"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" Richard P. Feynman The Messenger Lectures, 1964Only if you have no understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" Richard P. Feynman The Messenger Lectures, 1964Only if you have no understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
"The term Big Bang, however, is often used (even in a scientific context) in a broader sense, as synonymous with the birth and origin of the Universe as a whole. In other words, this term is used also to indicate the single event from which everything (including space and time themselves) directly originated, emerging from an initial singular state, i.e., a state characterized by infinitely high values of energy, density and temperature.
This second interpretation is certainly suggestive, and even scientifically motivated within the standard cosmological model. Nonetheless, it has been challenged by recent developments in theoretical physics that took place at the end of the twentieth century." from The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory (Astronomer's Universe; Springer, 2008).
It doesn't. First, there is work about what was "before" the big bang, and second, physics break down after the big bang. Either way, your conception of "time" doesn't appear until even after the big bang. Same with space.
Clearly, we aren't reading much of the same metaphysical literature.
Current physics suggests that your understanding of time, space, and existence is flawed.
But God didn't? And if God need not come from somewhere, why need the universe?
Not really. If God exists, wonderful. I'm just interested in knowing things, not dogma.
So whose to say that the "singularity" behaves like the rock? Or that it isn't "transcendent" (whatever that entails)?
Ok. The singularity was a transcendent entity. Metaphysical problem solved.
Because all our yesterdays have lighted fools/The way to dusty death.
I guess it's turtles, all the way down.
There are nolocal correlations instantaneously and which are space-like seperated (and can be so to an arbitrary degree). What's the "precausal condition" for these?
So what you are saying is that were it not for the fact that the universe is the way it is, we wouldn't be here. But we are here, which means it is that way. And if it weren't, we wouldn't be.
And you know this because...?
Yes, yes, no, and yes. My field involves biology, physics, and mathematics. Cosmology (like many things) I research because I am interested.
Not really. Because the issue isn't what I have degrees in, but what I study and the extent to which I am familiar with particular topics. Likewise for you.
But even were you correct, it would not be a battle for the pantheist. Or the Wiccan. Or the Muslim. Or any number of others whose understanding of creation and existence differs from yours yet is not naturalism.
The fact that spacetime requires a particular structure and that this didn't exist even after the big bang.
Sure. Or no. But if you want to say how likely something is, you need to know the probability space.
And this assessment is based upon your evalutation of current research and academic literature in the fields of physics, astronomy, and cosmology?But yeah, the Big Bang theory is has the most empirical evidence supporting it.
And upon what do you base this? Have you read any scientific literature on the subject?All of these other "pre-big bang" models, there is NO evidence for them.
They are.Apart from the lack of evidence, there is also the philosophical problem of infinity that these natural "eternalistic" models fail to address. These are not problems that you can just sweep under the rug, they have to be addressed.
Once again, back to the infinity problem. This is doing nothing but picking up the problem and placing it at a different location.
Or not. But as you reject out of hand actual physics literature (yet quote none in return), it seems hard to defend any stance on the relationship between modern physics, ontology, and cosmology.Current physics also show that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.
If something "begins" to exist, an external cause is inevitable.
But the singularity therefore existed in some "space" in which no time, physics, or anything else we are familiar with "classically" existed. It therefore transcends time and space.I answered this already!! The universe needs to come from somewhere because we have evidence that it BEGAN to exist and therefore ISN'T eternal.
And if God doesn't exist, we are no different than flies or insects. So if someone kills someone you love, it would be the same thing as YOU swatting a fly.
Transcendent means to exist BEYOND something. And if the singularity is what you defined above, how can it behave like anything?
Because according to the standard model (the "big bang" theory), physics don't apply to the singularity.The singularity is a physical entity. But physics didn't exist prior to its expansion. So how could the singularity be the origin of its own domain? Hmmm
Say what?
From the same paper quoted immediately above: "Though standard relativistic quantum field theory nominally incorporates causality by requiring that spacelike observables commute, it is by no means obvious that this requirement is appropriate for, and even consistent with, equations of motion which exhibit superluminal propagation of disturbances. In other words, it is largely an open question how to quantize relativistic media of the sort discussed above, media which permit superluminal signaling given appropriate initial conditions." (p. 392).
"For many years physicists believed that the existence of closed timelike curve (CTC) was only a theoretical possibility rather than a feasibility. A closed time like curve typically connects back on itself, for example, in the presence of a spacetime wormhole that could link a future spacetime point with a past spacetime point. However, there have been criticisms to the existence of CTCs and the grandfather paradox is one. But Deutsch proposed a computational model of quantum systems in the presence of CTCs and resolved this paradox by presenting a method for finding self-consistent solutions of CTC interactions in quantum theory" from Pati, Chakrabarty, & Agrawal "Quantum States, Entanglement and Closed Timelike Curves" (from the American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, 1384, 2011).
