[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Ephrem,
Thank you for posting those videos… I’m going to watch them at least 3 or 4 more times… excellent stuff.[/quote]
I saw those over the summer. They are excellent.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.
Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]
Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.
Nothing really ends.[/quote]
We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.
Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]
Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.
Where do these particles come from?
If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.
Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia
An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.
You call that God instead.
[/quote]
Energy is not destroyed in a black hole.
[/quote]
Nobody really knows. But if it can crush light, pretty much everything is on the table with respect to it’s destructive power. Just look at what happens in the event horizon. Interestingly enough, there are somethings thought to escape the edge of the black hole. That the energy created by destroying atoms is so great that it can escape the black hole, but not much.
[/quote]
Currently, energy is not destroyed. And particles can psudeo escape a black hole through hawking radiation.
Basically, a particle/anti-particle pair is created just outside of the even horizon. the anti-particle is sucked into the black hole (reducing the black holes mass). and the particle escapes into space. thus the black hole actually slowly decays.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.
Where do these particles come from?
If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.
Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia
An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.
You call that God instead.
[/quote]
All the know mass in the galaxy including the black holes isn’t enough to explain why galaxies don’t fly apart from their rotation.[/quote]
Gravity.[/quote]
That is what he is referring to when he mentions mass.[/quote]
Aha.
So what’s he talking about then?
[/quote]
I think he is making reference to dark matter.[/quote]
correct.[/quote]
Depends. Dark matter pretty much covers all non atomic unknowns. But dark matter for which mass is accounted for must have the ever elusive boson-higgs particle as a part of it and hence accounts for it’s mass.
Interestingly enough, Leibniz first postulated such matter and called them “monads”. His theory was that there is not such thing as empty space, everybody thought he was a nut, but it looks like he may have been right after all.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m still not getting why you are so willing to accept the eternal existence of a hypothetical supernatural being, but deny the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. Can you explain?[/quote]
I do not deny either actually. It’s the problem of contingency. Everything that exists has it’s basis in something else. Be that in or out of a space/time continuum.
Now we know certain things. That this current instance of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, has a center, a mass and a size (an ever changing one, but a size). Whether the whole thing will turn in to a giant black hole and collapse on itself, I don’t know. What I do know is that everything that exists physically or metaphysically, has properties and these properties have origin. As you strip these properties, then you get to what something really is.
Let’s take an example from Plato’s Forms. Think of a triangle. Now this triangle you are thinking of has properties, yet it doesn’t exist physically and does not exist in time. You mental triangle isn’t your creation it is your discovery, but like a physical triangle it has angles and sides, it must or it’s not a triangle. Can you see it? It will never move, change or age in any way. It will always be there for you to discover.
Where did the angles come from? Where did the sides come from? What about it’s color, size, etc. Where did it come from, your brain? No, your brain cannot make a damn thing. It can only discover and manipulate.
We can drill down infinitely on this triangle. It has infinite points.
The question is what makes it what it is and where does it come from?
I chose a metaphysical object because time is not a factor, yet it exists, has properties and origin. It exists infinitely, but culminates into a finite object.
People see physical things and metaphysical things as different, but I don’t. Every physical object has metaphysical components, therefore not only are they related, but things that are physical cannot exist with out the metaphysical, not so the other way around.
You can’t build a motor cycle out of a box of parts with out a plan.
Bottom line is this, all that exists has components that are infinite, or are time independent if you will. But yet they all have origin and when you come across something where you cannot ask where it came from or why it exists, there you have found God.
Everything is related and it all rolls up…
[/quote]
The triangle I’m thinking of disappears when I die. It’s a product of my brain, like every other cognitive object I create. That doesn’t make it metaphysical, any more than a computation being done by a computer is metaphysical.
Just so I’m clear, it sounds like you believe matter and energy have always existed? If that is the case, there is no such thing as a first cause, because eternity stretches in both directions.
[/quote]
Not really. You can no longer perceive it, but the entity is still there. This is all about epistemology. Once you get that it’s very understandable. Like a computer your brain cannot produce an original thought. Go ahead and try, think of a color that doesn’t exist and isn’t comprised of other colors. Or any thought that isn’t a culmination of other thoughts, feelings, or experiences, i.e. completely unique. You cannot do it, no one can. A computer cannot postulate on the metaphysical and is useless with out people.
