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

Infinity and Kalam

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

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    How would the laws of quantum mechanics exist apart from a mind? They are not physical things. Another universe? Possible - but that would require a scientific justification, since it is material.
    A scientific justification isn't needed for pure speculation.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

      A scientific justification isn't needed for pure speculation.
      You would think that such a theory would be open to a scientific explanation.
      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

        You would think that such a theory would be open to a scientific explanation.
        Perhaps you would...

        Comment


        • Consider a ball in space, naturally, it would evoke the intuition as to the origins of the ball, it's composition, who made it, how, and why. The ball possesses properties. It has mass and shape, color, texture, etc.

          Space on the other hand, the space that we just encountered the ball in, is property-less. It does not evoke any logic or any intuition as to where it came from. One can use an ontological argument as to the origins of things, but not for space.

          Matter has properties, yes. However, I cannot name a property of space. Because it has no properties, it doesn't evoke the same dissonance when I say that it is eternal and self existent and uncreated, as it does when someone says matter is eternal and self existent.



          Comment


          • Ha! I'm not just rambling crazy thoughts! It would appear someone has already written on the subject:

            Abstract
            Since Vacuity and Imaginary Space or Space itself is Nothingness, for the latter is the negation of one condition and the affirmation of another (as was shown in the preceding Chapter), it follows that Vacuity or Imaginary Space or Space itself is one of the two things that exist, either the created or the uncreated. There is no third. The fact that Vacuity or Imaginary Space or Space itself are created from Nothingness is stated by Jacques du Bois, a Leyden churchman who wrote on page 39 of his Dialogus Theologicus Astronomicus (in a passage in which he contradicts Galileo, Philip Lansberg, and others who hold that the sun is in the center of the world and that the earth revolves around it); “He who denies the existence of Vacuity above the distant heavens contradicts the infinity of the Divine Essence; for if the skies of the heavens do not encompass God, as Solomon holds in Kings I, Chapter 8, 27, then there is some Place beyond them wherein this Divine Essence abides which cannot be contained by any boundaries. We usually call this Place, Vacuity, because it contains no body. Accordingly before the creation of the world, God was present everywhere and extended infinitely in that boundless abyss which could not be filled by any finite body like the uppermost Heaven, no matter how great it might be.


            https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...-011-2010-4_43



            It would appear that the assertion that infinite space is uncreated would have theological implications, and not so much physical ones. e.g. If space is eternal and uncreated, then that would diminish the sovereignty of God.

            Although, I don't see how that would impact anything. the doctrine of ex Nihilo would remain intact. God could still create out of nothing the universe even if space was co-eternal with God.

            Space=Nothingness Agree or Disagree?


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
              It would appear that the assertion that infinite space is uncreated would have theological implications, and not so much physical ones. e.g. If space is eternal and uncreated, then that would diminish the sovereignty of God.
              If infinite empty space did exist I'm not sure how that would undermine the sovereignty of God since it wouldn't really be anything. It is nothingness...

              BTW if anyone is interested I did e-mail Vileknin concerning our discussion, and he actually got back to me. He pretty much repeated what we have quoted in this thread.


              Last edited by seer; 11-23-2021, 10:36 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

                If infinite empty space did exist I'm not sure how that would undermine the sovereignty of God since it wouldn't really be anything. It is nothingness...

                Yeah, now that i've thought about it a little more, it really wouldn't undermine sovereignty. It is indeed nothingness. I think I have at least come to a working definition of nothing. Now, how exactly did matter emerge from this nothingness? Or rather, what caused this emergence?


                BTW if anyone is interested I did e-mail Vileknin concerning our discussion, and he actually got back to me. He pretty much repeated what we have quoted in this thread.

                Wow, you actually communicated with this guy?!





                Comment


                • Originally posted by Machinist View Post


                  BTW if anyone is interested I did e-mail Vileknin concerning our discussion, and he actually got back to me. He pretty much repeated what we have quoted in this thread.

                  Wow, you actually communicated with this guy?!
                  Yes...