Moreover, as Tim Maudlin (1994) has shown, we can conceive of laws of transmission between spacelike separated events that could not allow us to pick out a particular Lorentz frame as privileged, which would be in violation of the principle of relativity. Maudlin's discussion focuses on the possibility of 'tachionic' signals that directly connect spacelike separated events. Dirac's theory provides us with an alternative mechanism for superluminal signaling: a combination of subluminal forward- and backward-causal processes." Sect. 4.3
Frisch, M. (2005). Inconsistency, Asymmetry, and NonLocality: A Philosophical Investigation of Classical Electrodynamics (Oxford University Press).
And leaving pure relativity issues for a moment, there is (apart from entanglement) a less contenscious component of a pseudo-superluminal effect in biosystems. All of QM concerns activity at a sufficiently "small" spacelike region, and although it is possible to use QM equations instead of its classical counterparts, it's generally considered both inconvenient and unnecessary. However, although this "unnecessary" used to include molecular processes in biological systems, the sufficiently small levels of analysis at which violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which occur seem to include relevant processes in biological systems. In other words, to borrow a section header from Bellac's paper "The role of probabilities in physics" (Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology vol. 110; 2012), "Times arrow is blurred in small (e.g. biological) systems". Even in Hollowood and Shore's in "The refractive index of curved spacetime: The fate of causality in QED" (Nuclear Physics B 795; 2008), which sought to preserve causality against the the violations of superluminal velocities entailed in Kramers-Kronig, only "succeeded" (i.e., they said they did) at the macroscopic levell. In their work to resolve "the outstanding problem" of "how to reconcile the prediction of a superluminal phase velocity at low frequency with causality", they found that "[r]emarkably, the resolution involves the violation of analyticity calling into question micro-causality in curved spacetime."
"Quantum systems exhibit particle- or wavelike behavior depending on the experimental apparatus they are confronted by. This wave-particle duality is at the heart of quantum mechanics. Its paradoxical nature is best captured in the delayed-choice thought experiment, in which a photon is forced to choose a behavior before the observer decides what to measure. Here, we report on a quantum delayed-choice experiment in which both particle and wave behaviors are investigated simultaneously. The genuinely quantum nature of the photons behavior is certified via nonlocality, which here replaces the delayed choice of the observer in the original experiment. We observed strong nonlocal correlations, which show that the photon must simultaneously behave both as a particle and as a wave." A Quantum Delayed-Choice Experiment
Care to name some?Research from qualified and leading figures on the subject matter.
Oh so you are have a major in biology, physics, AND mathematics?? Do I understand correctly?
And this assessment is based upon your evalutation of current research and academic literature in the fields of physics, astronomy, and cosmology?
And upon what do you base this? Have you read any scientific literature on the subject?
They are.
But apparently, all we need to do is define something as "transcendent" and then this problem disappears. However, as the singularity (and probably all reality at some level) doesn't exist in except in a transcendent state (i.e., the basic constituents of all matter are nonlocal entities inaccessible to us and in constant violation of classical causality.
Or not. But as you reject out of hand actual physics literature (yet quote none in return), it seems hard to defend any stance on the relationship between modern physics, ontology, and cosmology.
But the singularity therefore existed in some "space" in which no time, physics, or anything else we are familiar with "classically" existed. It therefore transcends time and space.
If god exists, what changes about the above?
Because it is transcendent.
Because according to the standard model (the "big bang" theory), physics don't apply to the singularity.
Care to name some?
Do you understand that these are not necessarily seperate fields? In other words, someone dealing with neurophysiology and brain dynamics along with data analysis (i.e., me) cannot do this without a knowledge of biology, mathematics, and physics.
Reasons To Believe : Fine-Tuning For Life In The Universe
Or how about Paul Davies "Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe is Just Right for Life"
Get back with me after you check those out.
I demand evidence for Bigfoot when it is claimed it exists. Does that mean I actually believe in Bigfoot?People won't be asking for evidence of God if they really believe there is no God.
Just some questions regarding the list by Dr. Hugh Ross.
1. Has it occurred to you that life exists in the universe because of the conditions stated in the list instead of that the conditions stated in the list was especially created to make life?
Has it occurred to you that a hole in the ground hasn't been especially created and perfectly shaped to fit a pool of water but that the water adapts to the shape of the hole?
2. Can you tell me why some kind of life couldn't possibly have evolved in the universe if any or all of the conditions in the list had been slightly different?
I demand evidence for Bigfoot when it is claimed it exists. Does that mean I actually believe in Bigfoot?
BTW, I do believe in a God, I just understand that there is no objective evidence for a God.
Are you actually saying that a god created all the physical laws and the universe itself so that you can exist? Or might it not be more likely that you exist because of the physical laws and the universe exists? Just for fun since you mentioned trial and error: Parallel universesIt is the SPECIFIED complexity Artie. The list that HR gave, if any of those constants were off by just a small fraction, human life would not be possible. You don't get that kind of complexity by a blind and mindless process of trial and error, you get it by a intelligent mind that engineered the whole process in the direction that he wanted it to go.
