we can learn from what they have stated about their work.

• “Thinking God's thoughts after Him.” Johann Kepler (1571 - 1630)
• “God would not have made the universe the way it is unless He intended us to understand it.” Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691)
• “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.” Isaac Newton (1643 - 1727)
• “From these observations we discern the incomprehensible perfection, perfect order and inscrutable providence with which the wisest Creator and Lord of the Universe has formed the bodies of these animalcules (micro-organisms).” Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632 - 1723)
• “The observer of nature sees with admiration that the whole world is full of the glory of God.” Carl Linnaeus (1707 - 1778)
• “You may fly to the ends of the world and find no God but the Author of Salvation. You may search the Scriptures and not find a text to stop you in your explorations." James Clerk Maxwell (1831 - 1879)

None of this is relevant to the thread or will demonstrate your god (if that is your purpose).

 

[AdB]

Sigh, that's what I thought

You seem fatigued, do you find it boring to deal with other worldviews than your own?

None of this is relevant to the thread or will demonstrate your god (if that is your purpose).

Yes it is because you made a claim that believing God created the universe is bad science and I'm refuting it...

Assuming a god that creates universes is bad science

 

[Hans Blaster]

You seem fatigued, do you find it boring to deal with other worldviews than your own?

Worldviews are irrelevant. These "worldview" arguments are old and tired and irrelevant.

Yes it is because you made a claim that believing God created the universe is bad science and I'm refuting it...

Your "evidence" doesn't refute my original claim:

"Assuming a god that creates universes is bad science."

Because it is. Science works on natural explanations to natural phenomena. Science does not utilize supernatural forces or beings.

 

[AdB]

Worldviews are irrelevant. These "worldview" arguments are old and tired and irrelevant.

Your "evidence" doesn't refute my original claim:

"Assuming a god that creates universes is bad science."

Because it is. Science works on natural explanations to natural phenomena. Science does not utilize supernatural forces or beings.

I did refute it with the cake analogy, the problem is you will not accept any argument that you don't like by just saying it doesn't apply...

 

[Astrid]

You seem fatigued, do you find it boring to deal with other worldviews than your own?

Yes it is because you made a claim that believing God created the universe is bad science and I'm refuting it...

Is zero science different from bad science, in a functional way?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I did refute it with the cake analogy, the problem is you will not accept any argument that you don't like by just saying it doesn't apply...

It was poor analogy. Perhaps if you are going to work from the "paintings need a painter" genre, you should stick to the classic arguments.

 

[AdB]

It was poor analogy. Perhaps if you are going to work from the "paintings need a painter" genre, you should stick to the classic arguments.

Haha, both analogies are bringing the same insight

 

[partinobodycular]

Possibly QFs are the method through which particles are being produced, but it falls short as a candidate for the uncaused cause

It seems, from what I can gather from your responses, that your main objection to QFs being the uncaused cause is that while QFs may be the method by which our reality transforms from energy to matter, it can't create that energy.

But let me remind you, that we're talking about an uncaused cause here, so at some point we're both forced to accept the existence of something that has no discernible cause. Your asking where the energy came from is akin to me asking where your God came from. Neither of us will be able to answer that question other than to assume that there must be something that exists without a cause. In your worldview that uncaused cause is God. In my worldview the current best candidate for that uncaused cause are QFs, and their accompanying energy... and the only discernible difference that I can see between your God and my fields is that you assume that your God is conscious, while I make no such assumption about QFs... fyi, neither do I dismiss the possibility.

So the only difference that I can see between your uncaused cause and mine is that you assume that it's conscious and I don't. You could go a long way toward persuading me that you're right if you could simply explain to me why the first cause MUST be conscious.

Let me also remind you that QFs are just a model born from the observed behavior of the things around us, it may be just as inaccurate as viewing particles as simply little balls of matter flying around in empty space. What you should focus on is how those fields behave... not the analogy that we use to describe them.

From my perspective QFs are simply a model of how potentiality/energy transforms into reality. That's it. I can no more tell you where that potentiality/energy came from than you can tell me where your God came from.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Haha, both analogies are bringing the same insight

Yes, and it isn't useful.

 

[AdB]

Yes, and it isn't useful.

No they are very useful, you just don't like them

 

[partinobodycular]

The QFs are assumed to be able to exchange energy amongst each other, but not to produce the energy

Energy is defined as the 'potential to do work". In the material world this 'potential' manifests itself in numerous ways. However, it's a mistake to think of energy as having physical properties of its own, it doesn't. Rather it's a property that physical objects possess.

