The Existence of God

[Deleted member]

How do distance and time not extend to infinity or negative infinity? They are just numbers with units next to them. If you agree that there can be an infinitely long number series then you agree that there exists a distance infinitely far away from us... you're just putting infinite in front of the word "meters" or "seconds".

-blazed

Except that infinite time or space is meaningless.
the shortest amount of time is a planck second, nothing can be shorter of duration than that, and nothing can exist longer than the time of the universe, of which we know isn't infinite.

the same applies to space. the smallest thing possible are strings or something else of that size, depending on what theory you currently take as truth.
There also cannot be anything bigger than the universe. while is currently is expanding, is isn't infinitely large nor will become that large in a finite amount of time.

 

[blazedaces]

Except that infinite time or space is meaningless.
the shortest amount of time is a planck second, nothing can be shorter of duration than that, and nothing can exist longer than the time of the universe, of which we know isn't infinite.

the same applies to space. the smallest thing possible are strings or something else of that size, depending on what theory you currently take as truth.
There also cannot be anything bigger than the universe. while is currently is expanding, is isn't infinitely large nor will become that large in a finite amount of time.

Complete and total nonsense. First of all, string theory is still unproven. Every time we have determined something as the smallest size it's eventually been discovered there was something smaller: first atoms, then protons, neutrons and electrons, now quartz. Next strings, etc. Do you see the pattern? We say it's the smallest, then we find smaller ...

And it has NOTHING to do with the fact that distances can be measured on an even smaller scale. And EVEN if that were not the case, it still doesn't change the fact that if you think of the "farthest" distance from here I can provide you with an even "farther" distance.

Things actually can exist longer than the time since the big bang, but we currently just can't know about it. Regardless, yet again, if you pick a time far back, I can always provide you with an even earlier time. This has nothing to do with our universe or lack of knowledge about it.

Stop trying to rationalize this, it doesn't work. You have to think up loopholes in logic to justify this belief. It's nonsensical. You can't just ignore concepts because they don't "fit" into your belief system.

How many photons can fit in the space of one cubic foot? That's right... infinite! Reality is not limited by your perspective.

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

Things actually can exist longer than the time since the big bang, but we currently just can't know about it.

right.
"they exist but we just don't know about them."
You also bring no arguments whatsoever why they can.

And do me a favour and prove that last sentence will you.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well what I mean to say that Aristotle was the first physicist and the first to undertake 'scientific invesitigation'.

Alright, got it. (Aristotle was wrong on a LOT of things though. To be honest he held back scientific knowledge for centuries because nobody was willing to go against his ideas.)

To be honest I don't understand why calling God a mind is such a big deal. Pretty much any monotheistic conception of god posits Him as a mind. Anything immaterial can be nothing other than a mind.

Someone try give me an example of something immaterial that isn't a mind and I'll tell you why it isn't physical.

This goes for everyone as well as Krazyglue, if you have a problem with the mind idea, then that means you disagree that an immaterial reality could ever precede a physical one, which is all that I'm saying.

So just so I'm clear, are you guys actually saying you have an issue with the idea that an immaterialy reality preceded the physical?

I'm not saying any of that. I'm just asking you the question because you have the burden of proof to tell us how a mind can create the universe, since that is your claim.

 

[Dre89]

Alright, got it. (Aristotle was wrong on a LOT of things though. To be honest he held back scientific knowledge for centuries because nobody was willing to go against his ideas.)



I'm not saying any of that. I'm just asking you the question because you have the burden of proof to tell us how a mind can create the universe, since that is your claim.

I'm going to take a gamble and risk an anaology that may backfire on me.

Think of your imagination. Now suppose your imagination was the ultimate reality, it was existence itself. You have no restraints on what you can conceive, you can conceive of material characters, who perceive themselves to be in a material world, but when in reality the ultimate reality (your mind) is immaterial.

Obviously there are differences between a human intellect and an omniscient intellect (human conceptions being fictional characters without independant consciousness etc.) but you guys are intellgient enough to join the dots.

An immaterial reality preceding a material reality is similar to that.

You have to remember, this is based off my conclusion that time and sapce cannot be self-necessary and the ultimate reality, that's a very important point. What this means is that the original being must exist outside of time-space. Because all that is material exists through the medium of time-space, what exists beyond that medium must be immaterial.

Now this is the part I was hesitant to explain, because I know I'll get alot of stick for this. I believe the universe is immaterial, because the ultimate reality is immaterial. We perceive through the medium of time-space, but that only exists within the universe. Everything that exists within the universe exists through time-sapce.

However, the universe as one unified entity does not exist within the universe. If X is the universe, and was actuated by Y, then X itself does not exist in X conditions, only what is within X exists in X conditions, X exists in Y conditions, for X is within Y (which in this case is immateriality).

