Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An Infinite Past?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Well then, it's up to you to show that God is "necessary for creation", isn't it.
    Nope, since you have not shown that God is not necessary, that a previous physical force did or could create this cosmos. So it is a completely open question.


    Are you being deliberately misleading?

    I said multiverse theory "increasingly seems to be the accepted model", not that it was the only model. But, as shunya reminds you, Steinhardt's 'cyclic model' is also described as eternal, which doesn't help your "necessary for creation" scenario one little bit.
    If the multiverse is the dominate theory then as Steinhardt makes clear it is fundamentally flawed.

    So that we are clear: inflation is driven by a hypothetical scalar field, the inflation, which has properties that can be adjusted to produce effectively any outcome...No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable...

    You Tass are willing to believe in a theory i.e. the multiverse theory, that in the end is unfalsifiable. Is that good science Tass? So now do you want to jump on the 'cyclic model' bandwagon?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Nope, since you have not shown that God is not necessary, that a previous physical force did or could create this cosmos. So it is a completely open question.
      You claim that “God is Necessary” therefore the burden of proof rests with you to support this assertion. In a universe being increasingly seen by cosmologists as eternal, both past and future, such a concept is irrelevant.

      If the multiverse is the dominate theory then as Steinhardt makes clear it is fundamentally flawed.

      So that we are clear: inflation is driven by a hypothetical scalar field, the inflation, which has properties that can be adjusted to produce effectively any outcome...No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable...

      You Tass are willing to believe in a theory i.e. the multiverse theory, that in the end is unfalsifiable. Is that good science Tass? So now do you want to jump on the 'cyclic model' bandwagon?
      I have noted that multiverse theory increasingly seems to be the accepted model among cosmologists, despite concerns being raised by the likes of Steinhardt. I've said no more than that. It is intellectually dishonest for you to take these hypotheses, which are at the developmental stage, and argue against them as though they were well established scientific theories which needed to defend themselves. They are not.
      Last edited by Tassman; 09-01-2014, 05:26 AM.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        You claim that “God is Necessary” therefore the burden of proof rests with you to support this assertion. In a universe being increasingly seen by cosmologists as eternal, both past and future, such a concept is irrelevant.
        No Tass, my statement was conditional - that is why I said "unless" God is a necessary Being.



        I have noted that multiverse theory increasingly seems to be the accepted model among cosmologists, despite concerns being raised by the likes of Steinhardt. I've said no more than that. It is intellectually dishonest for you to take these hypotheses, which are at the developmental stage, and argue against them as though they were well established scientific theories which needed to defend themselves. They are not.

        So scientists are increasingly accepting a model that is unfalsifiable? And in case you haven't really understood Steinhardt, his point is the death knell for any multiverse model. As far as that theory being able to predict specific kinds of universes like ours.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          No Tass, my statement was conditional - that is why I said "unless" God is a necessary Being.
          You have introduced the concept of a creator deity as a possible “necessary being”. But, without reference to observation, no argument based upon logic alone can tell you anything that is not already embedded in its premises.

          So scientists are increasingly accepting a model that is unfalsifiable? And in case you haven't really understood Steinhardt, his point is the death knell for any multiverse model. As far as that theory being able to predict specific kinds of universes like ours.
          You are too eager to sound the “the death knell” of multiverse theory, nor are you qualified to do so. The fact remains that this hypothesis, because of its explanatory power, is the increasingly accepted model among cosmologists despite its problems. Furthermore, your god-did-it presupposition, come what may, really disqualifies you from any pretence of objectivity.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            You have introduced the concept of a creator deity as a possible “necessary being”. But, without reference to observation, no argument based upon logic alone can tell you anything that is not already embedded in its premises.
            By whose standard am I supposed to prove God to you? And what observation would you accept?


            You are too eager to sound the “the death knell” of multiverse theory, nor are you qualified to do so. The fact remains that this hypothesis, because of its explanatory power, is the increasingly accepted model among cosmologists despite its problems. Furthermore, your god-did-it presupposition, come what may, really disqualifies you from any pretence of objectivity.
            But Steinhardt is qualified to make this claim, remember he was one of the early fathers of inflation theory. And what explanatory power does the theory have if it can not be falsified by observation? Think about what you are saying Tass, you and some scientists, are willing to entertain an unfalsifiable theory. And you question my objectivity?
            Last edited by seer; 09-02-2014, 06:36 AM.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              By whose standard am I supposed to prove God to you? And what observation would you accept?
              Belief in God is an article of faith and cannot be proved.

