Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

[Baldeee]

Thanks for the question.
The term "permittive" suggest a condition or medium without physical restrictions restrictions.

We already have words for that sort of thing.
The most obvious one is permissive.
Note the spelling.

I think "permissive" is an anthropomorphized word as granted.

Permissive: "allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behaviour." - Google
While it is mostly used in reference to animal behaviour, most notably humans, that is only a matter of context.

I believe "permittive" is more formal and abstract in essence, as condition.

You can believe anything you want.
It's better if you believe something that is correct, though.
But if you do it in the privacy of your own home, and it doesn't hurt anyone, I guess that's okay.
Probably best not to spread incorrect beliefs in public, though.

 

[Write4U]

The vacuum has physical restrictions. For instance, the vacuum is empty of matter, by definition. Unless you're using your own "more abstract" definition of "vacuum", of course.

That is the whole point.
I am addressing the condition of nothingness that must have been the a priori condition that had no physical restrictions of any kind and allowed for FTL expansion, for an instant.

Assuming a timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition at the instant of the BB and the Inflationary Epoch where the singularity expanded at FTL for an instant allowing a geometry to form that then began to guide the mathematical evolution of the universe.

word salad.

What is the only way to exceed "c"? Only a condition of absolute nothingness will permit the transmission of photons a FTL.

W4U said.
I particularly like CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) as it actually uses fractal values as the fundamental particles that are causal to the formation of spacetime and all it's physical expressions of inherent mathematical potentials (patterns).

More word salad. Come on. This doesn't actually mean anything. Admit it.

See, have you actually familiarized yourself with CDT, have you?
Of all models explaining the unfolding of the universe CDT is the most persuasive due to its absolute simplicity.

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT), theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space) but, rather, attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

A totally permittive non-dimensional condition without any restrictive properties.

There is evidence [1] that, at large scales, CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

 

[James R]

I am addressing the condition of nothingness that must have been the a priori condition that had no physical restrictions of any kind and allowed for FTL expansion, for an instant.

Why must the condition of nothingness have been the a priori condition? What mandates that?

Moving on: if this condition of nothingness had no physical restrictions, then anything could have been created in/from it. Lots of pink unicorns, for instance. Why, then, a big bang, rather than pink unicorns?

What is the only way to exceed "c"? Only a condition of absolute nothingness will permit the transmission of photons a FTL.

When were photons transmitted faster than light?

What expanded in your version of the big bang? What, exactly, went faster than light?

See, have you actually familiarized yourself with CDT, have you?

No. Of course not. It's word salad, as far as I can tell from your posts. Why waste time on it?

 

[Sarkus]

What is the only way to exceed "c"? Only a condition of absolute nothingness will permit the transmission of photons a FTL.

This makes no sense. Absolute nothingness is the absence of space, time, spacetime, and certainly the absence of photons. Then there is the question of what condition is required for photons to exist at all, and is this consistent with the condition of "absolute nothingness"? Then there is the issue of whether things existant within the universe ever did exceed FTL, or whether space simply expanded, as it continues to do, such that we perceive objects moving away from us at an apparent velocity > c (when in fact it is, so the theory goes, just space expanding)?

See, have you actually familiarized yourself with CDT, have you?

From the little Google-fu on the subject, CDT does not appear to be what you seem to be implying. CDT is not about the origins of the universe. It is not about the cause, or creation, of the Big Bang, for example. It is, to quote wiki: "background independent". Which, to me at least, means that it is neutral as to any pre-existing condition or state. It doesn't require a "condition absolute nothingness", it seems. That would, it seems, be your assumption.
But, as said, this is all based on a simple Google-fu session, and I may be wrong.

Of all models explaining the unfolding of the universe CDT is the most persuasive due to its absolute simplicity. A totally permittive non-dimensional condition without any restrictive properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

The word is "permissive", as has been explained to you almost ad nauseam. But even then, the CDT is neutral as to the actual conditions, other than they must obviously allow for this theory. Which, given that the theory is "background independent", suggests that any underlying conditions would also be acceptable, no?

 

[Sarkus]

Moving on: if this condition of nothingness had no physical restrictions, then anything could have been created in/from it. Lots of pink unicorns, for instance. Why, then, a big bang, rather than pink unicorns?

