Teleology And Human Ethics...

[seer]

It at present is hypothesis dominant among physicists and cosmologists supported by the present objective verifiable , without a religious agenda, is the spontaneous formation of a singularity in a multiverse "Quantum environment."

Except there is no actual objective verifiable evidence for a multiverse. And where do you get that this is the dominant view? Did you do a poll?

Proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include: Stephen Hawking,[22] Brian Greene,[23][24] Max Tegmark,[25] Alan Guth,[26] Andrei Linde,[27] Michio Kaku,[28] David Deutsch,[29] Leonard Susskind,[30] Alexander Vilenkin,[31] Yasunori Nomura,[32] Raj Pathria,[33] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[34][35] Neil deGrasse Tyson,[36] and Sean Carroll.[37]

Scientists who are generally skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis include: Steven Weinberg,[38] David Gross,[39] Paul Steinhardt,[40] Neil Turok,[41] Viatcheslav Mukhanov,[42] Michael S. Turner,[43] Roger Penrose,[44] George Ellis,[45][46] Joe Silk,[47] Carlo Rovelli,[48] Adam Frank,[49] Marcelo Gleiser,[49] Jim Baggott,[50] and Paul Davies.[51]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiv...verse_theories

[shunyadragon]

Except there is no actual objective verifiable evidence for a multiverse. And where do you get that this is the dominant view? Did you do a poll?

Different question, moving the goal posts. My point is you selectively quote Vilenkin to support your agenda, who without question proposes the existence of a multiverse based on the present scientific evidence.

This has been covered before at least several times, nonetheless I will provide references concerning the scientists that support the existence of a multiverse.

There is absolutely no evidence that would conclude that ultimately our physical existence is eternal or not, and I do not know of any scientists that propose the existence of an absolute beginning of our physical existence..

[seer]

Different question, moving the goal posts. My point is you selectively quote Vilenkin to support your agenda, who without question proposes the existence of a multiverse based on the present scientific evidence.

Shuny, you are fibbing again, I quoted Vilenkin directly and gave links to the quotes in context.

This has been covered before at least several times, nonetheless I will provide references concerning the scientists that support the existence of a multiverse.

There is absolutely no evidence that would conclude that ultimately our physical existence is eternal or not, and I do not know of any scientists that propose the existence of an absolute beginning of our physical existence..

Shuny, again there is no actual objective verifiable evidence for a multiverse, but you latch on to anything to avoid a absolute beginning because that serves your religious agenda... Even making up the idea that the multiverse theory is the dominant view with no actual evidence to support that claim.

[JimL]

Shuny, you are fibbing again, I quoted Vilenkin directly and gave links to the quotes in context.



Shuny, again there is no actual objective verifiable evidence for a multiverse, but you latch on to anything to avoid a absolute beginning because that serves your religious agenda... Even making up the idea that the multiverse theory is the dominant view with no actual evidence to support that claim.

Quantum mechanics, the Schroedinger equation and the Everitian interpretation thereof, is objective verifiable evidence of a multi-verse. Evidence is not proof, its evidence.

[seer]

Quantum mechanics, the Schroedinger equation and the Everitian interpretation thereof, is objective verifiable evidence of a multi-verse. Evidence is not proof, its evidence.

Jim, the many-worlds interpretation is not evidence, I'm speaking of physical testable evidence.

[JimL]

Jim, the many-worlds interpretation is not evidence, I'm speaking of physical testable evidence.

Quatum mechanics is physical testable evidence. That the universe is in a superposition of every possible state and yet we only experience one of those possible states, is evidence that all of those other states are just as real in other domains. Like I said, it isn't proof, but its evidence.

[seer]

Quatum mechanics is physical testable evidence. That the universe is in a superposition of every possible state and yet we only experience one of those possible states, is evidence that all of those other states are just as real in other domains. Like I said, it isn't proof, but its evidence.

No Jim, that is not physical evidence it is a way to interpret what we see. It may or may not have anything to do with the reality a multiverse. The fact is, it is doubtful that we understand the quantum world well enough to come to such conclusion and as you know there are other interpretations.

[JimL]

No Jim, that is not physical evidence it is a way to interpret what we see. It may or may not have anything to do with the reality a multiverse. The fact is, it is doubtful that we understand the quantum world well enough to come to such conclusion and as you know there are other interpretations.

Its physical evidence seer, and yes the multi-verse is an interpretation of that evidence, but thats what evidence is, its not proof. I do believe that the multi-verse hypothesis is the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists, but its far from proof.

[shunyadragon]

Except there is no actual objective verifiable evidence for a multiverse. And where do you get that this is the dominant view? Did you do a poll?

