What was God doing?

[shunyadragon]

That is exactly what Vilenkin did not say, do we really have to go over this again? The only pre-existing requirement was the laws of physics.

You can go over this again, again, again and again, but it does not change the fact that Vilenkin's wording is that this is only 'one scenario' and theorem among other possible models that propose the physics of the origin of our universe and all possible universes. He clearly states the tentative nature of models and hypothesis concerning the origins of universes. He also describes the nature of this scientific "Nothing" in hypothetical terms. Yet, you unfortunately describe Vilenkin's theorem of origins in absolute terms for millennia of repeated misrepresentation as if Vilenkin proposes this is actually a falsified theorem that describes the origin of all possible universes. In reality this is only the case in seer's imagination coached in seer's religious agenda.

[robrecht]

There are subtle wordings I do not totally agree with. For example I do not assume nor use words like 'unanswerable,' because what is not answerable at present may be answered at least in part in the future. I do not agree with this statement; 'This is also true in theology, by the way.' I do not consider there to be a parallel here with theology. it is grounded in the Philosophy of Science.

There are things I consider most likely unanswerable such as: the question whether our physical existence is eternal or non-eternal, nor whether it is finite or infinite. There are assumptions in science that the nature of our physical existence is eternal because it works, but it is not necessarily so. Math uses infinities as tools in math for proofs and hypothesis, but there is no assumption that our physical existence is either finite nor infinite, nor can it be proved nor disproved.

OK, since you seem to be unwilling or unable to answer my question regarding your view of Wolfgang Pauli, let's move on to the next supposed disagreement. You "do not assume nor use words like 'unanswerable'" except 'there are things you consider most likely unanswerable' so in fact you do indeed "use words like unanswerable" so that supposed disagreement also seems to be likewise incoherent. Unless you might like to clarify your remarks?

[seer]

External to our particular universe. My guess is that the universe itself, I call it the Cosmos to differentiate it from spacetimes, is infinite, that it isn't space itself that is created, that it is spacetime universes that are, and that they are the result of vacuum fluctuations within space itself, within the Greater Cosmos. I know, that differs from Vilenkins hypothesis where there is no space to begin with, but Vilenkin doesn't know anymore than I do what if anything our universe is expanding into. It could be that our universe is just an expanding part of an infinite space and that it is expanding due to the so called big bang resulting from random fluctuations. Whenever I read someone explaining "a universe from nothing" they never seem to get to the nothing part, it always begins with a fluctuation, and to me a fluctuation is definitive of "something."

Jim, you can believe what you want, but we were discussing Vilenkin's view which is creation from nothing. And he did get to the nothing part, no space, time or matter. The same nothing that Lucretius spoke of as he says in the link.

[shunyadragon]

OK, since you seem to be unwilling or unable to answer my question regarding your view of Wolfgang Pauli, let's move on to the next supposed disagreement.

I answered the question:

I agree with that for apophatic theology, but I would not make the comparison concerning science.

You "do not assume nor use words like 'unanswerable'" except 'there are things you consider most likely unanswerable' so in fact you do indeed "use words like unanswerable" so that supposed disagreement also seems to be likewise incoherent. Unless you might like to clarify your remarks?

Please note "most likely" and I did present the only specific exceptions here:
[There are certain specific] things [only] I consider most likely unanswerable such as: the question whether our physical existence is eternal or non-eternal, nor whether it is finite or infinite. There are assumptions in science that the nature of our physical existence is eternal because it works, but it is not necessarily so. Math uses infinities as tools in math for proofs and hypothesis, but there is no assumption that our physical existence is either finite nor infinite, nor can it be proved nor disproved.

This a specific philosophical problem that likely cannot be resolved by science, because no matter how far we extend our vision into the greater cosmos of our physical existence there could be something beyond including God.

As far as the knowledge of science concerning the nature of our physical existence, I do not consider the limits such as the quest for the knowledge of science that our questions are 'unanswerable.'

I believe my previous answers to specific enough as I already described, though I added some specific clarification.

[Tassman]

Sorry Tass, you can cry science all day, you got nothing.

[seer]

Like Guth said, even your mythical multiverse, if it exists, needs a beginning. So what came before that Tass, or before that? And how in principle could science look back an infinite number of years with any real confidence? In reality you could never scientifically demonstrate an infinite past for matter and energy - it will forever remain an article of faith.

[TheWall]

Didnt Augustine answer this question. Time could not exist before the universe itself did.

[robrecht]

I answered the question:

I agree with that for apophatic theology, but I would not make the comparison concerning science.



