Did God create logic? Or is logic further evidence of God�s existence?

[seer]

I've been thinking over your argument and have come to the conclusion that I am wrong and you are correct, the world does seem to fit the definition of what we would call logical, but I think that what i believe to be your conclusion from this fact, i.e., that because nature is logical it must have been created by a logical mind is unfounded. So, I concede the first round to you, but now maybe you can convince me of your main point, i.e. that the fact that nature is constant, in that it conforms to what we call logic, is evidence that it was created by a mind? I still say that nature functions the way it functions because it is natural that it does so. Why do you think I am wrong?

[shunyadragon]

Let's start again at the most basic one. Do you agree that you exist?

Yes

[logician bones]

Jim:

I've been thinking over your argument and have come to the conclusion that I am wrong and you are correct, the world does seem to fit the definition of what we would call logical

Very good, sir!

*reads on*

but I think that what i believe to be your conclusion from this fact, i.e., that because nature is logical it must have been created by a logical mind is unfounded.

That's not quite my view. I don't think it's just creation that is "logical" but everything. And everything (all reality, whether in or out of linear time, etc.), as a whole, wasn't created. (This is including God in reality.)

However, I do believe:

1) That you cannot have a logical reality at all if nonsense can happen; in other words if all reality is not logical.

and

2) That in order for ALL reality to be logical, the end result of an admittedly somewhat complicated analysis about this ends up proving God (that is, proving that an infinite, perfectly consistent, beyond-linear-time being must exist). Where people will be expected to get hung up on this is in the connection between a totally logical reality and God. That's understandable, so it's best to go step by step.

Of course, I also believe for various reasons that this God is proven to be the one who inspired the Bible, but that's a later part of the whole analysis. Though of course you can also approach evidence of God from the biblical route too, and some of what in terms of reasonable doubt should be called proof based on how we use the word "proof" in everyday contexts. Both routes work hand in hand. Anywho.

So, I concede the first round to you, but now maybe you can convince me of your main point, i.e. that the fact that nature is constant, in that it conforms to what we call logic, is evidence that it was created by a mind?

This sentence does work, but indirectly. It is evidence that everything else is also logical, and that opens up grounds (for starters) for logical coherent reality beyond it -- and in that coherent "beyond" you could have a mind. (Not that I stop at "could"! But in terms of the process of trying to figure it out, that's a good point to consider too.) What mainly makes me believe that what we call "nature" (our universe) is created is its winding-down nature, logical errors with many keys steps of evolutionary reasoning (both biological and in some other things like stellar evolution, though those are much more debatable), scientific evidence of creation, and of course these proofs coming around to verifying the Bible, so then the science of studying what it means to tell us lets us hear from God his report of what happened (once you rule out genres of poetic devices in the historical report sections and prove the grammar of the source languages really means that, of course).

That said, I think that mind's thought processes that went into how he would create us were a logical "evolution" of sorts. I think God deduced what had to be the right, all-things-considered design, so... that may be worth keeping in mind. :)

Anyway, the next step in the process is, if causality is absolute, every state of existence has to be caused by a different state of existence. Yes?

And after that, every group of states of existence is itself a state. A collection of dots in a circle shape isn't enough; now we must look for external causes for the circle shape, as an analogy. And ultimately this means that:

1) Reality is infinite (not just a finite causal loop), and:

2) Within that infinite reality, there is infinite variety, albeit limited by what's possible.

Do you see that?

(Just FTR, this isn't quite to the stage where we prove God yet, but hopefully you can see how it connects to it based on our prior discussion?)

Among other things this means, it requires that linear time be caused by multilinear time (infinite numbers of lines in fact) outside this universe, and this multilinear time "region" of all reality must also be totally coherent and logical. Yes?

I still say that nature functions the way it functions because it is natural that it does so. Why do you think I am wrong?

I don't disagree with that statement, because it's so vague it could mean anything. It's "natural" (logical) that something outside of it caused it, whether that something is God or not -- but once you work through the whole analysis carefully you see that it's soundly proven that God had to cause our universe. It's natural that it functions this way because this is the logical setup for a universe, which is just further evidence of absolute causality, which in turn proves God. :)



Shun:

Okay, now do you agree that other beings (humans) exist? (In some form or another.)

