An Infinite Past?

[mattbballman31]

Pretentious gobbledygook and perilously close to a Gish Gallop!

Oh, that hurt my feeeeelings. The admins must love this ad hominem style argument, Blah, blah, blah. Thanks for ignoring what I said. It's okay, though. Everyone can see you for the rhetorical fraud you are. But whatever.

The matter is straightforward: Vilenkin is a physicist arguing physics. Craig is not a physicist. Craig is a philosopher who is arguing physics, a field in which he has no expertise despite his pretensions.

General clap trap. Vilenkin even said Craig represented the physics just fine and dandy. Your rhetorical tricks don't work here, weirdo.

THIS is where Craig is coming from. He begins with his conclusions (in this instance the scripturally based doctrine of creatio ex nihilo) and attempts to fit his facts to into them.

Blah, blah, blah. Bulverism, bulverism, bulverism. More general clap-trap. Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric.

Craig is an evangelist appropriating information from an area in which he has no expertise (i.e. physics) in order to sell his product

This DOESN'T matter, Sophist. Not one whit. Are you scared to get into specifics, or something? You're so easy to refute, it's funny. I feel like I'm in a Logic 101 class and the assignment is 'Spot the Fallacy'.

So I’m paranoid as well as being a snob; I must be doing better than I thought among the blustering classes.

Push the laugh-track! lol.

Ah! So Craig is a sincere charlatan. Is this what your'e saying?

LOL. You don't even understand simple words of the English language.

At no point have I referred to Craig as: “a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics”. These are your words – as are the rest of your negative and sarcastic comments in your post.

It's called hyperbole you funda-literalist. More rhetoric. Vilenkin said Craig was fine in the physics; and what Craig said theologically about God he didn't have an opinion on, because it's out of area of expertise. Blah, blah, blah. Go ahead an ignore that.

The full discussion regarding Craig and Vilenkin can be found here (Argument 2) and at least has input from Vilenkin himself. It concludes: Craig’s God “is clearly not the only way out of this "dilemma." Even the scientist and science he cites disagree with him about this. Instead of the solution having to be his god, as I noted above, even if created there are natural scenarios that are plausible and due to the lack of evidence for the supernatural, the naturalistic scenario is incredibly more likely.”

Dangerously close to that philosophy/science frontier, aren't we!?! Science disagrees with Craig's supernatural explanation PHILOSOPHICALLY. Saying 'the naturalistic scenario is incredibly more likely' is a PHILOSOPHICAL statement ABOUT the physics, ding-dong.

http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2...s-for-god.html

I'll indulge my masochistic tendencies some time this week-end.

Where would you lot be without CS Lewis? Lewis explains his “Bulvarism” theory as focusing the brunt of the arguments on delivering ad hominem attacks to the opposition. But the only ad hominem attacks, "in these here parts 'y'all', are yours, not mine – I’m a model of decorum.

You don't even know what Bulverism is. Wow. How can I trust anything you say?

YOU define it, you used it! In your #357 you said: “The INFERENCE to natural vs. supernatural explanations is philosophy”. Define what you mean by "supernatural". Personally I prefer “non-natural” in this context.

I have to define supernatural? Am I talking to a 5 year old, or is this more sophistical, rhetorical flap-doodle? You sound like the trash-man that says, 'I'm not a trash-man; I'm into waste-management!'

Either way the point remains: Any claims of non-natural/supernatural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.

Such a confused rant!

Stunning critique! Eloquent its brevity.

What you care about in this context is irrelevant! If you want expertise on a subject then go to the experts, not the also-rans with an agenda.

Craig already did, moron. Vilenkin said it was fine. This is clear to everyone but you.

Not “mysteriously immune”, merely irrelevant. The topic is physics and it’s misappropriation by the likes of Craig.

Right, and this is what makes me think you're half-baked. It's not irrelevant, period.

Nope it can’t. Philosophy can only base its premises upon existing knowledge, it cannot generate new truths about nature.

Nice philosophical statement not based on new truths about nature, contradictory dingbat.

Only science has the methodology to do that.

Woohoo. Another one!

This explains why even a great mind like Aristotle was wrong regarding nearly every conclusion he reached about the physical universe; he had insufficient knowledge of the natural world upon which to base his arguments.

Another one!

Really! I’m flattered.

Because you're a clod. You're the flattered elk about to be shot for dinner.

The mods seem to appreciate your abusive ad hominem style, it must be said. Personally, I find it immature.

YOU STARTED IT!

Uh, you've only made three posts in TWeb so at what point have you talked with shunyadragon "on philosophy or science" - are you sure you’re not a JPH sock-puppet?

It's a new profile, birdbrain. Why would I fib about something so dumb? JPH? What the heck are you talking about,

Actually, I find shunya one of the most articulate and knowledgeable debaters in these forums - despite the occasional typo's - so I guess he's been effective.

Theologyweb's own Batman and Robin. Saving Gotham from the villains! Now, I know you're high on something.

Love ya!

[JonathanL]

[shunyadragon]

imL

Actually Wikipedia has an ok explanation of space time and the 'observer.' I reviewed another article, but it was a little heavy and deep in math. The whole article has more information.