                  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

                    How would the laws of quantum mechanics exist apart from a mind? They are not physical things. Another universe? Possible - but that would require a scientific justification, since it is material.
                    The scientific justification is that Quantum Mechanics and the Quantum Vacuum like all of nature follow a consistent predictable behavior, patterns and nature confirmed by Methodological Naturalism without contradictions following consistent Natural Laws and process. As 'Vilenkkin concluded science has an adequate explanation for the origins and nature of our physical existence There is absolutely no evidence of a 'cause' beyond the consistent predictability based on Natural Laws. It is possible that Natural Laws and our physical existence is eternal and infinity, and it is possible that they are temporal and finite. There is no 'objective verifiable evidence\ to make an objective determination either way.. 'Arguing from Ignorance' one way or another is not an honest argument.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post

                      You would think that such a theory would be open to a scientific explanation.
                      Not possible unless there is 'objective verifiable evidence' for the existence of a 'mind' beyond our physical existence. Science would be open IF there was 'objective verifiable evidence ' to support this 'subjective' theological claim.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                        The scientific justification is that Quantum Mechanics and the Quantum Vacuum like all of nature follow a consistent predictable behavior, patterns and nature confirmed by Methodological Naturalism without contradictions following consistent Natural Laws and process. As 'Vilenkkin concluded science has an adequate explanation for the origins and nature of our physical existence There is absolutely no evidence of a 'cause' beyond the consistent predictability based on Natural Laws. It is possible that Natural Laws and our physical existence is eternal and infinity, and it is possible that they are temporal and finite. There is no 'objective verifiable evidence\ to make an objective determination either way.. 'Arguing from Ignorance' one way or another is not an honest argument.
                        No Vilenkkin, says 1. we may never know what caused the universe, so no we don't have an adequate explanation. And 2. his model (not the inflationary model) has the universe coming into being WITHOUT A CAUSE. And again, if you think that matter and energy are past eternal it is on you to show it, I can't prove that negative any more than I could prove that unicorns don't exist. What we actually DO know is that this universe is finite.
                        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 shunyadragon View Post

                          Not possible unless there is 'objective verifiable evidence' for the existence of a 'mind' beyond our physical existence. Science would be open IF there was 'objective verifiable evidence ' to support this 'subjective' theological claim.
                          You act like science is the only way to discover truisms...Your religion teaches that God created this universe and it reflects His attributes. That is either fact or it is not - no matter what science says...
                          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

                            You act like science is the only way to discover truisms...
                            No, science cannot discover truisms(?), whatever they are. Science can only falsify theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable physical evidence.

                            Your religion teaches that God created this universe and it reflects His attributes. That is either fact or it is not - no matter what science says...
                            True, but you asked about science, and not my beliefs.

                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                              No, science cannot discover truisms(?), whatever they are. Science can only falsify theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable physical evidence.



                              True, but you asked about science, and not my beliefs.
                              But your beliefs, if true, are no less factual as anything science comes up....
                              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 Vilenkkin, says 1. we may never know what caused the universe, so no we don't have an adequate explanation. And 2. his model (not the inflationary model) has the universe coming into being WITHOUT A CAUSE. And again, if you think that matter and energy are past eternal it is on you to show it, I can't prove that negative any more than I could prove that unicorns don't exist. What we actually DO know is that this universe is finite.
                                I was not referring to my beliefs nor unicorns, I referred to what Vilenkin believed as he stated in the following: Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause.

                                No, posting again Vilenkins own words:

                                From Vilenkin
                                ;
                                Source: [URL="https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe"

                                https://inference-review.com/article...f-the-universe[/URL]]


                                The Beginning of the Universe

                                Alexander Vilenkin

                                God’s Proof


                                THEOLOGIANS have welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe as evidence for the existence of God. “As to the first cause of the universe,” wrote the British astrophysicist Edward Milne, “this is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him.”13 Some scientists feared that a cosmic beginning could not be described in scientific terms. “To deny the infinite duration of time,” asserted the Walter Nernst, “would be to betray the very foundations of science.”14

                                Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger have argued that modern science leaves no room for the existence of God. A series of science–religion debates has been staged, with atheists like Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Krauss debating theists like William Lane Craig.15 Both sides have appealed to the BGV theorem, both sides appealing to me—of all people!—for a better understanding.