Please note "most likely" and I did present the only specific exceptions here:
[There are certain specific] things [only] I consider most likely unanswerable such as: the question whether our physical existence is eternal or non-eternal, nor whether it is finite or infinite. There are assumptions in science that the nature of our physical existence is eternal because it works, but it is not necessarily so. Math uses infinities as tools in math for proofs and hypothesis, but there is no assumption that our physical existence is either finite nor infinite, nor can it be proved nor disproved.

This a specific philosophical problem that likely cannot be resolved by science, because no matter how far we extend our vision into the greater cosmos of our physical existence there could be something beyond including God.

As far as the knowledge of science concerning the nature of our physical existence, I do not consider the limits such as the quest for the knowledge of science that our questions are 'unanswerable.'

I believe my previous answers to specific enough as I already described, though I added some specific clarification.

No, you made no no reply whatsoever to my post #311.

[shunyadragon]

No, you made no no reply whatsoever to my post #311.

I like the quote by Wolfgang Pauli: "The best that most of us can hope to achieve in physics is simply to misunderstand at a deeper level." This is also true in theology, by the way.

I disagreed with your statement in the bold.

Pauli's statement is too vague and ambiguous to be meaningful to me. My bottom line answer would be no. That is not the best we can achieve in the future of science.

[Sea of red]

Hey Tass, you were the one who brought up the multiverse. And just because science is a work in progress doesn't mean they have a clue how this universe began, or that they ever will - but feel free to keep your faith...

Actually, we do have a pretty good idea of how the universe began - all the way back 10^-43 seconds.

I hate the term 'multiverse' in these discussions because the idea of a 'universe' is that it's all of reality - no matter how large it is. I prefer the way Rees and company treat the whole of reality as being one universe, where many Big Bangs occur in different parts of the 'universe', and each have their own varying of the constants of nature. Whereby logic would follow, we only live in the pockets that permit large scale structure such as galaxies, and stars that can remain on the main sequence long enough for the building of heavy elements, such that life forms can arise to ask these kind of questions.

They didn't just 'make these ideas up' for fun. These theories were modeled in order to explain things that the BB on it's own could not: the horizon problem, the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background, and the geometry of the universe to be specific. That's what inflation was all about. It's currently in agreement with experiment, but who knows if something more compelling comes along - or if it gets falsified. I myself think that the ekpyrotic model has some wind in it's sail, but it's all speculation for now.

The vast majority of cosmologists never thought inflation as the complete picture - save Linde. That will be left up to a theory that incorporates quantum gravity properly, and some immature theories like the Hartle-Hawking no boundary theorem have been proposed -whatever cosmic picture we wind up with - be that Loop Quantum Gravity, String theory, or something else that is discovered.

So Borde-Guth-Vilenkin is a moot point. It put to rest what most thought was true anyways.

[Tassman]

Like Guth said, even your mythical multiverse, if it exists, needs a beginning. So what came before that Tass, or before that? And how in principle could science look back an infinite number of years with any real confidence? In reality you could never scientifically demonstrate an infinite past for matter and energy - it will forever remain an article of faith.

[seer]

Actually, we do have a pretty good idea of how the universe began - all the way back 10^-43 seconds.

I was speaking of the multiverse, if it exists. How did it begin since both Guth and Vilenkin say that most likely it had a beginning. If that is so, how could one in principle find out what came before that?

So Borde-Guth-Vilenkin is a moot point. It put to rest what most thought was true anyways.

Yes, like you you said, it is all speculation for now.

[seer]

Come back to me when science has figured it out, until then it is speculation, and based on a faith that science can actually figure it out.

[robrecht]

I disagreed with your statement in the bold.

Pauli's statement is too vague and ambiguous to be meaningful to me. My bottom line answer would be no. That is not the best we can achieve in the future of science.

No, you agreed with the statement in bold. See again your post #308. The bolded statement only asserts that the statement is true with respect to theology. If you do not think Pauli's statement is true or meaningful with respect to physics, that is another matter entirely. What I like about Pauli's statement with respect to physics is my application of it above to the various interpretations of quantum mechanics. If you want to show how these are currently being resolved, or will be in the future, please feel free to do so.

[robrecht]

When it comes to theology I agree that 'The best that most can hope to achieve is simply to misunderstand at a deeper level.' But we can demonstrably hope for a lot more from science because we can substantiate, verify and falsify our knowledge.

They are completely separate disciplines with very different methodologies, but theology can also take that which has been substantiated, verified or falsified in other disciplines as a starting point for continued or even new reflection upon reality. It is not as if theologians are not allowed to learn from developments in modern science.