Side note: For a constructive dialogue to take place it may be best to ignore problem children.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_time

Basic concepts

Spacetimes are the arenas in which all physical events take place—an event is a point in spacetime specified by its time and place. For example, the motion of planets around the sun may be described in a particular type of spacetime, or the motion of light around a rotating star may be described in another type of spacetime. The basic elements of spacetime are events. In any given spacetime, an event is a unique position at a unique time. Because events are spacetime points, an example of an event in classical relativistic physics is (x,y,z,t), the location of an elementary (point-like) particle at a particular time. A spacetime itself can be viewed as the union of all events in the same way that a line is the union of all of its points, formally organized into a manifold, a space which can be described at small scales using coordinates systems.

A spacetime is independent of any observer.[9] However, in describing physical phenomena (which occur at certain moments of time in a given region of space), each observer chooses a convenient metrical coordinate system. Events are specified by four real numbers in any such coordinate system. The trajectories of elementary (point-like) particles through space and time are thus a continuum of events called the world line of the particle. Extended or composite objects (consisting of many elementary particles) are thus a union of many world lines twisted together by virtue of their interactions through spacetime into a "world-braid".

However, in physics, it is common to treat an extended object as a "particle" or "field" with its own unique (e.g., center of mass) position at any given time, so that the world line of a particle or light beam is the path that this particle or beam takes in the spacetime and represents the history of the particle or beam. The world line of the orbit of the Earth (in such a description) is depicted in two spatial dimensions x and y (the plane of the Earth's orbit) and a time dimension orthogonal to x and y. The orbit of the Earth is an ellipse in space alone, but its world line is a helix in spacetime.[10]

The unification of space and time is exemplified by the common practice of selecting a metric (the measure that specifies the interval between two events in spacetime) such that all four dimensions are measured in terms of units of distance: representing an event as (x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3) = (ct,x,y,z) (in the Lorentz metric) or (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = (x,y,z,ict) (in the original Minkowski metric) where c is the speed of light.[11] The metrical descriptions of Minkowski Space and spacelike, lightlike, and timelike intervals given below follow this convention, as do the conventional formulations of the Lorentz transformation.

© Copyright Original Source

A number of experiments have been carried out that demonstrate that even between different observers time is not a constant attribute of our universe.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Clocks on the Space Shuttle run slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, while clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites run slightly faster.[1] Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated (see experimental confirmation below), for instance by small disparities in atomic clocks on Earth and in space, even though both clocks work perfectly (it is not a mechanical malfunction). The laws of nature are such that time itself (i.e. spacetime) will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity – each of which affects time in different ways.[2][3]

In theory, and to make a clearer example, time dilation could affect planned meetings for astronauts with advanced technologies and greater travel speeds. The astronauts would have to set their clocks to count exactly 80 years, whereas mission control – back on Earth – might need to count 81 years. The astronauts would return to Earth, after their mission, having aged one year less than the people staying on Earth. What is more, the local experience of time passing never actually changes for anyone. In other words, the astronauts on the ship as well as the mission control crew on Earth each feel normal, despite the effects of time dilation (i.e. to the traveling party, those stationary are living "faster"; whilst to those who stood still, their counterparts in motion live "slower" at any given moment).

With technology limiting the velocities of astronauts, these differences are minuscule: after 6 months on the International Space Station (ISS), the astronaut crew has indeed aged less than those on Earth, but only by about 0.007 seconds (nowhere near the 1 year disparity from the theoretical example). The effects would be greater if the astronauts were traveling nearer to the speed of light (approximately 300,000 km/s), instead of their actual speed – which is the speed of the orbiting ISS, about 7.7 km/s.[3]

Time dilation is caused by differences in either gravity or relative velocity. Both factors are at play in the case of ISS astronauts (and are actually opposing one another).

© Copyright Original Source

[OingoBoingo]

Actually, I find shunya one of the most articulate and knowledgeable debaters in these forums - despite the occasional typo's - so I guess he's been effective.

[JimL]

Oh, that hurt my feeeeelings. The admins must love this ad hominem style argument, Blah, blah, blah. Thanks for ignoring what I said. It's okay, though. Everyone can see you for the rhetorical fraud you are. But whatever.



General clap trap. Vilenkin even said Craig represented the physics just fine and dandy. Your rhetorical tricks don't work here, weirdo.



Blah, blah, blah. Bulverism, bulverism, bulverism. More general clap-trap. Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric.



This DOESN'T matter, Sophist. Not one whit. Are you scared to get into specifics, or something? You're so easy to refute, it's funny. I feel like I'm in a Logic 101 class and the assignment is 'Spot the Fallacy'.



Push the laugh-track! lol.



LOL. You don't even understand simple words of the English language.



It's called hyperbole you funda-literalist. More rhetoric. Vilenkin said Craig was fine in the physics; and what Craig said theologically about God he didn't have an opinion on, because it's out of area of expertise. Blah, blah, blah. Go ahead an ignore that.



Dangerously close to that philosophy/science frontier, aren't we!?! Science disagrees with Craig's supernatural explanation PHILOSOPHICALLY. Saying 'the naturalistic scenario is incredibly more likely' is a PHILOSOPHICAL statement ABOUT the physics, ding-dong.



