Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If you understood it then why can't you explain it?I understood what I claimed to have understood
You claimed that I misunderstood the quore so please explain to me the correct understanding of the quote
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!
If you understood it then why can't you explain it?I understood what I claimed to have understood
You claimed that I misunderstood the quore so please explain to me the correct understanding of the quote
You are missing the important point.
Multi verse models are not eternal in to the past. Even if there is a multiverse, the multiverse would not be eternal in to the past.
I honestly don't get your point, you are quoting sources that clearly and directly argue that the universe is not past eternal.
More on this: when we're dealing with proofs, if our premises only have to meet the standard of "more likely true than false (or wrong)," then our conclusions can get absurd very quickly. For instance:Proof? No I don't claim to have absolute for anything. And I can't stablish that the universe begin to excist with 100% certainty.
All I am saying is that given the evidence that we have to date, the premise is more likely to be true than wrong.......agree?
Nobody is saying that the big bang model is the only option.
All I am saying is that it is the best model of the universe . Agree? Yes or no?........
Not to mention that the only viable alternatives for the standard big bang model are not past eternal..... So in any case the universe had an absolute beginning
NO, temporal beginning with natural causes only by the evidence
My references are clear and specific, ALL the theorems, models and proposals are based on universes and multiverse existing in an eternal and/or infinite Quantum World.
The proposal that the multiverse is described as emergent from the Quantum World, as are universes, and the properties of universes such as Laws of Thermodynamics, which you grossly and dishonestly misrepresented. Emergent means in physics and cosmology that they have natural origins emergent from the Quantum World.
The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation
David Wallace
ABSTRACT
"This book defends the view that the Everett interpretation of quantum theory, often called the ‘many worlds theory’, is not some new physical theory or some metaphysical addition to quantum theory, but simply quantum theory itself understood in a straightforwardly literal way. As such ‐ despite its radical implications for the nature of our universe ‐ the Everett interpretation is actually the conservative way to approach quantum theory, requiring revisions neither to our best theories of physics, nor to conventional philosophy of science."
More to follow concerning the emergent multiverse.
Again,you are desperately moving the goal posts beyond what you are willing to believe. You actually hypocritically do not believe In a multi verse yet selectively cite scientists whose works are grounded in the multi verse concept.
Again there is not any scientific support for any sort of 'absolute beginning,' and there is no evidence of any sort unnatural cause, therefore Occam's falls on the side of science.
Resolution of the issue is far from certain as to the nature of the multiverse. At present the nature and extent of the multiverse cannot be tested.
Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-multiversestephen-hawking-theory-big.html#jCp
Did the universe have a beginning?The third, (emergent universes) it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past.
More on this: when we're dealing with proofs, if our premises only have to meet the standard of "more likely true than false (or wrong)," then our conclusions can get absurd very quickly. For instance:
- It's more likely true than false that someone who is very knowledgeable about politics is a plumber and not a political science professor.*
- it's more likely true than false that someone who teaches a university political science course is very knowledgeable about politics.
- therefore, it's more likely true than false that someone who teaches a university political science course is a plumber and not a political science professor.
Do you agree that this is an absurd conclusion?
This is why proofs don't just need their premises to be more likely true than false or the best available answer; they have to be true with certainty.
*since there are orders of magnitude more plumbers than professors, and plumbers - like most people - range from not knowledgeable to very knowledgeable about politics. This is a famous illustrative example from stats classes.
I can't help but notice that you ignored my post #16.There is something in the genes of atheist that prevents them to answer to direct questions .
That would imply that the universe had a cause.I can't help but notice that you ignored my post #16.
So, let me ask you for a direct answer.
What importance does KCA have?
Tom
That's not at all direct.That would imply that the universe had a cause.
This would (I would argue) have deep philosophical and theological implications.
Well what do you mean by "importance" ? Are you talking about the scientific importance? The theological importance? The importance according to my own personal opinion?..importance for the purposes of this forum? .....That's not at all direct.
Have a direct answer?
Tom
That isn't at all direct.Well what do you mean by "importance" ? Are you talking about the scientific importance? The theological importance? The importance according to my own personal opinion?..importance for the purposes of this forum? .....
Why is your question relevant?
The paper that I quoted also explains why emergent universes (from a quantum world) can't be past eternal ether.
Did the universe have a beginning?
So far I have shown that cyclic models, inflationary multiverse and emergent universes are not past eternal.....agreed?
What you have to do is provide a model that " if true" would imply a past eternal universe, and then explain why is that model better than any of the models that imply a beginning.
Ok so the universe* had a begining and a cause..... Do we agree on this point?[
Again, again,and again . . .
The beginning is not a problem, the beginnings of our universe and every possible universe has a natural cause for the beginning.
No, it is not a direct answer because I don't understand your question, specifically I don't understand what you mean by "important"That isn't at all direct.
Can you answer my question directly or not?
Let me repeat it "Why is KCA important?"
Tom
The paper that I quoted also explains why emergent universes (from a quantum world) can't be past eternal ether.
So far I have shown that cyclic models, inflationary multiverse and emergent universes are not past eternal.....agreed?
What you have to do is provide a model that " if true" would imply a past eternal universe, and then explain why is that model better than any of the models that imply a beginning.
I don't understand why you think that the KCA matters. It doesn't even demonstrate that God exists.No, it is not a direct answer because I don't understand your question, specifically I don't understand what you mean by "important"
What the paper that I quoted shows is that the "quantum era" could have not been past eternal. Meaning that even if there was a quantum era before the big bang, this era would have not been past eternal and therefore the universe is not eternal.Emergent universes be definition have natural causes. That is the definition of emergent in science it means from natural causes.
Universes most likely have beginnings, but that is not the issue, because Velinken, Guth, Borge, Hawkins and others have demonstrated that universes are emergent by natural causes.
Not the issue cyclic models with beginnings remain emergent in science originating from natural causes.
It is not better, or worse as I said before. It is simply another hypothesis for the nature of universes.
Or we can define universe as all physical /natural reality.
Any of these 2 defitions work for me.
What the paper that I quoted shows is that the "quantum era" could have not been past eternal. Meaning that even if there was a quantum era before the big bang, this era would have not been past eternal and therefore the universe is not eternal.
In other words the quantum era would be part of the finite history of the universe. Agree? Yes or no?
Or do you hold that the quantum era lasted for an infinite amount of time?