A letter to a friend

[quantum_wave]

See the references on the wiki for zero-energy universe. Krauss, Guth, Hawking, etc., including a link to a paper. Even multiverse theories do not necessitate an eternal universe. All of our known physics can only lend credence to ex nihilo, without a god, but feel free to provide any peer reviewed paper that supports an eternal universe. Eternal universe schemes are usually nothing more that infinite regressions, where any initial cause is only avoided rather than explained away.

Everything else rests on the veracity of your initial assumption. If that is erroneous, so is everything which follows.

I've seen all of that and I am still not aware of a peer reviewed paper whose premise is "something from nothing", but I agree with your statement about multi-verse theories not necessitating an infinite past. You are safe saying that "all of our known physics can only lend credence to ex nihilo", but science and God are two different slices of the same big mysterious pie, lol.

As for everything resting on the veracity of initial assumptions, that is true in a discussion where people are arguing their premises with each other by offering evidence and philosophy, but when discussing a persons view of God, it seems to boil down to faith. Faith is the personal element that is based on the sum of what you have learned in life and indicates a conscious effort to have chosen what you believe in. I give credit in terms of respect for that act of choosing, as long as your choice does not cause careless harm to others; you can exercise your free will any way you want as far as I'm concerned.

And the concept of Eternal Intent is derived from my layman views of physics and cosmology which have a starting point in the choice of one of three major explanations for the presence of the universe: God did it, something from nothing, or there was no beginning. I have made a personal choice based on my own individual learning and contemplating, and of course my philosophy reflects my personal beliefs.

 

[Syne]

I've seen all of that and I am still not aware of a peer reviewed paper whose premise is "something from nothing", but I agree with your statement about multi-verse theories not necessitating an infinite past. You are safe saying that "all of our known physics can only lend credence to ex nihilo", but science and God are two different slices of the same big mysterious pie, lol.

As for everything resting on the veracity of initial assumptions, that is true in a discussion where people are arguing their premises with each other by offering evidence and philosophy, but when discussing a persons view of God, it seems to boil down to faith. Faith is the personal element that is based on the sum of what you have learned in life and indicates a conscious effort to have chosen what you believe in. I give credit in terms of respect for that act of choosing, as long as your choice does not cause careless harm to others; you can exercise your free will any way you want as far as I'm concerned.

And the concept of Eternal Intent is derived from my layman views of physics and cosmology which have a starting point in the choice of one of three major explanations for the presence of the universe: God did it, something from nothing, or there was no beginning. I have made a personal choice based on my own individual learning and contemplating, and of course my philosophy reflects my personal beliefs.

Yes, I figured engaging you would be entirely pointless. If you elevate belief and a god to equivalent veracity as science then you do not demonstrate the discernment to have properly evaluated your initial assumption. No one can argue your beliefs if they have no bearing on any objective reality. I only pointed out which option the science tends to support. It is your choice whether you wish to dismiss that.

 

[Neverfly]

Yes, I figured engaging you would be entirely pointless. If you elevate belief and a god to equivalent veracity as science then you do not demonstrate the discernment to have properly evaluated your initial assumption. No one can argue your beliefs if they have no bearing on any objective reality. I only pointed out which option the science tends to support. It is your choice whether you wish to dismiss that.

Uh huh. So, now you see where Q_W was citing the "Something from nothingness" example as to why he doesn't accept the scientific view and why I said the things I said.

 

[Syne]

Uh huh. So, now you see where Q_W was citing the "Something from nothingness" example as to why he doesn't accept the scientific view and why I said the things I said.

If you wish to accept belief as refute of scientific evidence then you are more than welcome to the bliss of ignorance, but you have no objective grounds to refute what I have said. Or are you now claiming to have evidence of a god?

 

[quantum_wave]

Yes, I figured engaging you would be entirely pointless. If you elevate belief and a god to equivalent veracity as science then you do not demonstrate the discernment to have properly evaluated your initial assumption. No one can argue your beliefs if they have no bearing on any objective reality. I only pointed out which option the science tends to support. It is your choice whether you wish to dismiss that.