Do you think they are equal to you? Not as in having the same personality or the like, but as in, they aren't merely figments of your imagination? Basically, each of us can know that "I exist" is true in the same way from our perspective as it's true from yours?

Honestly I'm not sure how you'll answer that one. :P Technically this step isn't essential to prove God... though I would consider it necessary for other reasons. :P Mainly I'm asking it to establish if you accept that we can observe and analyze patterns of what we observe in the external reality around us to reach sound conclusions. I hope you do since you claim to also accept science. (But your acceptance of this is puzzling given other things you have said that seem to contradict it...) If by chance the Bahai don't accept human equivalence, would you at least accept the basic principle of reaching reliable conclusions about external reality from observation and logic?

And next, does it make sense to you that, to put it in the simplest terms, each cause is an effect of a "prior" cause?

Don't worry about linear versus nonlinear causal directions / time here yet, but the point is that each cause leads to an effect which in turn causes a new effect and so forth, as a fundamental necessity of reality. AKA, nothing "just happens" anywhere along the process of how reality as a whole works.) Of course, really it isn't a mere chain of causes, but multiple factors cause each effect and each effect becomes a cause or collection of causes for multiple consequences. Especially since the world we observe around us exists in three dimensions so two things can happen simultaneously in linear time.

Do you disagree with any step here? If so, can you give sound reasons why?

[shunyadragon]

Shun:

Okay, now do you agree that other beings (humans) exist? (In some form or another.)

Do you think they are equal to you? Not as in having the same personality or the like, but as in, they aren't merely figments of your imagination? Basically, each of us can know that "I exist" is true in the same way from our perspective as it's true from yours?

Yes.

And next, does it make sense to you that, to put it in the simplest terms, each cause is an effect of a "prior" cause?

No.

Do you disagree with any step here? If so, can you give sound reasons why?

There is no reason logically nor scientifically that there is always a prior cause. Scientifically the Quantum zero-point energy of the Quantum World and Natural Laws does not requires a "prior cause" based on the present knowledge of Physics, Math and Quantum Mechanics. There may be a "prior cause," but it is not necessary to explain the nature of our physical existence.

[JimL]

Jim:



Very good, sir!

*reads on*



That's not quite my view. I don't think it's just creation that is "logical" but everything. And everything (all reality, whether in or out of linear time, etc.), as a whole, wasn't created. (This is including God in reality.)

Yes, I understand, you believe that nature is logical because you believe in the existence of a logical mind that is resposible for creating nature.

However, I do believe:

1) That you cannot have a logical reality at all if nonsense can happen; in other words if all reality is not logical.

But it is only logical that nature would evolve in a logical manner. I don't see how that necessitates a logical creator. We have evolved eyes in the front of our heads because that is where they best serve us, not because a logical mind determined that to be so.

and

2) That in order for ALL reality to be logical, the end result of an admittedly somewhat complicated analysis about this ends up proving God (that is, proving that an infinite, perfectly consistent, beyond-linear-time being must exist). Where people will be expected to get hung up on this is in the connection between a totally logical reality and God. That's understandable, so it's best to go step by step.

Fair enough, step by step it is then, because I don't see the necessity in the assertion above in that a logical reality proves the existence of a god.

Of course, I also believe for various reasons that this God is proven to be the one who inspired the Bible, but that's a later part of the whole analysis.

Can't hardly wait to hear your reasoning on that point, but I will.

Though of course you can also approach evidence of God from the biblical route too, and some of what in terms of reasonable doubt should be called proof based on how we use the word "proof" in everyday contexts. Both routes work hand in hand. Anywho.

Should be interesting.

This sentence does work, but indirectly. It is evidence that everything else is also logical, and that opens up grounds (for starters) for logical coherent reality beyond it -- and in that coherent "beyond" you could have a mind. (Not that I stop at "could"! But in terms of the process of trying to figure it out, that's a good point to consider too.) What mainly makes me believe that what we call "nature" (our universe) is created is its winding-down nature, logical errors with many keys steps of evolutionary reasoning (both biological and in some other things like stellar evolution, though those are much more debatable), scientific evidence of creation, and of course these proofs coming around to verifying the Bible, so then the science of studying what it means to tell us lets us hear from God his report of what happened (once you rule out genres of poetic devices in the historical report sections and prove the grammar of the source languages really means that, of course).