I don’t see evidence of an ever existing universe but I do not deny it’s a possibility. Even if it is, it doesn’t solve the contingency problem. Everything, that exists is contingent upon something else. When you have hit upon that which is not contingent, you have found God. It’s mathematical really.[/quote]
What do you mean “the entity is still there”? We’re talking about a mental representation existing solely in my brain. When my brain dies, that specific mental representation dies along with it. Others might have their own representation, but that is different from my representation.
Contingency doesn’t become a problem when you acknowledge that the universe has always existed. Definitionally, there is no first cause because there is no first, period.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.
Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]
Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.
Nothing really ends.[/quote]
We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.
Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]
Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.
Where do these particles come from?
If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.
Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia
An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.
You call that God instead.
[/quote]
Energy is not destroyed in a black hole.
[/quote]
Nobody really knows. But if it can crush light, pretty much everything is on the table with respect to it’s destructive power. Just look at what happens in the event horizon. Interestingly enough, there are somethings thought to escape the edge of the black hole. That the energy created by destroying atoms is so great that it can escape the black hole, but not much.
[/quote]
Currently, energy is not destroyed. And particles can psudeo escape a black hole through hawking radiation.
Basically, a particle/anti-particle pair is created just outside of the even horizon. the anti-particle is sucked into the black hole (reducing the black holes mass). and the particle escapes into space. thus the black hole actually slowly decays.[/quote]
That’s not all energy though. But yes, that’s the theory I was referring to, but it wasn’t encompassing that all energy behaves in this way. It is a good theory on why black holes can lose mass. But there is much debate on the matter. For instance, simply destroying “information” can also cause a black hole to lose mass.
Again, pretty much everything is on the table with regards to black holes.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.
Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]
Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.
Nothing really ends.[/quote]
We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.
Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]
Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.
Where do these particles come from?
If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.
Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia
An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.
You call that God instead.
[/quote]
Energy is not destroyed in a black hole.
[/quote]
Nobody really knows. But if it can crush light, pretty much everything is on the table with respect to it’s destructive power. Just look at what happens in the event horizon. Interestingly enough, there are somethings thought to escape the edge of the black hole. That the energy created by destroying atoms is so great that it can escape the black hole, but not much.
[/quote]
Currently, energy is not destroyed. And particles can psudeo escape a black hole through hawking radiation.
Basically, a particle/anti-particle pair is created just outside of the even horizon. the anti-particle is sucked into the black hole (reducing the black holes mass). and the particle escapes into space. thus the black hole actually slowly decays.[/quote]
That’s not all energy though. But yes, that’s the theory I was referring to, but it wasn’t encompassing that all energy behaves in this way. It is a good theory on why black holes can lose mass. But there is much debate on the matter. For instance, simply destroying “information” can also cause a black hole to lose mass.
Again, pretty much everything is on the table with regards to black holes.[/quote]
lol yeah. Even black holes themselves are still fairly theoretical.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m still not getting why you are so willing to accept the eternal existence of a hypothetical supernatural being, but deny the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. Can you explain?[/quote]
I do not deny either actually. It’s the problem of contingency. Everything that exists has it’s basis in something else. Be that in or out of a space/time continuum.
Now we know certain things. That this current instance of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, has a center, a mass and a size (an ever changing one, but a size). Whether the whole thing will turn in to a giant black hole and collapse on itself, I don’t know. What I do know is that everything that exists physically or metaphysically, has properties and these properties have origin. As you strip these properties, then you get to what something really is.
Let’s take an example from Plato’s Forms. Think of a triangle. Now this triangle you are thinking of has properties, yet it doesn’t exist physically and does not exist in time. You mental triangle isn’t your creation it is your discovery, but like a physical triangle it has angles and sides, it must or it’s not a triangle. Can you see it? It will never move, change or age in any way. It will always be there for you to discover.
Where did the angles come from? Where did the sides come from? What about it’s color, size, etc. Where did it come from, your brain? No, your brain cannot make a damn thing. It can only discover and manipulate.
We can drill down infinitely on this triangle. It has infinite points.
The question is what makes it what it is and where does it come from?
I chose a metaphysical object because time is not a factor, yet it exists, has properties and origin. It exists infinitely, but culminates into a finite object.
People see physical things and metaphysical things as different, but I don’t. Every physical object has metaphysical components, therefore not only are they related, but things that are physical cannot exist with out the metaphysical, not so the other way around.
You can’t build a motor cycle out of a box of parts with out a plan.
Bottom line is this, all that exists has components that are infinite, or are time independent if you will. But yet they all have origin and when you come across something where you cannot ask where it came from or why it exists, there you have found God.