What gets me about this "condition of absolute nothingness" is that it surely doesn't even allow for the potential of existence. I.e. nothing can come from it. At all. It seems to be a self-defeating origin-story. There must have been something, logically, to even allow for the potential of something physical existing, or even for space and time to come into existence. This is what Krauss gets criticised for in his "A Universe from Nothing", in that he defines "nothing" to not be "absolute nothingness" but something that allows for existence.

No. Of course not. It's word salad, as far as I can tell from your posts. Why waste time on it?

This is part of the problem here, in that Write4U seems unable to convey that which he is arguing for in an understandable manner. If you Google the CDT, or look at the Wiki article on it, for example, it may still sound unintelligible to the vast majority, but at least you can sort of get a glimpse of what it's all about. In this thread, though, we're left to decipher Write4U's own spin on it, which only adds to the complexity. And if Write4U doesn't quite get what it's all about then the filter he applies to it will really only take others further away from understanding it.
But I may be wrong, and he understands it perfectly, and if so then the only issue is that he's not able to convey what he knows in a manner that others can understand. I.e. his translation only hinders rather than helps other people's understanding.

 

[C C]

That is the whole point. I am addressing the condition of nothingness that must have been the a priori condition that had no physical restrictions of any kind and allowed for FTL expansion, for an instant.

For clarification purposes...

You reference "the condition of nothingness" and "physical restrictions" being gone... But you don't mean "absolute nothingness" or a "total absence of any category of being", do you? Since "nothingness" cannot contradictorily be a "condition" (a state or mode of being) if it signifies non-existence or existence ubiquitously not being the case. Unless it is instead posited as some region of existence, where not even quantum fluctuations would be occurring (unmitigated emptiness, but still surrounded by or associated with "something"). Then it could qualify as a hypothetical (if not imaginary) rare condition of general being or an anomalous feature abiding within existence.
_

 

[Write4U]

Why must the condition of nothingness have been the a priori condition? What mandates that?

IMO there must have been a beginning. The concept of eternal existence does not sound right to me.

Moving on: if this condition of nothingness had no physical restrictions, then anything could have been created in/from it. Lots of pink unicorns, for instance. Why, then, a big bang, rather than pink unicorns?

That does not follow at all. At this point there is no matter. It has not formed yet. We are talking about the Inflationary Epoch.

When were photons transmitted faster than light?

From Wiki.
Photon epoch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on
Physical cosmology

• Big Bang · Universe
• Age of the universe
• Chronology of the universe

• In physical cosmology, the photon epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe in which photons dominated the energy of the universe. The photon epoch started after most leptons and anti-leptons were annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch, about 10 seconds after the​

Big Bang.[1]
Atomic nuclei were created in the process of nucleosynthesis, which occurred during the
first few minutes of the photon epoch. For the remainder of the photon epoch, the
universe contained a hot dense plasma of nuclei, electrons and photons.[2]​

At the start of this period, many photons had sufficient energy to photodissociate deuterium, so those atomic nuclei that formed were quickly separated back into protons and neutrons. By the ten second mark, ever fewer high energy photons were available to photodissociate deuterium, and thus the abundance of these nuclei began to increase. Heavier atoms began to form through nuclear fusion processes: tritium, helium-3, and helium-4. Finally, trace amounts of lithium and beryllium began to appear. Once the thermal energy dropped below 0.03 MeV, nucleosynthesis effectively came to an end. Primordial abundances were now set, with the measured amounts in the modern epoch providing checks on the physical models of this period.[3]

370,000 years after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe fell to the point where nuclei could combine with electrons to create neutral atoms. As a result, photons no longer interacted frequently with matter, the universe became transparent and the cosmic microwave background radiation was created and then structure formation took place. This is referred to as the surface of last scattering, as it corresponds to a virtual outer surface of the spherical observable universe.[4] [/quote]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_epoch#

I see that at this point the universal constants began to self-order the evolutionary stage of elemental matter formation and the Table of Elements was being set.

What expanded in your version of the big bang? What, exactly, went faster than light?

The expanding universe itself, because there was nothing to slow it down.

No. Of course not. It's word salad, as far as I can tell from your posts. Why waste time on it?

I didn't write CDT. Bona fide physicists and cosmologists did that.

