What's more unbelievable? That a supernatural being with thoughts, desires, and infinite power arose from nothing, or that a tiny bubble of space-time arose from nothing in the same way quantum particle pairs arise from nothing?
Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?
- Thread starter Eugene Shubert
- Start date
- Status
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
Sure I do. You crying like a baby is proof that I stepped on your religious toes. Even your nose knows that your slaphappily unscientific religious dogma has been exposed.
OK. What is it?
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
If infinite densities can develop out of nothingness, then why not infinite conscientiousness as well? Remember the multiverse hypothesis where every conceivable universe is believed to exist. It is incumbent on you, then, to prove that infinite conscientiousness can't possibly exist in a multiverse. Speaking of the Multiverse's Grand Prize for unbelievability, let's see you define non-space and non-time and show how spacetime can arise from it.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Does anyone know what is meant here by "pre-big-bang physics"?
My understanding has always been that the physics stops when we reach a point beyond which we do not have enough data to extrapolate.
All the treatments I am familiar with start a fraction of a second after the presumed initial singularity, not before it (if "before" time began has a meaning, which I have difficulty with).
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
"The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work." — John von Neumann.
So the task is to construct a mathematical model that represents that absence of space and the absence of time, which clearly demonstrates how a model of spacetime can materialize out of it.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What scientific model are you claiming has been made of anything "pre-big-bang"?
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
You don't understand. I'm exposing the astonishingly ignorant fantasies of many quantum creationists and their pretense at understanding pre-big-bang physics.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I post 10, you admitted that you are a Quantum Creationist.
So, you are debunking your own religion?
If we all agree that QC is not a thing, why are we even having this discussion?
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
These two statements, side by side, seem to smack of very strong self-abasement.
So, if we all agree that QC rests on astonishingly ignorant fantasies, why are we even having this discussion?
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
I imagine that you enjoy trolling, confidently believe you found an error and don't know the difference between "many" and "all."
Last edited:
Consciousness is only ever found at the end of a process of complexification, not at the beginning, since consciousness is by definition complex. Maybe you are confusing echos of a future god with some presently existing thing?
It is not incumbent on me to prove the non-existence of things in a proposed infinite multi-verse. I don't know that there is a multi-verse. Certainly I'm unable to search infinitely. Possibly the words "infinite" and "consciousness" are inherently incompatible. I don't know what came before the big bang, it could be nothing, it could be a mirror universe moving backwards in time. Maybe "before" is a non-sensical word to apply to the situation. I don't see any evidence of a god. It doesn't explain anything, since you would have to then explain how god arose. Short lived versions of rising out of nothing seem to be allowed in physics equations, as long as there is some balance between positive and negative energy.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
And this thread isn't about proving the existence of a god. This thread stayed true to its purpose. It proved that QC is a religious belief.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm not trolling; you're expressing yourself confusingly.
If your argument rests on 'many' versus 'all', you could certainly say that in response to my asking you to clarify your apparently contradictory stance.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You wrote:" I demonstrated that there is more science in my theology than there is science in the outrageously empty pre-big-bang physics that I cited."
You are claiming (a) there is such a thing as "pre-big-bang physics" and ( b ) that you have cited some of it. But so far as I know, nobody in science claims there is any "pre-big-bang physics", and I do not see where you have cited any.
So from my perspective you seem to be tilting at windmills, like Don Quixote.
Hence I repeat my request that you explain what pre-big-bang physics you are referring to.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
Did you watch the three short videos that I posted?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No I don't watch videos, as a rule. They are usually tedious and full of shit. Which ones talk about pre-big-bang physics and what to they say about it?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The 'Universe from Nothing' speculations are neither religion nor science in my opinion. They are metaphysical speculations. Implausible metaphysical speculations in my opinion, because they assume a big part of what they purport to explain, such as the formal principles of quantum mechanics. Some of them throw in some ad-hoc speculative stuff like a peculiar sort of 'matter' (or 'false vacuum' or something) appearing as a 'quantum fluctuation' out of 'nowhere' possessing repulsive gravity that inflates exponentially due to internal repulsion, while always maintaining a constant density, combined with some mumbo-jumbo about what mathematical sign to give gravity so that conservation laws are obeyed. [So... where did those conservation laws come from??])
I'm inclined to think that you simply can't use physics to explain the origin of everything since physics is derived from our observation of how the physical universe behaves and hence is part of what needs to be explained.
I'm hugely unconvinced by some parts of current cosmology. Metaphysical speculation is fine, even when scientists are doing it instead of philosophers. But speculations shouldn't be fed to laypeople as if they possessed all the authority of science.
Where I seemingly part company with Eugene is that I don't believe that the only alternative is some kind of return to religious mythology. Those aren't the only two alternatives available. The most obvious alternative, and by far the most intellectually justifiable one, is to simply admit that we don't currently know how reality originated (and perhaps mankind never will know).
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I don't agree that it's not a thing. It's a speculative theory that's seemingly embraced (to a greater or lesser degree) by a good proportion of physical cosmologists.
Many do acknowledge that it's largely speculative, though some seem to conceive of it as a truth discovered by science. There are even a few that insist that it is finally the "scientific" answer to the age-old question of origins. (It isn't.)
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover/
- Status