I can see how you would have figured that out before you engaged me. It would be predictable to you because you would have already known that you would not be open to any one's thinking that did not disdain everyone who has a concept of God that helps shape their personal values. You may as well give up on engaging me, because now I have figured out that neither of us are going to be swayed from our personal convictions by simply discussing them unless previously unconsidered thoughts are offered.

 

[Syne]

I can see how you would have figured that out before you engaged me. It would be predictable to you because you would have already known that you would not be open to any one's thinking that did not disdain everyone who has a concept of God that helps shape their personal values. You may as well give up on engaging me, because now I have figured out that neither of us are going to be swayed from our personal convictions by simply discussing them unless previously unconsidered thoughts are offered.

Where did you get the notion that I "disdain" anyone's concept of a god? What you do not get is that the only mediator of "personal convictions" is objective fact. If you do not wish to align your personal beliefs with objective fact, that is your prerogative. You may not see how something from nothing can include a god, but creation ex nihilo is a widely used religious apologetic (which I assume is what Neverfly is really objecting to). Again, it seems your evaluation of the subject in general is sorely lacking. Alas.

 

[quantum_wave]

Where did you get the notion that I "disdain" anyone's concept of a god?

Do you deny it?

What you do not get is that the only mediator of "personal convictions" is objective fact.

This is false, Ayn, I mean Syne.

If you do not wish to align your personal beliefs with objective fact, that is your prerogative.

Thank you, but I align my personal beliefs with my own philosophy of apparent reality.

You may not see how something from nothing can include a god, but creation ex nihilo is a widely used religious apologetic (which I assume is what Neverfly is really objecting to).

What do you mean by "a widely used religious apologetic"? Give me an example.

Again, it seems your evaluation of the subject in general is sorely lacking. Alas.

Only from a perspective of someone that has absolute insistence of being in possession of the truth.

 

[Neverfly]

If you wish to accept belief as refute of scientific evidence then you are more than welcome to the bliss of ignorance, but you have no objective grounds to refute what I have said. Or are you now claiming to have evidence of a god?

Well, since I'm a well known atheist, that had been pointing out the fallacy of the "Something from Nothing" claims Q_W was making, considering that I pointed out that science has not ever claimed that something came from nothing, not in evolution nor in the BBT, that concluded that Q_W's claims of an eternal Universe is based on a fallacy...

I have no idea how all of this went over your head, Syne. You jumped to an unfounded conclusion and I'm at a loss as to how you took the exact opposite meaning from my words when I was quite clear, I thought.

 

[quantum_wave]

Well, since I'm a well known atheist, that had been pointing out the fallacy of the "Something from Nothing" claims Q_W was making, considering that I pointed out that science has not ever claimed that something came from nothing, not in evolution nor in the BBT, that concluded that Q_W's claims of an eternal Universe is based on a fallacy...

Why is it that I am now supposedly advocating the fallacy of "something from nothing"? Are you saying that I am advocating "something from nothing", or that I am saying "something from nothing" is a fallacy?

I'll answer that for you. I am not advocating something from nothing. I am not advocating that it is a fallacy to say that something came from nothing. In response to what I thought were accusations that I had omitted "something from nothing" from the possibilities in a poem I wrote over forty years ago, I am saying that logic tells me there are three major explanations for the presence of the universe: God did it, something from nothing, or the universe has always existed. As I pointed out, I made a choice between those three explanations that I believe it is the third one, the universe has always existed.

I also pointed out that I had never seen a paper whose premise was "something from nothing", and I asked for a link. I did not get a link, and there was no reference to a scientific premise that something comes from nothing in the material I was told to look at.

Now if you are saying that it is a fallacy to believe that the universe has always existed, which of the three major explanations for the existence of the universe is not a fallacy? Which of the three would you choose? Would you choose?

 

[Neverfly]

logic tells me there are three major explanations for the presence of the universe: God did it, something from nothing, or the universe has always existed.

You dismiss BBT and choose a faith in "Eternal Universe", based on the premise that if those three options above are the only options available and we already know that BBT is an option available- you are claiming that BBT is "something from nothing" if even only by omission. You then dismiss that and move onto either God did it or it always existed.
Oh, and by the way, you failed to use logic at all.

This rejection of BBT is apparent and cannot be ignored simply because you wish to post in denial.