All of my posits rest on established science. I may interpret it differently than others, but that is what this forum is all about. Unless you want to regurgitate established science ad nauseam. Why is that still being disputed if established science has all the answers?

 

[Write4U]

James R aid; What expanded in your version of the big bang? What, exactly, went faster than light?

The expanding universe itself, because there was nothing to slow it down.

How did the early Universe expand faster than light?

According to Einstein, no matter can travel faster than light. So how did the early Universe expand at a rate faster than light?

By Marcus Chown
Published: February 2, 2022 at 10:12 am

It is perfectly true that Einstein’s special theory of relativity, published in 1905, reveals the speed of light as the ultimate speed limit of any material body.

However, the problem with special relativity is that it is... special!

It relates what one person sees when they look at another person moving at constant speed relative to them.

The moving person appears to shrink in the direction of their motion while their time slows down: effects that become ever more marked as they approach the speed of light.

But most of the time bodies change their speed with time – for instance, a car accelerates away from traffic lights.

Again and again we're told that according to Einstein's theories of relativity, nothing in the known Universe can expand faster than light.

It violates the laws of physics. It can't be done.
And yet, seemingly contradicting this fundamental law is the idea that the early Universe itself expanded at a rate faster than light.

How can this be? How did the early Universe expand faster than the speed of light, if no matter can travel faster than light? Doesn't this contradict relativity?

Read more:
What is gravity?
What would happen if you fell into a black hole?
What's the difference between Newton and Einstein gravity?

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/universe-expand-faster-light/

No. Of course not. It's word salad, as far as I can tell from your posts. Why waste time on it?

I didn't write CDT. Bona fide physicists and cosmologists did that. Don't go by my posts. Go by the published theory.
What is a waste of time is your constant complaints about my "presentation", If you were to spend a few minutes reading the quoted links, you would learn the scientific premise on which I rest my propositions.
All of my posts rest on established science. I may interpret it differently than others, but that is what this forum is all about, no?
Unless you want to regurgitate established science ad nauseam. Why is science still being disputed if it has all the answers?

 

[Write4U]

And if Write4U doesn't quite get what it's all about then the filter he applies to it will really only take others further away from understanding it.

I believe that statement that CDT is causal to; "This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space) but, rather, attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves." as a very profound perspective on an evolving quantum creation. Why is that so confusing ?
Moreover. I think that a fractal universe is a very elegant concept.

I.e. his translation only hinders rather than helps other people's understanding.

First, English is my second language and sometimes my presentation may sound new or different.
Second, this is exactly why I include links to the article that prompts me to offer my "perspective" to begin with. I do put in the time and think things through.
I like to think that my posits merit some thought, instead of instant rejection because I may use a little different slant to my presentation.

I am always grateful when questioned about my missives. It allows for intelligent and informative discussion.

 

[Write4U]

But even then, the CDT is neutral as to the actual conditions, other than they must obviously allow for this theory. Which, given that the theory is "background independent", suggests that any underlying conditions would also be acceptable, no?

I am keeping in mind two important expressions about being "background independent" and "how the spacetime fabric unfolds".
To me that suggest a background state of "nothingness" prior to the emergence of "something"

You reference "the condition of nothingness" and "physical restrictions" being gone... But you don't mean "absolute nothingness" or a "total absence of any category of being", do you? Since "nothingness" cannot contradictorily be a "condition" (a state or mode of being) if it signifies non-existence or existence ubiquitously not being the case.

I struggle with that concept also, but what exactly is meant by a "singularity" or a "singular dynamic event"?

And if the universe is still expanding outward, what is the condition that permits this?
There is my permittive condition. The term "permissive" seems inadequate.

What describes nothingness better, a permissive condition or a permittive condition?

 

[C C]

I am keeping in mind two important expressions about being "background independent" and "how the spacetime fabric unfolds".
To me that suggest a background state of "nothingness" prior to the emergence of "something"

I struggle with that concept also, but what exactly is meant by a "singularity" or a "singular dynamic event"?

And if the universe is still expanding outward, what is the condition that permits this?
There is my permittive condition. The term "permissive" seems inadequate.

What describes nothingness better, a permissive condition or a permittive condition?

Woops. I see now that this these recent events are actually revolving around a quantum gravity proposal (CDT) that I can't even grok the connection to with respect to "nothingness", birth of the universe, FTL expansion of space, singularities, etc.