It's a really hard point to get across, which is why I prefer to avoid it. I'm expecting alot of stick and I'm sure you'll have questions so run them by me for clarification.

 

[Mewter]

From necessity. The fact I even have a concept of 'I', a conception which is not through any physical medium suggests materialism is wrong. I don't want this to turn into a consciousness debate though, it's not relevant to the debate. Whether God is a mind or not does not hinge on whether there is a distinctio nbetween brain and human mind, so it doesn't matter

We'll just let that point fall then. I would have liked to ask the question of whether the mind was an illustrative perception object created by the brain and just reflected by its actions or whether a mind could have free will and be independent of chemical activities (take action that is not chemically triggered.) And whether or not your thinking of the concept of "I" could be explained through purely biological means.

I'd be happy if you could answer my questions though.

I'm not sure if you read my previous posts, but what I defined as a complexity was anything that had a specific structure, form. All complexities necessiate prior truths, meaning that no complexity can be self-necessary, for there was something prior to it.

I did. Complexity = relies on something else. Simple = not dependent on anything, but things are dependent on it. Got it. I'll adopt these words for the argument.

When I say time-space does not encompass all being, I mean it is no responsible for all being. For example, time did not actuate redness.
Apart from time-space being a contingent complexity, virtually every being in existence was not actuated by time-sapce, time-space is just the medium through which they exist, there's a difference.

Matter and energy did though, and they can interact with space and time (theoretically, you can bend time and space through different methods involving matter and energy.) For example, gravity.

But what this does is that it complicates the picture. Is matter dependent on space-time, and just an aspect of it? Are they independently existing and both complexities, or one and the same? They’re definitely intertwined. Only a physicist could give us a clearer image of that for sure, so it would be somewhat useless to try to pursue that question between you and me. That’s why I am asking what your reasoning behind space-time’s quality of complexity, because your argument (forgive me if I am wrong) assumes that space-time is nothing more than a stage or backdrop, and one of many complexities that reside on an equal level when there are in fact many more possibilities.

I also don't see why there can't be more than one "simplicity" that exists on its own without relying on further simple beings and thus bring themselves to become complexities. It would help if you could explain why there can only be one simple thing.

It was all covered in my posts where I speak of particulars and unviersals, and that essentially we regess back to the ultimate universal, which is a simple being. It's all covered in that post.

Okay.

 

[Dre89]

We'll just let that point fall then. I would have liked to ask the question of whether the mind was an illustrative perception object created by the brain and just reflected by its actions or whether a mind could have free will and be independent of chemical activities (take action that is not chemically triggered.) And whether or not your thinking of the concept of "I" could be explained through purely biological means.

I do think there is a distinction between mind and brain, but consciousness isn't my strong my point, and it's not really my interest. It's also not really relevant to the topic, because my God argument doesn't hinge on whether there is a distinction between mind and rbain.


I'd be happy if you could answer my questions though.

I did. Complexity = relies on something else. Simple = not dependent on anything, but things are dependent on it. Got it. I'll adopt these words for the argument.

Complexities rely on something else because they have a specific form which is necessitated by another truth. What makes a being simple is that is has no form, it essentially almost a nothingess, for nothingness necessitates no prior truths.

Matter and energy did though, and they can interact with space and time (theoretically, you can bend time and space through different methods involving matter and energy.) For example, gravity.

But what this does is that it complicates the picture. Is matter dependent on space-time, and just an aspect of it? Are they independently existing and both complexities, or one and the same? They’re definitely intertwined. Only a physicist could give us a clearer image of that for sure, so it would be somewhat useless to try to pursue that question between you and me. That’s why I am asking what your reasoning behind space-time’s quality of complexity, because your argument (forgive me if I am wrong) assumes that space-time is nothing more than a stage or backdrop, and one of many complexities that reside on an equal level when there are in fact many more possibilities.

Being dependant on time does not mean it was actuated by time though. Time is the medium through which X actuates Y, but it isn't time itself that actuates Y.

Maybe I'm jumping into a field I'm not educated in here, but it certainly seems conceiveable that time-space could exist wothout matter.

As for whether they're interrelated or spearate beings it doesn't really matter because it is still a complexity. The No Boundary Proposal is essentailly saying that they are all one unified compelxity, because there is no beginning to the universe, so there is no causation, everything would exist eternally. This doesn't solve the problem though of why an unecessary complexity exists as the ultimate reality, when observation of nature tells us that all complexities are actuated into existence by prior beings.

I also don't see why there can't be more than one "simplicity" that exists on its own without relying on further simple beings and thus bring themselves to become complexities. It would help if you could explain why there can only be one simple thing.

Because a simple being essentially has to be nothingness, for only nothingness has no specific form. You can't have two nothingnesses, for that then gives it a form.