Britannica: Energy

Energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another. After it has been transferred, energy is always designated according to its nature. Hence, heat transferred may become thermal energy, while work done may manifest itself in the form of mechanical energy.

FYI, Aquinas (in agreement with Aristotle) believed that potential/energy was co-eternal with God. It was referred to as 'Prime Matter". His reasoning was fairly simple, for anything other than God to exist, it must first have had the potential to exist... God is the only thing who's existence wasn't preceded by the potential to exist.

Therefore everything other than God must have been preceded by the potential to exist, which they referred to as 'Prime Matter'. It has no physical attributes whatsoever, and yet it must've pre-existed matter itself... it couldn't have been created, because to be created it must first have had the potential to be created. Which is an obvious contradiction... potential couldn't have pre-existed its own creation. Therefore, like God, it must be eternal.

Thus energy/potential must be co-eternal with God. Hence there's no sense in asking where the energy in a Quantum Field comes from... because it's always existed. All that the QFs do is give us a glimpse into how those QFs transform energy/potential into matter.


P.S. Ain't metaphysics a hoot... ... sorry Hans

 

[Hans Blaster]

No they are very useful, you just don't like them

If you want to claim something is designed or manufactured and therefore requires a designer or manufacturer, first you have to prove design or manufacture. That certainly hasn't been done for the Universe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The QFs are assumed to be able to exchange energy amongst each other, but not to produce the energy

All that's necessary is that they have sufficient energy to interact. No one is suggesting that they produce energy.

One way or the other the QF are not a candidate for the uncaused cause of the universe

The idea of an uncaused cause is... controversial, more natural theology than natural science. Modern physics shows us that causality requires an arrow of time, which itself depends on an entropy gradient, and time itself may be emergent (i.e. not fundamental). There are also various proposed cosmologies, consistent with current physics, that involve a temporally self-contained universes, where time behaves like lattitude on a globe - where there is nothing north of the north pole or south of the south pole - so there is no time before the beginning or after the end of time; there are also various types of 'block' universes, temporally finite or infinite, where all moments along the time axis are equally real.

The point is that you should not expect familiar ideas derived from everyday experience to apply on scales or in regimes far from everyday experience, and we know this applies to time as much as anything, e.g. Special Relativity tells us there is no universal time.

But in any case, there are no strong claims about the role of QFT in the pre-big bang evolution of the universe, if any. It is simply the best description of the physical world we currently have, extensively tested in all the regimes we have access to.

Indeed, the whole QFT, even though very accurate in the results, is still a theory.

It is a scientific theory, which means something different from the vernacular (which in science would be a hypothesis).

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been extensively tested & corroborated using scientific methods and has withstood all attempts to prove it wrong. IOW, it embodies the best scientific knowledge of the time. That doesn't mean they are necessarily correct, but generally, when scientific theories are overturned, it is because they are subsumed into a better (e.g. deeper or more extensive) theory.

 

[Larniavc]

Asserting that it does not would require a break from the general pattern. And that's how I'm thinking here.

But you are breaking that general pattern yourself when inevitably you posit and uncaused creator.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You've just described a quantum field. Now all that you need to do is to demonstrate why that field has to be conscious, and voila you'll have yourself an argument for God. Until then you've simply demonstrated why we shouldn't expect theists to understand physics.

Why should theists believe that physics is a constant? If you were riding in a boat on the ocean and Jesus walked up to the boat on the water in a physical human body obviously there would be something taking place that doesn’t coincide with the laws of physics. Why should the miracle of creation be any different?

 

[Larniavc]

as I already indicated the existence of “mind” can’t be explained from solely physical processes.

Evidence please.

 

[Astrid]

Evidence please.

As this discovery, should it exist, would be of the
most profound far reaching significance , we do need
more than rando-assertion.

 

[partinobodycular]

Why should theists believe that physics is a constant?

Because the observable evidence tells you that it's constant. We humans are prone to believing all sorts of things, many of which aren't true. The only way to avoid this mistake is by comparing what we believe to what we can reliably verify.

For example, I've never actually seen anyone walk on water, Jesus or otherwise. If I had I might think differently. But I have seen a great many claims about the miraculous that turned out to be of questionable authenticity. Therefore I view any such claims with a great deal of skepticism.

Theistic claims about creation are no different. Without evidence I see no reason to accept them as true.

I realize that I could be completely wrong. All that you need to do is to give me evidence.

Faith can be an admirable thing, but it can also be a deceitful thing, and evidence is the only way of determining which type you have. So I will accept the premise that physics is a constant until someone gives me evidence to the contrary.

If God has a problem with that... I'm sorry, but I am after all, only human.