Everything is related and it all rolls up…
[/quote]
The triangle I’m thinking of disappears when I die. It’s a product of my brain, like every other cognitive object I create. That doesn’t make it metaphysical, any more than a computation being done by a computer is metaphysical.
Just so I’m clear, it sounds like you believe matter and energy have always existed? If that is the case, there is no such thing as a first cause, because eternity stretches in both directions.
[/quote]
Not really. You can no longer perceive it, but the entity is still there. This is all about epistemology. Once you get that it’s very understandable. Like a computer your brain cannot produce an original thought. Go ahead and try, think of a color that doesn’t exist and isn’t comprised of other colors. Or any thought that isn’t a culmination of other thoughts, feelings, or experiences, i.e. completely unique. You cannot do it, no one can. A computer cannot postulate on the metaphysical and is useless with out people.
I don’t see evidence of an ever existing universe but I do not deny it’s a possibility. Even if it is, it doesn’t solve the contingency problem. Everything, that exists is contingent upon something else. When you have hit upon that which is not contingent, you have found God. It’s mathematical really.[/quote]
What do you mean “the entity is still there”? We’re talking about a mental representation existing solely in my brain. When my brain dies, that specific mental representation dies along with it. Others might have their own representation, but that is different from my representation.
Contingency doesn’t become a problem when you acknowledge that the universe has always existed. Definitionally, there is no first cause because there is no first, period. [/quote]
Key word you used “representation” which is not the object itself. And how do you know that I cannot think of the same triangle as you? Second, a thought has at least two components. The thought is the container, the object of the thought is the metaphysical object. Certainly, my mental triangle and your mental triangles share properties. How then could it be all your own.
You don’t understand contingency. They are still dependent even if infinate. Look at light, light has a source, but has no time.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.
Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]
Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.
Nothing really ends.[/quote]
We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.
Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]
Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.
Where do these particles come from?
If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.
Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia
An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.
You call that God instead.
[/quote]
Energy is not destroyed in a black hole.
[/quote]
Nobody really knows. But if it can crush light, pretty much everything is on the table with respect to it’s destructive power. Just look at what happens in the event horizon. Interestingly enough, there are somethings thought to escape the edge of the black hole. That the energy created by destroying atoms is so great that it can escape the black hole, but not much.
[/quote]
Currently, energy is not destroyed. And particles can psudeo escape a black hole through hawking radiation.
Basically, a particle/anti-particle pair is created just outside of the even horizon. the anti-particle is sucked into the black hole (reducing the black holes mass). and the particle escapes into space. thus the black hole actually slowly decays.[/quote]
That’s not all energy though. But yes, that’s the theory I was referring to, but it wasn’t encompassing that all energy behaves in this way. It is a good theory on why black holes can lose mass. But there is much debate on the matter. For instance, simply destroying “information” can also cause a black hole to lose mass.
Again, pretty much everything is on the table with regards to black holes.[/quote]
I think that for the most part, we all do best in this conversation when we avoid speaking in absolute terms such as “yes” and “no”. As far as i can tell, all of us involved in this thread are just hobbyists.
It would be great if we could get a few legit physicists on here, so we could pick their brains!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.
Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]
Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.
Nothing really ends.[/quote]
We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.
Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]
Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.
Where do these particles come from?
If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.
Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia
An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.
You call that God instead.
[/quote]
Energy is not destroyed in a black hole.
[/quote]
Nobody really knows. But if it can crush light, pretty much everything is on the table with respect to it’s destructive power. Just look at what happens in the event horizon. Interestingly enough, there are somethings thought to escape the edge of the black hole. That the energy created by destroying atoms is so great that it can escape the black hole, but not much.
[/quote]
Currently, energy is not destroyed. And particles can psudeo escape a black hole through hawking radiation.
Basically, a particle/anti-particle pair is created just outside of the even horizon. the anti-particle is sucked into the black hole (reducing the black holes mass). and the particle escapes into space. thus the black hole actually slowly decays.[/quote]
That’s not all energy though. But yes, that’s the theory I was referring to, but it wasn’t encompassing that all energy behaves in this way. It is a good theory on why black holes can lose mass. But there is much debate on the matter. For instance, simply destroying “information” can also cause a black hole to lose mass.
Again, pretty much everything is on the table with regards to black holes.[/quote]
lol yeah. Even black holes themselves are still fairly theoretical.[/quote]
indeed.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.
Where do these particles come from?
If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.
Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia
An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to self regulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.
You call that God instead.
