Guest ..andnothingbut Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Watching Youtube, for ideas? Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Chris wrote: > Al Klein wrote: > > On 11 Dec 2006 23:09:16 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Neil Kelsey wrote: > > >> Chris wrote: > > >> > Bill M wrote: > > > > >> What preceded the known universe? A vacuum sounds reasonable. A vacuum > > >> is an absence of matter. > > > > >I assume by a vacuum you mean nothing? Or is a vacuum a special kind > > >of nothing? > > > > It wasn't a vacuum. A vacuum is a volume of space with nothing in it. > > Before the universe formed there was no space for a vacuum to be in. > > The Big Bank wasn't an explosion, it was the beginning of "place". > > > > >> However, there are particles that are called > > >> virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. > > > > >So there is something inside of nothing? > > > > Virtual particles form spontaneously. They have nothing to do with > > vacuum. > > > > >> > Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, space, > > >> > and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. > > > > Where would this God have been, before there was any "place" to be in? > > Before there was everything (what we call "the universe"), there was > > no "place" to be in. > > First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and > space. If you > can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you understand that? They are real. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On 13 Dec 2006 08:43:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: >Chris wrote: >> First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and space. If you >> can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, >No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you >understand that? They are real. And gods haven't been found. They aren't real. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it." - Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154 (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Al Klein wrote: > On 13 Dec 2006 08:43:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >Chris wrote: > > >> First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and space. If you > >> can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, > > >No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you > >understand that? They are real. > > And gods haven't been found. They aren't real. Oh come on, Al. They've only had six thousand years to come up with some evidence. Aren't you jumping the gun? Give them some time...(is there a smiley thingy for eyeball rolling?) Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such particles can originate from outside the universe, then why can't God live there? Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely difficult to test--even mathematically. Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to 'that's the way it's always been.'" On 12/13/06 9:19 AM, in article 1166030388.986976.83630@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Al Klein wrote: >> On 13 Dec 2006 08:43:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Chris wrote: >> >>>> First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and >>>> space. If you >>>> can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, >> >>> No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you >>> understand that? They are real. >> >> And gods haven't been found. They aren't real. > > Oh come on, Al. They've only had six thousand years to come up with > some evidence. Aren't you jumping the gun? Give them some time...(is > there a smiley thingy for eyeball rolling?) > Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Sorry for top posting. I'd be very interested in any of your replies to this post. Someone wrote: > I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual > particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The > implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such > particles can originate from outside the universe, then why can't God live > there? > > Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one > hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this > topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe > and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a > general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of > particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; > there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles > that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. > The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be > observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again > (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle > pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). > > The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > difficult to test--even mathematically. > > Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > > On 12/13/06 9:19 AM, in article > 1166030388.986976.83630@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" > <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Al Klein wrote: > >> On 13 Dec 2006 08:43:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Chris wrote: > >> > >>>> First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and > >>>> space. If you > >>>> can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, > >> > >>> No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you > >>> understand that? They are real. > >> > >> And gods haven't been found. They aren't real. > > > > Oh come on, Al. They've only had six thousand years to come up with > > some evidence. Aren't you jumping the gun? Give them some time...(is > > there a smiley thingy for eyeball rolling?) > > Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On 12 Dec 2006 16:53:31 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >I think if you do a careful study you will find some very intellectual >people who support the view that God created the universe. Not cosmologists. Intellectual farmers might think so, but they have no more actual knowledge of cosmology than illiterate peasants do. >I just think you should think carefully >about basing your eternity Pascal's Wager. >Particularly when it is conceivable that a >supernatural being who transends the laws of physics could have created >the universe. Not conceivable to normal people. Normal people don't do science by looking for evidence to back up their preconceived notions. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." -- Bertrand Russell. (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On 12 Dec 2006 22:32:12 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >No, it is an appeal to open your mind up to other explanations to what happen >prior to 10 ^-43 seconds after the Big Bang and find a plausible theory. Looking for evidence to back up what you believe isn't a theory, it's looking for evidence to back up what you believe. A theory is an explanation of observed fact that has proved to be almost unassailable. "I think" isn't a theory. >Agree,all your laws of physics do work in this closed system. My contention >is that God is outside of this system and created these laws Again - 1) something outside a closed system can have no effect to the inside of the closed system. That's what "closed system" means - "can't be affected from outside". 2) the laws of the universe were discovered, not created. >like the second law of thermodynamics. It wasn't created, it was discovered. >You contend that there is some vacuum of nothing >which contains something. That's your contention - that before anything existed your god was in that "no place". Before there was the universe there was no vacuum - there was no space-time for there to be a vacuum IN. The expansion of the universe isn't matter expanding to fill space, it's space itself expanding. All the matter-energy that exists now existed at the beginning, and it filled all available space. >Maybe the first step to you finding God The first step is actual objective evidence that there IS a god. Until you have that, there's no reason to look, because there's nothing to look FOR. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth." - Edward De Bono (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On 13 Dec 2006 09:19:49 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> On 13 Dec 2006 08:43:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Chris wrote: >> >> >> First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and space. If you >> >> can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, >> >> >No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you >> >understand that? They are real. >> >> And gods haven't been found. They aren't real. > > Oh come on, Al. They've only had six thousand years to come up with >some evidence. Aren't you jumping the gun? Give them some time. It's probably been closer to 60,000 years, all told. >..