So since it's not about cosmological inflation -- as Emily Litella used to say on SNL: "Never mind."
_

 

[James R]

Write4U:

IMO there must have been a beginning. The concept of eternal existence does not sound right to me.

Gut feeling as rationale. I see.

That does not follow at all. At this point there is no matter. It has not formed yet. We are talking about the Inflationary Epoch.

Why didn't pink unicorns emerge whole from your "permittive condition"? Why just protons and photons and stuff? After all, you proposed a state with no physical restrictions. Remember?

The expanding universe itself, because there was nothing to slow it down.

Previously you claimed that photons went faster than light.

Are you saying that photons went faster than light in space, or that the photons were merely carried along with the general expansion of space?

You talked about photons being "transmitted" faster than light. What did you mean by that?

What is a waste of time is your constant complaints about my "presentation"...

Here, I'm questioning the content of your "presentation", not its form.

All of my posts rest on established science.

Where does established science say that photons can be transmitted faster than light?

I may interpret it differently than others, but that is what this forum is all about, no?

Funny you should ask. The particular subforum in which this thread was posted is called "Comparative Religion". But it looks like you've hijacked the thread, so now it's essentially back to your usual pseudoscience. I don't see you posting much on religion - if we don't count Tegmark worship and your religion of microtubules, that is.

Unless you want to regurgitate established science ad nauseam.

You seem very dismissive of "established science". Why is that? Too hard?

Why is science still being disputed if it has all the answers?

Did I say that science has all the answers? Let me check back. .... Oh look! It turns out I said no such thing at any time.

I am keeping in mind two important expressions about being "background independent" and "how the spacetime fabric unfolds".
To me that suggest a background state of "nothingness" prior to the emergence of "something"

"Background independent" means that the thing doesn't care about the background. Any background will do. It doesn't demand a background of "nothingness"; that doesn't even make sense as a concept.

I struggle with that concept also, but what exactly is meant by a "singularity" or a "singular dynamic event"?

Here you are posting about your theory of the big bang, and you don't know exactly what is meant by a singularity?

Does that suggest to you that, just maybe, you have some more learning to do before you can comment in any useful way on how the universe formed?

And if the universe is still expanding outward, what is the condition that permits this?

You think in a very strange way, with your "permittive conditions".

Here's another way to think about things: everything is "permitted" unless it is forbidden. The universe is obviously not being prevented by anything from expanding outwards; if it was, it wouldn't be expanding outwards.

A more useful inquiry, however, would be to ask something like "What caused the universe to start expanding outwards?" or "What (if anything) is (currently) causing the universe to keep expanding outwards?"

There is my permittive condition. The term "permissive" seems inadequate.

You have already been told that your term is inadequate and why. Your gut intuition doesn't override that for anybody else but you.

What describes nothingness better, a permissive condition or a permittive condition?

Nothingness has no conditions, permissive or otherwise.

 

[Write4U]

Gut feeling as rationale. I see.

No, logic as rationale.

Why didn't pink unicorns emerge whole from your "permittive condition"? Why just protons and photons and stuff? After all, you proposed a state with no physical restrictions. Remember?

Nothing emerged from the permittive condition. The universe emerged and inflated from the singularity outward.
Pink unicorn came much much later.

Previously you claimed that photons went faster than light.

Yes, as well as the outward expansion rate of the singularity singularity.
If there is no-thing in the way, speed was not restricted by anything, until the universe became big enough for emergent things inside it to exert resistance such as the formation and behavior of elements.

Are you saying that photons went faster than light in space, or that the photons were merely carried along with the general expansion of space?

No, inside the expanding universe light propagates at "c" and Yes, if the universe expanded at FTL (as is assumed), then photons would be able to exceed.
Note , that outside the expanding universe is nothing. not even what we call vacuum.

You talked about photons being "transmitted" faster than light. What did you mean by that?

Riding the emerging fields?
Photon
Elementary particle or quantum of light

A photon is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless, so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m/s. The photon belongs to the class of boson particles. Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

And that's inside the expanding universe.

Here, I'm questioning the content of your "presentation", not its form.

I'll be happy to explain anything that is not clear.

Where does established science say that photons can be transmitted faster than light?

Outside the Universe there is no established science. There is nothing and that allows for everything. It's a permittive condition.