This is also goes back to my old self-necessity argument. You can't have two original self-necessary beings, because they would in fact be dependant on each other. Secondly, the SN being is supposed to encompass being tiself, it is supposed to be being, not a being. If you have two SN beings, neither of them is being, for there is a being that exists independent of what they encompass. This renders them both a being rather than being itself, or all being. As soon as you say the both of them are beings, then there needs to be a prior existence which is being itself to account for how these two SN beings existed, which of course makes the original being the SN one.

Edit: Guys I think I've explained my argument enough now. I just want to kick back for a bit and hear your reasons for why you guys don't feel a God exists, or why He does. It becomes a strain after awhile to keep producing walls of text, I just need to chill for a bit.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Do you argue then that the expanding space is not pushing the galaxies? If so, then you and I both know that's simply incorrect. If the space between the galaxies is expanding, this creates a push force on the galaxies, making movement, this movement in turn is described by kinetic energy.

Let me it clear to you. There is no actual force pushing the galaxies apart. The space between them is expanding, and so the galaxies move apart. Okay for arguments sake, lets say the universe is a balloon. And the galaxies are small dots on the outside of the balloon. When you inflate the balloon, the galaxies move apart, there is no force "pushing" the galaxies, they believe they're staying in the same spot, and that everything else is moving away from them. There is no force of repulsion between the galaxies, the space is expanding between them.

Incorrect, to completely omit potential energy as a factor from the equation is to take away half of the total energy equation of an object and to disregard the physics behind motion.

I'll pull up the example provided from the link you posted earlier.

When the ball is at rest, it has only potential energy correct?(Which is why I believe this article is iffy if it defines it as a "state of zero energy" any object that's hanging has potential energy. A more correct term would be "zero movement") That's equal to the ball's mass times the acceleration due to gravity times it's height from the surface. When the ball is released and falls towards the ground, the ball gains kinetic energy while it's potential energy drops. The gravitational energy will always be equal and opposite to the objects kinetic energy. Meaning as kinetic energy rises, gravitational energy drops (grows more negative) as well as potential energy drops. There is only one instance in which the ball will have no potential energy and all kinetic energy, and that moment is at the exact instance the ball first touches the ground.

No where is it inclined that potential energy is completely omitted from the equation.

Okay, you are counting gravitational energy twice. See the negative energy is actually the loss of potential energy. Instead of saying, this stationary object has X gravitational potential energy, you can say it has 0 energy. When it moves under the influence of gravity, it gains kinetic energy, but an equal amount of negative gravitational energy is gained.

What about the energy from a split atom? Or nuclear energy?

I'm not 100% sure on this, but some physicists seem to think that they know the answer:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605063

They've calculated the total energy of the universe to equal 0. They've done their calculations properly and seem to have reached that number.

Hmm I don't believe so. I think it was 33 or 34 minutes into his lecture, after he claimed that the observers were wrong and that the universe was flat that he brought this up:
He first jested: "If you asked a European high school student the sum of the angles of a triangle, he would tell you 180 degrees. And that's all well and good he studied his Euclid. But you can use triangles to find the curvature of objects." He then used the earth as an example, and drew a triangle on the earth and said that you could find the curvature of the earth using this method. And that's true. He then said that if they could find a big enough triangle, they could measure the curvature of the universe, and he said that they did in fact have a triangle large enough to do so. So then he talks something about the big bang and such and finding the degree of a certain angle in the triangle, and so on and so forth.

He did try and use spherical trigonometry on a supposed plane. And that just doesn't come out right.

Also, just because he is a physicist doesn't mean that he can't be wrong, he is only human, just like you and I.

Yeah, but I'll have you know that Lawrence Krauss is not an idiot. He used the triangle to figure out the whether the universe was curved or not. He compared the sizes of the "lumps" measured with simulated universes. He used spherical geometry to see if the universe was a closed or open, it turned out that it wasn't. He then must have used plane geometry to figure out that the universe was flat.

The "nothing" described by both Krauss and this physicist here acknowledge that there is a vast amount of energy in nothing. And these quantum fluctuations happen. But in the absence of everything, even the energy in "nothing". I don't believe these can happen, because there are no particles or antiparticles that participate in these fluctuations to make them happen.

You seem to be supposing that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is violated in the absence of everything. Why? How do you know? As far as we know, quantum fluctuations will always occur, even in the absence of everything.

I'm not so sure at this point, I'm extremely skeptical of the chain of logic Krauss has used, especially given the geometric blunder he made to get to his "lumps". Even if he is a physicist by profession, I think he's left a lot of holes in his logic. Especially with the vague terminology he uses. Do you remember the part where he said the observers came up with the wrong number? When they had taken the time to observe and record these things. And then he turns around with his reasons as to why the universe must be flat with not near as much observation. I mean what does it even mean to be "mathematically beautiful"? From my life just on this planet, I would hardly wish to judge the planet as "mathematically beautiful" much less the universe.

