Originally posted by element771
View Post
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
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 series of finite causes.
Collapse
X
-
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostDon't forget a computer simulation, hologram, dream of a super being, a universe that is entirely created by one self (solipsism), brains in the vats, the matrix, the matrix within the matrix, the matrix within the matrix within the matrix, spirits in a material world...did I miss anything?
I do not believe there are any, maybe a few on heavy meds, of Physics and Cosmology scientists that take the above seriously.
The question of computer simulations; What is put in from the anthropomorphic perspective is what comes out without considering the limitations of computer simulations.Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-01-2018, 04:42 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostOnly the limits of the reality of the current evidence concerning the nature and possible origins of our universe and all possible universes.
I do not believe there are any, maybe a few on heavy meds, of Physics and Cosmology scientists that take the above seriously.
The question of computer simulations; What is put in from the anthropomorphic perspective is what comes out without considering the limitations of computer simulations.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rlier-universeAtheism 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 shunyadragon View PostOnly the limits of the reality of the current evidence concerning the nature and possible origins of our universe and all possible universes.
I do not believe there are any, maybe a few on heavy meds, of Physics and Cosmology scientists that take the above seriously.
The question of computer simulations; What is put in from the anthropomorphic perspective is what comes out without considering the limitations of computer simulations.
If you are going to rely on a model with no empirical verification, then there is nothing abnormal about the suggestions I made.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostSo funny! You're a legend in your own mind little man.
There is nothing to which to respond in this offensive rant of yours.
The fact is that there are reputable theoretical physicists, who consider that the question of an infinite universe, including it being past eternal, is by no means resolved.If by 'resolved', you mean 'so sure that no attempts are undertaken anymore at falsification', then of course not. The fact of the matter is that ALL of the evidence is BEST EXPLAINED by the Big Bang Model.
Now, I know you have a bunch of models up your sleeve that you're just gonna slam on the table and demand that the Christian explain where it's wrong. Lucky for you, this is my bread and butter! But even if it wasn't, it's still the case that the Big Bang Model is, at present, the best explanation of the evidence. If you don't want to proportion your views to the evidence, that's your problem. What you choose not to understand is that the scientific evidence is subject to change; that's why philosophers look at the scientific evidence as the icing on the cake. You'd be able to appreciate this more if you actually took the time to read what I already wrote for you, all about the interface of metaphysics and science, and the role that external conceptual problems pose for metaphysics and science (which you ignore). But this paragraph is already a little too long, so I better stop before all the sentences run together into some homogenous ball of goo relative to your dysfunctioning cognitive faculties.
The point stands: the Big Bang Model is the best explanation (right now) of the evidence.
So, let's take a look at this idea of "Cosmology from Quantum Potential" from Ali/Das. Now, first of all, of course I'm aware of the paper. Everyone in my line of work is aware of the paper. It's been around for almost 3 years now. And the fact of the matter is that this has not threatened the Big Bang Model in the slightest. Yes, the paper is exciting! I don't care where the scientific evidence points. I'm all for pummeling the Big Bang Model with a centuries long carpet bombing of falsification attempts. That's the way it works. The more the Big Bang Model survives such falsification, the better shape it's in. In the three years since Ali/Das published the paper, nothing much has come of it. It's been seen more as an interesting conceptual investigation, or what would follow if a certain quantum-corrected geometry can be consistently derived from relativity without entailing commitment to singularities.
So, let's take a brief look at the paper. I don't have the characters for representing the mathematics, but I'll just assume you understand it, since you're such a genius.
The following is a summary of how I've come to understand the paper after conversing with my colleagues over the years since the paper was published. Ali/Das try to eradicate the singularity implied by the Big Bang by deriving a semi-classical, partially-quantum Raychaudhuri equation from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GTR). Without the singularity, the universe can't have a beginning. Ali/Das take into account the Big Bang by interpreting the 'bang' as the result of a past-eternal 'quantum potential' that semi-classically caved into the hot, dense 'bang'. The postulation of 'something' that's past-eternal goes on all the time in my line of work to attempt to falsify the singularities implied by the Big Bang Model. At most, Ali/Das has been received by the scientific community, not as a hypothesis that may probably graduate to the status of a theory, but as a 'proof of concept', as it's called by my colleagues.
Or, let me put it this way. Singularities are almost a mathematical inevitability in GTR. That's why many physicists think of it as an idealized mathematical point, and we can only take the laws of physics to the brick wall of what happens after the singularity. Because what happens during or before the singularity can't be handled by the laws of physics as we know them (yet), Ali/Das propose to just get rid of the singularity altogether. Which is fine! All power to them! They piggy-back on David Bohm's idea of quantum trajectories, instead of the classically understood geodesics. That's how Ali/Das were able to mathematically derive the semi-classical, partially-quantum Raychaudhuri equation from GTR mentioned above. From there, Ali/Das used the corrected Raychaudhuri equation to derive corrected Friedmann equations (mathematically representing the expansion of the universe). What's pretty cool about this model is that if a theory of quantum gravity is ever demonstrated, the latter can will be able to assimilate the former very elegantly.