(is there a smiley thingy for eyeball rolling?) Probably. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything more than your existence in it." - Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy" (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:11:53 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual >particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? They don't come FROM anywhere. >The implication is that they come from "outside existence" Whose "implication"? It looks more like an inference - yours - to me. >--and if such particles can originate from outside the universe, then why can't God live >there? By definition, there's no such thing as "outside the universe". That would be like "the outside surface of a Mobius strip". By definition, if there's a place, that place is within the universe. >Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one >hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this >topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe >and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a >general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of >particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; And a virtual particle may not be probable until it "tunnels" into "being". That still doesn't have it coming from anywhere outside the universe. >The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence >of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until >relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the >earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the >speed of sound. They're just theories Actually none of them were theories, they were beliefs - like religion. >Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation You need evidence that there WAS a creation event in order to have a theory about it. Theories refer to facts, not fantasies. -- rukbat at optonline dot net Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another. - Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832) (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Someone kirjoitti: > I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual > particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The > implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such > > Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one > hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this > topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe > and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a > general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of > particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; > there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles > that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. > The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be > observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again > (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle > pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). > > The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > difficult to test--even mathematically. But they're theories that can be tested. I disagree with the assessment that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories even in practice. Of course, some experiments are harder to run than others, but by effort expended one could argue with the same implications that microchips are extremely difficult to design. They are. It's much, much harder than science IMO. Some scientific theories are extremely simple to test - we all did it (I hope!) in high school. Newtonian mechanics is hardly obscure. In addition, usually the mathematical tools for science had already been developed by mathematicians - like Dirac and linear algebra. With computers, science is better and easier than ever before. Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no data that can change a religion. > Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > 'that's the way it's always been.'" I think you're expecting too little of science... What do you think of the No-Boundary Proposal? It's a legitimate scientific theory since it makes predictions, the predictions are consistent with what we see, and it can explain the beginning of the universe. Also... You're not seriously arguing that the universe has existed forever, right? > > On 12/13/06 9:19 AM, in article > 1166030388.986976.83630@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" > <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Al Klein wrote: > >> On 13 Dec 2006 08:43:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Chris wrote: > >> > >>>> First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and > >>>> space. If you > >>>> can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, > >> > >>> No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you > >>> understand that? They are real. > >> > >> And gods haven't been found. They aren't real. > > > > Oh come on, Al. They've only had six thousand years to come up with > > some evidence. Aren't you jumping the gun? Give them some time...(is > > there a smiley thingy for eyeball rolling?) > > Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Chris kirjoitti: > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > Chris wrote: > > > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > > > Chris wrote: > > > > > I'm sorry you disagree. It is good that your fallacies are exposed > > > > > through > > > > > this dialogue though, if any good comes of it... > > > > > > > > What fallacies? > > > > > > > > > The best you can > > > > > do it call me a liar > > > > > > > > Where did I ever call you a liar? > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, this statement was actually directed towards Mr. Lee. > > > > > > > > and yet provide no conclusive evidence to support > > > > > your claims which doesn't make one jump through many many hoops. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry if you regard cracking open a book and studying as jumping > > > > through hoops. > > > > > > > > I'm beginning to think that theism is another word for intellectuall > > > > laziness. We've read your Bible, why can't you show a little > > > > curiousity? > > > > > > > > > > I think if you do a careful study you will find some very intellectual > > > people who support the view that God created the universe. > > > > See now, that's a fallacy. Do you understand that? That is an appeal to > > authority, only in this case your authorities are some unnamed > > "intellectuals." What field are they in? And most importantly, DO THEY > > HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE? You can be as > > intellectual as you want, but without evidence to support your claims, > > their claims are irrelevant. > > > > No, it is an appeal to open your mind up to other explanations to what > happen > prior to 10 ^-43 seconds after the Big Bang and find a plausible > theory. > > > > I do have > > > curiousity for these things. I just think you should think carefully > > > about basing your eternity on something that is intellectually curious > > > without substantial proof > > > > There is substantial proof. There is no doubt the Earth will end. It's > > the second law of thermodynamics. In a closed system (the Earth), > > entropy (chaos) increases. That is the laws of physics, and they are > > universal. The Sun WILL die out, the Earth along with it. Don't worry, > > it won't happen anytime soon. > > > > Agree,all your laws of physics do work in this closed system. My > contention > is that God is outside of this system and created these laws, like the > second > law of thermodynamics... You contend that there is some vacuum of > nothing > which contains something... Come on, listen to yourself. Maybe the > first > step to you finding God is for you to realize that these theorems of > yours > won't work, so keep studying... Maybe then, you'll begin your search > for God. Until > then, have a good night. > > Chris Once again, no one is contending or saying that there is "some sort of vacuum of nothing which contains something". You're misreading and miscasting what spacetime is. Of course theorems, theories and observation won't work in your mind when you haven't bothered understanding what they say in the first place. Kind of like saying that a foreign language doesn't work because you can't be bothered learning it properly. (Hint: All speakers of a language seem to be able to communicate with one another, even if you can't.) Given that you're not too interested in the implications of scientific inquiry for your arguments, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you're not posting because you really want to discuss anything. Think about this a little - how many people do you think you will convert, or sow the seeds for theism in, by faking a discussion about science and ignoring what they say to you? You didn't consider my points, why should I do you the courtesy of considering yours? > > > and have an open mind to something beyond > > > your mathematical theorems which seem to be > > > way out there... > > > > They are not way out there. They are real and true. Pick up a textbook, > > learn something, the real world is much more fascinating than the make > > believe one. > > > > > Particularly when it is conceivable that a > > > supernatural being who transends the laws of physics could have created > > > the universe. > > > > That is conceivable only in the human imagination. In the real world, > > the supernatural violates the laws of physics, and the laws of physics > > cannot be violated. Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > Someone kirjoitti: > > > I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual > > particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The > > implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such > > > > Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one > > hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this > > topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe > > and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a > > general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of > > particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; > > there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles > > that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. > > The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be > > observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again > > (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle > > pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). > > > > The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > > of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > > relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > > earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > > speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > > difficult to test--even mathematically. > > But they're theories that can be tested. I disagree with the assessment > that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories even in > practice. disagree! I just listened too a very entertaining program on string theory: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html I'm pretty sure they mentioned more than once that these scientific theories were difficult to test! This is more like science fiction and a leap of faith to me. > Of course, some experiments are harder to run than others, > but by effort expended one could argue with the same implications that > microchips are extremely difficult to design. They are. It's much, much > harder than science IMO. Some scientific theories are extremely simple > to test - we all did it (I hope!) in high school. Newtonian mechanics > is hardly obscure. In addition, usually the mathematical tools for > science had already been developed by mathematicians - like Dirac and > linear algebra. With computers, science is better and easier than ever > before. > > Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at > all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has > been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more > commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at > one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We > understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that > is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no > data that can change a religion. > > > Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > > try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > > 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > I think you're expecting too little of science... What do you think of > the No-Boundary Proposal? It's a legitimate scientific theory since it > makes predictions, the predictions are consistent with what we see, and > it can explain the beginning of the universe. > > Also... You're not seriously arguing that the universe has existed > forever, right? Actually it wasn't too long ago that the predominant theory was the stead state theory which most of you all bought... which if I'm not mistaken had the view that the universe existed forever.. I do agree though, keep moving forward. The big bang theory is much more in line with something written in scripture thousands of years ago -- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... Your research just might find God or atleast give people less and less of an excuse. I do like the idea of tunneling through into "being"... Seems like that is something to run with. Chris > > > > > On 12/13/06 9:19 AM, in article > > 1166030388.986976.83630@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" > > <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Al Klein wrote: > > >> On 13 Dec 2006 08:43:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Chris wrote: > > >> > > >>>> First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and > > >>>> space. If you > > >>>> can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, > > >> > > >>> No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you > > >>> understand that? They are real. > > >> > > >> And gods haven't been found. They aren't real. > > > > > > Oh come on, Al. They've only had six thousand years to come up with > > > some evidence. Aren't you jumping the gun? Give them some time...(is > > > there a smiley thingy for eyeball rolling?) > > > Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 I suppose, Al, that you're just so used to being argumentative, you thought that my post was somehow implying that I believe that virtual particles originated from outside the universe... If you read, very carefully what I wrote, I'm actually saying that the general consensus is that it comes from within the universe. So lighten up. However, it's also clear that the universe isn't the only closed system being discussed here... On 12/13/06 11:29 AM, in article qok0o29413vu1ji7u1umouolqj7gou8e8r@4ax.com, "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:11:53 -0800, Someone > <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: > .. .. <SNIP> .. >> --and if such particles can originate from outside the universe, then why >> can't God live >> there? > > By definition, there's no such thing as "outside the universe". That > would be like "the outside surface of a Mobius strip". By definition, > if there's a place, that place is within the universe. > I think what is being posited is that if I make myself a Mobius strip to represent the universe, there are still an infinite number of points that I can point out that are not on the Mobius strip. In other words, the Mobius strip exists somewhere. Likewise, the universe is actually defined in terms of physical existence--matter and time. Is it possible that something can exist outside of space and time? So now put your favorite theory here: oh there is a multiverse--our universe is only part of many universes. Oh the universe is finite. Oh the universe is infinite. Seems to me like cosmologists in-fight just as much as religious radicals do. I suppose I'm just a little more open-minded than you and concede that there is a possibility (perhaps a very, very small one, but almost certainly and untestable one) that some intelligence created the universe. To me, that's just as palatable as suggesting that the Universe is to four dimensions just like a sphere is to three dimensions (thus making the universe spatially finite)--and then hand waving that the only thing that exists is the stuff that falls on the sphere. The truth of the matter is... We simply just don't know. Hence, go your way in peace thinking what you think, and let these creationists go their way thinking what they think. >> Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one >> hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this >> topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe >> and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a >> general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of >> particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; > > And a virtual particle may not be probable until it "tunnels" into > "being". That still doesn't have it coming from anywhere outside the > universe. > I didn't say it did. Hence I said that the "general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe" (I emphasized the "THIS" purposefully, but apparently, I should have surrounded it with asterisks since you evidently missed it anyway). I suppose that I may be misinterpreting what you're saying... If you're suggesting that particles just come into being (in violation of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy)--well, OK, I'll concede it's possible (just like I concede that God is possible). But keep in mind that most quantum physicists don't believe that at all--hence the theories about particle pairs and CP symmetry. Gotta maintain that fermion number of the