Ah, but Krauss is not an idiot. He was joking, did you hear the bit where everyone laughed to his remarks? Him "knowing" the universe is flat, means that he believed that the universe was flat - it was his gut feeling, until it was substantiated with evidence.

I would think trying to find out how the universe even exists is a major problem in itself.

Yeah it is.

It can not be proven that quantum fluctuations happen, because nothing has energy in it, and we've not a single point in time where there hasn't been the absence of everything including energy.

As I've said before, there is no reason to suggest that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is violated in the absence of energy. Particle physicists such as Krauss seem to believe that it isn't either. I'd wager they'd know what they're talking about considering it's their area of expertise.

As is there is no reason to believe it isn't either.

Yeah, but that would demean god. Considering him a mere quantum fluctuation steals from the majesty of mythological figure. It's like calling an electrician Zeus, it's probably not a good idea.

Secondly, why bother? Calling it god, is confusing, misleading and just silly, why not tell it like it is?

 

[blazedaces]

right.
"they exist but we just don't know about them."
You also bring no arguments whatsoever why they can.

I apologize, I didn't explain myself exactly. The big bang has never EVER... EVER been proven to be necessarily the very beginning of our universe. Please... please don't misinterpret this. There is a RIDICULOUS amount of evidence proving the big bang occurred. There just is no logical reason to think it's the very first thing that EVER happened. There are plenty of theories being thrown around right now as to WHY the big bang began. If you'd like to read more I highly suggest Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos".

BUT... it has been proven that at the center of the big bang there was a singularity, which implied that while things could have possibly occurred prior to the big bang, we would NEVER have a conceivable way of knowing about it due to the singularity that occurred.

And do me a favour and prove that last sentence will you.

I'm going to use the wikipedia article as most of my source, if this is unacceptable all of the points brought up can be found in other evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Now, photons to begin with have no mass. This implies they quite literally take up no space whatsoever. They can also be absorbed as energy, and released as a form of energy. Lastly, since they are so tiny they are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle more pronouncedly affects them. As a result, their exact location and velocity are forever in a state of uncertainty (this doesn't just mean we don't know)...

-blazed

 

[KrazyGlue]

Now this is the part I was hesitant to explain, because I know I'll get alot of stick for this. I believe the universe is immaterial, because the ultimate reality is immaterial. We perceive through the medium of time-space, but that only exists within the universe. Everything that exists within the universe exists through time-sapce.

However, the universe as one unified entity does not exist within the universe. If X is the universe, and was actuated by Y, then X itself does not exist in X conditions, only what is within X exists in X conditions, X exists in Y conditions, for X is within Y (which in this case is immateriality).

Do you have any particular proof or reason to believe this?

(Also I'm a bit confused by the X's and Y's part. I think what you're saying is the universe is basically just a figment of God's imagination but everything within the universe is physical under the conditions of space-time, which God is exempt from. Correct?)

It's a really hard point to get across, which is why I prefer to avoid it. I'm expecting alot of stick and I'm sure you'll have questions so run them by me for clarification.

Well, thanks for being open-minded.

 

[Dre89]

I believe it because I feel anything else could not be the case. Obviously my reasons for this are in my previous posts. And yeah you pretty much got my idea correct.

I'd like to kick back and hear some atheist arguments now.

 

[rvkevin]

I'd like to kick back and hear some atheist arguments now.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Since atheism is not a position, but is the rejection of the theist position, the "arguments for" atheism consist of rebutting theistic claims. In this sense, this thread is filled with "atheist" arguments. So, I guess we'll just move onto a different topic.

Since this is the most known, I'll throw it out there.

1 God exists.
2 God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3 A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4 An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5 An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6 A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7 If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8 Evil exists (logical contradiction).-wiki

Edit: To pre-empt what happened the last time, consider evil to be inflicting or allowing suffering without sufficient moral reasons to do so. Therefore, necessary suffering would not be considered evil, but gratuitous suffering would be considered.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'd like to kick back and hear some atheist arguments now.

I thought I provided one or two. Here is a basic recap of my argument.

There is a hypothesis that the universe could have in fact begun from nothing. This is made possible because the universe seems to contain 0 total energy. This is also supported by observations that the overall curvature of the universe is flat. (A flat universe has 0 total energy.)

Now, if the universe has 0 total energy (matter for the purposes of this argument is considered another form of energy), that means it doesn't require any net creation. Therefore, a creator is made unnecessary. If a creator is unnecessary, then there is no real reason to believe in him, because we haven't observed him and he isn't apparent in nature.

This allows the universe to have begun from a nothing, and arisen because of a rare quantum fluctuation. You're probably asking what caused the fluctuation, the answer is nothing. God doesn't need to cause these fluctuations, because they readily happen.