              But Steinhardt is qualified to make this claim, remember he was one of the early fathers of inflation theory. And what explanatory power does the theory have if it can not be falsified by observation? Think about what you are saying Tass, you and some scientists, are willing to entertain an unfalsifiable theory. And you question my objectivity?
              Nevertheless the inflationary/multiverse hypothesis, because of its explanatory power, remains the accepted model among many cosmologists. Certainly there are problems, e.g. as outlined by Steinhardt, but complex hypotheses like this don’t stand or fall on the basis of some problems when the overall convergence of the evidence continues to point in a given direction. So it’s too soon to sound the “the death knell” of multiverse theory despite your apparent determination to do so – presumably to allow a role for your creator deity.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                By whose standard am I supposed to prove God to you?
                By any standard, it is impossible to prove.
                And what observation would you accept?
                How about some science based observations that point to the existence of an eternally existing supernatural mind that can create matter/energy from out of nothing?

                But Steinhardt is qualified to make this claim, remember he was one of the early fathers of inflation theory. And what explanatory power does the theory have if it can not be falsified by observation? Think about what you are saying Tass, you and some scientists, are willing to entertain an unfalsifiable theory. And you question my objectivity?
                Not all unfalsifiable theories are equal, some we are led to by science, some we dream up. Multi-verse theory wasn't just an imagined idea that we then undertook to study, the theory arose of itself from the physics.
                Last edited by JimL; 09-02-2014, 10:36 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Belief in God is an article of faith and cannot be proved.
                  That is not what I asked. What evidence for God would you accept?


                  Nevertheless the inflationary/multiverse hypothesis, because of its explanatory power, remains the accepted model among many cosmologists. Certainly there are problems, e.g. as outlined by Steinhardt, but complex hypotheses like this don’t stand or fall on the basis of some problems when the overall convergence of the evidence continues to point in a given direction. So it’s too soon to sound the “the death knell” of multiverse theory despite your apparent determination to do so – presumably to allow a role for your creator deity.
                  Tass, either you are being dense on purpose or you don't fully understand Steinhardt's objection. The theory is unfalsifiable by observation, and yet you are willing to entertain an unfalsifiable theory - is that good science Tass?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    By any standard, it is impossible to prove.
                    Really? What is God spoke to you? Would you consider that evidence?

                    How about some science based observations that point to the existence of an eternally existing supernatural mind that can create matter/energy from out of nothing?
                    How would science investigate something that is not natural?

                    Not all unfalsifiable theories are equal, some we are led to by science, some we dream up. Multi-verse theory wasn't just an imagined idea that we then undertook to study, the theory arose of itself from the physics.
                    Really Jim, so you too are willing to entertain an unfalsifiable theory? Is that good science? Is that science at all?
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Really? What is God spoke to you? Would you consider that evidence?
                      Your question was how could you prove. You can't. You can make claims such as God spoke to you therefore you know, but you can not prove it to anyone else. Most people who openly make such claims would be diagnosed as delusional or suffering from schizoaffective disorder, some even think that they themselves are God. Besides, how would you know if God spoke to you?


                      How would science investigate something that is not natural?
                      It wouldn't, and that is the point. There is no evidence of an eternally existing bodiless mind that can think matter into existence from out of nothing. As a matter of fact, science tells just the opposite. Mind and consciousness are emergent products of matter, and no thing that comes to be, comes to be from out of nothing.


                      Really Jim, so you too are willing to entertain an unfalsifiable theory? Is that good science? Is that science at all?
                      If there is indirect scientific evidence that points to it, then yes seer. And yes, that is science. As I said before, multi-verse theory wasn't dreamt up and then scientist undertook to find it, multi-verse theory emerged from the physics discovered in the study of this universe.
                      Last edited by JimL; 09-04-2014, 01:10 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        That is not what I asked. What evidence for God would you accept?
                        What you asked was: “By whose standard am I supposed to prove God to you? And what observation would you accept?” And my answer was that “Belief in God is an article of faith and cannot be proved”. This was in the context of your argument of God as a necessary being, i.e. a philosophical argument. But, as I said, no argument based upon logic alone can tell you anything that is not already embedded in its premises.

                        Tass, either you are being dense on purpose or you don't fully understand Steinhardt's objection. The theory is unfalsifiable by observation, and yet you are willing to entertain an unfalsifiable theory - is that good science Tass?
                        What YOU don’t understand that Steinhardt’s objection is NOT necessarily the final word on the multiverse. Science is always a work in progress.

                        As yet the multiverse is not an established scientific theory subject to falsification. Rather, it's the outcome of developments in the major fields of physics: i.e. ‘relativistic physics’, ‘quantum physics’, ‘cosmological physics’, ‘unified physics’, and ‘computational physics’. All of these disciplines lead to some form of a multiverse hypothesis. In short, the overall convergence of the evidence continues to point toward a multiverse. Not enough as yet to show that the multiverse exists, but, at this stage, it's a compelling argument.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          What you asked was: “By whose standard am I supposed to prove God to you? And what observation would you accept?” And my answer was that “Belief in God is an article of faith and cannot be proved”. This was in the context of your argument of God as a necessary being, i.e. a philosophical argument. But, as I said, no argument based upon logic alone can tell you anything that is not already embedded in its premises.
                          I'm asking you Tass, what would you need to believe in God? If He spoke to you? Would that do it? And really, how is the multiverse theory any more than a philosophical argument since it can not be falsified by observation?



