Miracles

[seer]

Thats a silly argument seer, its not not just me that has never seen it, but we all empirically know that human beings can not walk on water, and one needn't know the laws of physics to figure that out.

Jim you do understand that an inductive argument can not bring certainty? And no we don't "all know" any such thing. And keep in mind, I have been following your quantum wave thread - and you supported the many-worlds interpretation of QM. Talk about fantastic!

That human beings can not walk on water is a logical conclusion to come to based on empirical evidence.

No Jim, the best you can rationally claim is that generally, in our limited experience, we do not see men walking on water. But our finite experience can not or does not create certainty.

So says you. And why should I believe you? I know, you don't care whether I believe you or not, but that does not answer the question. The question is why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe you?

Jim, that is the point. I don't care if you believe me. I know with certainty that it is fact.

[JimL]

Jim you do understand that an inductive argument can not bring certainty? And no we don't "all know" any such thing. And keep in mind, I have been following your quantum wave thread - and you supported the many-worlds interpretation of QM. Talk about fantastic!

No one is talking about certainty seer, there is no certainty that the world was not created either, but that is no reason to believe that it was. We can only make judgements based on what we do know empirically, otherwise we would believe anything at all. Empirically we all know that human beings can not walk on water and if someone tells us that they did, then that claim contradicts our empirical experience which without evidence to the contrary leaves us no reason to believe it.
As for the multiverse, the empirical evidence tells us that nothing can come from nothing, that everything that exists comes from that which already exists, and that being the case it is a logical judgement to make that our universe did not come from nothing but emerged from, and is of the same substance as, that which already existed. Also every theory, scientific theory that is, allows for and point to the existence of the multiverse. It makes sense that our universe is not special, that like everything else, it is born of, and is one with that out of which it emerged.

No Jim, the best you can rationally claim is that generally, in our limited experience, we do not see men walking on water. But our finite experience can not or does not create certainty.

Yes, that is the best I can do, and it is the best you can do as well, and since that is all we have to base our judgements upon, that is the logical basis upon which we should make them.

Jim, that is the point. I don't care if you believe me. I know with certainty that it is fact.

As I said, I understand that you don't care, but can you give me one good reason as to why any reasonable person should believe you.

[seer]

No one is talking about certainty seer, there is no certainty that the world was not created either, but that is no reason to believe that it was. We can only make judgements based on what we do know empirically, otherwise we would believe anything at all. Empirically we all know that human beings can not walk on water and if someone tells us that they did, then that claim contradicts our empirical experience which without evidence to the contrary leaves us no reason to believe it.

And one more time Jim, your argument is inductive and therefore inconclusive. Your limited experience is not, and can not be, the standard for what is possible or impossible.

As for the multiverse, the empirical evidence tells us that nothing can come from nothing, that everything that exists comes from that which already exists, and that being the case it is a logical judgement to make that our universe did not come from nothing but emerged from, and is of the same substance as, that which already existed. Also every theory, scientific theory that is, allows for and point to the existence of the multiverse. It makes sense that our universe is not special, that like everything else, it is born of, and is one with that out of which it emerged.

Except you believe in a multiverse without one lick of evidence. And then you have men like Dr. Alexander Vilenkin making the case that the universe was created out of nothing, literally nothing, no matter, no energy and no time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I

And then with your multiverse you run into the problem of infinite regression, which Vilenkin mentions in the link. And which I believe is a deeply irrational concept.

Yes, that is the best I can do, and it is the best you can do as well, and since that is all we have to base our judgements upon, that is the logical basis upon which we should make them.

Good, and can we then agree that our limited experience can not, rationally, be the standard for what is or is not possible?

As I said, I understand that you don't care, but can you give me one good reason as to why any reasonable person should believe you.

Because it is true?

[JimL]

And one more time Jim, your argument is inductive and therefore inconclusive. Your limited experience is not, and can not be, the standard for what is possible or impossible.

Yes seer, and I agreed with you on that, my argument is inconclusive, but unlike your argument, my argument has an empirical basis to support it. We can't conclusively say that something can't spontaneously emerge from out of nothing, but not conclusively knowing that to be the case is no reason to believe that it can. If we don't make our judgements in accordance with what we do empirically know, then there is no point in having a thinking brain.