 

[Sieguest]

Let me it clear to you. There is no actual force pushing the galaxies apart. The space between them is expanding, and so the galaxies move apart. Okay for arguments sake, lets say the universe is a balloon. And the galaxies are small dots on the outside of the balloon. When you inflate the balloon, the galaxies move apart, there is no force "pushing" the galaxies, they believe they're staying in the same spot, and that everything else is moving away from them. There is no force of repulsion between the galaxies, the space is expanding between them.

Actually, the gas that's causing the balloon to expand, is creating the push force. The gas pushes all areas of the balloon out, with an object on the balloon, it also experiences this movement. Because if we aren't getting pushed, and we're not in motion. Then how exactly are we experiencing "motion"?

Okay, you are counting gravitational energy twice. See the negative energy is actually the loss of potential energy. Instead of saying, this stationary object has X gravitational potential energy, you can say it has 0 energy. When it moves under the influence of gravity, it gains kinetic energy, but an equal amount of negative gravitational energy is gained.

Saying" counting gravitational energy twice" is saying that GE and PE are the same, when they are not. Your statement in red shows the relationship between GE and KE.
As KE rises, GE rises
however as KE rises. PE falls.

(Now looking at the numerical values GE and PE technically fall as KE rises. But given the nature of the energies in question the trend stated above these parantheses would be correct, but if you decided to use this tidbit to say that they are the same value that wouldn't be correct either. Because to be counting it twice, means the value would be exactly the same, but they are not. The GE value is equal and opposite to KE, while the PE value is always a positive number greater than or equal to zero. They are still two different values)

If I'm counting the value twice, then how does this value have two different relationships to KE?

I'm not 100% sure on this, but some physicists seem to think that they know the answer:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605063

They've calculated the total energy of the universe to equal 0. They've done their calculations properly and seem to have reached that number.

I'll definitely look at this more. For the sake of giving you a timely response I haven't looked at it yet, I will either edit this post or post my response to it in a later post if you respond to this one before I edit in my idea on it.

Yeah, but I'll have you know that Lawrence Krauss is not an idiot. He used the triangle to figure out the whether the universe was curved or not. He compared the sizes of the "lumps" measured with simulated universes. He used spherical geometry to see if the universe was a closed or open, it turned out that it wasn't. He then must have used plane geometry to figure out that the universe was flat.

True, he's not an idiot. The thing is, if he incorrectly applied spherical geometry to a plane. Then whatever triangle he derived would provide skewed answers on a flat surface. So what's stopping the possibility that his answer may have been skewed by some degrees that it ends up appearing that our universe is flat? If he screwed up at the triangle then I would think that anything he derived from that triangle has the great possibility of being incorrect.

If he later used plane geometry it would be nice to see his work.

You seem to be supposing that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is violated in the absence of everything. Why? How do you know? As far as we know, quantum fluctuations will always occur, even in the absence of everything.

I have to read up some more on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but I have the feeling the assertion made here could be reciprocated the other way. (Just judging by the name of the principle I'll see whether or not after I read up more.)

Ah, but Krauss is not an idiot. He was joking, did you hear the bit where everyone laughed to his remarks? Him "knowing" the universe is flat, means that he believed that the universe was flat - it was his gut feeling, until it was substantiated with evidence.

True, I probably missed the humor due to how he fouled my humor in the first fifteen minutes of watching his lecture. But that's a circumstantial issue.

His evidence being the exact thing I'm calling into question. Just as the observers had evidence that the universe was not flat, I've not exactly seen them proven wrong more so just have their evidence thrown out the window.








As I've said before, there is no reason to suggest that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is violated in the absence of energy. Particle physicists such as Krauss seem to believe that it isn't either. I'd wager they'd know what they're talking about considering it's their area of expertise.

True, but then again this is theoretical physics.

Yeah, but that would demean god. Considering him a mere quantum fluctuation steals from the majesty of mythological figure. It's like calling an electrician Zeus, it's probably not a good idea.

Does it really? Who knows, God may have created himself and then have proceeded with the story people read in the Bible or whichever religious text one follows, or just the individuals idea of how the universe started.l

Secondly, why bother? Calling it god, is confusing, misleading and just silly, why not tell it like it is?

This can go both ways:

Why call it quantum fluctuations? *insert reasoning here*. That jumps into the one hole language has. We don't have a completely correct definition. But that's another cup of tea.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Actually, the gas that's causing the balloon to expand, is creating the push force. The gas pushes all areas of the balloon out, with an object on the balloon, it also experiences this movement. Because if we aren't getting pushed, and we're not in motion. Then how exactly are we experiencing "motion"?

The answer is we aren't in "motion" as such. The space between us and the other galaxies is expanding, but there's nothing pushing the galaxies away from each other. .

