Just curious - are you really that bad a speller, or did you do that on purpose?
No, there’s an important difference, Tracer.
If I correctly understand his assertion, f is equal to ma even when there is no m and no a. There’s a governing law that pre-exists even the things that it governs so that the universe could not have formed any other way. Such laws are prescriptive rather than descriptive.
And who’s to say that it couldn’t be something supernatural, i.e., something that is not discoverable within the confines of its own system?
Frankly, with no insult intended to the many erudite and scholarly atheists on these boards, I have never encountered quite so parochial a philosophy as materialism. And I must say that Tris’s observation that materialists are a wild bunch after all seems poignant. The most mystical attributes imaginable are routinely assigned to nature, all for the purpose of avoiding a metaphysic that has been pre-dismissed out of hand.
Can you please find any post by me that claimed that a supernatural explanation is impossible. You have made the claim that any explanation other than a supernatural one is impossible. That is all that I am arguing against – not the possibility that there is a supernatural explanation.
Is history is any guide, a philosphy based on the “god of the gaps” is not one that I would hold too strongly.
I regret that you personalized my statement, Rsa. I certainly don’t think that you in particular are among the materialists who are categorically prejudiced against nonfalsifiable solutions. In fact, I think I’m on record as going out of my way to identify you as a thoughtful scientist.
I’d like to add to that record that my implied assertion (which you’ve correctly infered) is not based on the same principle as a god of the gaps. Specifically, I do not believe that the universe must have a supernatural origin simply because there is some gap in our knowledge that sufficient data would eradicate. There are scientific theories with epistemological gaps that I embrace wholeheartedly — evolution, for example. And I embrace them because they are compellingly reasonable.
Not so with materialist cosmological models. We’re not talking about gaps here, but about logical contradictions, the nature of nature, and ontological legerdemain. There is simply no precedent lattice of reason that might make it possible to conjure rabbits from hats. And that’s the reason Tris and I were so astounded at the claims of materialists in the thread on Materialism. Matter was doing magical things with no mechanism at all, or else a mechanism that is eternal — a term so unscientific by its very definition that it strains credulity.
Anything eternal is not natural because we can see that nature changes. We can see the direction of the time-arrow. Though that arrow might not exist at the quantum level, the problem isn’t solved by then shifting the matter of origin to a postulated universe that is in a quantum state because if the first state of the universe was a quantum fluctuation, then the question of origin does not concern that particular “then”, but rather the “then” that preceded it. By definition, no “then” could have preceded the first “then”, so there is therefore no natural description of a mechanism to account for a first “then”.
And even if science postulates a pseudo-eternal universe (skirting altogether the obvious issue of eternal matter simply by modeling existence as a cycle) where the Big Suck eventually pulls all energy back together into a quantum string, it cannot conveniently forget that the mechanism for the next “origin” must be explained. Not by a discovery, but by logic. And if logic cannot explain, if logic is lost in the quantum world (as a few careless scientists are wont to aver) then a quantum mechanical hypothesis of a material origin is tantamount to a supernatural one.
Two different terms imply the same thing: you say “quantum” and I say “supernatural”; there is no logical natural explanation as to how the something we see came to be. It can’t have always been, again because it’s changing. Even if entropy were to reverse, there is no solution because the universe simply reverts to its state before its first state. And there’s no such thing.
It’s a logical maypole.
Not to worry, I just wanted to point out that just because A is possible, that doesn’t imply that B is impossible. Although it may be that A and B are mutually exclusive, until we know (if ever) which is TRUE, they may both be possible (i.e., no logical contradictions). I hope I didn’t mangle that; logic (at least in the formal sense) is not my strong suit.
The problem of infinite regress (any system must arise from another system, which must arise from another system…) can be stated in two ways. One is the problem of temporal regress and the other is the problem of logical regress. On the problem of temporal regress (time’s arrow and all that), I think that we may have to agree to disagree. Our minds are not made to understand a system that has no time or where time is undefined or where time lacks a consistent direction. QM has taught me to not reject something simply because I can’t make complete sense of it.
But actually, I think that you are focusing more now on the problem of logical regress. That is much harder to argue with and perhaps you’re right. I just don’t know, and lots of people who are immensely smarter than I aren’t quite sure of that one either.
I’m not sure that I understand why eternal implies that everything must be static. It was my understanding that before the big bang theory, an eternal universe was considered by many to be the most simple, elegant, and natural description of the universe. Hubble threw a monkey wrench in that, but perhaps some budding scientist will find evidence for a metaverse which incorporates expanding universes such as ours.
I thought that the links that I provided a little ways up proposed a mechanism to explain the next origin following “the Big Suck”. I don’t recall that they relied on some black box (a miracle occurs) to explain the repeated “origins”. Of course you could still argue from infinite regress.