I'll indulge my masochistic tendencies some time this week-end.



You don't even know what Bulverism is. Wow. How can I trust anything you say?



I have to define supernatural? Am I talking to a 5 year old, or is this more sophistical, rhetorical flap-doodle? You sound like the trash-man that says, 'I'm not a trash-man; I'm into waste-management!'

Either way the point remains: Any claims of non-natural/supernatural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.



Stunning critique! Eloquent its brevity.



Craig already did, moron. Vilenkin said it was fine. This is clear to everyone but you.



Right, and this is what makes me think you're half-baked. It's not irrelevant, period.





Nice philosophical statement not based on new truths about nature, contradictory dingbat.



Woohoo. Another one!



Another one!



Because you're a clod. You're the flattered elk about to be shot for dinner.



YOU STARTED IT!





It's a new profile, birdbrain. Why would I fib about something so dumb? JPH? What the heck are you talking about,



Theologyweb's own Batman and Robin. Saving Gotham from the villains! Now, I know you're high on something.

Love ya!

Obviously you have nothing of interest to say Matt. Are you here to discuss something on an intellectual level or merely to engage in ad hominim attacks. The only thing you've accomplished with this post is to make yourself look like a jerk.

[JimL]

imL

Actually Wikipedia has an ok explanation of space time and the 'observer.' I reviewed another article, but it was a little heavy and deep in math. The whole article has more information.

Side note: For a constructive dialogue to take place it may be best to ignore problem children.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_time

Basic concepts

Spacetimes are the arenas in which all physical events take place—an event is a point in spacetime specified by its time and place. For example, the motion of planets around the sun may be described in a particular type of spacetime, or the motion of light around a rotating star may be described in another type of spacetime. The basic elements of spacetime are events. In any given spacetime, an event is a unique position at a unique time. Because events are spacetime points, an example of an event in classical relativistic physics is (x,y,z,t), the location of an elementary (point-like) particle at a particular time. A spacetime itself can be viewed as the union of all events in the same way that a line is the union of all of its points, formally organized into a manifold, a space which can be described at small scales using coordinates systems.

A spacetime is independent of any observer.[9] However, in describing physical phenomena (which occur at certain moments of time in a given region of space), each observer chooses a convenient metrical coordinate system. Events are specified by four real numbers in any such coordinate system. The trajectories of elementary (point-like) particles through space and time are thus a continuum of events called the world line of the particle. Extended or composite objects (consisting of many elementary particles) are thus a union of many world lines twisted together by virtue of their interactions through spacetime into a "world-braid".

However, in physics, it is common to treat an extended object as a "particle" or "field" with its own unique (e.g., center of mass) position at any given time, so that the world line of a particle or light beam is the path that this particle or beam takes in the spacetime and represents the history of the particle or beam. The world line of the orbit of the Earth (in such a description) is depicted in two spatial dimensions x and y (the plane of the Earth's orbit) and a time dimension orthogonal to x and y. The orbit of the Earth is an ellipse in space alone, but its world line is a helix in spacetime.[10]

The unification of space and time is exemplified by the common practice of selecting a metric (the measure that specifies the interval between two events in spacetime) such that all four dimensions are measured in terms of units of distance: representing an event as (x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3) = (ct,x,y,z) (in the Lorentz metric) or (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = (x,y,z,ict) (in the original Minkowski metric) where c is the speed of light.[11] The metrical descriptions of Minkowski Space and spacelike, lightlike, and timelike intervals given below follow this convention, as do the conventional formulations of the Lorentz transformation.

© Copyright Original Source

A number of experiments have been carried out that demonstrate that even between different observers time is not a constant attribute of our universe.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Clocks on the Space Shuttle run slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, while clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites run slightly faster.[1] Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated (see experimental confirmation below), for instance by small disparities in atomic clocks on Earth and in space, even though both clocks work perfectly (it is not a mechanical malfunction). The laws of nature are such that time itself (i.e. spacetime) will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity – each of which affects time in different ways.[2][3]

In theory, and to make a clearer example, time dilation could affect planned meetings for astronauts with advanced technologies and greater travel speeds. The astronauts would have to set their clocks to count exactly 80 years, whereas mission control – back on Earth – might need to count 81 years. The astronauts would return to Earth, after their mission, having aged one year less than the people staying on Earth. What is more, the local experience of time passing never actually changes for anyone. In other words, the astronauts on the ship as well as the mission control crew on Earth each feel normal, despite the effects of time dilation (i.e. to the traveling party, those stationary are living "faster"; whilst to those who stood still, their counterparts in motion live "slower" at any given moment).

With technology limiting the velocities of astronauts, these differences are minuscule: after 6 months on the International Space Station (ISS), the astronaut crew has indeed aged less than those on Earth, but only by about 0.007 seconds (nowhere near the 1 year disparity from the theoretical example). The effects would be greater if the astronauts were traveling nearer to the speed of light (approximately 300,000 km/s), instead of their actual speed – which is the speed of the orbiting ISS, about 7.7 km/s.[3]

Time dilation is caused by differences in either gravity or relative velocity. Both factors are at play in the case of ISS astronauts (and are actually opposing one another).