                                The cosmological argument for the existence of God consists of two parts. The first is straightforward:

                                • everything that begins to exist has a cause;
                                • the universe began to exist;
                                • therefore, the universe has a cause.16

                                The second part affirms that the cause must be God.

                                I would now like to take issue with the first part of the argument. Modern physics can describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require a cause.

                                Nothing can be created from nothing, says Lucretius, if only because the conservation of energy makes it impossible to create nothing from nothing. For any isolated system, energy is proportional to mass and must be positive. Any initial state, prior to the creation of the system, must have the same energy as the state after its creation.

                                There is a loophole in this reasoning. The energy of the gravitational field is negative;17 it is conceivable that this negative energy could compensate for the positive energy of matter, making the total energy of the cosmos equal to zero. In fact, this is precisely what happens in a closed universe, in which the space closes on itself, like the surface of a sphere. It follows from the laws of general relativity that the total energy of such a universe is necessarily equal to zero. Another conserved quantity is the electric charge, and once again it turns out that the total charge must vanish in a closed universe.

                                I will illustrate these statements for the case of an electric charge, using a two-dimensional analogy. Imagine a two-dimensional closed universe, which we can picture as a surface of a globe. Suppose we place a positive charge at the north pole of this universe. Then the lines of the electrical field emanating from the charge will wrap around the sphere and converge at the south pole. This means that a negative charge of equal magnitude should be present there. Thus, we cannot add a positive charge to a closed universe without adding an equal negative charge at the same time. The total charge of a closed universe must therefore be equal to zero.

                                If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. And according to quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability.18

                                A newly-born universe can have a variety of different shapes and sizes and can be filled with different kinds of matter. As is usual in quantum theory, we cannot tell which of these possibilities is actually realized, but we can calculate their probabilities. This suggests that there could be a multitude of other universes.

                                Quantum creation is similar to quantum tunneling through energy barriers in quantum mechanics. An elegant mathematical description of this process can be given in terms of a Wick rotation. Time is expressed using imaginary numbers, introduced only for computational convenience. The distinction between the dimensions of time and space disappears. This description is very useful, since it provides a convenient way to determine tunneling probabilities. The most probable universes are the ones with the smallest initial size and the highest vacuum energy. Once a universe is formed, it immediately starts expanding due to the high energy of the vacuum.

                                This provides a beginning for the story of eternal inflation.

                                One might imagine that closed universes are popping out of nothing like bubbles in a glass of champagne, but this analogy would not be quite accurate. Bubbles pop out in liquid, but in the case of universes, there is no space out of which they might pop. A nucleated closed universe is all the space there is, aside from the disconnected spaces of other closed universes. Beyond it, there is no space, and no time.

                                What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time, say, a minute. There is no reason why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not another. The process is completely random. No cause is needed for the quantum creation of the universe.

                                The theory of quantum creation is no more than a speculative hypothesis. It is unclear how, or whether, it can be tested observationally. It is nonetheless the first attempt to formulate the problem of cosmic origin and to address it in a quantitative way.19

                                An Unaddressable Mystery


                                THE ANSWER to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.

                                When physicists or theologians ask me about the BGV theorem, I am happy to oblige. But my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God. A deep mystery remains. The laws of physics that describe the quantum creation of the universe also describe its evolution. This seems to suggest that they have some independent existence.

                                What exactly this means, we don’t know.

                                And why are these laws the ones we have? Why not other laws?


                                We have no way to begin to address this mystery.

                                © Copyright Original Source





                                Note: Vilenkin's reference to 'nothing' refers to 'Quantum nothing' and not the Theological philosophical 'absolute nothing.' Vilenkin refers to the beginning of the universe in terms of Quantum Mechanics..

                                Conclusion, you cannot use science to justify the Theological claim of a physical existence beginning from absolute nothing.


                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, 12-20-2021, 01:00 PM
                                11 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Seeker, 08-02-2021, 01:25 AM
                                23 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Started by Machinist, 07-11-2021, 08:10 AM
                                240 responses
                                1,107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Started by mattbballman31, 08-26-2020, 11:42 AM
                                411 responses
                                2,634 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X