[/quote]
No, he said when you remove all matter and create a void, something is always there. With true randomness there is no consistency. Seemingly random can satisfy a scientific condition when studying something else, but the particles popping in and out of a void certainly do it for a reason and come from somewhere. Further, a “void” isn’t nothingness. It is a something, it occupies space and things occur in it in time. Lastly, it is a consistently replicatable effect which means it’s not random, just not understood. Given the effects of polarity in the EPR paradox, I don’t actually find this to far fetched.
Ok, so now you have an expanding singularity, that doesn’t have creative properties? What is it then?
Now you have three separate things going on. An ever expanding singularity that has no definition, it just is? Then you have a chaotic system and a self regulation aspect that is random but controls this chaotic system?
You don’t see how you just painted yourself in to a corner?
Where did the chaotic system come from? How did it’s self regulation pop into existance? What’s the singularity then got to do with any of it?[/quote]
I have this feeling again that we’re talking about different issues here pat. You go off on an idea i wasn’t talking about thinking it refutes the idea i was talking about. Your first paragraph didn’t adress my post, or at least, i don’t think it does.
Why do you think the expanding singularity needs creative properties?
Self-organising systems in chaos does not control chaos. Eventually the organised system will return to chaos. You seem to translate anything i say through the concept of a divine creator.
The universe exists, beit in the form of a singularity or fullyfledged, eternally. It knows no beginning, no maker; it just is.
Just like your God that always existed, just simply sans God.
The God-myth is unnecessary to explain the existence of the universe.
You didn’t explain away the randomness in my post either.
And swole? Randomness is unpredictability. Its just when you phrase it as the latter, you subtly infer that it ultimately can be broken down as deterministic.
The whole of quantum mechanics is based on the random nature of particles at the subatomic level.
Of course anyone can say “in the future, im confident that science will prove me and my deterministic ideas about the universe right”. I’m never one to say never, who really knows? But if you are scientifically inclined, all the evidence points towards randomness being an inherent property of the universe.
The double slit experiment is fascinating, because it neatly demonstrates nearly every aspect of quantum mechanics, and the confusion it causes.
And get this, not only atoms and particles make interference patterns. Fullerene molecules have been shown to cause interference patterns too. That means that WHOLE MOLECULES ARE PASSING THROUGH BOTH SLITS AT THE SAME TIME. Get your head round that one.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You didn’t explain away the randomness in my post either.
And swole? Randomness is unpredictability. Its just when you phrase it as the latter, you subtly infer that it ultimately can be broken down as deterministic.
The whole of quantum mechanics is based on the random nature of particles at the subatomic level.
Of course anyone can say “in the future, im confident that science will prove me and my deterministic ideas about the universe right”. I’m never one to say never, who really knows? But if you are scientifically inclined, all the evidence points towards randomness being an inherent property of the universe.
The double slit experiment is fascinating, because it neatly demonstrates nearly every aspect of quantum mechanics, and the confusion it causes.
And get this, not only atoms and particles make interference patterns. Fullerene molecules have been shown to cause interference patterns too. That means that WHOLE MOLECULES ARE PASSING THROUGH BOTH SLITS AT THE SAME TIME. Get your head round that one.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know that I’ve taken a position here as being a determinist. I just am not convinced that the unpredictability of quantum mechanics is the same as pure randomness. I’m certainly in over my head on the topic, though.
I’m racking my brain trying to remember, but I read somewhere the position that unpredictability at the quantum level is a function of observation and not of the actual nature of quantum particles. So, while we may not be able to observe any predictable outcomes at the quantum level, this does not mean they are not there. And to conclude that because we can not observe it it does not exist is a bit of a stretch, in the presence of predictability in the system.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m still not getting why you are so willing to accept the eternal existence of a hypothetical supernatural being, but deny the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. Can you explain?[/quote]
I do not deny either actually. It’s the problem of contingency. Everything that exists has it’s basis in something else. Be that in or out of a space/time continuum.
Now we know certain things. That this current instance of the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, has a center, a mass and a size (an ever changing one, but a size). Whether the whole thing will turn in to a giant black hole and collapse on itself, I don’t know. What I do know is that everything that exists physically or metaphysically, has properties and these properties have origin. As you strip these properties, then you get to what something really is.
Let’s take an example from Plato’s Forms. Think of a triangle. Now this triangle you are thinking of has properties, yet it doesn’t exist physically and does not exist in time. You mental triangle isn’t your creation it is your discovery, but like a physical triangle it has angles and sides, it must or it’s not a triangle. Can you see it? It will never move, change or age in any way. It will always be there for you to discover.