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, but in what way does time differ in the pocket universes than it does in the Greater Cosmos. The birth of pocket universes such as our own are events which take place in the greater Cosmos in the same way as events take place in the pocket universes themselves. Something happens, there is a process of change that must take place in the Greater Cosmos in order for pocket universes to inflate. If that process isn't taking place in time, then how can it be a process that is taking place? In other words, with regards to time, how are the events that take place within the space of the Greater Cosmos any different than the events that take place within the space of our own universe?

[Tassman]

Oh, that hurt my feeeeelings. The admins must love this ad hominem style argument, Blah, blah, blah. Thanks for ignoring what I said. It's okay, though. Everyone can see you for the rhetorical fraud you are. But whatever.

Indeed! Everyone can see the rhetorical frauds in this discussion for who they are.

General clap trap. Vilenkin even said Craig represented the physics just fine and dandy. Your rhetorical tricks don't work here, weirdo.

But NOT the conclusions. Craig arrived at an unwarranted theological conclusion based on his committed religious presuppositions, not a correct understanding of Vilenkin's arguments.

And "weirdo!!" Yet you claim not to be the one into ad hominems......RIGHT!

This DOESN'T matter, Sophist. Not one whit. Are you scared to get into specifics, or something? You're so easy to refute, it's funny. I feel like I'm in a Logic 101 class and the assignment is 'Spot the Fallacy'.

So you are not concerned that Craig is appropriating and misusing information from an area in which he has no expertise (i.e. physics) in order to sell his product? Personally, I think it is misleading and dishonest, but I guess from your perspective, "whatever it takes" is OK.

It's called hyperbole you funda-literalist. More rhetoric. Vilenkin said Craig was fine in the physics; and what Craig said theologically about God he didn't have an opinion on, because it's out of area of expertise. Blah, blah, blah. Go ahead an ignore that.

No, it’s not called “hyperbole”; it’s called dishonestly putting offensive words in my mouth. I did NOT say or imply that Craig is: “a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics”. These are your words, not mine.

Dangerously close to that philosophy/science frontier, aren't we!?! Science disagrees with Craig's supernatural explanation PHILOSOPHICALLY. Saying 'the naturalistic scenario is incredibly more likely' is a PHILOSOPHICAL statement ABOUT the physics, ding-dong.

No, it’s physics. It’s an experienced physicist, Vilenkin, expressing his professional judgment regarding a matter of physics using the language of physics. Vilenkin is specifically disagreeing with Craig on a matter of physics (not philosophy) regarding the beginning of the universe. This is apparent in the exchange between the two great physicists Stenger and Vilenkin:

Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?

Vilenkin replied,

No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.

Vilenkin added,

This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase. That is why Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen had to assume that the arrow of time changes at t = 0. This makes the moment t = 0 rather special. I would say no less special than a true beginning of the universe.

When you read the whole exchange it is clear that Craig misrepresents Vilenkin regarding the latter’s conclusions at the level of science, not philosophy.

I have to define supernatural? Am I talking to a 5 year old, or is this more sophistical, rhetorical flap-doodle? You sound like the trash-man that says, 'I'm not a trash-man; I'm into waste-management!'

Yes! You asked me to define “supernatural” in #357: “The INFERENCE to natural vs. supernatural explanations is philosophy. Define what you mean by "supernatural".

You raised the issue so YOU define it.

Regardless, the point remains: Any claims of non-natural/supernatural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.

Craig already did, moron. Vilenkin said it was fine. This is clear to everyone but you.

Nope. The expert in physics is the experienced, qualified physicist, NOT the philosopher/apologist furthering his agenda by misappropriating information from a discipline in which he has no expertise.

Right, and this is what makes me think you're half-baked. It's not irrelevant, period.

You have given me no reason to take you, or your opinions, seriously.

Nice philosophical statement not based on new truths about nature, contradictory dingbat.

Woohoo. Another one!

Another one!

Nope! Statement of fact! Philosophy does not have the mechanism to test facts so as to derive a true premise – it can only derive a premise based on the knowledge of the day. And without a true premise a philosophical argument cannot arrive at a true conclusion - no matter how valid the argument may be. Always in philosophy the deduced conclusions can be no more than restatements of existing knowledge.

E.g. Knowledge of the natural world was minimal in Aristotle’s day compared with today. Hence virtually every conclusion he arrived at about the physical universe has been shown to be wrong. He had insufficient or incorrect knowledge of the natural world upon which to base his arguments; only science has the methodology to acquire new knowledge.

Because you're a clod. You're the flattered elk about to be shot for dinner.

YOU STARTED IT!

But you are not into ad hominems right.

It's a new profile, birdbrain. Why would I fib about something so dumb?