I’m interested in your thoughts on this. How do you logically explain why a given radioactive atom decays at some particular time rather than another. How do logically explain the EPR paradox (Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”)? Are these supernatural processes? Forget the origin of the universe – we already live in one that defies logic. Our universe is a quantum one that does not follow classical ideas of locality and logic.
In Stephen Hawking’s proposal of the universe as unbounded and finite (think of the surface of the earth) he originally agreed with you until it was pointed out that he had made an error. He found that the thermodynamic and cosmological arrows of time need not point in the same direction at all times.
Also, if you are not familiar with Hawking’s idea of imaginary time (based on an additional “direction” of time corresponding to the imaginary numbers), I would encourage you to check it out. As far as I know, his theory is mathematically and logically consistent.
What an excellent debator you are!
We might not be as far apart as first appears. I agree with you, although your “made” metaphor raised an eyebrow ;). But you’re right. Our minds are used to rhythm, and rhythm implies cycle, and cycle implies time. They are also used to time as a vector, moving in one direction.
Nevertheless, our minds can conceive remarkably surreal things. For example, we can grasp a hypersphere moving from ana to kata (hyperdimensional directions) through our three dimensions by analogizing it to the movement of a sphere from up to down in two-dimensional Flatland. Its movement along the z-axis to the plane cannot be seen at all by the inhabitant. All he can see is a point as the sphere first intersects the plane, and then an ever widening circle (or disk if the sphere is solid), and then an ever narrowing circle until it disappears.
Likewise, if a hypersphere were to move through our space, what we would see is an ever enlarging three-dimensional sphere as it approaches from ana, and then an ever shrinking sphere as it moves toward kata.
Thus, even though we normally don’t have our minds wrapped around such concepts as moving from ana to kata, we can conceive it, and we can even comprehend it with thought experiments. I think that, ordinarily, such mind-bending human cognition is seen more often from artists than philosophers (including scientists). But there are notable exceptions. And those exceptions — the Einsteins, the Heisenbergs, the Hawkings — they are the ones who usually breathe new life into science and philosophy generally.
So, while it’s true that the concept of eternity as a timeless system is difficult to understand, reality is not subjective (and I assume that you’re no solipsist) and therefore exists independent of our comprehension. Moreover, eternity can be glimpsed by something as simple as considering the rate of a thing as a ratio of some distance to zero. Timelessness is merely the substitution of zero in any arbitrary equation that uses time as a variable.
My journey of faith has taught me the same.
Because in whatever relational context time equals zero, either the relation is undefined, the solution is zero, or time is unchanged. These relations can be expressed by these three sets of terms where x is any arbitrary value or expression and t is zero time:
x/t — the value is undefined
x(t) — the value is zero
x + t (or x - t) — the value is unchanged
Yes, exactly. Messrs. Steinhardt and Turok must now explain a mechanism for the origin of the “brane”.
Well, lots of people have addressed EPR (don’t forget Podolsky and Rosen!), but the argument that I like best is that Special Relativity does not apply in curved space. So no, it’s nothing mystical. Radioactive decay is merely a statistical phenomenon and is therefore not supernatural either.
Right, but that pretty much leaves things in the same “anything is possible” state. The fact of the matter is that, for obvious reasons, matters of cosmological origin are not easily (if at all) falsifiable.
One more observation, Rsa, if I may. I do find it interesting that some materialists (certainly not you) make the mistake of localizing the generality of time’s arrow to what they consider to be the ad hoc universe while simultaneously presuming that there is a larger, more all encompassing time-arrow that is a vector in its forward moving cyclism — blowing out and sucking up universes.
The problem that poses is this: why can it not be possible that that larger arrow may have imaginary vectors and that universes in general, along with the arrow’s own existence, can be and are being uncreated. And if that’s the case, and it is eternal, then it ought to have been uncreated already.
Just reading here, right now, and occasionally playing a bit of accompaniment on my Gausopheme. But, having been invoked, I suppose I should add my comments to the mix.
On the OP:
Well, I know there is a God, and I have fairly compelling evidence that there is a Universe. Humans seem to perceive beginnings, so it seems to me that from our frame of reference there might well have been one. Cause and effect seem to me to imply a temporally bound relationship, so if the universe was created, it must have been created by some mechanism sufficiently unrelated to what I perceive as cause and effect that it operates outside of that perceived relationship I call time. In order to create the Universe, that phenomenon must exist in some aspect outside of the Universe.
Without time, and in the absence of a Universe . . . well, see . . . unlike the determinist materialists, I don’t know what the hell “before the beginning” and “outside of the Universe” really means. Now, I don’t say that it isn’t entirely possible that quantum fluctuations in a supersymmetric singularity expanded along an n dimensional plenum, resulting in a self-sustaining propagation of a granulated medium in the resulting space-time of the Universe. What I don’t understand is just how exactly that differs from “In the beginning, God created the Heaven and Earth.”
But then, I am a mystic, Christian, Gausopheme player, so what the heck.