I believe it is, but yes I acknowledge that all scientist do not agree, as they do not agree with Vilenkins hypothesis that you selectively cite. The problem is your selectively citing Vilenkin who believes there is evidence for a multiverse, and than hypocritically switch your line to selectively refer to scientists who do not support a multiverse. Actually none of these physicists and cosmologists support the delusion that there is a scientific argument for an absolute beginning for our universe or the Quantum world our universe originates from, that would be remotely comparable to an absolute beginning like 'exnhilo.'

All I have specifically asserted is that it is extremely unlikely if not impossible that science can determine whether

[seer]

Its physical evidence seer, and yes the multi-verse is an interpretation of that evidence, but thats what evidence is, its not proof. I do believe that the multi-verse hypothesis is the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists, but its far from proof.

Jim, it is an interpretation of the quantum world, that happens to be popular right now, not that many years ago the Copenhagen theory was popular. The fact is we don't really know how to interpret the quantum world.

[seer]

I believe it is, but yes I acknowledge that all scientist do not agree, as they do not agree with Vilenkins hypothesis that you selectively cite. The problem is your selectively citing Vilenkin who believes there is evidence for a multiverse, and than hypocritically switch your line to selectively refer to scientists who do not support a multiverse. Actually none of these physicists and cosmologists support the delusion that there is a scientific argument for an absolute beginning for our universe or the Quantum world our universe originates from, that would be remotely comparable to an absolute beginning like 'exnhilo.'

All I have specifically asserted is that it is extremely unlikely if not impossible that science can determine whether

Shuny, do you understand why Vilenkin is even suggesting a creation from literally nothing now? Because his and Guth's work pretty much demonstrated that a multiverse can not be past eternal due to the violation of the Hubble Constant - this theory of creation from nothing avoids that boundary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

[Anomaly]

1. Empirical2. Information as Being: Transition from Empirical to Informational.
All existents share one necessary aspect of reality: they disclose information to minds. One evidence is their capacity to be represented in objective discussion. Only things that exist (or can exist) have the capacity to in-form perception. Existents both confer information to minds and subsist themselves as informational entities. Information is identical to being without regard to value.

In his Introduction to Philosophical Problems, Joseph Margolis identifies the difference between,
"...the nature of numbers and...of fictions and the nature of perceptual objects and the like...where we hold that we may think of, or consider, or admit, or refer to, or speak about, whatever we may (in purely grammatical terms) make predications of, we are referring to what "exists₁₂", or "really" or "actually exists")."

From an informational point of view, existence₁ and existence₂ are different varieties and/or grades of being, yet each discloses occurrences or tokens of information to perception. Reality from an informational perspective consists in interactions between two types of information, dynamic (organic) and static (inorganic).

John Haught notes (Information and the Nature of Reality, 2010) that the notion of information as the very ground of existence is not a new idea,


Conceiving of existents₂3. Information reduces to Properties₂ (possibly involved in temporal emergence/formation) and existence₁₁ and existence₂4. Properties as Values^-10 in size. Protons and neutrons have a radius of about 10^-15prescriptive power in human activity and thought within the realm of value. Here, a change in terminology arises, from static/dynamic to prescriptive/descriptive. These are categorically consistent with the dualistic narrative common to each aspect of reality; material-immaterial, static-dynamic, discrete-general, that-what, etc. Perception here encounters a novel good-evil dualism based on an additional value dynamic. Here, some domains of information can be falsified. A polarization emerges: Some V in I can be falsified, presenting two grades of V, true (t ) and false (f ). This produces a semantic rift: some value-bearingness subdivides into t-bearing and f-bearing information. The living information of intellectual operation encounters a robust resistance5. Force6. Form

[seer]

OK Anomaly, I don't follow most of this but are you a Berkeley Idealist?

[Anomaly]

OK Anomaly, I don't follow most of this but are you a Berkeley Idealist?

No, not an idealist...read the next to last paragraph in post. I'm an uncommitted dualist and committed realist. The only reason I can think the post would be hard to follow is if you don't like or aren't used to using some abstraction in thinking about reality.

I'm trying to show that what we take to be the status quo substance theory of reality can be taken analytically through higher immaterial levels and still make sense. I still use the terminology of matter, all its empirical elements are there, but the concept of substance doesn't even make sense even in the high school level science below macro levels that even I'm able to grasp. Not sure why this would seem odd to you.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, do you understand why Vilenkin is even suggesting a creation from literally nothing now? Because his and Guth's work pretty much demonstrated that a multiverse can not be past eternal due to the violation of the Hubble Constant - this theory of creation from nothing avoids that boundary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

I understand that neither Vilenkin nor Guth suggested creation from 'absolute nothing' equivalent to the 'exnhilo' you believe. They proposed the formation of universes from the 'cosmological nothing' as in the you tube you cited.

If you read there works completely, including Krauss, you will realize the describe this 'cosmological nothing' as something.