 

[quantum_wave]

You dismiss BBT and choose a faith in "Eternal Universe", based on the premise that if those three options above are the only options available and we already know that BBT is an option available- you are claiming that BBT is "something from nothing" if even only by omission. You then dismiss that and move onto either God did it or it always existed.
Oh, and by the way, you failed to use logic at all.

This rejection of BBT is apparent and cannot be ignored simply because you wish to post in denial.

BBT does not take a position on an explanation for the presence of the universe.

 

[Syne]

Do you deny it?

This is false, Ayn, I mean Syne.

Thank you, but I align my personal beliefs with my own philosophy of apparent reality.

What do you mean by "a widely used religious apologetic"? Give me an example.

Only from a perspective of someone that has absolute insistence of being in possession of the truth.

Yes, I do.

The objective is the only mediator between the variously subjective. You cannot argue that with logic, so you must be employing something else altogether.

Most Christians believe that an eternal god created everything out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as opposed to creating from some preexisting material (creatio ex materia) or of the god's own substance (creatio ex deo), whatever that may be.

I am not speaking of "truths", only observable and verifiable facts.

I also pointed out that I had never seen a paper whose premise was "something from nothing", and I asked for a link. I did not get a link, and there was no reference to a scientific premise that something comes from nothing in the material I was told to look at.

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

Well, since I'm a well known atheist, that had been pointing out the fallacy of the "Something from Nothing" claims Q_W was making, considering that I pointed out that science has not ever claimed that something came from nothing, not in evolution nor in the BBT, that concluded that Q_W's claims of an eternal Universe is based on a fallacy...

I have no idea how all of this went over your head, Syne. You jumped to an unfounded conclusion and I'm at a loss as to how you took the exact opposite meaning from my words when I was quite clear, I thought.

Even QW has trouble deciphering what you are saying. Again, you are touting the BBT, and now evolution as well, when neither of these come anywhere near addressing cosmogony or cosmological initial conditions. You seem to have somehow conflated ex nihilo with an eternal universe, which explains why you are not coming across with any coherent posts.

Yeah, ok. Whatever all that jibber jabber was, I gathered you are not saying that BBT shows "Something from Nothing." In which case, all your commentary to me is essentially your attitude out of control- got it.

The BBT is not the entirety of science, and every time you mention it as if it somehow addresses this issue, you merely look foolish. And this little bit about attitude is nothing more than projection. You are the one who made up this straw man about the BBT having anything to say on the matter.

 

[Syne]

BBT does not take a position on an explanation for the presence of the universe.

Maybe with both of us telling him that, it will finally sink in.

 

[quantum_wave]

Yes, I do.

OK, sorry.

The objective is the only mediator between the variously subjective. You cannot argue that with logic, so you must be employing something else altogether.

Maybe so. I am attributing "objective reality" to what our senses perceive. I am attributing "apparent reality" to the same sensory data but going further to recognize our lack of ability to observe all things, leaving much of the invariant natural law of the universe as yet unknown.

Most Christians believe that an eternal god created everything out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as opposed to creating from some preexisting material (creatio ex materia) or of the god's own substance (creatio ex deo), whatever that may be.

Oh, got it. I see what you mean.

I am not speaking of "truths", only observable and verifiable facts.

Good, sorry for suspecting otherwise. I am speaking of observable and verifiable facts as known science, leaving many aspects of natural law still unknown.

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

Well good, thank you for that link. It doesn't seem to address the definition of nothingness except to say it is nothing. I would hope that it would emphasize the description a little more to stress how far from objective reality nothingness is, especially since it goes on to use the example of particles and anti-particles being generated in a constant field. Field of course is not nothinness, so the expample is not a good analogy, in my opinion. I started a thread in the Physics and Math forum to see if I can get some input from people who are use to reading those kind of papers.

 

[Neverfly]

BBT does not take a position on an explanation for the presence of the universe.

Agreed.
So, you're saying that you're only referring to the trillionth of a second before? The actual origin? Is that supposed to be something from nothing?

 

[quantum_wave]

Agreed.
So, you're saying that you're only referring to the trillionth of a second before?

No, I'm not saying that, because you are still invoking BBT when you use that "trillionth of a second" as the first instant of time that is not accounted for by BBT. When searching for possible explanations for the existence of the universe I have not relied on any science, just philosophy. Science does not have the answer.