Then please explain how you were able to make the following comment about shunya after just three posts, none of which were interactive with him:

“Shunya is the worst person I have ever talked to on this forum, and probably the most annoying person I have ever talked to on philosophy or science. Probably a really nice guy. But, yea. No. lol. I agree: I don't think he is dishonest. I think he is a sincerely deluded person that has an inflated view of his own intelligence. A text-book case of cognitive dissonance: being ignorant and unaware of it. He brushes aside entire swaths of thought with sweeping, oversimplified statements, that are about 35.78 % on topic, all through the foggy lens of sentences riddled with grammar errors. He is what I think of when I read Sartre's: Hell is other people. lol.

Interesting! Just three posts (at your time of writing) and yet you feel you know shunya so well……….

JPH? What the heck are you talking about,

You don’t know of the inimitable JP Holding? But you are his mirror image.

http://the-anointed-one.com/hold.htm

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but in what way does time differ in the pocket universes than it does in the Greater Cosmos. The birth of pocket universes such as our own are events which take place in the greater Cosmos in the same way as events take place in the pocket universes themselves. Something happens, there is a process of change that must take place in the Greater Cosmos in order for pocket universes to inflate. If that process isn't taking place in time, then how can it be a process that is taking place? In other words, with regards to time, how are the events that take place within the space of the Greater Cosmos any different than the events that take place within the space of our own universe?

My explanation is only a general understanding and does not explain the math and science behind the theories and models involved.

The environment of the Multiverse greater cosmos is not the same as the bubble universe we live in. It is a Quantum Vacuum World where time-space emerges as bubble universes. At present a number of models are evolving to explain the greater cosmos, but the fundamental foundation is Quantum Mechanics, and the concepts of the time-space nature of universes evolved from Einstein's work and the Theory of Relativity, where time and space are emergent qualities of our universe and all possible universes emerging from a Quantum World without the qualities of time and space. The Bubble universe is filled with galaxies and black holes.

I believe there is an interesting relationship that speaks of similarities. I believe that in the Bubble universe the matter, energy, and (something?) called dark energy and matter, expand through a matrix of the Quantum Vacuum World that has the same qualities as the greater cosmos. The Quantum Vacuum World we can observe in the background zero point of our universe has not time-space qualities in and of itself. It is essentially the world our universe is expanding through. I can hypothetically see burps of time-space occurring as failed universes in brief time-space events.

The following is my interpretation and understanding of the nature of the beginning of bubble universes and time-space as we know it. The event of the entanglement (collapse?)in the Quantum Vacuum World to form the singularity and emergent Universe as the 'Big Bang' is instantaneous when conditions are right in the greater cosmos, and time space begins at that instant.

The problem with any question of whether the greater cosmos is infinite/finite or eternal/temporal is unanswerable in a world without time-space described well by Hawkin's 'No boundary world.'

[JimL]

My explanation is only a general understanding and does not explain the math and science behind the theories and models involved.

The environment of the Multiverse greater cosmos is not the same as the bubble universe we live in.

That may or may not be true, we have no idea. A so called bubble universe could emerge from out of our own bubble universe for all we would know.

It is a Quantum Vacuum World where time-space emerges as bubble universes. At present a number of models are evolving to explain the greater cosmos, but the fundamental foundation is Quantum Mechanics, and the concepts of the time-space nature of universes evolved from Einstein's work and the Theory of Relativity, where time and space are emergent qualities of our universe and all possible universes emerging from a Quantum World without the qualities of time and space. The Bubble universe is filled with galaxies and black holes.

I don't know that the qualities of time/space are emergent qualities that pertain only to emergent universes in Einsteins theory. Time is emergent in that sense for any thing that begins to exist, but that doesn't mean that what we call time didn't exist previously to that things beginning. You may be correct, I don't know, but simply calling the Greater cosmos a quantum vacuum world doesn't in itself explain away time and the nature of change which must take place within it for baby universes to spawn. You say the bubble universes are filled with galaxies and black holes, but the Greater cosmos, however defined, must change in order to spawn those universes, and change is what we associate with time. Also, I am not sure that the bubble universes should be defined as being things distinct from, or outside of the Cosmos or quantum world.

I believe there is an interesting relationship that speaks of similarities. I believe that in the Bubble universe the matter, energy, and (something?) called dark energy and matter, expand through a matrix of the Quantum Vacuum World that has the same qualities as the greater cosmos. The Quantum Vacuum World we can observe in the background zero point of our universe has not time-space qualities in and of itself. It is essentially the world our universe is expanding through. I can hypothetically see burps of time-space occurring as failed universes in brief time-space events.

Okay.

The following is my interpretation and understanding of the nature of the beginning of bubble universes and time-space as we know it. The event of the entanglement (collapse?)in the Quantum Vacuum World to form the singularity and emergent Universe as the 'Big Bang' is instantaneous when conditions are right in the greater cosmos, and time space begins at that instant.

And my point is that the bolded above would suggest that time exists before the instantaneous event of the "big Bang". What does when conditions are right mean, if not at the time when conditions are right?

The problem with any question of whether the greater cosmos is infinite/finite or eternal/temporal is unanswerable in a world without time-space described well by Hawkin's 'No boundary world.'

Not sure what that means.

[shunyadragon]

That may or may not be true, we have no idea. A so called bubble universe could emerge from out of our own bubble universe for all we would know.

Well, if it happens we will know it.