Except you believe in a multiverse without one lick of evidence. And then you have men like Dr. Alexander Vilenkin making the case that the universe was created out of nothing, literally nothing, no matter, no energy and no time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I

Thats just not true seer. There is no direct empirical evidence of other universes, but there is direct evidence which points to their existence. Quantum mechanics and the Shroedinger equation for one. And two, our empirical knowledge of the fact that everything we know of which exists comes from that which already exists. Now you can argue that something can come from nothing, but the only evidence available to you contradicts that assertion. As for Vilenkin, If you listen closely, first off, he says there seems to be no satifactory explanation for the origin of the universe. In other words he, like the rest of us, just doesn't know. He then goes on to explain the hypothesis of the universe emerging spontaneously from out of nothing, but the nothing that it emerges from, he goes on to say, is a closed universe containing energy and matter which cancel each other out. That is hardly what I would call nothing.

And then with your multiverse you run into the problem of infinite regression, which Vilenkin mentions in the link. And which I believe is a deeply irrational concept.

He mentions that it is a question, not that it is unanswerable. Again, he, just like the rest of us, doesn't know the answer to that and not having the answer doesn't make it an irrational concept. If indeed the universe is infinite, then an infinitely changing universe is not only rational, but would be the only discription of it that makes sense, afaics. Besides that, the alternative argument positing the existence of an infinite creator has the same problem to deal with on top of the problem creation out of nothing.

Good, and can we then agree that our limited experience can not, rationally, be the standard for what is or is not possible?

Yes we can, but it is the standard on which we should base our beliefs. That something may be possible because we don't have evidence of its absolute impossibility is no reason to believe it.

Because it is true?

So, so long as someone says that something is true, that is reason enough to believe them.

[seer]

Yes seer, and I agreed with you on that, my argument is inconclusive, but unlike your argument, my argument has an empirical basis to support it. We can't conclusively say that something can't spontaneously emerge from out of nothing, but not conclusively knowing that to be the case is no reason to believe that it can. If we don't make our judgements in accordance with what we do empirically know, then there is no point in having a thinking brain.

Well I'm glad you agree that your argument is inconclusive. And of course we all do our best with out limited understanding and ignorance.

Thats just not true seer. There is no direct empirical evidence of other universes, but there is direct evidence which points to their existence. Quantum mechanics and the Shroedinger equation for one. And two, our empirical knowledge of the fact that everything we know of which exists comes from that which already exists. Now you can argue that something can come from nothing, but the only evidence available to you contradicts that assertion. As for Vilenkin, If you listen closely, first off, he says there seems to be no satifactory explanation for the origin of the universe. In other words he, like the rest of us, just doesn't know. He then goes on to explain the hypothesis of the universe emerging spontaneously from out of nothing, but the nothing that it emerges from, he goes on to say, is a closed universe containing energy and matter which cancel each other out. That is hardly what I would call nothing.

First Jim, you completely misunderstood Vilenkin. His point about the universe and matter and energy was that a closed universe, such as ours, would be consistent with spontaneous creation out of nothing. The law of conservation would not be violated. So here you have a man, at the top of his field, who knows way more than you and me on this subject, suggesting creation ex nihilo. And no there is not any evidence that points to a multiverse. There is no evidence that the quantum world exists anywhere besides this universe.

He mentions that it is a question, not that it is unanswerable. Again, he, just like the rest of us, doesn't know the answer to that and not having the answer doesn't make it an irrational concept. If indeed the universe is infinite, then an infinitely changing universe is not only rational, but would be the only discription of it that makes sense, afaics. Besides that, the alternative argument positing the existence of an infinite creator has the same problem to deal with on top of the problem creation out of nothing.

Yes infinite regression is irrational if you think you can pass through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe. Just look at the problem going backwards - if you go backwards and visit every universe or event that gave rise to our present universe could you ever visit them all? Even given an eternity of time? No, of course not, for no matter how many visits you made you would still have an infinite number ahead.

Yes we can, but it is the standard on which we should base our beliefs. That something may be possible because we don't have evidence of its absolute impossibility is no reason to believe it.

Then your argument is again inductive and a fallacy.

So, so long as someone says that something is true, that is reason enough to believe them.

That is up to you in the end.

[JimL]

Well I'm glad you agree that your argument is inconclusive. And of course we all do our best with out limited understanding and ignorance.

Yes, my argument, like yours, is inconclusive. But unlike your argument, mine is based on supporting empirical evidence, yours is based on unsupported assertions.

First Jim, you completely misunderstood Vilenkin. His point about the universe and matter and energy was that a closed universe, such as ours, would be consistent with spontaneous creation out of nothing. The law of conservation would not be violated. So here you have a man, at the top of his field, who knows way more than you and me on this subject, suggesting creation ex nihilo.