Ali/Das postulate a QUANTUM FLUID (described by the corrected Raychaudhuri equation, and capable of constantly contributing toward spatial expansion), made of gravitons (theoretically able to constitute Bose-Einstein condensates), that permeates the entire universe. Using the corrected Friedmann equation, the FLUID can be traced back in time in such a way that singularities and cosmological collapse are ruled out. The explanatory power and scope of Quantum Potential is it's purported capacity to explain dark energy and dark matter, which would be really cool! But the aims are special. There have been hundreds of models now in the 'model-graveyard' that had similar ambitions, with similar tweaks on the derivations from GTR.
There is (as yet) no empirical evidence to justify the idiosyncratic ways Ali/Das have chosen to derive the corrected Raychaudhuri equation from GTR. All are agreed that the math looks good! But the evidence for the traditional way of understanding classical geodesics is still too strong to prefer Bohm's quantum trajectories. Also, the idea of a quantum fluid has made many physicists uneasy because the metaphysics of the fluid cross over into the realm of philosophy. And at that point, I can easily raise objections from a philosophical vantage point.
All in all, IT'S STILL THE CASE that the Big Bang Model is the BEST explanation of the evidence. That's all that has been claimed, and we Christians tend to proportion our beliefs in according the preponderance of the evidence. If you want to close your eyes, and tap your heels, and hold out hope that this model graduates to a theory (in order to shoehorn the evidence into your hope-for, Godless worldview), be my guest! It's a free country!
For you to dismiss these models with such contemptuous certainty merely betrays your prejudices.
Okay, bye! See you next time, and you make the Christian do all the work. Go ahead! Fling out another model! We can play wack-a-mole again.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostWhen I let someone else govern how I interact - I give them control over my moral/ethical choices. And, as Gandhi is claimed to have said, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View Post
Right but I think that on some level it is a mistake and there are plenty of scientists who agree. It is not the idea of the multiverse that I have a problem with, it is the fact that most models are, by definition, not testable by observation or empirical measurement. If there is no way to test the mathematical model, how can you ever verify it? There have been plenty of times in physics were there have been multiple mathematical models describing the same thing. Without empirical verification...How do you ever determine which one is correct? How do you determine if any of them are correct? This represents a slippery slope IMO.Last edited by Tassman; 04-02-2018, 12:03 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostNot trying to be a legend ya nincompoop. Just getting unadulterated pleasure out of calling you out on your trollishness, is all.
Yea, because it's all true!
If by 'resolved', you mean 'so sure that no attempts are undertaken anymore at falsification', then of course not. The fact of the matter is that ALL of the evidence is BEST EXPLAINED by the Big Bang Model.
Now, I know you have a bunch of models up your sleeve that you're just gonna slam on the table and demand that the Christian explain where it's wrong. Lucky for you, this is my bread and butter! But even if it wasn't, it's still the case that the Big Bang Model is, at present, the best explanation of the evidence. If you don't want to proportion your views to the evidence, that's your problem. What you choose not to understand is that the scientific evidence is subject to change; that's why philosophers look at the scientific evidence as the icing on the cake. You'd be able to appreciate this more if you actually took the time to read what I already wrote for you, all about the interface of metaphysics and science, and the role that external conceptual problems pose for metaphysics and science (which you ignore). But this paragraph is already a little too long, so I better stop before all the sentences run together into some homogenous ball of goo relative to your dysfunctioning cognitive faculties.
The point stands: the Big Bang Model is the best explanation (right now) of the evidence.
So, let's take a look at this idea of "Cosmology from Quantum Potential" from Ali/Das. Now, first of all, of course I'm aware of the paper. Everyone in my line of work is aware of the paper. It's been around for almost 3 years now. And the fact of the matter is that this has not threatened the Big Bang Model in the slightest. Yes, the paper is exciting! I don't care where the scientific evidence points. I'm all for pummeling the Big Bang Model with a centuries long carpet bombing of falsification attempts. That's the way it works. The more the Big Bang Model survives such falsification, the better shape it's in. In the three years since Ali/Das published the paper, nothing much has come of it. It's been seen more as an interesting conceptual investigation, or what would follow if a certain quantum-corrected geometry can be consistently derived from relativity without entailing commitment to singularities.
So, let's take a brief look at the paper. I don't have the characters for representing the mathematics, but I'll just assume you understand it, since you're such a genius.