Funny you should ask. The particular subforum in which this thread was posted is called "Comparative Religion". But it looks like you've hijacked the thread, so now it's essentially back to your usual pseudoscience. I don't see you posting much on religion - if we don't count Tegmark worship and your religion of microtubules, that is.

Oh, I see, he term "creation" is a biblical term and "quantum" is a scientific term, but we cannot speak of Creation as a biblical event, yet insert the term "Quantum" as unimportant to the creative (self-organizing) event

You seem very dismissive of "established science". Why is that? Too hard?

95% of my quoted passages are from "established science". There a few competing hypotheses and of course those are the ones that elicit attention and critique.

Did I say that science has all the answers? Let me check back. .... Oh look! It turns out I said no such thing at any time.

Then what is the problem?

"Background independent" means that the thing doesn't care about the background. Any background will do. It doesn't demand a background of "nothingness"; that doesn't even make sense as a concept.

Bad logic.
"Background independent" means the thing is self-referential, regardless of the nature of the background.
A state of "nothingness" is of no consequence or influence as an (abstract) background.

Here you are posting about your theory of the big bang, and you don't know exactly what is meant by a singularity?

Instead of forcing my limited scientific vocabulary on you, allow for just another verbatim quote.
MARCH 8, 2009 · 3:01 PM
The BB singularity: implications for a creator?

Before looking at further questions concerning the Big Bang model, let’s consider the possible implications of the singularity problem (see previous post) for religion, as this topic often arises in the media.

Our best description of gravity (the dominant force in the universe at large) is Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Applied to the cosmos, general relativity has made some spectacular predictions that have since been verified by experiment (the expanding universe in particular). However, it is true that the theory breaks down as we rewind the clock of the expanding universe all the way back to time zero (the equations blow up to infinity).

Some religiously-minded scientists consider this significant, suggesting that we may be coming to a limit to what the human mind may comprehend about the work of a creator and this is also the view of many theologians. I heard several interesting talks on this topic at Cambridge last year, see the July posts on Cosmology Day at the Faraday Institute here.

Does that suggest to you that, just maybe, you have some more learning to do before you can comment in any useful way on how the universe formed?

You think in a very strange way, with your "permittive conditions".

Here's another way to think about things: everything is "permitted" unless it is forbidden. The universe is obviously not being prevented by anything from expanding outwards; if it was, it wouldn't be expanding outwards.

Now you are talking my language! That is exactly how I see this relationship.
Of course the Nothingness could not possibly be causal to the BB. And therein lies the crux.

A more useful inquiry, however, would be to ask something like "What caused the universe to start expanding outwards?" or "What (if anything) is (currently) causing the universe to keep expanding outwards?"

I like the Toroidal model.
https://evolvingsouls.com/blog/toroidal-universe/

You have already been told that your term is inadequate and why. Your gut intuition doesn't override that for anybody else but you.

I just think it an appropriate word describing the "non-condition"

Nothingness has no conditions, permissive or otherwise.

I agree completely.

 

[Write4U]

Woops. I see now that this these recent events are actually revolving around a quantum gravity proposal (CDT) that I can't even grok the connection to with respect to "nothingness", birth of the universe, FTL expansion of space, singularities, etc.

Actually it explains how "nothingness" is being replaced by the expanding universe.

So since it's not about cosmological inflation -- as Emily Litella used to say on SNL: "Never mind."

They all are, no? The difference is in the detail.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

You're flip-flopping back and forth like a wet fish.

This is why it is pointless to engage with you and why, most of the time, I have given up on it. Your words, most of the time, don't actually mean anything. You say one thing in one post, and the opposite in your next post. You contradict yourself in consecutive posts. You try to use words that don't mean what you think they mean, then when you are told what they actually mean you insist that your attempt should be accepted as a redefinition of the words you used. You also post a lot of word salad that has essentially no meaning at all.

What a mess your last reply was. I honestly don't know why I'm wasting my time on this rubbish. Nothing seems to penetrate your shield of wilful ignorance.

No, logic as rationale.

You: "IMO there must have been a beginning. The concept of eternal existence does not sound right to me."

Last time I checked, "IMO" meant "In my opinion". Neither that, nor the words "does not sound right to me" provide any evidence of logical reasoning.