universe, after all. >> The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence >> of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until >> relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the >> earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the >> speed of sound. They're just theories > > Actually none of them were theories, they were beliefs - like > religion. > And you cannot imagine that after another 2000 years of science, those people will look back at your ideas and say "I can't believe they actually thought that!" There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. >> Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation > > You need evidence that there WAS a creation event in order to have a > theory about it. Theories refer to facts, not fantasies. I am using the term "Creation" not as an event, but as a synonym for "existence." Creationists think that creation was made because God made it so. Atheists think a multitude of things: Big Bang being the prevalent cosmological theory (which, for lack of a better phrase, is a creation event). And lastly, theories are not facts. Laws are facts. Theories are just hypotheses with a little bit of evidence that didn't toss it out. And before you put up a fuss, I believe that the "evidence" for a supernatural being is, from a scientific perspective, circumstantial at best and non-existent at worst. However, the evidence that disproves a supernatural being is also circumstantial to non-existent (hard to test a negative in any respect). So let's just leave be and let death sort it out. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Chris wrote: > tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > > Someone kirjoitti: > > > > > I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual > > > particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The > > > implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such > > > > > > Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one > > > hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this > > > topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe > > > and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a > > > general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of > > > particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; > > > there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles > > > that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. > > > The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be > > > observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again > > > (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle > > > pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). > > > > > > The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > > > of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > > > relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > > > earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > > > speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > > > difficult to test--even mathematically. > > > > But they're theories that can be tested. I disagree with the assessment > > that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories even in > > practice. > > disagree! I just listened too a very entertaining program on string > theory: > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html > I'm pretty sure they mentioned more than once that these scientific > theories were difficult to test! > This is more like science fiction and a leap of faith to me. How can you generalize like that straight faced? You watched a program on String Theory. String Theory is hard to test. That doesn't make quantum physics hard to test. They are two different things. I watched the same program, several times. I read the book that goes with it. They never once said anything about anything other than String Theory being difficult to test. > > Of course, some experiments are harder to run than others, > > but by effort expended one could argue with the same implications that > > microchips are extremely difficult to design. They are. It's much, much > > harder than science IMO. Some scientific theories are extremely simple > > to test - we all did it (I hope!) in high school. Newtonian mechanics > > is hardly obscure. In addition, usually the mathematical tools for > > science had already been developed by mathematicians - like Dirac and > > linear algebra. With computers, science is better and easier than ever > > before. > > > > Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at > > all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has > > been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more > > commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at > > one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We > > understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that > > is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no > > data that can change a religion. > > > > > Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > > > try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > > > 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > > > I think you're expecting too little of science... What do you think of > > the No-Boundary Proposal? It's a legitimate scientific theory since it > > makes predictions, the predictions are consistent with what we see, and > > it can explain the beginning of the universe. > > > > Also... You're not seriously arguing that the universe has existed > > forever, right? > > Actually it wasn't too long ago that the predominant theory was the > stead state theory which most of you all bought... Bullshit. Not everyone subscribed to that theory. > which if I'm not > mistaken had the view that the universe existed forever.. > > I do agree though, keep moving forward. The big bang theory is much > more in line with something written in scripture thousands of years ago > -- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... I don't remember anything in Genesis about there being a huge fireball that lasted billions of years until it cooled down enough to form the galaxies, stars, and planets. If I recall, God created all that in one day. How is any of astrophysics in line with the Bible? It completely contradicts the Bible, including the small detail of not requiring a God in the first place. > Your > research just might find God or atleast give people less and less of an > excuse. Less of an excuse for what? > I do like the idea of tunneling through into "being"... Seems like > that is something to run with. Oh great. I predict the next phrase you co-opt from physics after "closed system" will be "tunneling." Like I said before, trying to impress people with jargon is lame. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On 13 Dec 2006 14:34:43 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >-- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... Your >research just might find God Just as soon as you post an objective observation of a god there will be some research. Looking for something you want to exist isn't research, it's religion. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him." -A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915) (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 > >-- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... Your > >research just might find God > > Just as soon as you post an objective observation of a god there will > be some research. Looking for something you want to exist isn't > research, it's religion. Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On 12/13/06 1:46 PM, in article 1166046362.851427.204430@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "tereshka@gmail.com" <tereshka@gmail.com> wrote: > > Someone kirjoitti: > .. .. <<SNIP>> .. >> The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence >> of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until >> relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the >> earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the >> speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely >> difficult to test--even mathematically. > > But they're theories that can be tested. I disagree with the assessment > that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories even in > practice. Of course, some experiments are harder to run than others, > but by effort expended one could argue with the same implications that > microchips are extremely difficult to design. They are. It's much, much > harder than science IMO. Some scientific theories are extremely simple > to test - we all did it (I hope!) in high school. Newtonian mechanics > is hardly obscure. In addition, usually the mathematical tools for > science had already been developed by mathematicians - like Dirac and > linear algebra. With computers, science is better and easier than ever > before. > Some theories of particle pairing are extremely difficult to test