That said, I think that mind's thought processes that went into how he would create us were a logical "evolution" of sorts. I think God deduced what had to be the right, all-things-considered design, so... that may be worth keeping in mind. :)

Funny that an omniscient mind should have to deduce anything.

Anyway, the next step in the process is, if causality is absolute, every state of existence has to be caused by a different state of existence. Yes?

Yes, every effect within the whole of existence would need be caused by a different effect within the whole.

And after that, every group of states of existence is itself a state. A collection of dots in a circle shape isn't enough; now we must look for external causes for the circle shape, as an analogy. And ultimately this means that:

Why do you conclude that a circle shape is not enough?

1) Reality is infinite (not just a finite causal loop), and:

Why do you conclude a causal loop can not also be infinite?

2) Within that infinite reality, there is infinite variety, albeit limited by what's possible.

Do you see that?

Not seeing your reasoning there, no.

(Just FTR, this isn't quite to the stage where we prove God yet, but hopefully you can see how it connects to it based on our prior discussion?)

Not quite, but do go on.

Among other things this means, it requires that linear time be caused by multilinear time (infinite numbers of lines in fact) outside this universe, and this multilinear time "region" of all reality must also be totally coherent and logical. Yes?

Sorry, multilinear time does not compute.

I don't disagree with that statement, because it's so vague it could mean anything. It's "natural" (logical) that something outside of it caused it, whether that something is God or not -- but once you work through the whole analysis carefully you see that it's soundly proven that God had to cause our universe. It's natural that it functions this way because this is the logical setup for a universe, which is just further evidence of absolute causality, which in turn proves God. :)

I don't know, I'm not really following your logic. If the universe is infinite, containing infinite universes, then the fine tuning, the initial conditions of our particular universe, that are responsibe for what you would call its logical nature, needn't be the result of logical creation, aka a mind.

[logician bones]

Shun:

There is no reason logically nor scientifically that there is always a prior cause. Scientifically the Quantum zero-point energy of the Quantum World and Natural Laws does not requires a "prior cause" based on the present knowledge of Physics, Math and Quantum Mechanics. There may be a "prior cause," but it is not necessary to explain the nature of our physical existence.

Okay, Shunya. So, somebody kills somebody. Would you be consistent and urge police to not bother investigating what the causes may be?

After all, by your reasoning, any suspects could simply appeal to quantum mechanics to explain any evidence away! Their guilt is not necessary to explain the nature of the crime scene.

If nonsense happens, it can happen anywhere, any time. Including at the crime scene. You might be tempted to try "but this is all beyond our frontier of knowledge!" AKA, "outside our universe! So nonsense can happen OUT THERE WHERE I CAN'T TEST IT!1!! Well, aside from that being mighty convenient for you (;)), this is nonsense we're talking about. You can't make a rule to limit nonsense!

I don't see where this leaves you to retreat except into "I only said MIGHT!" -- yeah, but then there's other ways to test it, and if you insist on that too much, you end up as a professor with your head stuck in the dirt and missing out on what this being is offering you and verified through the Bible is real. And as I said before, it's just pure hypocrisy that you don't do the very same thing with the rest of your life. You choose to believe logic when you think "if I want to open this door, I will have to move it out of my way first -- the fact that I can't ABSOLUTELY rule out that I MIGHT have just been given intangibility powers doesn't mean I should try to walk through it every time."

If you had no choice and you were going to die if you couldn't walk intangibly through a locked door, by all means, try it (gently perhaps if you can :P) -- but if there's a means to open it by scientific principle and it is in your power to use that... use it.

Likewise, God has given us things we can do in response to the sound, logical conclusions that, unless nonsense IS possible, he is real and his message is in the Bible, will give us benefit in this life and the next. If you want to appeal to illogic to deny this, please be consistent.

(Though there again, the illogical types can just say "I'm illogical! I don't have to be consistent! HAHAHA!" Ah, but then you'll pardon me if I don't recommend hiring you to a job or giving you trust in any other way. ;) And really... will it be surprising that you'll be banned from heaven, then?)



