WHY NON-CHRISTIAN?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Read "Statistical Entropy of Four Dimensional Extremal Black Holes" by Maldacena and Strominger in Physical Review Letter July 15, 1996. pp 428-429.



See above.



True, but no time does not = no causality. There is nothing in causality that requires having certain objects in certain relative positions in space.



I guess that means no. If something is contingent and all the evidence points to the universe being contingent, then it requires something upon which its existence is based.



Not according to Aristotle, it IS a law of logic and metaphysics and that has never been disproven. Quantum uncertainty only applies at the microlevel, the existence of he universe is plainly at the macrolevel. But even quantum physics only appears to not need causes, we don't really know for certain. It could still be causal but we only understand it at probability levels.




See above about Aristotle. Non-physical entities can cause non-physical effects and physical effects. Such as your mind can produce ideas as well as physical events such as moving your arm. Both of which are non-physical.


No, see above.




Fraid so, ever hear of the laws of physics? They are non-physical but they control the behavior of the material universe.



Not according to the majority of cosmologists. The majority agree that space time and matter came into existence at the BB.



Yes, OUR space and time had a beginning at that point.


That is what I am doing in this thread.

Mere assertions and links to a paper that doesn't even touch the subjects you are making claims about.

Colour me unimpressed.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I bet you can't put it into your own words.

I cant explain the physics since I am not a physicist, but the conclusion is quite simple, ie that there is evidence for a second dimension of time.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

GIT has nothing to do with physical systems.

It isn't a theory of physics and proves nothing at all about physics. It is about axioms, theorems (expressed in algorithms), and natural numbers. Even if one were to try to apply formal systems to a study of natural numbers as they apply to physics, at best all it would show is that there are unprovable claims regarding the math.

Unprovable claims also don't mean that something exists outside of the natural universe. It is not the case that if "some things cannot be proven" that there must be information coming from "outside of the system" that will prove those unprovable statements. If you can't prove everything that might be true about the universe, that's too bad. There is no reason why everything must be provable. It is just an argument from ignorance to say that if one can't prove everything, there must be proof somewhere. (The idea that there must be proof somewhere certainly isn't a conclusion of GIT.)

I realize that you might just be trying to argue by analogy, but there is no reason to think that the analogy holds. There is no reason to think that if one can't prove everything that might be true about the universe using information from within the universe, then there "must" be something outside of the universe. It can just as easily be that not everything can be proven.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, according to many scientists it DOES apply to the universe. Stanley Jaki and David Wolpert for just two. Here is what Wolpert says about that, read the second paragraph: Within Any Possible Universe, No Intellect Can Ever Know It All

What GIT is telling us is if we try to explain everything in the universe just by using nature or the universe itself, we are missing a great deal quite possibly its origin. But if we look at possible explanations outside the system/universe/nature then we may find the answer. And a supernatural triune creator fits the characteristics of the cause of this universe the best. As scientists we should never give up in trying to explain everything about the universe and not just say well it is not provable.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Material things are known by physics to be a source of causes. How do you reach the conclusion above?

Not all causes, some causes are not effects and do not need a source. But my point is that the brain cannot function and produce effects without a mind which is non physical. A human brain without a mind is just dead tissue.

eud: I agree, and I said so. However, I wrote that metaphysical laws are not imposed upon reality. That doesn't contradict the idea that the universe is physical. I'm simply saying that "metaphysical laws" simply must be true of any physical reality, and there is no such thing as a physical reality in which they don't apply.

Not necessarily there theoretically could be chaotic physical reality where there are no laws. But since our reality operates according to laws this is evidence for a lawgiver as Einstein said.

eud: That is so illogical I don't know how to continue the discussion on that specific issue.

See my earlier post on this page where I explain this.

eud: Intersects how?


eudaimonia,

Mark

We don't know yet.

 

[Larniavc]

I cant explain the physics since I am not a physicist, but the conclusion is quite simple, ie that there is evidence for a second dimension of time.

No. You are mistaken. If you don't understand it how can you conclude it is true?

 

[bhsmte]

No. You are mistaken. If you don't understand it how can you conclude it is true?

I thought that a bit odd myself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I cant explain the physics since I am not a physicist, but the conclusion is quite simple, ie that there is evidence for a second dimension of time.

lol.... you don't know but.... you know?

yep, makes perfect sense!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not all causes, some causes are not effects and do not need a source. But my point is that the brain cannot function and produce effects without a mind which is non physical. A human brain without a mind is just dead tissue.

I look forward to your evidence to support that a brain and a "mind" are two seperate entities.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, according to many scientists it DOES apply to the universe.

It applies to the math used in physics, yes. However, it is not itself a physical theory.

The article's point can be summed up in a single sentence: "There are necessary limits to human knowledge regarding physics." That's it. GIT doesn't give any support to the idea that there is a supernatural realm that explains the natural realm.

What GIT is telling us is if we try to explain everything in the universe just by using nature or the universe itself, we are missing a great deal quite possibly its origin.

One can't meaningfully speculate on what one can't know. You are just guessing that this unprovable knowledge has anything to do with the origin of the universe.

But if we look at possible explanations outside the system/universe/nature then we may find the answer.

That is just wishful thinking on your part. Nothing about the GIT says that this is possible.

As scientists we should never give up in trying to explain everything about the universe and not just say well it is not provable.

The article you reference argues precisely that -- some things are just "not provable".