since the idea is that the particle and antiparticle may be on opposite sides of the universe when the particle "appears" in the vacuum. Also the mere idea of testing for the existence of virtual particles is problematic since there really isn't any discernable difference between a virtual particle and a real particle--and creating a perfect vacuum devoid of all particles may be problematic. So not all theories can be easily tested. I, of course, agree that the existence of God is probably untestable. But that doesn't meant that God doesn't exist... Just that I can't test it. For most scientific minds, that's enough to disqualify God as an explanation for reality. For me, I'm open to the idea of God in order to explain the concept of "self" to me. > Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at > all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has > been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more > commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at > one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We > understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that > is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no > data that can change a religion. > I suppose the observer's death (in my case, "me") isn't a valid data point? >> Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you >> try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to >> 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > I think you're expecting too little of science... What do you think of > the No-Boundary Proposal? It's a legitimate scientific theory since it > makes predictions, the predictions are consistent with what we see, and > it can explain the beginning of the universe. > > Also... You're not seriously arguing that the universe has existed > forever, right? > It's a whimsical theory that I wrote there for fun... But... I must be misremembering. The No-Boundary Proposal is a theory regarding the topology of the universe that explains the observed universe by making the universe spatially finite (and explains how the universe can be expanding after the Big Bang, but does not require infinite space). I didn't really classify that proposal as being one that is creation-event-related. The idea of a singularity in the Big Bang theory (regardless of the topology of the resulting universe) is what I was referring to. Where did the singularity come from? What came before the singularity? Etc. Yeah, yeah, I know all the current thoeretical answers to those questions... But they kinda all do boil down to "well, that's the way it's always been" huh? Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Neil Kelsey wrote: > Chris wrote: > > tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > > > Someone kirjoitti: > > > > > > > I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual > > > > particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The > > > > implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such > > > > > > > > Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one > > > > hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this > > > > topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe > > > > and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a > > > > general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of > > > > particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; > > > > there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles > > > > that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. > > > > The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be > > > > observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again > > > > (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle > > > > pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). > > > > > > > > The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > > > > of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > > > > relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > > > > earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > > > > speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > > > > difficult to test--even mathematically. > > > > > > But they're theories that can be tested. I disagree with the assessment > > > that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories even in > > > practice. > > > > disagree! I just listened too a very entertaining program on string > > theory: > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html > > I'm pretty sure they mentioned more than once that these scientific > > theories were difficult to test! > > This is more like science fiction and a leap of faith to me. > > How can you generalize like that straight faced? You watched a program > on String Theory. String Theory is hard to test. That doesn't make > quantum physics hard to test. They are two different things. I watched > the same program, several times. I read the book that goes with it. > They never once said anything about anything other than String Theory > being difficult to test. > I was objecting to her statement, "I disagree with the assessment that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories". The string theory show talked about what may have sparked the big bang... That is difficult to test, just as any other theory you've thrown at me so far. > > > Of course, some experiments are harder to run than others, > > > but by effort expended one could argue with the same implications that > > > microchips are extremely difficult to design. They are. It's much, much > > > harder than science IMO. Some scientific theories are extremely simple > > > to test - we all did it (I hope!) in high school. Newtonian mechanics > > > is hardly obscure. In addition, usually the mathematical tools for > > > science had already been developed by mathematicians - like Dirac and > > > linear algebra. With computers, science is better and easier than ever > > > before. > > > > > > Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at > > > all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has > > > been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more > > > commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at > > > one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We > > > understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that > > > is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no > > > data that can change a religion. > > > > > > > Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > > > > try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > > > > 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > > > > > I think you're expecting too little of science... What do you think of > > > the No-Boundary Proposal? It's a legitimate scientific theory since it > > > makes predictions, the predictions are consistent with what we see, and > > > it can explain the beginning of the universe. > > > > > > Also... You're not seriously arguing that the universe has existed > > > forever, right? > > > > Actually it wasn't too long ago that the predominant theory was the > > stead state theory which most of you all bought... > > Bullshit. Not everyone subscribed to that theory. > Man -- you argure about everything... See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory In the steady state view new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, so that the perfect cosmological principle is adhered to. Although the model had a LARGE number of supporters among cosmologists in the 1950s and 1960s, the number of supporters decreased markedly in the late 1960s with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and today only a very small number of supporters remain. > > which if I'm not > > mistaken had the view that the universe existed forever.. > > > > I do agree though, keep moving forward. The big bang theory is much > > more in line with something written in scripture thousands of years ago > > -- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... > > I don't remember anything in Genesis about there being a huge fireball > that lasted billions of years until it cooled down enough to form the > galaxies, stars, and planets. If I recall, God created all that in one > day. How is any of astrophysics in line with the Bible? It completely > contradicts the Bible, including the small detail of not requiring a > God in the first place. > No, but it did say that "God created the heavens in the earth."