Nothing emerged from the permittive condition. The universe emerged and inflated from the singularity outward.
Pink unicorn came much much later.

You: "I am addressing the condition of nothingness that must have been the a priori condition that had no physical restrictions of any kind and allowed for FTL expansion, for an instant."

Previously you asserted that there was a "permittive condition" [sic] that "allowed for FTL expansion".

Now, flip-flop! Nothing can emerge from your permittive condition, especially not a universe that allows for FTL expansion.

If there is no-thing in the way, speed was not restricted by anything, until the universe became big enough for emergent things inside it to exert resistance such as the formation and behavior of elements.

Your mental image of the universe is inconsistent with the most common cosmological physical models.

You speak as if the universe is "expanding into" something. But our best estimates suggest that the universe is spatially infinite. That means there is no "outside" to "expand into". The universe does not have "edges". There is no "boundary" between an "inside" and an "outside" of the universe.

So, what are you talking about?

No, inside the expanding universe light propagates at "c" and Yes, if the universe expanded at FTL (as is assumed), then photons would be able to exceed.

When you say "the universe expanded at FTL", what reference frame are you using to measure the speed of the expansion? Explain what you mean by "the universe expanded at FTL". If you mean anything and this isn't just random word salad.

Note , that outside the expanding universe is nothing. not even what we call vacuum.

What is this "outside" you speak of? Where is the "outside" of the universe?

Riding the emerging fields?

I asked: "You talked about photons being "transmitted" faster than light. What did you mean by that?"
You replied: "Riding the emerging fields?"

Do you think you answered my question?

What it looks like to me is that you asked yourself a different question entirely, and posted that absentmindedly as a reply to what I asked you. Or, you felt like you couldn't come up with a sensible answer, so you just posted some word salad.

The question mark on your response suggests that, maybe, you didn't quite manage to convince yourself that your response or your initial statement were meaningful. But you hoped that I would be stupider than you are, so you could get away with that meaningless response.

I'll be happy to explain anything that is not clear.

Here's the thing: if your own ideas aren't clear to you, then you have a very slim chance of making them clear to anybody else.

The problem with confecting word salad from random cut-and-pastes of wikipedia is that you never learn anything and the results don't mean anything much. They certainly don't advance any argument you'd like to make.

Outside the Universe there is no established science. There is nothing and that allows for everything. It's a permittive condition.

Here, you claim that "nothing" allows for everything and you call this your "permittive condition".

In the same post you wrote: "Nothing emerged from the permittive condition."

Do you mean nothing as in "no thing" emerged from from your "permittive condition"?
Or do you mean that "nothing" (a thing called, paradoxically, "nothing") emerged from your permittive condition?

Is your "nothing" a thing, or is it the good old-fashioned nothing that most of us grew up with?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg nothing or the permittive condition? You can't seem to decide. Did your "nothing" allow for the "permittive condition"? Or did the "permittive condition" cause your "nothing"?

And what of the universe? What caused that? Was it your "nothing"? Was it your "permittive condition"? Can you decide?

Oh, I see, he term "creation" is a biblical term and "quantum" is a scientific term, but we cannot speak of Creation as a biblical event, yet insert the term "Quantum" as unimportant to the creative (self-organizing) event

Word salad. Was there some point you wanted to make about religion and its relation to Tegmarkism, perhaps? I'm guessing, you understand, because your words don't actually convey any meaning to me.

Then what is the problem?

The problem was obviously that you threw in a random comment about science having all the answers, which it turns out you don't believe and which you apparently accept that I don't believe either. Maybe it was just a cut-and-paste wikipedia error.

Bad logic.
"Background independent" means the thing is self-referential, regardless of the nature of the background.

I told you the literal meaning of the words "background independent", and you tell me I have "bad logic"?

Do you want to attempt to redefine the English words "background" and/or "independent" now?

There is nothing in the common meaning of "background" that mentions self-reference. There is nothing in the common meaning of "independent" that mentions self-reference. When put together, nothing in the combined meaning of the two words implies self-reference.

A state of "nothingness" is of no consequence or influence as an (abstract) background.

"Nothing" is not a "background". Unless you think "nothing" is actually a thing. Which would be another pointless attempt at redefining a common English word that already has an accepted meaning.

Now you are talking my language! That is exactly how I see this relationship.

No, it's not. You're contradicting yourself.