Saying" counting gravitational energy twice" is saying that GE and PE are the same, when they are not. Your statement in red shows the relationship between GE and KE.
As KE rises, GE rises
however as KE rises. PE falls.

(Now looking at the numerical values GE and PE technically fall as KE rises. But given the nature of the energies in question the trend stated above these parantheses would be correct, but if you decided to use this tidbit to say that they are the same value that wouldn't be correct either. Because to be counting it twice, means the value would be exactly the same, but they are not. The GE value is equal and opposite to KE, while the PE value is always a positive number greater than or equal to zero. They are still two different values)

If I'm counting the value twice, then how does this value have two different relationships to KE?

They're the same. What I meant was that:

As KE rises GE decreases.

With normal potential energy:

As KE rises, PE decreases.

There's no difference, apart from the number we start with. PE begins at say 10. GE begins at 0. But when KE= 10, PE=0 OR GE=-10. If you're using GE instead of PE, the overall energy is 0. If you're using PE instead of GE, the overall energy is 10.

True, he's not an idiot. The thing is, if he incorrectly applied spherical geometry to a plane. Then whatever triangle he derived would provide skewed answers on a flat surface. So what's stopping the possibility that his answer may have been skewed by some degrees that it ends up appearing that our universe is flat? If he screwed up at the triangle then I would think that anything he derived from that triangle has the great possibility of being incorrect.

If he later used plane geometry it would be nice to see his work.

Krauss says that we know the answer to to an accuracy of 1%. It's possible that the answer was skewed, but probably within 1% of the correct answer. And there's other evidence in favour of the flat universe.

True, I probably missed the humor due to how he fouled my humor in the first fifteen minutes of watching his lecture. But that's a circumstantial issue.

His evidence being the exact thing I'm calling into question. Just as the observers had evidence that the universe was not flat, I've not exactly seen them proven wrong more so just have their evidence thrown out the window.

Are you talking about the observes measuring the amount of "Stuff" in the supercluster of galaxies? He doesn't throw that out the window, he probably said something along the lines of, it's incomplete and we're not getting the full picture by just doing that. And he's justified in saying so, because the evidence involving the cosmic background radiation and geometry supports this view.

In fact because of the observation, he even says that there needs to be a type of matter that we haven't every seen before, to make up the extra energy/mass present in the universe

True, but then again this is theoretical physics.

Yeah, I know, but I'm saying that they're the experts. If anyone, they're most likely to be correct on these sort of questions.

Does it really? Who knows, God may have created himself and then have proceeded with the story people read in the Bible or whichever religious text one follows, or just the individuals idea of how the universe started.l

I don't understand what you're saying here. I believe my point still stands. Calling a quantum fluctuation God, doesn't achieve anything, and it lowers God to the level of a natural phenomenon.

As I said earlier, it's like calling an electrician Zeus. It steals from the majesty and grandeur of the character of Zeus in mythology, by lowering him to the level of an electrician.

This can go both ways:

Why call it quantum fluctuations? *insert reasoning here*. That jumps into the one hole language has. We don't have a completely correct definition. But that's another cup of tea.

Well, not really, quantum fluctuations are for the most part quantum fluctuations.

 

[Sieguest]

The answer is we aren't in "motion" as such. The space between us and the other galaxies is expanding, but there's nothing pushing the galaxies away from each other. .

If the galaxies aren't being pushed, and the space between them is expanding. Then how is there expansion with no push.

They're the same. What I meant was that:

As KE rises GE decreases.

With normal potential energy:

As KE rises, PE decreases.

There's no difference, apart from the number we start with. PE begins at say 10. GE begins at 0. But when KE= 10, PE=0 OR GE=-10. If you're using GE instead of PE, the overall energy is 0. If you're using PE instead of GE, the overall energy is 10.

They can't be the same because the nature of the values are completely different. To count something twice in the same equation is to add the exact same value to itself, or multiply the value by two. Other wise they are not the same. An application of the reflexive and transitive properties in mathematics is a testament to that.

So if PE is 10. Then for GE to be the same value, GE would also be 10.
but PE never falls below zero. GE is never a positive. I don't see how the values can be the same, if they are confined by completely different rules, and in a more detailed look at their relationships to KE they also follow their own distinct relationships to it. PE will never be equal and opposite to KE. And concerning the strength of the energies. GE will rise when KE is rising. PE will fall when KE is rising.

Krauss says that we know the answer to to an accuracy of 1%. It's possible that the answer was skewed, but probably within 1% of the correct answer. And there's other evidence in favour of the flat universe.

Assuming he used the correct triangle. All of his calculations stem from the assumption that he using the correct triangle. I'm questioning that he whether he did use the correct triangle, because I don't believe he did so. I'm pulling up the video later today to make sure though. As of right now, we're both going on that we're pretty sure.