I don't know that the qualities of time/space are emergent qualities that pertain only to emergent universes in Einsteins theory. Time is emergent in that sense for any thing that begins to exist, but that doesn't mean that what we call time didn't exist previously to that things beginning. You may be correct, I don't know, but simply calling the Greater cosmos a quantum vacuum world doesn't in itself explain away time and the nature of change which must take place within it for baby universes to spawn. You say the bubble universes are filled with galaxies and black holes, but the Greater cosmos, however defined, must change in order to spawn those universes, and change is what we associate with time. Also, I am not sure that the bubble universes should be defined as being things distinct from, or outside of the Cosmos or quantum world.

Well, to some extent it is obvious that I do not know either. Actually all I can do is discuss and learn about how physicists and cosmologists the time-space concept in our universe and the multiverse. I do believe that the concept of space-time being emergent qualities of universes is well established based on our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, but for sure, in reality I do not know. The article I previously cited gives some basis for the time-space relationship between the universe and the multiverse.

And my point is that the bolded above would suggest that time exists before the instantaneous event of the "big Bang". What does when conditions are right mean, if not at the time when conditions are right?

At present the 'conditions being right' is unknown, but there are some hints in what is known about Quantum Mechanics, about its inherent instability under some conditions that can potentially lead to entanglement, emergent Quantum gravity, time and space, and the formation of a singularity.

Not sure what that means.

If space nor time exist in the Quantum Vacuum World there is no possibilities of beginnings nor endings of anything, out side the formation of bubble universes.

[mattbballman31]

But NOT the conclusions. Craig arrived at an unwarranted theological conclusion based on his committed religious presuppositions, not a correct understanding of Vilenkin's arguments.

No he didn’t. He scientifically interacted with Vilenkin’s insights. Nice try. If the universe is expanding, it probably isn’t past-eternal. All Craig needs to support premise 2.

And ”weirdo!!” Yet you claim not to be the one into ad hominems......RIGHT!

You don’t even know what it is. I’m not saying, ‘You’re a weirdo; therefore, your arguments are stupid.’ I’m saying, ‘Your arguments are stupid; therefore, you’re a weirdo.’ You’re saying, ‘Craig’s got a theological agenda, so anything he says on science is bogus.’ That’s Bulverism. And . . . you poison the well by saying I’m a C.S. Lewis clone. Well, if Lewis said something I agree with, who cares?

So you are not concerned that Craig is appropriating and misusing information from an area in which he has no expertise (i.e. physics) in order to sell his product? Personally, I think it is misleading and dishonest, but I guess from your perspective, “whatever it takes” is OK.

Has no expertise? Again, Vilenkin said he represented his views fine. Yea, he’s not an expert, because he has no Ph.D. That doesn’t mean he can’t write intelligently on it. And that doesn’t stop Vilenkin from speaking on his model’s theological implications. At least, Vilenkin isn’t close-minded theologically, and says (since he speaks outside his area of expertise), ‘For what it’s worth . . .’, and goes into what he thinks his model’s theological implications are.

No, it’s not called “hyperbole”; it’s called dishonestly putting offensive words in my mouth. I did NOT say or imply that Craig is: “a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics”. These are your words, not mine.

It’s hyperbole. Wow. If that offends you, you’re a wuss. Yea, I know you didn’t say that. I exaggerated. It’s a figure of speech. Calm down.

No, it’s physics. It’s an experienced physicist, Vilenkin, expressing his professional judgment regarding a matter of physics using the language of physics. Vilenkin is specifically disagreeing with Craig on a matter of physics (not philosophy) regarding the beginning of the universe.

No, it’s philosophy of science. It’s not physics to say his model probably has a naturalistic explanation. Probably? Really? How can he say that without defining probability? Defining probability is philosophy. Hume? Mill? Naturalistic? What is it to be naturalistic? You mean we have to define Nature? Philosophy. Oh wait. Is reality just what we can observe? There’s a reality out there our scientific instruments can measure? Scientific realism? Oh, what’s that? Philosophy. Oh, I mean (a la Hawking), reality is model-dependent? Anti-realism? Philosophy. You ignorant, oblivious scientists. The philosophy department laughs at you. At least, scientists back in the early 20th century respected philosophy and tried to align themselves with a philosophy that complimented their scientific endeavors. The scientists today are just snobs. Things have gotten so freaking compartmentalized in the science departments. Thank God, it’s just famous ones.

No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.

Right. All Craig is saying is that if the expansion had a beginning, then PROBABLY the universe had one. He also said that contraction prior to some time makes it really unstable. This instability makes it unlikely that the universe would expand again – as we see it. It’s more likely the universe would collapse.

That is why Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen had to assume that the arrow of time changes at t = 0. This makes the moment t = 0 rather special. I would say no less special than a true beginning of the universe.

Right. He thinks the assumption is probably wrong, because of the instability. He’s equating the specialness of the changing arrow of time with the specialness of the beginning of the universe. But he DISAGREES with Aquirre/Gratton, weirdo. He doesn’t share their assumption, because of the ‘instability point’.

When you read the whole exchange it is clear that Craig misrepresents Vilenkin regarding the latter’s conclusions at the level of science, not philosophy.