Earlier, you asked what "condition" would be required to allow the universe to expand. Your assumption was that, for anything to happen, there must be a positive "condition" that enables it.

This ties in with your talk about a "permittive condition", which I understand to be sort of your version of God - a condition that allows anything and everything, without which literally nothing is possible.

I suggest that you might instead like to consider the idea that physical laws constrain the boundaries of what is possible, rather than enabling possibilities.

Admittedly, this is more a philosophical musing than anything scientific. But then again, nothing in your ideas has been scientific so far, so random ideas like this are fair game, I think.

Of course the Nothingness could not possibly be causal to the BB. And therein lies the crux.

So, after all that nonsense about Nothingness enabling everythingness, and about Nothingness emerging from the God of Permittive Conditions, we discover that none of this helps to solve the problem of why the universe exists.

Are all your posts just pointless word salad, then, Write4U? Do you just post because you (metaphorically) like to hear the sound of your own voice? I wouldn't be surprised, since half the time you seem to be blogging away to nobody in particular.

I like the Toroidal model.

That would be irrelevant to Nothingness and permittive conditions, though. Right?

I just think it an appropriate word describing the "non-condition"

Flip flop.

Now your "permittive condition" is a "non-condition"?

That is, you're now telling us that its very name is a self-referential lie?

I agree completely.

Me: Nothingness has no conditions, permissive or otherwise.
You: I agree completely.
Also you: "Nothing emerged from the permittive condition."

Admit it, Write4U: your post has no useful content. It barely makes any sense at all. Some of the words vaguely go together, but in terms of communicating anything useful or meaningful, it's a total failure.

 

[C C]

Actually it explains how "nothingness" is being replaced by the expanding universe.
They all are, no? The difference is in the detail.

That seems to be mistakenly reifying "nothingness" (IF that correlates to non-existence or absence of all categories of being) as something. Again, that could avoid conflict with itself if "nothingness" is actually just another label for something (like space filled with quantum fluctuations) or it's an anomalous "absence of everything" region embedded within a general domain of existence (such a region of "total absence" being a purely speculative or potentially imaginary prospect).

Ironically, the nearest or most enlightening thing I've found on CDT encroaching on "creation" territory was submitted by a Bigfoot researcher:

https://ronmorehead.com/the-fabric-of-reality-causal-dynamical-triangulations/

Which clarified that CDT is where Lee Smolin gets his particular view about time, that Sean Carroll interprets as being the Growing Block Universe. Wherein Smolin attributes even physical laws evolving and changing over time rather than being fixed in Platonistic fashion.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lee_smolin-cosmological-evolution

EXCERPT: The scary thing is that if the laws evolve, what does that really mean? If what we're used to thinking of as laws which are absolutely true, true for all time—the phrase 'God-given' comes to mind because that's how the founders of modern physics like Newton thought about them. If laws instead become, as Pierce said, explainable through a process of evolution, then that means time is very real, in a way that it is not in other representations of physics.

But it's also very scary because we're used to thinking of laws as absolute and if laws evolve, then at least I and the people I work with get very confused. What does it mean? Is there nothing? What is guiding the evolution? Are there just other laws, which you guys don't have to worry about because you have our laws to hold things steady, but when our laws start to evolve, is there anything under anything / everything? Or is it possible that people in the future, when this revolution that Einstein started is over, will be perfectly comfortable living in a world described the philosopher Pierce in which there is nothing to laws but this temporary momentary result of an on-going process of evolution.​

Largely from the perspective of one of its advocates Ethan Siegel, here are some items on cosmological inflation "proper" (if there is such a thing above all its variations) and a question often arising in association with it. I included a video by Sabine Hossenfelder at the very bottom to supply the perspective of someone more indifferent or critical about it.