Are you talking about the observes measuring the amount of "Stuff" in the supercluster of galaxies? He doesn't throw that out the window, he probably said something along the lines of, it's incomplete and we're not getting the full picture by just doing that. And he's justified in saying so, because the evidence involving the cosmic background radiation and geometry supports this view.

In fact because of the observation, he even says that there needs to be a type of matter that we haven't every seen before, to make up the extra energy/mass present in the universe

He said something about the number that the observers found is a very problematic number, because it would leave some bit of preexisting energy at the beginning of the universe. Then says that the theoretical physicist "know" that it is flat. He does say that the other 70% of energy is in nothing.

Speaking of which, that seems like a contradiction. A universe from supposedly nothing when there is actually something at the beginning, since there is energy in nothing, then there was preexisting energy in the beginning. In fact because of the dual nature of matter. It can be said that there was actually matter at the beginning.
(This was probably what Budget Player Cadet was getting at earlier.)

Yeah, I know, but I'm saying that they're the experts. If anyone, they're most likely to be correct on these sort of questions.

Yes. Krauss is a physicist by profession, and I've no doubt that he knows what he is talking about but he is not a mathematician. So should I hold him to be correct about using spherical geometry on what he claims is a plane?

I don't understand what you're saying here. I believe my point still stands. Calling a quantum fluctuation God, doesn't achieve anything, and it lowers God to the level of a natural phenomenon.

As I said earlier, it's like calling an electrician Zeus. It steals from the majesty and grandeur of the character of Zeus in mythology, by lowering him to the level of an electrician.

Not really, I'm saying that God may have just created himself and all his majesty and then perform his wonders. It's just adding a "scientific" concept to God. And Zeus could be a divine electrician for all we know, he does deal with electricity. The only reason why you think it demeans God or Zeus, is because you've applied a negative connotation to the words "quantum fluctuation" and "electrician".

Well, not really, quantum fluctuations are for the most part quantum fluctuations.

And God for the most part is God. The point I'm getting at here is that "quantum fluctuations" are just words. I could call trees "quantum fluctuations" and quantum fluctuations "trees" and still get the point across. Language is just words that have an idea applied to them, any person could criss-cross these words and still be getting the same idea across.

for example I could say. "Trees can create something from nothing" or "quantum fluctuations perform photosynthesis" I'm still using the general idea that an organism with green leaves is performing photosynthesis. I've just applied the idea of this organism to the words "quantum fluctuation". Just as I still get the general idea that a phenomenon can create something from nothing. I've just applied the idea of this phenomenon to the word "tree" Technically I'm not wrong in saying this, I've just applied the idea to different words.

EDIT: Also, I took a look at those calculations you posted in another of your previous posts Bob. Before I make a response though, we'll have to see where other part of the discussion at hand lead us, as part of my response hinges on some of the things we're discussing now.

 

[Deleted member]

This allows the universe to have begun from a nothing, and arisen because of a rare quantum fluctuation. You're probably asking what caused the fluctuation, the answer is nothing. God doesn't need to cause these fluctuations, because they readily happen.

Thank you for typing this out for once.
I never fully agreed with the argument because in a field of perfect nothingness, nothing can ever happen without an outside force.

One thing though, what exactly fluctuated?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If the galaxies aren't being pushed, and the space between them is expanding. Then how is there expansion with no push.

It just is, it's hard to get your head around, but it's just the way it is. It's due to the cosmological constant expanding space. It makes space larger, so the galaxies move apart.

They can't be the same because the nature of the values are completely different. To count something twice in the same equation is to add the exact same value to itself, or multiply the value by two. Other wise they are not the same. An application of the reflexive and transitive properties in mathematics is a testament to that.

So if PE is 10. Then for GE to be the same value, GE would also be 10.
but PE never falls below zero. GE is never a positive. I don't see how the values can be the same, if they are confined by completely different rules, and in a more detailed look at their relationships to KE they also follow their own distinct relationships to it. PE will never be equal and opposite to KE. And concerning the strength of the energies. GE will rise when KE is rising. PE will fall when KE is rising.

No, let me explain, they're exactly the same, except for the value we start with. The "gaining" of GE is the loss of PE. The only difference is in my example, 10, because we're counting it differently.

Assuming he used the correct triangle. All of his calculations stem from the assumption that he using the correct triangle. I'm questioning that he whether he did use the correct triangle, because I don't believe he did so. I'm pulling up the video later today to make sure though. As of right now, we're both going on that we're pretty sure.

Well, I'm pretty sure he used the correct triangle, because he's not stupid. In fact, I think he figured out the size of the angles (and therefore the size of the lumps) and compared them with angles on a computer.

He said something about the number that the observers found is a very problematic number, because it would leave some bit of preexisting energy at the beginning of the universe. Then says that the theoretical physicist "know" that it is flat. He does say that the other 70% of energy is in nothing.