As scientists, "we" use methodological naturalism. Science is not going to conclude that if there are limits to science, that it's perfectly okay to abandon science and go for supernatural explanations. If there are limits to what we can know, then there are limits to what we can know. Full stop.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Not all causes, some causes are not effects and do not need a source. But my point is that the brain cannot function and produce effects without a mind which is non physical.

I don't see why that should be so. Physical entities function and produce effects, and don't need non-physical entities in order to have causes. I can see no reason why the brain should be any different.

A human brain without a mind is just dead tissue.

I agree, but mind and brain function are the same thing. A functioning brain implies a functioning mind, and vice-versa. A human brain without the properties of mind is simply a brain that isn't functioning as a healthy brain.

The mind isn't a non-physical entity attached to a brain, though, any more than "motion" is a non-physical entity attached to a baseball being hit out of the park. There is no scientific evidence that there is some non-physical effect that explains brain function. The brain is itself the source of the causes that allow it to function in various ways.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I cant explain the physics since I am not a physicist, but the conclusion is quite simple, ie that there is evidence for a second dimension of time.

So what? Let's say that there is. How is this second dimension of time any more helpful for your arguments than the first?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'm not asking you to explain the math or to be a PhD physicist. I am a layman as well. I just want to know that you understand what the research is actually saying, so that you can develop your arguments based on that.

You don't seem to have any idea what that "second time dimension" is other than that it contains the words "second", "time", and "dimension". And yet you are trying to use this scientific speculation as a premise in some arguments of yours. It doesn't work that way.

Well explain how I am wrong.

eud: I don't think that you understand the history of Christianity.

It all starts with stories about a man who, through words and miracles, reveals the will of God to humanity. The first letters, coming from Paul, aren't even about Paul's experience with a physical Jesus, but about a Jesus of visions. The beginnings and core of Christianity is divine revelation.

In time, apologetics and theology were used to defend Christian faith. At first, this was a philosophical defense, though recently with science ascendant, there have been efforts lately to make arguments that at least sound "scientific" (such as ID).

Christianity is not based on those apologetics. The apologetics are add-ons used to defend long-established Christian doctrine. The Bible isn't "just one big piece of the evidence". It contains the doctrine that all apologetics must serve.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I admit my explanation may not have been technically accurate. You are correct Christianity IS based on revelation. But what many do not know is that many of the most important teachings of that revelation have been confirmed by science, history, and philosophy.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Fraid not?

Do you have a question?

 

[HitchSlap]

But what many do not know is that many of the most important teachings of that revelation have been confirmed by science, history, and philosophy.

Name one important teaching that has been confirmed by science, history or philosophy, that could not have been known any other way.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The only thing you have demonstrated is; you have opinions you can not substantiate and you can tell people to go read stuff.

Name an opinion I have not substantiated.

 

[bhsmte]

Name an opinion I have not substantiated.

Here is a better question, name one you have.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, at time=0 there were no dimensions and no mass or space-time.

eud: I've already given you one source saying otherwise. What source do you have?

According to Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History, the majority of cosmologists agree that at time=0 NOTHING existed. No mass, space or time.

ed: Because the cause cannot be part of the effect. This is logic 101.

eud: A cause can be part of an effect. If I break my own arm, I am part of the effect.

No, your mind was the cause, you willed to break your arm. The real YOU resides in your mind not your arm. So again the cause was not part of the effect.

eud: What I think that you mean to say is that an entity cannot cause (be the explanation for) its own existence. But that's not what I am talking about here.

Yes, I mean that too.

ed: It is the most rational conclusion.

eud: You haven't shown this. You just keep insisting that it is. I have shown how logic doesn't necessarily lead in that direction.

No, you haven't. The burden is on you to prove that the universe is not an effect even though it has all the characteristics of being one.

ed: Well you claimed that the cause of the universe is internal to the universe.

eud: Post number?

I'm pretty sure that you've misread something, because that is not something I would ever say. What I had probably said is something like that the universe is the cause of its own change and explains what we see today. I don't think that the universe is the cause of its own existence.

Post 116.

ed: No, you are not paying attention. I was referring to when scientists did not know that atoms existed, it was just a hypothesis, that was confirmed when they used logic to confirm an unknown, just as we can do with the unknown territory of "outside" this universe. It is rational to assume logic is valid outside the universe which is how we have always discovered things about the unknown.

eud: I understood what you were saying. An unknown inside the universe that refers to an entity that we know exists is vastly different than an unknown "outside of" the universe that we don't know exists. Not all unknowns are equivalent.

Given that so far it has always worked in science, it is irrational and unscientific to abandon logic with ANY unknown.

ed: Not according to many scientists.

eud: Which ones?

See my post on page 9.

 

[Ed1wolf]

That's a wild goose chase.

All you told me was "Read Andrew Strominger's work." If you can't give page numbers and quotes so that I can narrow down my reading, I am just being told to read something that doesn't necessarily advance your case. It's like being told "Of course Nietzsche was a Nazi. Go read his work." I'm not going to take you on faith.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, in my later post I provided one of his studies.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Explain the study to us, in some detail.

I am not a physicist so I cant explain it, but the conclusion is pretty clear, there is evidence for a second dimension of time.

 

[bhsmte]

I am not a physicist so I cant explain it, but the conclusion is pretty clear, there is evidence for a second dimension of time.

LOL