Jim:

Yes, I understand, you believe that nature is logical because you believe in the existence of a logical mind that is resposible for creating nature.

No, I believe in an infinite and perfectly logical mind that created nature because the neccessarily absolute nature of logic and causality demands it.

But it is only logical that nature would evolve in a logical manner. I don't see how that necessitates a logical creator. We have evolved eyes in the front of our heads because that is where they best serve us, not because a logical mind determined that to be so.

I believe Shunya has a favorite fallacy we can spot here. ;)

There's more to the story here, though it takes the analysis on a tangent -- one that ends up showing God must exist as well. I did mention this before too, though. If evolution is possible as you say, then God would evolve as well. In every "region" of infinite existence, minds could evolve and within infinite multiverses, some would connect to expand to become truly infinite (since there is no limit here as we're dealing with the beyond-linear-time side of reality). However, again, there are logical errors in the assumption of atheistic evolution -- not to mention that the existence of that nonlinear time makes it completely unnecessary. Either way, though, there is no good atheistic argument here. Infinite variety, either way, within infinite existence, requires that there be ONE set of 'things' in that existence that is perfectly in harmony, thus the "disharmony is self-limiting" problem doesn't apply to that one being. The only question your point brings up is whether this kind of evolution is within the "possible things" in that infinite possible variety. But an answer either way cannot allow God to be nonexistent.

To put it another way -- your argument is relying on the very premises that mine does; that the set within variety that is most advantageous will last the longest/best, and that what we observe requires logical explanation. Shun's insane excuse is then not an option, and as long as you accept the infinite variety part of this, the very principle of "survival of the fittest" requires that God exist.

The only problem is a mental block that prevents you from connecting these dots.

Erase that mental block -- and any emotional reasons that are propping it up -- and it becomes undeniable.

Can't hardly wait to hear your reasoning on that point, but I will.

This is probably a good place to summarize it. A little background on process of analysis here -- basically, when considering multiple options for what the true answer is to a question, you need to look for logically testable ways to determine which answer is correct.

One possibility is that God doesn't exist. That's ruled out by the causality proof. Also various basics like whether "God" would be finite.

Another possibility is, as a Nobel prize winner suggested, God would not communicate (or could not; same result, though the causality proof requires a God who CAN). We can test this two ways... The first is to consider the traits of God that the causality proof requires, and see if this conflicts with them. The second is to approach the question with sound logic from the opposite direction; look for claimed messages from a deity that cannot be rationally explained otherwise. Both approaches work to come to belief in the biblical God, and together they make a double proof. Here I'm focusing on the causal route. Tekton has some good arguments from the other route you may be aware of...

Once you conclude that a God with certain traits exists and that those traits require him to communicate with beings that are not him (esp. when you realize he created them, or for TEs, triggered the chain of events that would lead to their evolution -- either way, "seeing the end from the beginning"), you can look for ways he would make sure we could know WHICH supposed message is from him.

You have to consider things like:

1) What are the abilities he (if you'll pardon the skipping ahead on the pronouns issue -- you can use "it" if you like) has that no other being can possibly have, that he could use to verify his identity? Obviously, his beyond linear time nature and the rest of his omniscience, and his omnipotence and "god mode" abilities would be expected here.

2) What abilities would be much easier for other beings to fake, so he would avoid them? Here is where many atheists and agnostics get off the right path, in going for the lowest credentials of mere visual manifestations. While God can use manifestations as further evidence and for other purposes like for us to relate to him better since he created us as social beings, this would actually be something we'd expect God to avoid.

3) What are the stakes of the message and how would they affect this? Obviously tekton's big issue of the nature of hell and honor/shame are huge factors here, as well as general morality issues and the so-called "problem of evil".

4) What major rules/guidelines/factors does he need to balance with all this? You can probably guess things like "not mind-controlling everybody" and whether the message would go directly to everybody factor in here. I also think the scientific, logical nature of everything and his natural desire for us to relate to him are huge factors too.