There was no Big Bang singularity
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...-was-no-big-bang-singularity/?sh=30c547677d81

Ethan Siegel: But this picture isn't just wrong, it's nearly 40 years out of date! We are absolutely certain there was no singularity associated with the hot Big Bang, and there may not have even been a birth to space and time at all. Here's what we know and how we know it. [...] One thing that we can mathematically demonstrate, in fact, is that it's impossible for an inflating state to arise from a singularity. Here's why...


https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-beginning-universe/

Ethan Siegel: [...] we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began. By the very nature of inflation, it wipes out any information that came before the final few moments: where it ended and gave rise to our hot Big Bang.


https://physics.aps.org/articles/v13/16

Mark P. Hertzberg: The basic assumption of inflation is that the very early Universe was filled with bosonic particles in a degenerate quantum state. These spinless particles, known as inflatons, are the quanta of a primordial field carrying a large potential energy that drove an exponential expansion of the Universe. Researchers have shown that, if they include the inflaton field in Einstein’s field equations, they can predict a phase of rapid exponential expansion, in which the Universe grew in size by over 30 orders of magnitude.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ster-than-the-speed-of-light/?sh=1e88b8cf3b5f

Ethan Siegel: The restriction that "nothing can move faster than light" only applies to the motion of objects through space. The rate at which space itself expands — this speed-per-unit-distance — has no physical bounds on its upper limit.


https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/fast-space-expanding/

Ethan Siegel:. . . when we put all the puzzle pieces we have together today, that there’s a specific distance away from us, around 14 billion light-years distant, where the expansion of the Universe pushes objects away at the equivalent of the speed of light. Closer than that distance, objects recede from us at speeds that are slower than light; farther away, they’re receding faster than light.

In reality, these objects aren’t moving through the Universe at that speed at all, but rather the space between bound objects is expanding. The effect on the light is equivalent — it gets stretched and redshifted by identical amounts — but the physical phenomenon causing the redshift is due to the expanding Universe, not from the object speeding away through space.


https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html

Paul Sutter: It's true that in special relativity, nothing can move faster than light. But special relativity is a local law of physics. Or in other words, it's a law of local physics. That means that you will never, ever watch a rocket ship blast by your face faster than the speed of light. Local motion, local laws.

But a galaxy on the far side of the universe? That's the domain of general relativity, and general relativity says: who cares! That galaxy can have any speed it wants, as long as it stays way far away, and not up next to your face.

It goes deeper than this. Concepts like a well-defined "velocity" make sense only in local regions of space. You can only measure something's velocity and actually call it a "velocity" when it's nearby and when the rules of special relativity apply. Stuff super-duper far away, like the galaxies we're talking about it? If it's not close, it doesn't count as a “velocity” in the way that special relativity cares about.​

Did the universe inflate?

_

 

[Write4U]

You: "IMO there must have been a beginning. The concept of eternal existence does not sound right to me."

Last time I checked, "IMO" meant "In my opinion". Neither that, nor the words "does not sound right to me" provide any evidence of logical reasoning.

So, are you advancing the concept that there was no beginning?
Does anyone have evidence other than logical reasoning? If not, then why are you singling me out ?

 

[Write4U]

Paul Sutter: It's true that in special relativity, nothing can move faster than light. But special relativity is a local law of physics. Or in other words, it's a law of local physics. That means that you will never, ever watch a rocket ship blast by your face faster than the speed of light. Local motion, local laws.

That seems to support my position and does not argue against FTL expansion in the early few minutes of the universal expansion, the BB!

 

[Write4U]

You: "I am addressing the condition of nothingness that must have been the a priori condition that had no physical restrictions of any kind and allowed for FTL expansion, for an instant."

Previously you asserted that there was a "permittive condition" [sic] that "allowed for FTL expansion".

Now, flip-flop! Nothing can emerge from your permittive condition, especially not a universe that allows for FTL expansion.

That is what I wrote, no? What's the problem?

The problem was obviously that you threw in a random comment about science having all the answers, which it turns out you don't believe and which you apparently accept that I don't believe either. Maybe it was just a cut-and-paste wikipedia error.

Do you believe science has all the answers, if not then we agree, no?

See, you keep critiquing my posts for, but always end up agreeing with the actual content.
Most curious...

 

[Write4U]

So, after all that nonsense about Nothingness enabling everythingness, and about Nothingness emerging from the God of Permittive Conditions, we discover that none of this helps to solve the problem of why the universe exists.

Are all your posts just pointless word salad, then, Write4U? Do you just post because you (metaphorically) like to hear the sound of your own voice? I wouldn't be surprised, since half the time you seem to be blogging away to nobody in particular.

And where are the constructive corrections? Is misquoting my posts and then calling them word-salad all you can do?

You are not critiquing at all. You are criticizing without offering anything constructive... difference.