Seer, to argue that nothingness exists because "energy and gravity" exactly balance each other out is like arguing that nothingness comes from something, not that something comes from nothing. In order for "energy" and "gravity" to balance each other out to get nothing, energy and gravity would first have to exist in the first place. Physicists like Vilenkin, just like you and I, don't have the answer, so they can suggest all they want. As he said at the beginning of the video, the origins don't have a satifactory explanation.

And no there is not any evidence that points to a multiverse. There is no evidence that the quantum world exists anywhere besides this universe.

If you understand quantum mechanics at all, you would understand that it is based on the Schrodinger equation which determines the evolution of the probability wave. In other words it is math, and if you continue to follow the math, rather than abandoning it upon observation as does N. Bohr, then the probability wave does not collapse to reveal the one and only reality. If you follow the math, all of the probabilities defined by the wave actualize, which means that other worlds exist even though we only get to observe the one we are in which gives us the impression of wave collapse. The math is evidence that the quantum world is defining a multi-verse.

Yes infinite regression is irrational if you think you can pass through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe. Just look at the problem going backwards - if you go backwards and visit every universe or event that gave rise to our present universe could you ever visit them all? Even given an eternity of time? No, of course not, for no matter how many visits you made you would still have an infinite number ahead.

No, infinity does not mean that, infinity means that you could never traverse an infinite Cosmos. Infinity would be the nature of the Cosmos, not the number of temporal universes it gives rise to. Your argument is that an infinite Cosmos must needs be static because you could never pass through an infinite number of changes within it. Well, you could never pass through an infinite Cosmos even were it static, but not being able to traverse the infinite isn't evidence that it is not infinite?

Then your argument is again inductive and a fallacy.

Its not necessarily a fallascious conclusion, it may be, but not necessarily, and neither is yours, but unlike my argument, your argument has no support, yours is naught but an unfounded assertion.

That is up to you in the end.

Thats correct, and when belief in something is up to you, I would hope that you would use your experience and knowledge of the world to make your judgements.

[seer]

Yes, my argument, like yours, is inconclusive. But unlike your argument, mine is based on supporting empirical evidence, yours is based on unsupported assertions.

Jim, let me ask you something. In the many worlds theory there are an infinite number universes and an infinite number of possibilities. So would walking on water be one of those possibilities?

Seer, to argue that nothingness exists because "energy and gravity" exactly balance each other out is like arguing that nothingness comes from something, not that something comes from nothing. In order for "energy" and "gravity" to balance each other out to get nothing, energy and gravity would first have to exist in the first place. Physicists like Vilenkin, just like you and I, don't have the answer, so they can suggest all they want. As he said at the beginning of the video, the origins don't have a satifactory explanation.

No Jim, again you completely misunderstand what Vilenkin. He is not saying that energy and gravity already existed. But that because they balance each other out in this universe -therefore creation out of nothing (literally nothing) would not violate the law of conservation. It is not that hard to understand his point Jim.

If you understand quantum mechanics at all, you would understand that it is based on the Schrodinger equation which determines the evolution of the probability wave. In other words it is math, and if you continue to follow the math, rather than abandoning it upon observation as does N. Bohr, then the probability wave does not collapse to reveal the one and only reality. If you follow the math, all of the probabilities defined by the wave actualize, which means that other worlds exist even though we only get to observe the one we are in which gives us the impression of wave collapse. The math is evidence that the quantum world is defining a multi-verse.

First, even is the math is elegant Jim that does not necessarily mean it corresponds to reality. You still need actual physical evidence for these other worlds.

No, infinity does not mean that, infinity means that you could never traverse an infinite Cosmos. Infinity would be the nature of the Cosmos, not the number of temporal universes it gives rise to. Your argument is that an infinite Cosmos must needs be static because you could never pass through an infinite number of changes within it. Well, you could never pass through an infinite Cosmos even were it static, but not being able to traverse the infinite isn't evidence that it is not infinite?

What? You still have to pass through an infinite number of events to get to this present universe. What event gave rise to our universe, what event gave rise to that event, and what gave rise to that event? So on and so on. It is infinite regression at its best, or worse.

[JimL]

Jim, let me ask you something. In the many worlds theory there are an infinite number universes and an infinite number of possibilities. So would walking on water be one of those possibilities?

We are not discussing what is possible in other universes, we are discussing what is possible in this universe. When you have evidence relating to the nature of other universes and the possibility of the walking on water thereof, let me know.

No Jim, again you completely misunderstand what Vilenkin. He is not saying that energy and gravity already existed. But that because they balance each other out in this universe -therefore creation out of nothing (literally nothing) would not violate the law of conservation. It is not that hard to understand his point Jim.