A lot of people, especially fundy atheists, have some very interesting ideas to those questions. :P While I think the answer I have is not quite in the realm of 100% proof like the causality proof, I do think it's well within the range of reasonable doubt. Basically, I think his desire for us to truly understand him in an experiential way leads him to want us to figure things out on our own... at least for a time. (Though I think in heaven we'll still get to figure out a lot of things on our own, like furthering advances in science, creating our own art still, etc.)

Basically, normally he needs things to work according to the "machinery" of the physics of the atoms and energy that he arranged in the right "domino chain" (well, not chain, but yeah) setup to lead things to the best overall outcomes. That way we can understand reality's logical nature easier. But those who apply this blindly as an absolute law for every time and place are too simple-minded; that's a false dichotomy. The message is a perfect example of what he would use his credentials for, which includes prophecies that cannot be faked (not that all prophecies can't; credentials aren't the ONLY purpose of prophecy) and other miracles.

Still not sure I see a clear reason why he would use inspiration, but if he did (and I believe he clearly did... minus perhaps some things like some of the laws of Moses), then it makes sense miracles would be used primarily as "nods of approval" for what those particular humans write, and that's what we see proven historically. (This also explains why you won't reliably see miracles nowadays, though they can still happen -- he has to avoid appearing to give credentials for people to add to the Bible. Prior to the book of Revelation, however, this was still needed, so that's why we see miracles used a lot in Israel and not a lot elsewhere. And as for "why just one nation"? Well, it wasn't. Israel was a collection of people from multiple descents who chose loyalty to the culture God advised... or well, they were supposed to -- but examples like Rahab come in here. But it was in one geographic place, and yes, primarily of one descent. Geography is probably the bigger reason, though -- so human issues with getting all the messages together would be more easily overcome!)

Obviously this is a complicated subject and I don't want to go too far down tangents here, but that's some of what I've concluded on it. :)

Funny that an omniscient mind should have to deduce anything.

Think about it -- he's beyond linear time, and everything is logical. The knowledge can't "just happen", right? But because he's beyond linear time, the conclusions are always available wherever needed to keep the perfect harmony that makes him able to be infinite.

Why do you conclude that a circle shape is not enough?

[...]

Why do you conclude a causal loop can not also be infinite?

Not sure why you're asking the first part I included in this quote -- you said it right after the answer to that very question. This second part makes me wonder if you missed that I was saying a finite causal loop isn't enough (since it requires an external cause, thus cannot be the limit to reality!). My view is of an infinite series of infinite causal loops, basically (remember we're dealing with nonlinear time). The resemblance to connections in multiple directions in neurology is of course another reason why this naturally fits with God.

Not seeing your reasoning there, no.

Thought so, as I said in the previous topic. The above should help connect the dots (this is about the infinite variety part). Keep in mind especially that causes are different from their effects (otherwise everything would be stasis), and what I said about a circle not being enough. We must have infinite causes, and they must all be different. Think about what that means.

Here's where quantum mechanics is especially helpful as a modern evidence. Multiple possible states can exist at once. The multiverse comes into play here -- which is why it's so ironic that people like Dawkward try to use it to argue against God lol. Basically, every possible state exists.

Well, are minds possible?

If not, you've got a bit of a difficulty. :P

What is a mind? It's basically interconnected software. Does that have to be limited in size and capability? No, no fundamental reason for such a thing. The internet shows that we can continually increase the total capability of an interconnected software system as much as we want (given the materials), and the only real limits are the physics of the travel time of the processing medium (electricity), design of the hardware and software, and of course decay of the system. We're dealing with the infinite beyond-linear-time realm, though, where none of those things get in the way by definition. Time is not a problem, design is irrelevant when you're rolling all the dice infinite times, and for the same reason that multilinear time is needed in the region of existence that causes the decaying linear universe we observe, that being cannot fall prey to decay, having infinite energy to use anywhere.

[shunyadragon]

Okay, Shunya. So, somebody kills somebody. Would you be consistent and urge police to not bother investigating what the causes may be?

After all, by your reasoning, any suspects could simply appeal to quantum mechanics to explain any evidence away! Their guilt is not necessary to explain the nature of the crime scene.

No, my reasoning only involved the possibility of a "prior cause" beyond the cause and effect relationships of our space/time universe. It is an open indeterminate question in science, therefore I go with the present knowledge of science.