The actual origin? Is that supposed to be something from nothing?

I the context of the thread, the actual origin is still a mystery. All of the science we have deals with either observables and data giving us what I refer to as known science that reveals the invariant natural laws of the universe we have been able to quantify, or theory and hypothesis that deals with either explanations of the observations and data that we don't yet understand, or deals with theoretical/hypothetical explanations and mathematical equations that in layman terms can almost be thought of as "what ifs".

"Something from nothing" is one of the three major philosophical explanations for the existence of the universe, but it is not something that I endorse. Any personal choice between the three major explanations is subject to the same lack of science because we just don't have any evidence that supports any of the three possibilities.

Syne is a pragmatist when refering to objective reality; what you see is what you get. I'm extending that concept to say there are aspects of the universe that we get that we can't see but that are apparent, at least to me. Science does not have the equations to explain consciousness or thought for example, so I refer to those among the as yet unknown natural laws, and I consider that to be the realm in which common ground between science and religion still exists.

I am not invoking the Supernatural when I say that because, to me, anything thought to be Supernatural has natural invariant causes that we don't yet understand.

 

[Neverfly]

Chopped and formed, sorry Q-W

Syne is a pragmatist when refering to objective reality; what you see is what you get.

As am I, which may be why I'm not grasping your topic here.

I'm extending that concept to say there are aspects of the universe that we get that we can't see but that are apparent, at least to me. Science does not have the equations to explain consciousness or thought for example, so I refer to those among the as yet unknown natural laws, and I consider that to be the realm in which common ground between science and religion still exists.

That we currently lack equations to describe thought or consciousness, this is not 'beyond science.' Rather, the complexity of it, like fluid mechanics, is great enough that such equations are currently undeliverable. Consider flight: Prior to experimental flights, we knew that we could build a machine to fly, though we lacked the equations to engineer the machine.
Referring to them as unknown natural laws makes sense. So from this point- are we on the same page?
Now that said, this doesn't mean that religion or science share a common ground at all. Consider God: We lack equations to prove that God exists, to describe God, etc. This does not mean that God exists and we currently lack the equations to describe him. We lack the "equations" for Unicorns or fairies, too. Invented concepts are pretty different from real concepts. So, in science, we come up with a hypothesis and then we must test that hypothesis. If the Unicorn is one hypothesis and fluid mechanics the other- testing each will demonstrate one as fiction and one as more likely reality. We then try to model the reality with a theory (All this I'm sure you know, but since we haven't conversed in a very long while, I'm making sure you know where I stand).

I am not invoking the Supernatural when I say that because, to me, anything thought to be Supernatural has natural invariant causes that we don't yet understand.

Ok, I understand and agree.

No, I'm not saying that, because you are still invoking BBT when you use that "trillionth of a second" as the first instant of time that is not accounted for by BBT. When searching for possible explanations for the existence of the universe I have not relied on any science, just philosophy. Science does not have the answer.
In the context of the thread, the actual origin is still a mystery. All of the science we have deals with either observables and data giving us what I refer to as known science that reveals the invariant natural laws of the universe we have been able to quantify, or theory and hypothesis that deals with either explanations of the observations and data that we don't yet understand, or deals with theoretical/hypothetical explanations and mathematical equations that in layman terms can almost be thought of as "what ifs".

Ok, I think I'm following you now. I think. At least, I think I see where the disconnect is.
As stated above, since I cannot 'fathom' an actual origin of the Universe pre-BBT, I don't bother. I stick to what is mathematically probable.
I cannot differentiate between theory and your philosophy. In which case, I'd be better off staying out of your thread.

"Something from nothing" is one of the three major philosophical explanations for the existence of the universe, but it is not something that I endorse. Any personal choice between the three major explanations is subject to the same lack of science because we just don't have any evidence that supports any of the three possibilities.

Ok, this brings us back to Eternal Intent.

Your approach is one purely of Philosophy? In which case, does this mean ignoring scientific theory? Because (I may have totally misunderstood your description of Eternal Intent) your concept implies an infinite Universe with Infinite Possibility.
Three Major Desciptions:
Something from nothing- rejected
God did it - rejected
Has always been there- accepted as eternal intent (Contradicts theory)

 

[quantum_wave]

Good post in that it acknowledges what I am saying pretty clearly. Your post comes to the bottom line that you object to my reference to "the realm of as yet unknown natural laws as being the realm in which common ground between science and religion still exists".

