What was God doing?

[robrecht]

... 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.

Sorry to disappoint, but you have not here disagreed with anything specific that I said.

[robrecht]

energy/matter.

Are you imagining some kind of Star Trekian 'pure energy' without matter or are you presupposing that both matter and energy preexisted our universe?

[shunyadragon]

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.

Of course, the various interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are not resolved, and I will not nor cannot show the what advances nor possible limits of science the future advances concerning Quantum Mechanics will be, or other presently unanswered questions concerning the nature of our physical existence.

[robrecht]

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.

Is it presupposed that each of these Big Bangs have their own varying constants in order to deal with the so-called anthropic principle?

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.

Do you prefer to sail against the wind with Lord Rees or are you thinking of some kind of local ekpyroses?

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.

What do you think of Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?

[JimL]

Are you imagining some kind of Star Trekian 'pure energy' without matter or are you presupposing that both matter and energy preexisted our universe?

Well energy and matter are two sides of the same coin, so to speak, so in a sense yes. Energy is converted into matter do to fluctuations in the state of the system such as that which results in the so called Big Bang.

[37818]

Well energy and matter are two sides of the same coin, so to speak, so in a sense yes. Energy is converted into matter do to fluctuations in the state of the system such as that which results in the so called Big Bang.

Energy in the state we call matter [rest mass] is needed to define space-time.

[robrecht]

Well energy and matter are two sides of the same coin, so to speak, so in a sense yes. Energy is converted into matter do to fluctuations in the state of the system such as that which results in the so called Big Bang.

So is your view that energy, space, and time existed prior to the Big Bang, but no matter--is that correct? More specifically, time existed prior to the Big Bang in essentially the same sense in which time exists now--is that correct?

[shunyadragon]

Is it presupposed that each of these Big Bangs have their own varying constants in order to deal with the so-called anthropic principle?

I do not believe that the present knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, and Physics presupposes that the possible universes have there own varying constants. Yes, the possible variation in the constants is proposed as a possibility not only in different universes, but also may vary with time in our universe. The bottom line is that it is unknown how variable these constants can be over time and in other possible universes. It is possible that the variation is very small, and does not effect the difference between possible universes.

Do you prefer to sail against the wind with Lord Rees or are you thinking of some kind of local ekpyroses [ekpyrosis]?

The possible models or hypothesis of a cyclic universe are still alive and well in several variations.

I personally like Martin Rees, particularly for his tolerant view of the possible reconciliation of science and religion. He is most likely a Philosophical Naturalist, but not a flaming atheist like Dawkins.

What do you think of Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?

Possible, but not likely in my view as currently presented.

[robrecht]

I do not believe that the present knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, and Physics presupposes that the possible universes have there own varying constants. Yes, the possible variation in the constants is proposed as a possibility not only in different universes, but also may vary with time in our universe. The bottom line is that it is unknown how variable these constants can be over time and in other possible universes. It is possible that the variation is very small, and does not effect the difference between possible universes.

Sorry, but my question was directed to Sea of red about the function of the so-called anthropic principle within the local/universal cosmology of Rees. If you have any expertise about this matter, feel free to respond to the actual question.

The possible models or hypothesis of a cyclic universe are still alive and well in several variations.

I personally like Martin Rees, particularly for his tolerant view of the possible reconciliation of science and religion. He is most likely a Philosophical Naturalist, but not a flaming atheist like Dawkins.

Possible, but not likely in my view as currently presented.

These questions can only be answered by Sea of red since they specifically concerns his own views.

[Sea of red]

Is it presupposed that each of these Big Bangs have their own varying constants in order to deal with the so-called anthropic principle?

Yes, that it what's been proposed.

Do you prefer to sail against the wind with Lord Rees or are you thinking of some kind of local ekpyroses?

I personally don't care for anthropic arguments or models where the universe is so big that measurements become rather meaningless. It might be the way reality works, but that doesn't mean I like it, or that I don't have preferences for other ideas. Right now every framework out there is just modeled speculations, not actual scientific theories that have been confirmed.

What do you think of Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?

I don't see how we could ever test it. Sure, the Copenhagen interpretation lacks a lot to be desired, but I don't think treating the universe has some giant quantum mechanical world of parallels is a good alternative. I tend to agree with the physicists that think QM is incomplete at some level.

[robrecht]

Yes, that it what's been proposed.

Yes, I realize that, but is it being proposed specifically to deal with the issues raised by the so-called anthropic principle? Or are there other reasons for supposing the existence of other local pocket universes with other constants that do not support 2nd generation stars with heavy elements and life?

[Sea of red]

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?

I don't know. Several theorems have been proposed - the most well being the 'No Boundary Universe' by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. How would we test them? I honestly don't know.

[Sea of red]

Yes, I realize that, but is it being proposed specifically to deal with the issues raised by the so-called anthropic principle? Or are there other reasons for supposing the existence of other local pocket universes with other constants that do not support 2nd generation stars with heavy elements and life?

Two reasons.

First, that inflation leaves us with these other 'pockets' invites that possibility. The second is that String theory (which is incredibly popular among those researching qauntum gravity) has 10^500 vacua states, and it's speculated each state might correspond to a Big Bang.

So it's a speculation based on an assumption.

[robrecht]

Two reasons.

First, that inflation leaves us with these other 'pockets' invites that possibility. The second is that String theory (which is incredibly popular among those researching qauntum gravity) has 10^500 vacua states, and it's speculated each state might correspond to a Big Bang.

So it's a speculation based on an assumption.

Thanks. It will probably take me a while to digest and try to understand this.

Is there anything about inflation per se that suggests that these other pockets would be formed with other constants, other than those we currently experience?

My understanding of String Theory and M-Theory is that it is built upon the Everett many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Is that so? If so, wouldn't it be kind of circular for theories of a multiverses to be built upon theories of quantum mechanics that presume the existence of parallel worlds?

[Sea of red]

It will probably take me a while to digest and try to understand this. Is there anything about inflation per se that suggests that these other pockets would be formed with other constants, other than those we currently experience?

No, it's just something that is postulated.

My understanding of String Theory is that it is built upon the Everett many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Is that so? If so, wouldn't that be kind of circular, ie, achieving a theory of multiverses by assuming the the existence of parallel worlds?

No, that is not what String Theory is built upon at all. You are confusing two very different things. One is an interpretation of the wave-function in QM, and the other is a Theory of Everything that also incorporates quantum gravity.