The following is a summary of how I've come to understand the paper after conversing with my colleagues over the years since the paper was published. Ali/Das try to eradicate the singularity implied by the Big Bang by deriving a semi-classical, partially-quantum Raychaudhuri equation from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GTR). Without the singularity, the universe can't have a beginning. Ali/Das take into account the Big Bang by interpreting the 'bang' as the result of a past-eternal 'quantum potential' that semi-classically caved into the hot, dense 'bang'. The postulation of 'something' that's past-eternal goes on all the time in my line of work to attempt to falsify the singularities implied by the Big Bang Model. At most, Ali/Das has been received by the scientific community, not as a hypothesis that may probably graduate to the status of a theory, but as a 'proof of concept', as it's called by my colleagues.
Or, let me put it this way. Singularities are almost a mathematical inevitability in GTR. That's why many physicists think of it as an idealized mathematical point, and we can only take the laws of physics to the brick wall of what happens after the singularity. Because what happens during or before the singularity can't be handled by the laws of physics as we know them (yet), Ali/Das propose to just get rid of the singularity altogether. Which is fine! All power to them! They piggy-back on David Bohm's idea of quantum trajectories, instead of the classically understood geodesics. That's how Ali/Das were able to mathematically derive the semi-classical, partially-quantum Raychaudhuri equation from GTR mentioned above. From there, Ali/Das used the corrected Raychaudhuri equation to derive corrected Friedmann equations (mathematically representing the expansion of the universe). What's pretty cool about this model is that if a theory of quantum gravity is ever demonstrated, the latter can will be able to assimilate the former very elegantly.
Ali/Das postulate a QUANTUM FLUID (described by the corrected Raychaudhuri equation, and capable of constantly contributing toward spatial expansion), made of gravitons (theoretically able to constitute Bose-Einstein condensates), that permeates the entire universe. Using the corrected Friedmann equation, the FLUID can be traced back in time in such a way that singularities and cosmological collapse are ruled out. The explanatory power and scope of Quantum Potential is it's purported capacity to explain dark energy and dark matter, which would be really cool! But the aims are special. There have been hundreds of models now in the 'model-graveyard' that had similar ambitions, with similar tweaks on the derivations from GTR.
There is (as yet) no empirical evidence to justify the idiosyncratic ways Ali/Das have chosen to derive the corrected Raychaudhuri equation from GTR. All are agreed that the math looks good! But the evidence for the traditional way of understanding classical geodesics is still too strong to prefer Bohm's quantum trajectories. Also, the idea of a quantum fluid has made many physicists uneasy because the metaphysics of the fluid cross over into the realm of philosophy. And at that point, I can easily raise objections from a philosophical vantage point.
All in all, IT'S STILL THE CASE that the Big Bang Model is the BEST explanation of the evidence. That's all that has been claimed, and we Christians tend to proportion our beliefs in according the preponderance of the evidence. If you want to close your eyes, and tap your heels, and hold out hope that this model graduates to a theory (in order to shoehorn the evidence into your hope-for, Godless worldview), be my guest! It's a free country!
I didn't dismiss anything with contemptuous certainty, you stupid dolt. Stop putting your dishonest words in my mouth, you fool.
Okay, bye! See you next time, and you make the Christian do all the work. Go ahead! Fling out another model! We can play wack-a-mole again.
Not letting anyone govern how I interact. I'm freely laying down my rules for engaging in a civil conversation with anyone. Thanks Gandhi! Fortunately for all of us, my rules of engagement only (so far!) exclude two people on this entire forum. So perhaps we can keep Gandhi out of it for now.Last edited by Tassman; 04-02-2018, 12:01 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe multiverse may be the best explanation of the existing data even though it cannot be empirically verified at this stage.
Also, the multiverse idea can't be empirically verified period. This isn't a function of technology, this is embedded into the theory.
Furthermore, the multiverse theory started by wondering if all solutions to string theory were actualized. This is the first time I have ever heard of a function being basically under-fit and someone saying that all of the solutions are correct.
What unanswerable questions does it answer?
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostBest explanation of what data?
Also, the multiverse idea can't be empirically verified period. This isn't a function of technology, this is embedded into the theory.
Furthermore, the multiverse theory started by wondering if all solutions to string theory were actualized. This is the first time I have ever heard of a function being basically under-fit and someone saying that all of the solutions are correct.
My point is, as a non physicist, that many eminent physicists of the calibre of Hawing take multiverse theory seriously; it cannot be simply dismissed as irrelevant.
.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostMy point is, as a non physicist, that many eminent physicists of the calibre of Hawing take multiverse theory seriously; it cannot be simply dismissed as irrelevant.