Yea, right. And nice jab. Okay, you’ve pin-pointed where Vilenkin interacts scientifically. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t interact philosophically at other points I can quote for you, dingy.

Yes! You asked me to define “supernatural” in #357: “The INFERENCE to natural vs. supernatural explanations is philosophy. Define what you mean by "supernatural".

You raised the issue so YOU define it.

What is this blabber? Okay, I agree with your definition as you put it:

Regardless, the point remains: Any claims of non-natural/supernatural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.

Okay, so God can be studied scientifically? The natural sciences study the non-natural? What scientist can you quote to back that up?

Nope. The expert in physics is the experienced, qualified physicist, NOT the philosopher/apologist furthering his agenda by misappropriating information from a discipline in which he has no expertise.

McFly? McFly? Vilenkin already said Craig represented him fine!! What are you blathering about?

You have given me no reason to take you, or your opinions, seriously.

Like I care if you take me seriously. You’ve already proven how obtuse you are on this issue. Your mind is already closed! Why try rational dialogue?

Nope! Statement of fact! Philosophy does not have the mechanism to test facts so as to derive a true premise – it can only derive a premise based on the knowledge of the day.

Empiricism. Philosophy.

And without a true premise a philosophical argument cannot arrive at a true conclusion - no matter how valid the argument may be.

Truism. More philosophy. Not scientifically based. See how oblivious you are?

Always in philosophy the deduced conclusions can be no more than restatements of existing knowledge.

Kind of like that statement? Yep. More obliviousness. You’re funny!

E.g. Knowledge of the natural world was minimal in Aristotle’s day compared with today.

Yep. Philosophy has gone absolutely nowhere since Aristotle. So ignorant.

Hence virtually every conclusion he arrived at about the physical universe has been shown to be wrong.

Why should I care about this red herring?

He had insufficient or incorrect knowledge of the natural world upon which to base his arguments; only science has the methodology to acquire new knowledge.

More beautiful philosophical statements, you deluded philosopher, you.

But you are not into ad hominems right.

Nope. Again, you obviously don’t know what it is.

Then please explain how you were able to make the following comment about shunya after just three posts, none of which were interactive with him:

Already did, dingy. I’ve talked to him already under another username in the past. Read that slow, so it sinks in.

You don’t know of the inimitable JP Holding? But you are his mirror image.

http://the-anointed-one.com/hold.htm

Oh, JP Holding!!! I love that guy. Thanks for the compliment!

[Tassman]

No he didn’t. He scientifically interacted with Vilenkin’s insights. Nice try. If the universe is expanding, it probably isn’t past-eternal. All Craig needs to support premise 2.

Craig certainly didn't interact with Vilenkin’s conclusion. And, being unqualified as a scientist, he is not equipped to argue for ANY premise except as a layman presenting his own personal opinions.

You don’t even know what it is. I’m not saying, ‘You’re a weirdo; therefore, your arguments are stupid.’ I’m saying, ‘Your arguments are stupid; therefore, you’re a weirdo.’ You’re saying, ‘Craig’s got a theological agenda, so anything he says on science is bogus.’ That’s Bulverism. And . . . you poison the well by saying I’m a C.S. Lewis clone. Well, if Lewis said something I agree with, who cares?

I’m not saying that. See above re Craig as a non-scientist and layman.

Has no expertise? Again, Vilenkin said he represented his views fine. Yea, he’s not an expert, because he has no Ph.D. That doesn’t mean he can’t write intelligently on it. And that doesn’t stop Vilenkin from speaking on his model’s theological implications. At least, Vilenkin isn’t close-minded theologically, and says (since he speaks outside his area of expertise), ‘For what it’s worth . . .’, and goes into what he thinks his model’s theological implications are.

You are cherry-picking.

Vilenkin refers to a possible theological implication in his model, in his “Many Worlds in One”, but dismisses it as “far too simplistic” (PP 176) and goes on to propose that cosmic origins could be better described in “purely scientific terms” in his “tunneling from literally nothing” model”. THIS is what the likes of Craig choose to ignore.

“A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions”.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

It’s hyperbole. Wow. If that offends you, you’re a wuss. Yea, I know you didn’t say that. I exaggerated. It’s a figure of speech. Calm down.

You put offensive words into my mouth that I never uttered. I did NOT say or imply that Craig is: “a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics”. These are your words, not mine and I take exception to being dragged down to your level of personal vitriol.

No, it’s philosophy of science. It’s not physics to say his model probably has a naturalistic explanation. Probably? Really? How can he say that without defining probability? Defining probability is philosophy. Hume? Mill? Naturalistic? What is it to be naturalistic? You mean we have to define Nature? Philosophy. Oh wait. Is reality just what we can observe? There’s a reality out there our scientific instruments can measure? Scientific realism? Oh, what’s that? Philosophy. Oh, I mean (a la Hawking), reality is model-dependent? Anti-realism? Philosophy. You ignorant, oblivious scientists. The philosophy department laughs at you. At least, scientists back in the early 20th century respected philosophy and tried to align themselves with a philosophy that complimented their scientific endeavors. The scientists today are just snobs. Things have gotten so freaking compartmentalized in the science departments. Thank God, it’s just famous ones.