If nonsense happens, it can happen anywhere, any time. Including at the crime scene. You might be tempted to try "but this is all beyond our frontier of knowledge!" AKA, "outside our universe! So nonsense can happen OUT THERE WHERE I CAN'T TEST IT!1!! Well, aside from that being mighty convenient for you (;)), this is nonsense we're talking about. You can't make a rule to limit nonsense!

No. it is not nonsense, it is science and math. Actually beyond our present knowledge of Quantum Mechanics and the beginning of our universe, science at present cannot determine whether there is "prior first cause" for our physical existence. There are no "prior" beginnings that can be demonstrated by scientific methods, therefore science cannot be misused to demonstrate any "first cause" beyond our present knowledge of cosmology. I believe in the Infinite Quantum World of zero-point energy, because that is present view of Physics and math, beyond this it is indeterminate.

I am most concerned with the misuse and manipulation of science and math to justify a religious agenda, and not whether the physical existence is finite or infinite.

Natural Laws and the fractal chaotic nature of our existence does well to prevent nonsense.

<snip>

[Sparko]

No. it is not nonsense, it is science and math. Actually beyond our present knowledge of Quantum Mechanics and the beginning of our universe, science at present cannot determine whether there is "prior first cause" for our physical existence. There are no "prior" beginnings that can be demonstrated by scientific methods, therefore science cannot be misused to demonstrate any "first cause" beyond our present knowledge of cosmology. I believe in the Infinite Quantum World of zero-point energy, because that is present view of Physics and math, beyond this it is indeterminate.

Shuny, you are appealing to "ignorance" as a theory to dismiss logic and causality.

As you admit yourself, we have no idea as to what causes the quantum fluctuations. To us it seems to happen without cause, but that, as you admit above, is because we don't have the math or anyway to test it yet. Heck, as far as we can tell, the quantum fluctuation that creates some particles of matter could just be matter disappearing from one place in the universe and appearing in another, nothing created at all. Or at worst it is just energy solidifying into matter, like water into ice. After all you can't create or destroy matter, so all of the energy and matter in this universe is already here and not appearing from some other universe as you imagine. And you still haven't shown that there is not a cause. At best you have said we don't know the cause. If you saw a car smashed into a tree, and you did not know the cause, would you conclude that cars smash into trees without causes? No.

I don't see where this leaves you to retreat except into "I only said MIGHT!" -- yeah, but then there's other ways to test it, and if you insist on that too much, you end up as a professor with your head stuck in the dirt and missing out on what this being is offering you and verified through the Bible is real. And as I said before, it's just pure hypocrisy that you don't do the very same thing with the rest of your life. You choose to believe logic when you think "if I want to open this door, I will have to move it out of my way first -- the fact that I can't ABSOLUTELY rule out that I MIGHT have just been given intangibility powers doesn't mean I should try to walk through it every time."

Yeah, LB pretty much called it

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you are appealing to "ignorance" as a theory to dismiss logic and causality.

As you admit yourself, we have no idea as to what causes the quantum fluctuations. To us it seems to happen without cause, but that, as you admit above, is because we don't have the math or anyway to test it yet. Heck, as far as we can tell, the quantum fluctuation that creates some particles of matter could just be matter disappearing from one place in the universe and appearing in another, nothing created at all.

The most important issue remains: Science cannot be misused as evidence to defend the existence of a "first cause." I am most concerned with the misuse and manipulation of science and math to justify a religious agenda, and not whether the physical existence is finite or infinite.

Or at worst it is just energy solidifying into matter, like water into ice. After all you can't create or destroy matter, so all of the energy and matter in this universe is already here and not appearing from some other universe as you imagine.

It's nice to here you believe you cannot create nor destroy matter, because it is infinite and has no beginning nor end in the Quantum world.

And you still haven't shown that there is not a cause. At best you have said we don't know the cause. If you saw a car smashed into a tree, and you did not know the cause, would you conclude that cars smash into trees without causes? No.

The above is nonsense! Again, the question of prior cause'" or the claim of "first cause" is not an issue of cause and effect in temporal world of this universe.