A quantum state of of energy, also called the vacuum state or zero point energy, is not equivalent to empty space or nothingness. Fluctuations in this state produce both positive energy and negative energy, also known as gravity, and it is the balance of these two energies that Vilenkin is equating with nothingness, but a quantum system of zero point energy out of which they emerge is not nothingness, it is space filled with zero point energy. So, and I think we've been over this before, but the nothingness that Vilenkin is refering to is not actually nothing, its the vacuum state.

First, even is the math is elegant Jim that does not necessarily mean it corresponds to reality. You still need actual physical evidence for these other worlds.

Well, of course, you need actual observational evidence of the thing itself to be sure that it exists, but the math pointing to its existence is still evidence, and so good reason to believe that it exists.

What? You still have to pass through an infinite number of events to get to this present universe. What event gave rise to our universe, what event gave rise to that event, and what gave rise to that event? So on and so on. It is infinite regression at its best, or worse.

Well, let me ask you then. Do you believe that infinity itself makes sense? Or do you believe that somewhere out there, there is a boundary outside of which is what you would call nothingness. How about God, do you see him as infinite, existing everywhere, or do you see him as finite? If you believe that infinity itself, a Cosmos, a never ending expanse, makes sense, then an infinity of universes within that Cosmos, as difficult as that may be to fathom, is no less sensible.

[seer]

We are not discussing what is possible in other universes, we are discussing what is possible in this universe. When you have evidence relating to the nature of other universes and the possibility of the walking on water thereof, let me know.

Well, of course, you need actual observational evidence of the thing itself to be sure that it exists, but the math pointing to its existence is still evidence, and so good reason to believe that it exists.

OK, so in one breath you ask me for evidence of these other universes, in another you conclude that there is good reasons to think they exist? Which is it James? So Jim, if there are an infinite number of universes then there are an infinite number of possibilities - then why wouldn't walking on water be one of those possibilities? Do you agree that it could be - in principle?



[

A quantum state of of energy, also called the vacuum state or zero point energy, is not equivalent to empty space or nothingness. Fluctuations in this state produce both positive energy and negative energy, also known as gravity, and it is the balance of these two energies that Vilenkin is equating with nothingness, but a quantum system of zero point energy out of which they emerge is not nothingness, it is space filled with zero point energy. So, and I think we've been over this before, but the nothingness that Vilenkin is refering to is not actually nothing, its the vacuum state.

Really Jim, where does Vilenkin say in the talk that his "nothing" is a vacuum state? Be specific on the time.

Well, let me ask you then. Do you believe that infinity itself makes sense? Or do you believe that somewhere out there, there is a boundary outside of which is what you would call nothingness. How about God, do you see him as infinite, existing everywhere, or do you see him as finite? If you believe that infinity itself, a Cosmos, a never ending expanse, makes sense, then an infinity of universes within that Cosmos, as difficult as that may be to fathom, is no less sensible.

Infinity is not illogical, and infinite number of past events is - i.e. that you can actually move through an infinite number of past events to get to this present moment.

[JimL]

OK, so in one breath you ask me for evidence of these other universes, in another you conclude that there is good reasons to think they exist? Which is it James? So Jim, if there are an infinite number of universes then there are an infinite number of possibilities - then why wouldn't walking on water be one of those possibilities? Do you agree that it could be - in principle?

The reason that walking on water is not one of those possibilities is because we are not talking about what may be possible according to the physics of other universes. In this universe the physical nature of rocks and water is such that when brought together the rock falls through the water. In other universes, the physics may not allow for such things as rocks or water, but if it did, then the same would be true as in this universe, the rock would sink.


[

Really Jim, where does Vilenkin say in the talk that his "nothing" is a vacuum state? Be specific on the time.

I don't believe that he does, and that i think is unfortunate and misleading in his description because I'm sure he understands that the vacuum state is not understood to be exactly nothing.

Infinity is not illogical, and infinite number of past events is - i.e. that you can actually move through an infinite number of past events to get to this present moment.

Okay, infinite space is not illogical, but infinite time is. Is that your argument? The concept of infinite time is a conundrum I grant you, its a difficult concept to grasp intuitively, but even with regards to our own universe we haven't yet figured out time. Time is a coordinate, time varies dependent on the the curvature of space, time is relative. But if infinite space is not illogical, and time is a characteristic of space, then how can infinite time be illogical?

[seer]

The reason that walking on water is not one of those possibilities is because we are not talking about what may be possible according to the physics of other universes. In this universe the physical nature of rocks and water is such that when brought together the rock falls through the water. In other universes, the physics may not allow for such things as rocks or water, but if it did, then the same would be true as in this universe, the rock would sink.