This is NOT “philosophy of science” OR a philosophical argument about probabilities. Vilenkin is proposing probable hypotheses. This is how science works. It is the acquisition of new knowledge via observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories.

Right. All Craig is saying is that if the expansion had a beginning, then PROBABLY the universe had one. He also said that contraction prior to some time makes it really unstable. This instability makes it unlikely that the universe would expand again – as we see it. It’s more likely the universe would collapse.

Craig is not qualified to argue probabilities in science. Unlike you I take my science from those qualified to talk about science, i.e. qualified scientists, NOT cherry-picking religious apologists attempting to sound “sciency” as they push their religious presuppositions.

Right. He thinks the assumption is probably wrong, because of the instability. He’s equating the specialness of the changing arrow of time with the specialness of the beginning of the universe. But he DISAGREES with Aquirre/Gratton, weirdo. He doesn’t share their assumption, because of the ‘instability point’.

Craig cannot escape the fact that a beginning of the universe can still be described in purely scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig tries to argue). In fact, the opposite is true and the authors make several suggestions about what can lie beyond the boundary of the seeming beginning – e.g. that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

It is sheer opportunism for the likes of Craig to leap in and imply “therefore God” as a possible or likely conclusion. This is most certainly NOT what Vilenkin (the source of Craig’s argument) is saying.

Yea, right. And nice jab. Okay, you’ve pin-pointed where Vilenkin interacts scientifically. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t interact philosophically at other points I can quote for you, dingy.

Not at the "point" under discussion.

What is this blabber? Okay, I agree with your definition as you put it:
Okay, so God can be studied scientifically? The natural sciences study the non-natural? What scientist can you quote to back that up?

The notion of a supernatural entity such as God cannot be shown to exist or studied scientifically. Claims of ANY occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences. There are no credible claims of non-natural or supernatural occurrences.

McFly? McFly? Vilenkin already said Craig represented him fine!! What are you blathering about?

Vilenkin did NOT agree with Craig’s conclusion, which is the point. Vilenkin, speaking as an experienced physicist, considers there is most likely a natural explanation. See above.

Like I care if you take me seriously. You’ve already proven how obtuse you are on this issue. Your mind is already closed! Why try rational dialogue?

I'm unaware of any rational dialogue emanating from you.

Empiricism. Philosophy.



Truism. More philosophy. Not scientifically based. See how oblivious you are?



Kind of like that statement? Yep. More obliviousness. You’re funny!


Yep. Philosophy has gone absolutely nowhere since Aristotle. So ignorant.

Philosophy does not have the mechanism to test facts in order to derive a true premise – it can only derive a premise based on the knowledge of the day. And any acquisition of new knowledge via empirical verification is the province of science, NOT philosophy.

If you think philosophy CAN arrive at a true premise you need to explain HOW it can, not just rant about it. And, without a true premise a philosophical argument cannot arrive at a true conclusion - no matter how valid the argument may be.

Why should I care about this red herring?

Because it is not a “red herring”! It is an example of how philosophers (even the great Aristotle himself) depend upon on accurate empirically verified knowledge of how the physical universe functions to form a true premise. Without such knowledge virtually every conclusion Aristotle arrived at about the physical universe was wrong. The same applies to ALL philosophers, including Craig.

Already did, dingy. I've talked to him already under another username in the past. Read that slow, so it sinks in.

REALLY! What was your other “user name”, JP Holding?

Oh, JP Holding!!! I love that guy. Thanks for the compliment!

This is the JP Holding you implied you knew nothing about. Remember your: “JPH? What the heck are you talking about?”

Obviously you have nothing of interest to say Matt. Are you here to discuss something on an intellectual level or merely to engage in ad hominim attacks. The only thing you've accomplished with this post is to make yourself look like a jerk.

Couldn’t agree more, Jim! What is it with some of these people?

[JimL]

Couldn't agree more, Jim! What is it with some of these people?

The point is that you don't ask for it Tass, I'm only accommodating those that do. I agree though, thats probably not the best way to go about it either.

[37818]

Yes, this is true, but the uncaused self-existence may possibly be the cosmos it self governed by Natural Law.

Explain how [give the logic] the cosmos governed by Natural Law constitute uncaused self-existence. Please explain how there is not to be any distinction between cosmos and existence, and the things which do exist, that is, the things which do cosmos.

[JimL]

Explain how [give the logic] the cosmos governed by Natural Law constitute uncaused self-existence. Please explain how there is not to be any distinction between cosmos and existence, and the things which do exist, that is, the things which do cosmos.

What is it you want him to explain? He is merely suggesting that the Cosmos may itself be that which is the eternal necessary existence self governed by its own nature. The reason that there wouldn't be any distinction between the Cosmos and the temporally existing particulars thereof would be because the temporally existing particulars would merely be changes taking place in the whole. In other words he is merely suggesting that all of existence could be one thing, there wouldn't be 2 distinctive existences, one the creator of the other, there would be one existence which is sustained and evolves in accordance with its own nature, its own physical laws.