... i.e., the universe isn't eternal. That is my point. I would hope since you have such a open mind towards God, you might have considered looking outside your circle to see what others think: http://reasons.org You may find they have a different theory. > > Your > > research just might find God or atleast give people less and less of an > > excuse. > > Less of an excuse for what? For blatantly missing the obvious, that we live in a world created by God. > > > I do like the idea of tunneling through into "being"... Seems like > > that is something to run with. > > Oh great. I predict the next phrase you co-opt from physics after > "closed system" will be "tunneling." Like I said before, trying to > impress people with jargon is lame. Kind of a neat concept, you have to admit Chris Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Chris wrote: > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > Chris wrote: > > > tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Someone kirjoitti: > > > > > > > > > I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual > > > > > particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The > > > > > implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such > > > > > > > > > > Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one > > > > > hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this > > > > > topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe > > > > > and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a > > > > > general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of > > > > > particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; > > > > > there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles > > > > > that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. > > > > > The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be > > > > > observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again > > > > > (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle > > > > > pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). > > > > > > > > > > The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > > > > > of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > > > > > relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > > > > > earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > > > > > speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > > > > > difficult to test--even mathematically. > > > > > > > > But they're theories that can be tested. I disagree with the assessment > > > > that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories even in > > > > practice. > > > > > > disagree! I just listened too a very entertaining program on string > > > theory: > > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html > > > I'm pretty sure they mentioned more than once that these scientific > > > theories were difficult to test! > > > This is more like science fiction and a leap of faith to me. > > > > How can you generalize like that straight faced? You watched a program > > on String Theory. String Theory is hard to test. That doesn't make > > quantum physics hard to test. They are two different things. I watched > > the same program, several times. I read the book that goes with it. > > They never once said anything about anything other than String Theory > > being difficult to test. > > > > I was objecting to her statement, "I disagree with the assessment > that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories". The string > theory > show talked about what may have sparked the big bang... That is > difficult to test, just as any other theory you've thrown at me so far. > > > > > Of course, some experiments are harder to run than others, > > > > but by effort expended one could argue with the same implications that > > > > microchips are extremely difficult to design. They are. It's much, much > > > > harder than science IMO. Some scientific theories are extremely simple > > > > to test - we all did it (I hope!) in high school. Newtonian mechanics > > > > is hardly obscure. In addition, usually the mathematical tools for > > > > science had already been developed by mathematicians - like Dirac and > > > > linear algebra. With computers, science is better and easier than ever > > > > before. > > > > > > > > Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at > > > > all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has > > > > been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more > > > > commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at > > > > one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We > > > > understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that > > > > is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no > > > > data that can change a religion. > > > > > > > > > Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > > > > > try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > > > > > 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > > > > > > > I think you're expecting too little of science... What do you think of > > > > the No-Boundary Proposal? It's a legitimate scientific theory since it > > > > makes predictions, the predictions are consistent with what we see, and > > > > it can explain the beginning of the universe. > > > > > > > > Also... You're not seriously arguing that the universe has existed > > > > forever, right? > > > > > > Actually it wasn't too long ago that the predominant theory was the > > > stead state theory which most of you all bought... > > > > Bullshit. Not everyone subscribed to that theory. > > > > Man -- you argure about everything... See: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory > In the steady state view new matter is continuously created as the > universe expands, so that the perfect cosmological principle is adhered > to. Although the model had a LARGE number of supporters among > cosmologists in the 1950s and 1960s, the number of supporters decreased > markedly in the late 1960s with the discovery of the cosmic microwave > background radiation, and today only a very small number of supporters > remain. > > > > > which if I'm not > > > mistaken had the view that the universe existed forever.. > > > > > > I do agree though, keep moving forward. The big bang theory is much > > > more in line with something written in scripture thousands of years ago > > > -- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... > > > > I don't remember anything in Genesis about there being a huge fireball > > that lasted billions of years until it cooled down enough to form the > > galaxies, stars, and planets. If I recall, God created all that in one > > day. How is any of astrophysics in line with the Bible? It completely > > contradicts the Bible, including the small detail of not requiring a > > God in the first place. > > > > No, but it did say that "God created the heavens in the earth."... > i.e., the universe isn't eternal. You're concluding that the Big Bang supports the Creation theory because it proves that "the universe isn't eternal?" I don't know how you'd make that leap of logic. And what about the rest? The fact that astrophysics contradicts the Bible? Are you just going to gloss over that part? > That is my point. I would hope since you have such a open mind > towards God, you might > have considered looking outside your circle to see what others think: > http://reasons.org Looked at it. Immediately found an article about water on Mars. The article quickly became an argument for Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is mental gymnastics to keep god in the picture in the face of scientific discovery. I am an atheist. > You may find they have a different theory. Yes. They do. They seem to prefer theories that don't require evidence to support them. > > > Your > > > research just might find God or atleast give people less and less of an > > > excuse. > > > > Less of an excuse for what? > > For blatantly missing the obvious, that we live in a world created by > God. How is that obvious? Where is any evidence that is true? > > > I do like the idea of tunneling through into "being"... Seems like > > > that is something to run with. > > > > Oh great. I predict the next phrase you co-opt from physics after > > "closed system" will be "tunneling." Like I said before, trying to > > impress people with jargon is lame. > > Kind of a neat concept, you have to admit Kind of nauseating if you ask me. And you're not funny. Quote