Just amuse me Jim, if we have an infinite number of universe and an infinite number of possibilities, then it would be possible, in principle to walk on water - correct?

I don't believe that he does, and that i think is unfortunate and misleading in his description because I'm sure he understands that the vacuum state is not understood to be exactly nothing.

No he doesn't and I also read one of his papers on this. He does literally mean out of nothing. So here we have a foremost scientist in this field suggesting creation ex nihilo. Now this doesn't sit well with you and that is fine, but I suspect that Mr. Vilenkin thought more about this than both of us.

Okay, infinite space is not illogical, but infinite time is. Is that your argument? The concept of infinite time is a conundrum I grant you, its a difficult concept to grasp intuitively, but even with regards to our own universe we haven't yet figured out time. Time is a coordinate, time varies dependent on the the curvature of space, time is relative. But if infinite space is not illogical, and time is a characteristic of space, then how can infinite time be illogical?

Jim, I said nothing about infinite time. I'm speaking of moving through and infinite number of events to get to this present universe. Infinite regression.

Let me repeat:

Yes infinite regression is irrational if you think you can pass through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe. Just look at the problem going backwards - if you go backwards and visit every universe or event that gave rise to our present universe could you ever visit them all? Even given an eternity of time? No, of course not, for no matter how many visits you made you would still have an infinite number ahead.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Jim, I said nothing about infinite time. I'm speaking of moving through and infinite number of events to get to this present universe. Infinite regression.

Let me repeat:

Yes infinite regression is irrational if you think you can pass through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe. Just look at the problem going backwards - if you go backwards and visit every universe or event that gave rise to our present universe could you ever visit them all? Even given an eternity of time? No, of course not, for no matter how many visits you made you would still have an infinite number ahead.

You and I have disagreed on this point, before, but I'll just go ahead and disagree, again.

There is nothing irrational about infinite regression unless you initially approach the issue with the presupposition that infinities are irrational. Mathematicians have been discussing the traversal of actual infinities for more than 400 years, and Archimedes nearly stumbled across this sort of understanding of infinity over two thousand years ago.

[seer]

You and I have disagreed on this point, before, but I'll just go ahead and disagree, again.

There is nothing irrational about infinite regression unless you initially approach the issue with the presupposition that infinities are irrational. Mathematicians have been discussing the traversal of actual infinities for more than 400 years, and Archimedes nearly stumbled across this sort of understanding of infinity over two thousand years ago.

Yes we have and I believe Matt disagrees with you in your discussion on the Philosophy board - where I believe actual infinities came up. But I will go back to my example of moving backwards through an infinite number past events. One could not actually reach all past events for no matter how much time you had and no matter how many events you reached you would always have an infinite number ahead. Then you have ideas like the Hilbert Hotel that make the idea of actual infinities seem absurd.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes we have and I believe Matt disagrees with you in your discussion on the Philosophy board - where I believe actual infinities came up. But I will go back to my example of moving backwards through an infinite number past events. One could not actually reach all past events for no matter how much time you had and no matter how many events you reached since you would always have an infinite number ahead.

This is incorrect. If some infinite quantity of past events has occurred, that simply means that an equally infinite quantity of time has elapsed. So, allowing for backward traversal through time, one would traverse an infinite number of past events if allowed an equally infinite amount of time in which to do so.

Then you have ideas like the Hilbert Hotel that make the idea of actual infinities seem absurd.

The Hilbert Hotel does not make the idea of actual infinities absurd. The Hilbert Hotel shows the absurdity of using the concept of "infinity" as if it were a number. You might as well try to multiply 6 by Blue. Infinity is not a number, however there are numbers which are infinite. Mathematics is perfectly consistent using such infinite numbers. There is nothing irrational (in the sense which you are using it) about them.

[seer]

So, allowing for backward traversal through time, one would traverse an infinite number of past events if allowed an equally infinite amount of time in which to do so.

Really? If you start now would there ever be a point when you didn't still have an infinite number ahead? No matter how much time I give you, you will never. ever, have less than an infinite number of events ahead.

The Hilbert Hotel does not make the idea of actual infinities absurd. The Hilbert Hotel shows the absurdity of using the concept of "infinity" as if it were a number. You might as well try to multiply 6 by Blue. Infinity is not a number, however there are numbers which are infinite. Mathematics is perfectly consistent using such infinite numbers. There is nothing irrational (in the sense which you are using it) about them.

There is a difference between numbers on paper and actual infinities. And that is exactly the problem that the Hilbert Hotel addresses.