Where did the angles come from? Where did the sides come from? What about it’s color, size, etc. Where did it come from, your brain? No, your brain cannot make a damn thing. It can only discover and manipulate.
We can drill down infinitely on this triangle. It has infinite points.
The question is what makes it what it is and where does it come from?
I chose a metaphysical object because time is not a factor, yet it exists, has properties and origin. It exists infinitely, but culminates into a finite object.
People see physical things and metaphysical things as different, but I don’t. Every physical object has metaphysical components, therefore not only are they related, but things that are physical cannot exist with out the metaphysical, not so the other way around.
You can’t build a motor cycle out of a box of parts with out a plan.
Bottom line is this, all that exists has components that are infinite, or are time independent if you will. But yet they all have origin and when you come across something where you cannot ask where it came from or why it exists, there you have found God.
Everything is related and it all rolls up…
[/quote]
The triangle I’m thinking of disappears when I die. It’s a product of my brain, like every other cognitive object I create. That doesn’t make it metaphysical, any more than a computation being done by a computer is metaphysical.
Just so I’m clear, it sounds like you believe matter and energy have always existed? If that is the case, there is no such thing as a first cause, because eternity stretches in both directions.
[/quote]
Not really. You can no longer perceive it, but the entity is still there. This is all about epistemology. Once you get that it’s very understandable. Like a computer your brain cannot produce an original thought. Go ahead and try, think of a color that doesn’t exist and isn’t comprised of other colors. Or any thought that isn’t a culmination of other thoughts, feelings, or experiences, i.e. completely unique. You cannot do it, no one can. A computer cannot postulate on the metaphysical and is useless with out people.
I don’t see evidence of an ever existing universe but I do not deny it’s a possibility. Even if it is, it doesn’t solve the contingency problem. Everything, that exists is contingent upon something else. When you have hit upon that which is not contingent, you have found God. It’s mathematical really.[/quote]
What do you mean “the entity is still there”? We’re talking about a mental representation existing solely in my brain. When my brain dies, that specific mental representation dies along with it. Others might have their own representation, but that is different from my representation.
Contingency doesn’t become a problem when you acknowledge that the universe has always existed. Definitionally, there is no first cause because there is no first, period. [/quote]
Key word you used “representation” which is not the object itself. And how do you know that I cannot think of the same triangle as you? Second, a thought has at least two components. The thought is the container, the object of the thought is the metaphysical object. Certainly, my mental triangle and your mental triangles share properties. How then could it be all your own.
You don’t understand contingency. They are still dependent even if infinate. Look at light, light has a source, but has no time.[/quote]
There’s nothing metaphysical about it. If we both see a triangle, we create a mental construct of it. The commonality is the triangle itself, but our mental representation of it disappears when our brain dies.
I didn’t say there was no contingency, only that contingency is no longer a problem when you acknowledge that matter and energy have always existed. There is no beginning, so obviously there is no first cause.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You didn’t explain away the randomness in my post either.
And swole? Randomness is unpredictability. Its just when you phrase it as the latter, you subtly infer that it ultimately can be broken down as deterministic.
The whole of quantum mechanics is based on the random nature of particles at the subatomic level.
Of course anyone can say “in the future, im confident that science will prove me and my deterministic ideas about the universe right”. I’m never one to say never, who really knows? But if you are scientifically inclined, all the evidence points towards randomness being an inherent property of the universe.
The double slit experiment is fascinating, because it neatly demonstrates nearly every aspect of quantum mechanics, and the confusion it causes.
And get this, not only atoms and particles make interference patterns. Fullerene molecules have been shown to cause interference patterns too. That means that WHOLE MOLECULES ARE PASSING THROUGH BOTH SLITS AT THE SAME TIME. Get your head round that one.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know that I’ve taken a position here as being a determinist. I just am not convinced that the unpredictability of quantum mechanics is the same as pure randomness. I’m certainly in over my head on the topic, though.
I’m racking my brain trying to remember, but I read somewhere the position that unpredictability at the quantum level is a function of observation and not of the actual nature of quantum particles. So, while we may not be able to observe any predictable outcomes at the quantum level, this does not mean they are not there. And to conclude that because we can not observe it it does not exist is a bit of a stretch, in the presence of predictability in the system.
[/quote]
The cool part is that it is impossible to know. You cannot ever scientifically pre-determine a system. You can never rule out the influence of external forces (God or free will or whatever).
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I’m racking my brain trying to remember, but I read somewhere the position that unpredictability at the quantum level is a function of observation and not of the actual nature of quantum particles. So, while we may not be able to observe any predictable outcomes at the quantum level, this does not mean they are not there. And to conclude that because we can not observe it it does not exist is a bit of a stretch, in the presence of predictability in the system.
[/quote]
Bell’s theorem states that any quantum theory must violate either:
- realism ( Counterfactual definiteness - Wikipedia ); or
- locality ( Principle of locality - Wikipedia ).
With the many-worlds interpretation you preserve (2) and therefore violate (1). That means we could well be living in a universe where it is impossible to assume that objects exist or have properties even when they have not been measured.
When I say measurement, formally that means we have a quantum system which has a set of states and respective probabilities. Essentially the system is described by a vector in some space which looks a bit like ordinary Euclidean space but has a more complex structure. If you imagine three-dimensional Euclidean space then measurements correspond to projections of vectors on to rays and planes. If you had a system with just two states (let’s say positive and negative charge) then a vector in the space corresponding to this system will have two components. A measurement of the system will give you one of the two states with probabilities corresponding to the components of that vector. Even though the system evolves according to a fixed rule, measurement complicates things.
I don’t think quantum mechanics is necessarily non-deterministic, but it makes determinism seem unlikely to me.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.
Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]
Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.
Nothing really ends.[/quote]
We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.
Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]
Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.
Where do these particles come from?
If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.
Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia
An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.
You call that God instead.
[/quote]
Energy is not destroyed in a black hole.
[/quote]
Nobody really knows. But if it can crush light, pretty much everything is on the table with respect to it’s destructive power. Just look at what happens in the event horizon. Interestingly enough, there are somethings thought to escape the edge of the black hole. That the energy created by destroying atoms is so great that it can escape the black hole, but not much.
[/quote]
Currently, energy is not destroyed. And particles can psudeo escape a black hole through hawking radiation.
Basically, a particle/anti-particle pair is created just outside of the even horizon. the anti-particle is sucked into the black hole (reducing the black holes mass). and the particle escapes into space. thus the black hole actually slowly decays.[/quote]
Black holes only decay when the creation of radiation outpaces the rate at which they swallow mass, so it ends up being true only for very small black holes. Of course this is theoretical because hawkings radiation hasn’t been observed and I don’t even think a small black hole has been observed either.
[quote]Fezzik wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.
Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]
Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.
Nothing really ends.[/quote]
We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.
Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe? [/quote]
Remember that lecture by the guy in the greasy dinnerjacket you emailed about the emptiness of space? He says that space is brothing with particles appearing and disappearing at random.
Where do these particles come from?
If energy can’t escape a black hole and thus energy is destroyed, perhaps that effect is nulled by the particles appearing in the vacuum of space.
Nature seeks balance, and we see that everywhere on earth and in the universe. Black holes are a natural phenomenon that appears to contradict nature’s search for equilibrium, and yet black holes are vital to the universe. Without black holes galaxies wouldn’t form: Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia
An expanding singularity does not create a universe. The formation of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies happen due to selfregulation in chaotic systems. How this happens is unknown.
You call that God instead.
[/quote]
Energy is not destroyed in a black hole.
[/quote]
Nobody really knows. But if it can crush light, pretty much everything is on the table with respect to it’s destructive power. Just look at what happens in the event horizon. Interestingly enough, there are somethings thought to escape the edge of the black hole. That the energy created by destroying atoms is so great that it can escape the black hole, but not much.
[/quote]
Currently, energy is not destroyed. And particles can psudeo escape a black hole through hawking radiation.
Basically, a particle/anti-particle pair is created just outside of the even horizon. the anti-particle is sucked into the black hole (reducing the black holes mass). and the particle escapes into space. thus the black hole actually slowly decays.[/quote]
Black holes only decay when the creation of radiation outpaces the rate at which they swallow mass, so it ends up being true only for very small black holes. Of course this is theoretical because hawkings radiation hasn’t been observed and I don’t even think a small black hole has been observed either.[/quote]
No black holes can directly be observed. But yeah, it’s all just theory.
It’s widely accepted that we have detected black holes and that many galaxies, including our own, have a supermassive black hole at their center. And gravity is also just a theory.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
It’s widely accepted that we have detected black holes and that many galaxies, including our own, have a supermassive black hole at their center. And gravity is also just a theory.[/quote]
I’m not even going to pretend that I understand this.
Had a look at the paper. He’s using a sort of holographic principle and entropy to recover Newton’s laws. I can follow the derivations, but I don’t pretend to understand the physics.