                          What YOU don’t understand that Steinhardt’s objection is NOT necessarily the final word on the multiverse. Science is always a work in progress.

                          As yet the multiverse is not an established scientific theory subject to falsification. Rather, it's the outcome of developments in the major fields of physics: i.e. ‘relativistic physics’, ‘quantum physics’, ‘cosmological physics’, ‘unified physics’, and ‘computational physics’. All of these disciplines lead to some form of a multiverse hypothesis. In short, the overall convergence of the evidence continues to point toward a multiverse. Not enough as yet to show that the multiverse exists, but, at this stage, it's a compelling argument.
                          No Tass, you really do not understand Steinhardt’s objection. You could NEVER falsify ANY multiverse theory by observation. Try to follow the logic here. Any type of multiverse could produce any kind of universe - literally an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of different properties or configurations. The only universe we can actually observe is ours - and our universe has specific properties. But a multiverse could produce ANY outcome. How could you EVER falsify a theory that could literally produce ANY outcome by observation?

                          So Tass, in the future don't dare play the "science" card on me since it is clear you are willing to chuck the scientific method when it comes to your belief.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            I'm asking you Tass, what would you need to believe in God? If He spoke to you? Would that do it? And really, how is the multiverse theory any more than a philosophical argument since it can not be falsified by observation?
                            The multiverse is a prediction which arises out of physical models for the universe. Max Tegmark gives a really good introduction to the development of multiverse hypotheses in his book, Our Mathematical Universe, which I highly recommend.

                            No Tass, you really do not understand Steinhardt’s objection. You could NEVER falsify ANY multiverse theory by observation. Try to follow the logic here. Any type of multiverse could produce any kind of universe - literally an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of different properties or configurations. The only universe we can actually observe is ours - and our universe has specific properties. But a multiverse could produce ANY outcome. How could you EVER falsify a theory that could literally produce ANY outcome by observation?
                            This is not true. There are certain multiverse hypotheses which have falsifiable elements. For example, some models of the multiverse predict that neighboring universes should be able to collide with ours, and that evidence of such collisions could be observed within our own universe. Furthermore, the fact that there are an infinite number of possible outcomes is not the same as saying that any outcome is possible. There is an infinite quantity of real numbers between 0 and 1, but that doesn't mean a random selection from that set could find a number greater than 1.
                            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                              Furthermore, the fact that there are an infinite number of possible outcomes is not the same as saying that any outcome is possible. There is an infinite quantity of real numbers between 0 and 1, but that doesn't mean a random selection from that set could find a number greater than 1.
                              But what outcome isn't possible, and how would you know that? Again, how could the theory be falsified by observation? What observable properties in our, or any universe, falsify this theory?

                              There are certain multiverse hypotheses which have falsifiable elements. For example, some models of the multiverse predict that neighboring universes should be able to collide with ours, and that evidence of such collisions could be observed within our own universe.
                              Boxing, that is just silly. Where is the falsifiable element here? Why must universes necessarily collide? Of if they did collide, perhaps any observable evidence is long gone or too faint to detect.
                              Last edited by seer; 09-04-2014, 10:08 AM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                But what outcome isn't possible, and how would you know that? Again, how could the theory be falsified by observation? What observable properties in our, or any universe, falsify this theory?
                                Just as with all other scientific hypotheses, we start with the data that we have, form predictions, and construct experiments which would disconfirm these predictions. I must admit that I am woefully ignorant, currently, about many of the specifics of the different multiverse hypotheses, but one example of such an experiment comes to mind. It's called the Quantum Suicide experiment, and has been a subject of discussion by Many Worlds proponents for quite some time.

                                Let's imagine that we have set up a room with a gun which is triggered by a random quantum event. Let us further say that, on average, you observe that this gun is firing about 1 round per second. With exceptionally careful timing, you interpose your head between the gun and its target after a bullet has been fired. Then you wait. In the multiverse predicted by the Many Worlds interpretation, there are universes in which the next random triggering of the gun occurs significantly later than the average would have us believe. The Many Worlds interpretation predicts that there are universes where you will last 10 seconds, 5 minutes, 20 years, or even longer before the random event triggers the firearm. Some iteration of you will last, say, 5 minutes in this experiment, and upon removing your head from the gun's trajectory, you will see the average firing of 1 bullet-per-second resume as before. Such an event would be unfathomably improbable, and would lend incredible weight to the predictive and explanatory power of the Many Worlds interpretation.

                                Of course, the downside to this experiment is that there would be an infinity of universes in which this experiment would lead to an inconclusive early death for the experimenter, and it would be impossible for the successful experimenter to communicate his findings to those other universes. Still, it at least shows that there are experiments which could falsify such a multiverse model, even if they are not the most pragmatic.
                                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                510 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X