Guest Father Haskell Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote: > Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in > news:5gcun25llb88ge08g6a45n01lfqm49a089@4ax.com: > > > "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> said: > > > >> > >>duke wrote: > >>> On 12 Dec 2006 13:20:09 -0800, "Father Haskell" > >>> <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> >> >Just maybe it always was and always will be! > >>> >> It always.......................was?????????? > >>> >> And you're foolish enough to vote against "God did it"? > >>> >Why? What will happen? > >>> > >>> Meat spoils. > >> > >>Not if you freeze it. But what's that got to do with god's > >>existance? > > > > God-meat doesn't spoil? > > Not if well cooked. Tastes a bit like chicken ;-). Chicken baloney, to be precise. Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Chris kirjoitti: > tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > > Someone kirjoitti: > > > > > I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual > > > particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The > > > implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such > > > > > > Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one > > > hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this > > > topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe > > > and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a > > > general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of > > > particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; > > > there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles > > > that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. > > > The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be > > > observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again > > > (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle > > > pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). > > > > > > The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > > > of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > > > relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > > > earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > > > speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > > > difficult to test--even mathematically. > > > > But they're theories that can be tested. I disagree with the assessment > > that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories even in > > practice. > > disagree! I just listened too a very entertaining program on string > theory: > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html > I'm pretty sure they mentioned more than once that these scientific > theories were difficult to test! > This is more like science fiction and a leap of faith to me. Did they also mention that a lot of people question whether string theory is a legitimate scientific theory because of that? If it doesn't make testable predictions, it's not a scientific theory. Even if scientists come up with it. > > > Of course, some experiments are harder to run than others, > > but by effort expended one could argue with the same implications that > > microchips are extremely difficult to design. They are. It's much, much > > harder than science IMO. Some scientific theories are extremely simple > > to test - we all did it (I hope!) in high school. Newtonian mechanics > > is hardly obscure. In addition, usually the mathematical tools for > > science had already been developed by mathematicians - like Dirac and > > linear algebra. With computers, science is better and easier than ever > > before. > > > > Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at > > all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has > > been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more > > commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at > > one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We > > understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that > > is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no > > data that can change a religion. > > > > > Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > > > try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > > > 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > > > I think you're expecting too little of science... What do you think of > > the No-Boundary Proposal? It's a legitimate scientific theory since it > > makes predictions, the predictions are consistent with what we see, and > > it can explain the beginning of the universe. > > > > Also... You're not seriously arguing that the universe has existed > > forever, right? > > Actually it wasn't too long ago that the predominant theory was the > stead state theory which most of you all bought... which if I'm not > mistaken had the view that the universe existed forever.. "Most of you all"? I don't know who "we all" are here, but the steady-state theory as far as I know was never a dominant theory (although my science history may be wrong here, not having been around during its heyday) - it was developed concurrently with the big bang theory. > I do agree though, keep moving forward. The big bang theory is much > more in line with something written in scripture thousands of years ago > -- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... Your > research just might find God or atleast give people less and less of an > excuse. You seriously think science is going to uncover god? God is not a testable hypothesis, hence it's not something science can "find". Also, you're leaving out that the No-Boundary Proposal avoids some of the problems with the hot big bang theory, making it in that sense better than the big bang, and it eliminates any need for god for the existence of the universe. I'm sure that's not really something you want to hear. > I do like the idea of tunneling through into "being"... Seems like > that is something to run with. One does not run with science, one derives or measures. Very carefully. > Chris > > > > > > > > > On 12/13/06 9:19 AM, in article > > > 1166030388.986976.83630@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" > > > <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Al Klein wrote: > > > >> On 13 Dec 2006 08:43:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Chris wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>> First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and > > > >>>> space. If you > > > >>>> can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, > > > >> > > > >>> No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you > > > >>> understand that? They are real. > > > >> > > > >> And gods haven't been found. They aren't real. > > > > > > > > Oh come on, Al. They've only had six thousand years to come up with > > > > some evidence. Aren't you jumping the gun? Give them some time...(is > > > > there a smiley thingy for eyeball rolling?) > > > > Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Someone kirjoitti: > On 12/13/06 1:46 PM, in article > 1166046362.851427.204430@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "tereshka@gmail.com" > <tereshka@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Someone kirjoitti: > > > . > . <<SNIP>> > . > >> The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > >> of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > >> relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > >> earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > >> speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > >> difficult to test--even mathematically. > > > > But they're theories that can be tested. I disagree with the assessment > > that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories even in > > practice. Of course, some experiments are harder to run than others, > > but by effort expended one could argue with the same implications that > > microchips are extremely difficult to design. They are. It's much, much > > harder than science IMO. Some scientific theories are extremely simple > > to test - we all did it (I hope!) in high school. Newtonian mechanics > > is hardly obscure. In addition, usually the mathematical tools for > > science had already been developed by mathematicians - like Dirac and > > linear algebra. With computers, science is better and easier than ever > > before. > > > > Some theories of particle pairing are extremely difficult to test since the > idea is that the particle and antiparticle may be on opposite sides of the > universe when the particle "appears" in the vacuum. Also the mere idea of > testing for the existence of virtual particles is problematic since there > really isn't any discernable difference between a virtual particle and a > real particle--and creating a perfect vacuum devoid of all particles may be > problematic. So not all theories can be easily tested. > > I, of course, agree that the existence of God is probably untestable. But > that doesn't meant that God doesn't exist... Just that I can't test it. For > most scientific minds, that's enough to disqualify God as an explanation for > reality. For me, I'm open to the idea of God in order to explain the > concept of "self" to me. > > > Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at > > all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has > > been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more > > commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at > > one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We > > understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that > > is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no > > data that can change a religion. > > > > I suppose the observer's death (in my case, "me") isn't a valid data point? > > >> Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > >> try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > >> 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > > > I think you're expecting too little of science... What do you think of > > the No-Boundary Proposal? It's a legitimate scientific theory since it > > makes predictions, the predictions are consistent with what we see, and > > it can explain the beginning of the universe. > > > > Also... You're not seriously arguing that the universe has existed > > forever, right? > > > > It's a whimsical theory that I wrote there for fun... But... > > I must be misremembering. The No-Boundary Proposal is a theory regarding > the topology of the universe that explains the observed universe by making > the universe spatially finite (and explains how the universe can be > expanding after the Big Bang, but does not require infinite space). I > didn't really classify that proposal as being one that is > creation-event-related. > > The idea of a singularity in the Big Bang theory (regardless of the topology > of the resulting universe) is what I was referring to. Where did the > singularity come from? What came before the singularity? Etc. Yeah, > yeah, I know all the current thoeretical answers to those questions... But > they kinda all do boil down to "well, that's the way it's always been" huh? Hawking makes the claim that it does explain the creation of the universe. "As in the case of pair creation of black holes, one can describe the spontaneous creation of an exponentially expanding universe. One joins the lower half of the Euclidean four-sphere to the upper half of the Lorentzian hyperboloid (fig. 5.7). Unlike the black hole pair creation, one couldn't say that the de Sitter universe was created out of field energy in a preexisting space. Instead, it would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe." (Hawking, S. and R. Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time. 1996, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 85.) I am not technically qualified to seriously challenge this argument, as I'm not a cosmologist. But I buy it, because what I do understand makes good sense to me, and I agree with his sentiment that the laws of physics should hold at all points in spacetime, including singularities, to be real laws. I would argue that talking about 'before' the singularity is meaningless, as time doesn't exist independently of the universe. The only conceptions we have of time are from within the universe, and even though it's hard not to mentally extend that outside the universe, it's not logically sound, IMO. Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Someone kirjoitti: > On 12/13/06 1:46 PM, in article > 1166046362.851427.204430@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "tereshka@gmail.com" > <tereshka@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Someone kirjoitti: > > > . > . <<SNIP>> > . > >> The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > >> of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > >> relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > >> earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > >> speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > >> difficult to test--even mathematically. > > > > But they're theories that can be tested. I disagree with the assessment > > that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories even in > > practice. Of course, some experiments are harder to run than others, > > but by effort expended one could argue with the same implications that > > microchips are extremely difficult to design. They are. It's much, much > > harder than science IMO. Some scientific theories are extremely simple > > to test - we all did it (I hope!) in high school. Newtonian mechanics > > is hardly obscure. In addition, usually the mathematical tools for > > science had already been developed by mathematicians - like Dirac and > > linear algebra. With computers, science is better and easier than ever > > before. > > > > Some theories of particle pairing are extremely difficult to test since the > idea is that the particle and antiparticle may be on opposite sides of the > universe when the particle "appears" in the vacuum. Also the mere idea of > testing for the existence of virtual particles is problematic since there > really isn't any discernable difference between a virtual particle and a > real particle--and creating a perfect vacuum devoid of all particles may be > problematic. So not all theories can be easily tested. > > I, of course, agree that the existence of God is probably untestable. But > that doesn't meant that God doesn't exist... Just that I can't test it. For > most scientific minds, that's enough to disqualify God as an explanation for > reality. For me, I'm open to the idea of God in order to explain the > concept of "self" to me. > > > Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at > > all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has > > been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more > > commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at > > one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We > > understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that > > is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no > > data that can change a religion. > > > > I suppose the observer's death (in my case, "me") isn't a valid data point? Whoops! Forgot to reply to this in the last reply. It's not a data point that we can gather anything from. If there were consciousness after death, it would be for dead people, but the point is moot for discussing what we can know now. And since we have no way of accessing any data from anyone who's dead, we can speculate wildly, so.. no, I don't think it's a valid data point. Of course, should I die and realize I'm still conscious, I'll change my mind But I won't expect those still alive to do the same - how could they know? > >> Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > >> try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > >> 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > > > I think you're expecting too little of science... What do you think of > > the No-Boundary Proposal? It's a legitimate scientific theory since it > > makes predictions, the predictions are consistent with what we see, and > > it can explain the beginning of the universe. > > > > Also... You're not seriously arguing that the universe has existed > > forever, right? > > > > It's a whimsical theory that I wrote there for fun... But... > > I must be misremembering. The No-Boundary Proposal is a theory regarding > the topology of the universe that explains the observed universe by making > the universe spatially finite (and explains how the universe can be > expanding after the Big Bang, but does not require infinite space). I > didn't really classify that proposal as being one that is > creation-event-related. > > The idea of a singularity in the Big Bang theory (regardless of the topology > of the resulting universe) is what I was referring to. Where did the > singularity come from? What came before the singularity? Etc. Yeah, > yeah, I know all the current thoeretical answers to those questions... But > they kinda all do boil down to "well, that's the way it's always been" huh? Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On 12/13/06 4:58 PM, in article 1166057895.396088.9840@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "tereshka@gmail.com" <tereshka@gmail.com> wrote: > > Someone kirjoitti: > .. .. <<SNIP>> .. >>> Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at >>> all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has >>> been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more >>> commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at >>> one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We >>> understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that >>> is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no >>> data that can change a religion. >>> >> >> I suppose the observer's death (in my case, "me") isn't a valid data point? > > Whoops! Forgot to reply to this in the last reply. It's not a data > point that we can gather anything from. If there were consciousness > after death, it would be for dead people, but the point is moot for > discussing what we can know now. And since we have no way of accessing > any data from anyone who's dead, we can speculate wildly, so.. no, I > don't think it's a valid data point. Of course, should I die and > realize I'm still conscious, I'll change my mind But I won't expect > those still alive to do the same - how could they know? > I was hoping you'd be rational enough to say that! My sentence was mostly facetious for the exact reasons you responded with... But like a good koan, it's also holds some truth: frankly, the "test" of my death is the only one I care about regardless of whether you guys are unable to collect data about it. I figure, that if there is a hereafter, then I'd finally get some answers to these questions. If there isn't, well, then I'd be really past the point of caring. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.