That statement displays an open mind that I maintain in order to not exclude any conscious, contemplative life forms from the picture of Eternal Intent. Just because individuals of our particular intelligent life form are not all on the same page in how we philosophize about a reality that we have no evidence to support, my philosophy is that none of us know the real explanation for the existence of the universe.

Your reference to unknown natural laws not meaning that God exists:

Referring to them as unknown natural laws makes sense. So from this point- are we on the same page?

Yes.

Now that said, this doesn't mean that religion or science share a common ground at all. Consider God: We lack equations to prove that God exists, to describe God, etc. This does not mean that God exists and we currently lack the equations to describe him.

True, and in fact you acknowledged my statement that anything Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand, and we agree.

Your reference to fantasy:

We lack the "equations" for Unicorns or fairies, too. Invented concepts are pretty different from real concepts. So, in science, we come up with a hypothesis and then we must test that hypothesis. If the Unicorn is one hypothesis and fluid mechanics the other- testing each will demonstrate one as fiction and one as more likely reality. We then try to model the reality with a theory (All this I'm sure you know, but since we haven't conversed in a very long while, I'm making sure you know where I stand).

It is true that fantasy figures are not real concepts and the scientific method does not accept fantasy or the Supernatural, and science does not waste time unless there is a path for investigation in accord with the scientific method.

I'm not doing science though when I expound on my philosophy (or my layman views of physics and cosmology for that matter). My philosophy is derived from a personal bottom up construction of a layman's view of the universe (I built that myself), using non-scientific methodology based on what I personally find reasonable and responsible (because I'm not a professional who is claiming to be applying the scientific method when I go beyond where science has taken us so far). I go beyond science to a place where I can say I have made personal decisions on answers to the mysteries of the universe. Having a bottom up cosmology that I built myself lets me claim that everything I include in it is internally consistent and not inconsistent with known science. It is not science, it is not remarkable, it is just what I think.

The reference to "known science" is where my cosmology leaves off and my philosophy begins. But you won't find The Supernatural anywhere accept as I have depicted God in my little poem from the 60's: "If at first there was nothing, not even God, then nothing could ever be (Syne's objection to me leaving out the possibility of "something from nothing" acknowledged). But just look around at the many fine things as far as the eye can see. I say with certainty one of two things it seems to make sense to proclaim; God or the universe has always been here, and maybe they're one and the same."

The phrase, "maybe they're one and the same" does not say that the Supernatural exists and my subsequent statement that, "anything Supernatural has natural causes" cannot legitimately be construed to mean that the Supernatural or the Unicorn occupy the realm of the "as yet unknown natural laws", and in fact I mean to imply that the Supernatural and Unicorns will not be found to be exceptions to natural law.

 

[Neverfly]

I'm not doing science though when I expound on my philosophy (or my layman views of physics and cosmology for that matter).

Which probably means I'm best to stay out of it-- but there is one bit of confusion you didn't really address... Does Eternal Intent demonstrate and infinite Universe that always existed and always will exist?

 

[quantum_wave]

Which probably means I'm best to stay out of it-- but there is one bit of confusion you didn't really address... Does Eternal Intent demonstrate and infinite Universe that always existed and always will exist?

Staying out of it would deprive the rest of us ... of something maybe we don't quite understand, like the as yet unknown, . But to address the confusion you point out that I didn't really address ... Eternal Intent simply means that in a universe that has always existed and has always functioned everywhere under the same invariant natural laws, things couldn't have ever been any other way; other ways are excluded by the infinite sameness of the natural laws. Therefore, I can say that given my view of cosmology, where the changes that occur in the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe simply perpetuate the potentially infinte and eternal landscape, then that sameness of big bang arenas has always hosted life. I see life as "generative" from the conditions and interations of elements, and as a certainty to occur naturally across those hospitable conditions. And I see evolution as a natural course that plays out as life adapts to its environment. That makes the existence of intelligent life an eternal intent because it could be no other way, according to my cosmology and philosophy.