.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...n-hawking.htmlAtheism 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 Tassman View PostMy understanding is that multiverse theory developed as a consequence of problems raised by quantum mechanics, whereby elementary particles like electrons exist simultaneously in multiple states. The question was raised as to how our perceived universe, where observations and experience seem to exist in just one place, results from all those possibilities? One possible solution is that of Stephen Hawking's "no boundary" model which posits our universe is just one of infinitely many parallel universes. .
My point is, as a non physicist, that many eminent physicists of the calibre of Hawing take multiverse theory seriously; it cannot be simply dismissed as irrelevant.
.
You do yourself no favours by being so inconsistent in your thinking....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostNot letting anyone govern how I interact. I'm freely laying down my rules for engaging in a civil conversation with anyone. Thanks Gandhi! Fortunately for all of us, my rules of engagement only (so far!) exclude two people on this entire forum. So perhaps we can keep Gandhi out of it for now.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostMy understanding is that multiverse theory developed as a consequence of problems raised by quantum mechanics, whereby elementary particles like electrons exist simultaneously in multiple states.
1. When comparing the experimental vs the theoretical value of the cosmological constant, it was found that there was a discrepancy of 120 orders of magnitude (10^-120). One way to explain this is that if there are many universes, this would explain why there is one with such a discrepancy.
2. There are many solutions to the equations that underlie String Theory....around 10^500. Because there is no unique solution (which is typically a big problem when fitting an equation), it was posited that instead of the theory being under-determined....maybe all of the solutions are a physical reality.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe question was raised as to how our perceived universe, where observations and experience seem to exist in just one place, results from all those possibilities? One possible solution is that of Stephen Hawking's "no boundary" model which posits our universe is just one of infinitely many parallel universes..
Originally posted by Tassman View PostMy point is, as a non physicist, that many eminent physicists of the calibre of Hawing take multiverse theory seriously; it cannot be simply dismissed as irrelevant.
I will stop you right there as I know where you are going to go...evolution is settled and astrophysics is not.
The problem with that is the motivation of the multiverse. One of the main motivations is to explain the fine-tuning problem which is a meta-physical problem. The scientists are uneasy with the constants just being finely tuned for life. All of the current evidence points to a single universe that is fine-tuned for life. But this idea is metaphysically uncomfortable for some so there are other possibilities posited like the multiverse.
What I am not saying is that we should stop looking for evidence to explain astrophysics...what I am saying is that I don't think we should modify the standard way that science is done to fit the multiverse hypothesis in it.Last edited by element771; 04-03-2018, 08:20 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View Post
I am pretty sure that the Hartle-Hawking model is typically used to get away from a specific beginning of the universe. If you take the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum, then I suppose you could imagine that the other probability space of the wave function could be other universes. The problem with this model is that it uses imaginary time. While this is a perfectly legit in terms of mathematical modeling / theory, it isn't clear in the least if imaginary time could actually exist in reality.
I understand that and I am not dismissing the multiverse as irrelevant. I am critical of the fact that you cannot test these theories by definition. This isn't a technology problem or an intellectual problem...the other universes are not accessible to us. So the question then becomes...is that science? IMO, if you let this type of theory in the door as far as not being empirically verifiable, then you cannot justifiably exclude ID or astrology. I know that William Demski could generate an internally consistent mathematical model that would determine evolution isn't possible.
I will stop you right there as I know where you are going to go...evolution is settled and astrophysics is not.
The problem with that is the motivation of the multiverse. One of the main motivations is to explain the fine-tuning problem which is a meta-physical problem. The scientists are uneasy with the constants just being finely tuned for life. All of the current evidence points to a single universe that is fine-tuned for life.But this idea is metaphysically uncomfortable for some so there are other possibilities posited like the multiverse.
What I am not saying is that we should stop looking for evidence to explain astrophysics...what I am saying is that I don't think we should modify the standard way that science is done to fit the multiverse hypothesis in it.Last edited by Tassman; 04-04-2018, 12:02 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Postlife evolved to fit the constants.
The fine tuning argument is not about life evolving or the amount of life being in our universe. It is a problem that pertains the presence of anything in the universe or even that there is a universe that has lasted this long. If you vary the cosmological constant by about 1%, you either blow the universe apart or you collapse in a very small amount of time.
Also, I disagree that the fine tuning problem is a "non-issue" and only a apologetics argument. For example...
Originally posted by Fred HoyleWould you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Also there is this....
https://www.ted.com/talks/harry_clif...end_of_physics
I get that you don't buy the fine tuning argument but it is disingenuous to assert that it is a non-issue.
That would be like me saying that the problem of evil is a non-issue so I don't really see why I need to address it. I would imagine that you would find that a little too convenient.Last edited by element771; 04-04-2018, 08:42 AM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
650 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment