An infinite series of finite causes.

[element771]

Well thats just my laymans way of explaining what I believe these physicists are defining as the nothingness outside of our spacetime. Vilenkin describes the universe as coming from nothing as well, but the way that it comes from this nothing is through a process of tunneling. So, if he means absolute nothingness, then what is doing the tunneling, and what is it tunneling through?

First, I would like to apologize for my previous nastiness. There is no justification for it and I would like to say that I am sorry.

Sure and my criticism of the term isn't aimed at you as I agree with you that this is what is being said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s

He goes into that in the last minute or so.

He assumes that the laws exist in a Platonic sense.

Why these laws? Who gives the laws? is how is ends.

[seer]

He could if he considered the quantum vacuum to be no-thing. You can't see it, feel it or taste it, but there is energy in every inch of space and if nothing else existed but that its what we'd call the quantum vacuum, or nothingness. If a universe arose in that and from that vacuum, then we'd say it came from nothing. I'm not positive that that is what Hawking and others are implying, but I am assuming that be the case. The fact that there is something rather than nothing is a clue to the realization that there is no such thing as nothing, absolute nothing.

No Jim, then the universe did not CREATE ITSELF, it sprung from a vacuum, literally the vacuum created it.

[Tassman]

That isn't what I am saying. Producing the universe is not the issue here...it is producing the universe with the right constants. Those are very different things. You are also committing the inverse gamblers fallacy fallacy. The probability doesn't go to 1 just because something happened.

Also, both the lottery and the constants of the universe are modeled as probability functions.

are just the way they are, there is no reason to assume they were designed.

Not sure I follow. Harry Cliff's position is that he wants to determine why the Higgs boson field and cosmological constant are what they are. Why are they so fine tuned to produce stuff? This is a question and not a position.

The Higgs boson field and cosmological constant are not

I have not payed attention to WLC on this issue. If he said something that is similar to what I am saying, it could just be that we have the same way of thinking. If this is the case, it doesn't mean that I lifted anything off WLC or am inspired by his arguments.

WL Craig has misappropriated Harry Cliff's position to make an argument for fine tuning and quoting Cliff as his authority, as I think you are doing. Am I wrong?

We are human...there are always motives. Bernard Roizman refused to accept how Herpes viruses egress out of the nucleus despite overwhelming evidence. Why? Because it was the one thing he was wrong about concerning the viral lifecycle. Also the dude in the TED talk laid out a motivation...to figure out the fine tuning problem. I referenced the motivations to illustrate that this isn't an "non-issue".

not

If the science leads us to a place that science can no longer reach...we have to accept that.

No we don't. I do not accept that there is a place that science cannot potentially reach.

That isn't a reason to reject anyones views simply because there is a danger. Like I said, it could be simply that that is the way things are and there is no reason.

Yes! The universe and our place in it are simply the way things are, I know of no good reason to think otherwise.

Every scientific finding can degenerate into a god of the gaps argument.

Sure and I generally agree. But if the multiverse theory says that we cannot communicate with other universes, would not that be "beyond the reach of science"? It has nothing to do with the supernatural, it is just a matter of that we reached the limit of what can be measured or observed.

He laments that this would be the end of a branch of cosmology as indicated in the TED talk.

It isn't in the least scientific as science uses methodological naturalism as you well know.

Yes!

But hasn't been debunked and it is taken seriously. That is why it isn't a fallacy from my point of view.

The notion of a fine-tuned universe is not disputed as such, merely that that it was consciously designed. This is only taken seriously by theists AFAIK.

This is riddled with errors concerning the state of physics. I laid out all of the "hints" in this thread. If that is why they are going where they are going...they are on incredibly shaking ground. Check out this article on String Theory...

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5358

Also, if fine tuning isn't an issue...why does your quote suggest otherwise.

[Tassman]

What did Hawking mean by nothing? If the universe did CREATE ITSELF as he claimed, and that the only requirement was the LAW of gravity then that sounds like a real nothing. He did not say that it was created from a pre-existing something, if that was the case he could not have claimed that the universe created itself.

It was you who quoted Hawking, what do YOU think he meant by "nothing"?

[seer]

It was you who quoted Hawking, what do YOU think he meant by "nothing"?

I only quoted Hawking because you first did, that he was a supporter of the multiverse, a position he moved away from as his last book made clear. And what did he mean by nothing, in the context of the quote it was actually nothing - except the law of gravity.

[element771]

WL Craig has misappropriated Harry Cliff's position to make an argument for fine tuning and quoting Cliff as his authority, as I think you are doing. Am I wrong?

How did he do this? Simply referring to it is not misappropriating it. It seems that you have a big problem with WLC referring to science and scientific premises. I believe that you have accused him of misappropriating science before. Taking scientific findings and using them in arguments is not misappropriation. Science is philosophically neutral. It is perfectly acceptable for a theist to use a scientific fact to underscore their point just like it is perfectly acceptable for an atheist to underscore his.

Sure but that doesn't mean that it isn't a fact that there may be certain questions that science cannot answer. If it is true that we cannot observe another universe, we can't assume that isn't true just because someone could possibly use it as a god of the gaps argument.

Right but if the multiverse cannot be observed by definition, that could be beyond the reach of science.

Ok...this is really the crux of the argument and I think I see the issue. Of course the argument that the universe was consciously designed is only taken seriously be theists...if other people took it seriously, why would they remain atheists. It seems like you are saying that the question of fine tuning isn't valid because theist's assert that it is consciously designed. This in no way invalidates the question...you just don't agree with the theist's answer. Again, as an atheist you could just as easily say that it is fine tuned but weird stuff happens. This is a valid answer to the question.

[JimL]

I only quoted Hawking because you first did, that he was a supporter of the multiverse, a position he moved away from as his last book made clear. And what did he mean by nothing, in the context of the quote it was actually nothing - except the law of gravity.

If there is nothing seer, then a law of gravity is of no more use than gravity itself would be, so it is highly unlikely that Vilenkin means what you think he means by the term nothing. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

[JimL]

First, I would like to apologize for my previous nastiness. There is no justification for it and I would like to say that I am sorry.

Thats Okay, we all lose it sometimes, just ask my opponents, but, to be honest, I didn't even recognize it, so it couldn't have been so bad.

Sure and my criticism of the term isn't aimed at you as I agree with you that this is what is being said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s

He goes into that in the last minute or so.

He assumes that the laws exist in a Platonic sense.

Why these laws? Who gives the laws? is how is ends.

I agree that at times Vilenkin does suggest that the physical laws have a sort of platonic existence of their own, but that could be because he thinks that the laws are more than discriptive of nature, that they are actually the cause of the way nature works, and I say that because the process that he describes also needs something real to exist in order for those platonic physical laws to act upon. I don't totally understand the tunnelling process, but common sense tells me that even if the physical laws have a sort of platonic existence of their own, it isn't the platonic laws themselves that are the tunnel, or that are doing the tunnelling.

[element771]

Thats Okay, we all lose it sometimes, just ask my opponents, but, to be honest, I didn't even recognize it, so it couldn't have been so bad.

It was in another thread but thanks for accepting.

I agree that at times Vilenkin does suggest that the physical laws have a sort of platonic existence of their own, but that could be because he thinks that the laws are more than discriptive of nature, that they are actually the cause of the way nature works, and I say that because the process that he describes also needs something real to exist in order for those platonic physical laws to act upon. I don't totally understand the tunnelling process, but common sense tells me that even if the physical laws have a sort of platonic existence of their own, it isn't the platonic laws themselves that are the tunnel, or that are doing the tunnelling.

Yeah I found that odd as well as far as the quasi platonic suggestion for the physical laws.

[seer]

If there is nothing seer, then a law of gravity is of no more use than gravity itself would be, so it is highly unlikely that Vilenkin means what you think he means by the term nothing. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

Well I was speaking of Hawking, who said the universe created itself, And Vilenkin has been quite clear...

In quantum physics, events do not necessarily have a cause, just some probability.

.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

[Tassman]

How did he do this? Simply referring to it is not misappropriating it. It seems that you have a big problem with WLC referring to science and scientific premises. I believe that you have accused him of misappropriating science before. Taking scientific findings and using them in arguments is not misappropriation. Science is philosophically neutral. It is perfectly acceptable for a theist to use a scientific fact to underscore their point just like it is perfectly acceptable for an atheist to underscore his.

Science is not

Sure but that doesn't mean that it isn't a fact that there may be certain questions that science cannot answer. If it is true that we cannot observe another universe, we can't assume that isn't true just because someone could possibly use it as a god of the gaps argument.

Right but if the multiverse cannot be observed by definition, that could be beyond the reach of science.

Ok...this is really the crux of the argument and I think I see the issue. Of course the argument that the universe was consciously designed is only taken seriously be theists...if other people took it seriously, why would they remain atheists. It seems like you are saying that the question of fine tuning isn't valid because theist's assert that it is consciously designed. This in no way invalidates the question...you just don't agree with the theist's answer. Again, as an atheist you could just as easily say that it is fine tuned but weird stuff happens. This is a valid answer to the question.

[Tassman]

I only quoted Hawking because you first did, that he was a supporter of the multiverse, a position he moved away from as his last book made clear. And what did he mean by nothing, in the context of the quote it was actually nothing - except the law of gravity.

https://www.livescience.com/62073-st...se-theory.html

[seer]

That if the universe created itself, it was not therefore created from a previous multiverse or some quantum vacuum.

https://www.livescience.com/62073-st...se-theory.html

Right as a good atheist he did want to give it up, but as your own link stated it was pure speculation based on assumption. And has your link made clear it has a fundamental flaw:

Because there would be an infinite number of universes, no one would be able to make any testable predictions about the particular universe we happen to live in, Hertog told Live Science in an email. (With an infinite number of possibilities, anything becomes possible, and no particulars about a universe could be determined.)

In other words it is not testable, so it is not science.

[JimL]

Well I was speaking of Hawking, who said the universe created itself, And Vilenkin has been quite clear...



http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Yes, i understand what Vilenkin is saying seer, but to be honest, he doesn't sound very confident himself when trying to explain it, and he also doesn't make sense in the whole because his idea is twofold and contradicts itself which is something he never explains. A tunneling process requires an existing something besides the physical laws that supposedly cause it.

[seer]

Yes, i understand what Vilenkin is saying seer, but to be honest, he doesn't sound very confident himself when trying to explain it, and he also doesn't make sense in the whole because his idea is twofold and contradicts itself which is something he never explains. A tunneling process requires an existing something besides the physical laws that supposedly cause it.

But he is not speaking of tunneling, and yes not very confident because nobody really has a clue on how or why this universe came into being.