[Sparko]

The most important issue remains: Science cannot be used as evidence to defend the existence of a "first cause." I am most concerned with the misuse and manipulation of science and math to justify a religious agenda, and not whether the physical existence is finite or infinite.



It's nice to here you believe you cannot create nor destroy matter, because it is infinite and has no beginning nor end in the Quantum world.

There is no "quantum world" except in your imagination. There isn't some other universe where matter pops into ours. That isn't even a theory in quantum mechanics. Maybe in string theory, but then the strings are not "quantum" or a "quantum world" - you have made up your own wacky theory from fringe reading quantum theory and zero point energy and are presenting it as if it were plausible. It ain't. Go back to school.

The above is nonsense! Again, the question of prior cause'" or the claim of "first cause" is not an issue of cause and effect in temporal world of this universe.

That doesn't even make sense. Maybe you do believe in nonsense. In that case why not just claim the universe was farted into existence by a blind unicorn 3 months from now? That is sufficiently nonsensical isn't it?

[shunyadragon]

<snip>

[37818]

There is no "quantum world" except in your imagination. There isn't some other universe where matter pops into ours. That isn't even a theory in quantum mechanics. Maybe in string theory, but then the strings are not "quantum" or a "quantum world" - you have made up your own wacky theory from fringe reading quantum theory and zero point energy and are presenting it as if it were plausible. It ain't. Go back to school.


That doesn't even make sense. Maybe you do believe in nonsense. In that case why not just claim the universe was farted into existence by a blind unicorn 3 months from now? That is sufficiently nonsensical isn't it?

[Sparko]

zero point energy has nothing to do with another universe at all. It has to do with the lowest value of energy in a system or field.

From wiki: (only because it is in layman's terms so Shuny can grasp it):

Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state.

All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state and have an associated zero-point energy, a consequence of their wave-like nature. The uncertainty principle requires every physical system to have a zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure at any temperature because of its zero-point energy.

The concept of zero-point energy was developed by Max Planck in Germany in 1911 as a corrective term added to a zero-grounded formula developed in his original quantum theory in 1900.[1] The term zero-point energy is a translation from the German Nullpunktsenergie.[2]:275ff

Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[3] A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field.[4]

Scientists are not in agreement about how much energy is contained in the vacuum. Quantum mechanics requires the energy to be large as Paul Dirac claimed it is, like a sea of energy. Other scientists specializing in General Relativity require the energy to be small enough for curvature of space to agree with observed astronomy. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows the energy to be as large as needed to promote quantum actions for a brief moment of time, even if the average energy is small enough to satisfy relativity and flat space. To cope with disagreements, the vacuum energy is described as a virtual energy potential of positive and negative energy.

[shunyadragon]

zero point energy has nothing to do with another universe at all. It has to do with the lowest value of energy in a system or field.

From wiki: (only because it is in layman's terms so Shuny can grasp it):

Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state.

All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state and have an associated zero-point energy, a consequence of their wave-like nature. The uncertainty principle requires every physical system to have a zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure at any temperature because of its zero-point energy.

The concept of zero-point energy was developed by Max Planck in Germany in 1911 as a corrective term added to a zero-grounded formula developed in his original quantum theory in 1900.[1] The term zero-point energy is a translation from the German Nullpunktsenergie.[2]:275ff

Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[3] A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field.[4]

Scientists are not in agreement about how much energy is contained in the vacuum. Quantum mechanics requires the energy to be large as Paul Dirac claimed it is, like a sea of energy. Other scientists specializing in General Relativity require the energy to be small enough for curvature of space to agree with observed astronomy. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows the energy to be as large as needed to promote quantum actions for a brief moment of time, even if the average energy is small enough to satisfy relativity and flat space. To cope with disagreements, the vacuum energy is described as a virtual energy potential of positive and negative energy.

OK reference, but previously you have rejected all this.

There is no "quantum world" except in your imagination.

[Sparko]

OK reference, but previously you have rejected all this.

I rejected your interpretation of this. It is not some other universe or things appearing without cause. That is your misuse of the theory and coming to your own conclusions and trying to present them as a genuine theory. It is clear to everyone that you don't know what you are talking about and are suffering from dunning-kruger syndrome.