So exactly what was it that this god of yours actually created?And has it occurred to you that a building project may start off with a whole in the ground? But just because there is a hole in the ground does not imply intelligent design, it is the building as a whole that implies this. It started off with a hole in the ground, and things got progressively more complex as the project went on.
Would that be a whole hole? Or perhaps just half a hole, which would only be part of the whole. But even half of a hole is still a hole, and a hole is a whole hole. And if "God" made this hole, this whole hole, then it would be a holy hole. A wholly holy hole.And has it occurred to you that a building project may start off with a whole in the ground? But just because there is a hole in the ground does not imply intelligent design, it is the building as a whole that implies this. It started off with a hole in the ground,
To deny this is to deny science.
Tell ya what, read Roger Penrose's "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity", or Hugh Ross on the precision of the finely tuned universe...
Or how about Paul Davies
Get back with me after you check those out.
I must of missed it
Obvious doesn't mean right. As was pointed it by Petkov in Relativity and the Nature of Spacetime, had scientists been less attached to Aristotelian views of space, time, and cause, and more inclined to question their basic assumptions, we could have developed Einstein's model of spacetime centuries earlier. But it seems "obvious" that space and time are different, so it wasn't until a long series of accidents, developments within mathematics and physics, mistakes, and some mathematical shots in the dark that we finally developed the modern theories of relativity (and therefore spacetime). And the fact that quantum reality seems completely at odds with what is "obvious", yet is in fact somehow what all reality actually is, is still presenting difficulties.Well, isn't it obvious
Yes. See above.Or not??
Can something be in multiple places at once? Can it interact instantaneously across arbitrarily great distances with other things? Can it seem to be one thing when you look at it one way, and something totally different when you look at it another way? Can it exist according to a logic which is totally different than what we are used to? According to quantum physics, the answer is: yes.As I stated before, there was NO causal agent before it, so why did it expand only 13.7 billion years ago. There had to be a reason, yet logically, there could not be a reason because nothing preceded it.
How does god make morality objective? If God says X is wrong, how is that not just God imposing subjective morality upon humanity?If God exist there are objective moral rights or wrongs.
If God exist there is purpose and hope. If he doesn't exist, there is no hope or objective purpose.
Sartre even quotes Dostoevsky in his essay: "Dostoïevsky avait écrit : “Si Dieu n'existait pas, tout serait permis.” C'est là le point de départ de l'existentialisme. En effet, tout est permis si Dieu n'existe pas, et par conséquent l'homme est délaissé, parce qu'il ne trouve ni en lui, ni hors de lui une possibilité de s'accrocher."
"Dostoevsky has written: 'If God didn't exist, everything would be permitted.' This is the starting point of Existentialism. Indeed, everything IS permitted if God doesn't exist, and as a consequence man is forsaken, because he can find neither within himself, nor apart from himself, anything to cling to."
"Wohin ist Gott?...ich will es euch sagen! Wer haben ihn getötet..Was taten wir, als wir diese Erde von ihrer Sonne losketteten? Wohin bewegt sie sich nun? Wohin bewegen wir uns? Fort von allen Sonnen? Stürzen wir nicht fortwährend? ...Irren wir nicht wie durch ein unendliches Nichts? Haucht uns nicht der leere Raum an? Ist es nicht kälter geworden? Kommt nicht immerfort die Nacht und mehr Nacht? "
"Where is God? I will tell you. We have killed him...What did we do, when we loosed this earth from its sun? Where is it going now? Where are we ourselves going? Away from all suns? Do we not plummet unceasingly?...Do we not stray as though through an unending nothingness? Does not the void breath upon us? Has it not become colder? Comes there now not ever night and more night?" Nietzsche's Der fröhliche Wissenschaft.
Thanks for the names. Now how many of these authors have you actually read something of, and what have you read by them?Sure, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Huge Ross, Paul Davies, Alexander Vilenkin, Alan Guth, Arvind Borde. Just a few names here and there.
Let's just get right down to it. I am tired of being drawn between accepting facts and fighting the natural desire humanity seems to have to believe in God. I personally miss my days as a believer, and despite most believers thinking most atheists will never change their minds, I am more than happy to. In fact, I used to be a believer in spirituality and such until I was defeated past the point of no return
So, enough of the damn games. Right here, provide your evidence of God that cannot be refuted and, atheists, refute what can be refuted. Let's just end this nonsense.
I forgot about this thread; but basically I got that there's nothing to suggest God does exist, though we cant KNOW with certainty, making it irrelevant if one does.
There is something to suggest to some of us that God exists, or we would not believe in Him. It just doesn't suggest it to others. And there isn't any scientific proof.