Any requests?
Tris
“You could park a car in the shadow of his ass.” ~ Geena Davis, in Thelma and Louise ~
I’ve got to make this quick, but I just wanted to touch on a couple of things. BTW, I also think that we are pretty close to agreement. I think it comes down to the minor detail that God told you that He created the universe and He hasn’t (yet) told me. 
But the debate has been thought provoking for me anyway.
LOL! I originally was going to say "Our minds are not designed to understand… Yikes.
But remember that while the wave function of spacetime may be “centered” at zero at some point, it would not be correct to say that the wave function equals zero.
Well, either it has always existed or God made it.
That’s what General Relativity is for (as you know). I’m not aware how curved space eliminates any non-local paradoxes. If you have something, please share it. I could say the origin of the universe “is merely a statistical phenomenon”. I brought up “quantum weirdness” as a counterpoint to your arguments based on logic. I’m surprised how easily you accept the logic of quantum processes. Since you accept the reality of the universe, what is the “process” (right back at cha!) that allows something that we measure or interfere with WAY OVER HERE to instantly affect something WAY OVER THERE (as far apart as you want).
Not easily perhaps, but any good cosmogony theory should make predictions which are falsifiable. Both Hawking’s and the Steinhardt / Turok theories have falsifiable features.
Regarding your comments about the arrow of time, I should just shrug my shoulders and say that I don’t know. I will just reiterate that the thermodynamic and cosmological arrows of time may be two different animals (which is possibly testable) and perhaps that would answer your criticism. I think that I would need some imaginary brain cells to comment much on the imaginary vectors of time.
Yeah, what the heck is a Gausopheme? [sub][sup]Here I am debating the origin of the universe and I don’t even know what a Gausopheme is.[/sub][/sup]
Here’s my theory, which makes absolutely no sense.
The more you think about things, the weirder and more ridiculous and absurd they seem. The concept of something from nothing is also totally absurd. Thus, “God” is really the force of total ludicrous absurdity in the universe, and the entire universe was created as an extremely sick joke. Only God knows the punchline.
Pseudo-quasi-solipsistic corollary: I, being the observer, am the butt of the joke.
Who knows if this is true, but it sure is a fun way to go through life. This theory also has little to no chance of being perverted by religious fanatics, as they prefer to think that God is on their side.
The reference is to the question on materialism I posted in a prior thread when I proposed the creation of The Gausopheme as a thought experiment. In my post (which entered the discussion late, and lost as usual) I asked materialists to consider certain aspects of existence outside the brick and mortar sort of being. The discussion that followed left me with the dazed sense of wonder at the depths and breadth of Materialist thinking to which Lib referred above.
Tris
“The ephemeral and the eternal are the same.” ~ Gordon Dickson ~
According to Socrates, “True knowledge lies in knowing that we know NOTHING.” I would venture to say that anyone who has an opinion on this and does not admit that they may be wrong is not a person for whom I have any respect.
I believe in a God because I find far too many flaws with evolution and the theories proposed by scientists. I believe that God and science can exist together and that avoiding God in the name of science only causes problems.
I know I can be wrong, but I would stake my life that I am right.
The actual Gausopheme Post
Talk about poignant. No wonder some atheists think we’re insane. As Spiritus Mundi, a master logician and keen thinker once observed, faith that is (at least perceived as) a gift from God Himself imbues a confidence in its holder that is above and beyond that of any reason based epistemology.
My, my. Tris, you know, I’m still reeling from that thread. I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered anything quite like it. I opened it expecting a spirited debate over Hume and others, only to find it evolving into weird, new-age appeals to mystical attributes of nature that have never been observed. I stared in disbelief as I read things that make changing water into wine pale by comparison. Why they were willing to accept the existence of an apparently sentient nature while rejecting the miracles of Jesus was beyond me.
I’m not saying that the wave would equal zero; I’m saying that there would be no wave. It would be undefined, have zero amplitude, or zero frequency.
Oops, no, sorry. God (or something else supernatural) might have made it, but it cannot have always existed. Nothing natural can have always existed or else it would be undefined, unchanged, or uncreated.
It simply isn’t as far apart as it might seem. A curvature in space need not be a dramatic and enormous well of helplessly swirling matter spiraling toward an event horizon. It can be a simple zero-dimensional string that spans any arbitrary distance.
In a manner of speaking they do. You can show, for example, that if an assumption is made about a “dimension” between two universes, that assumption might be false under certain circumstances. But what you cannot falsify is the assertion itself because it is axiomatic.
As a matter of fact, the whole notion of falsifiability is itself axiomatic. Just so you can appreciate the nature of the problem, I would ask you to describe what sort of test might show that falsifiability as an epistemology is, well, falsifiable. Don’t spend much time with it, though. It can’t be done.
Well, they would have to be, wouldn’t they.
Why would an Invisible Pink Unicorn not as eloquently account for those flaws?