Well, I'm not sure about them actually "knowing" it in the absence of data. It's more like a gut feeling from my perspective. They can't actually "know" it. However, that doesn't in any way at all invalidate their claims.

Speaking of which, that seems like a contradiction. A universe from supposedly nothing when there is actually something at the beginning, since there is energy in nothing, then there was preexisting energy in the beginning. In fact because of the dual nature of matter. It can be said that there was actually matter at the beginning.
(This was probably what Budget Player Cadet was getting at earlier.)

Not necessarily, because there isn't actually anything permanent. The actual total energy of the thing is 0.

Yes. Krauss is a physicist by profession, and I've no doubt that he knows what he is talking about but he is not a mathematician. So should I hold him to be correct about using spherical geometry on what he claims is a plane?

Let me be straight with you, theoretical physics is ludicrously maths heavy. I'll wager he knows what he's doing even if we don't. The idea is that he's comparing the angles (the perceived size of the lumps) of different triangles, to see whether they actually add up to the number one would expect in a flat universe.

Not really, I'm saying that God may have just created himself and all his majesty and then perform his wonders. It's just adding a "scientific" concept to God. And Zeus could be a divine electrician for all we know, he does deal with electricity. The only reason why you think it demeans God or Zeus, is because you've applied a negative connotation to the words "quantum fluctuation" and "electrician".

I actually disagree. It relegates God to a quantum fluctuation that probably would have happened anyway, and does away with all his work creating. There's no mythology there.

And God for the most part is God. The point I'm getting at here is that "quantum fluctuations" are just words. I could call trees "quantum fluctuations" and quantum fluctuations "trees" and still get the point across. Language is just words that have an idea applied to them, any person could criss-cross these words and still be getting the same idea across.

for example I could say. "Trees can create something from nothing" or "quantum fluctuations perform photosynthesis" I'm still using the general idea that an organism with green leaves is performing photosynthesis. I've just applied the idea of this organism to the words "quantum fluctuation". Just as I still get the general idea that a phenomenon can create something from nothing. I've just applied the idea of this phenomenon to the word "tree" Technically I'm not wrong in saying this, I've just applied the idea to different words.

Well, that's going against the well established definitions of the words "tree" and "quantum fluctuations". It's just confusing and it doesn't actually change anything - all you've done is changed a couple of words around. Why bother?

Thank you for typing this out for once.
I never fully agreed with the argument because in a field of perfect nothingness, nothing can ever happen without an outside force.

There is nothing to actually suggest this is true. Heisenberg's uncertantity principle probably isn't violated in perfect nothingness. I've got a particle physicist to back me up on this. Lawrence Krauss.

One thing though, what exactly fluctuated?

Small particles popped in and out of existence. One of these must have lasted long enough to create our universe.

 

[Deleted member]

But in this beginning, there wasn't any space to pop into.
The universe wasn't empty, there was no universe.

 

[Sieguest]

It just is, it's hard to get your head around, but it's just the way it is. It's due to the cosmological constant expanding space. It makes space larger, so the galaxies move apart.

So they are in motion are they not? It just seems like saying "they're not moving yet they're moving apart because they're being pushed away by expanding space" allows it to bypass the laws of motion. I won't push the point any more, but I'm not convinced.

No, let me explain, they're exactly the same, except for the value we start with. The "gaining" of GE is the loss of PE. The only difference is in my example, 10, because we're counting it differently.

So are you saying that when GE gains strength, PE loses strength. Or are you saying that GE replaces PE. If the former I've no argument, if the latter, then that can't be true, because that's a completely changing how the laws of motion work.

The magnitude of KE only equals the magnitude of PE at one point in time during an object's motion.

The magnitude of KE always equals the magnitude of GE. If they're the exact same, how come the magnitude of PE doesn't always match that of KE?

Well, I'm pretty sure he used the correct triangle, because he's not stupid. In fact, I think he figured out the size of the angles (and therefore the size of the lumps) and compared them with angles on a computer.

Well here is the video again. It should scroll straight to the point in question (I just figured out how to make it go straight to a section). Watch until 0:35:10 and give me your thoughts. I think he's trying to apply spherical geometry to a plane surface.

Well, I'm not sure about them actually "knowing" it in the absence of data. It's more like a gut feeling from my perspective. They can't actually "know" it. However, that doesn't in any way at all invalidate their claims.

True it doesn't invalidate their claims, but for them to claim to even "know" in itself puts the idea that they can unquestionably prove it. But that's just me nitpicking, wherever this goes wouldn't really discredit Krauss or any physicist of their prowess.

Not necessarily, because there isn't actually anything permanent. The actual total energy of the thing is 0.

I don't believe I understand what you mean when you say "there isn't actually anything permanent." Do you mean that the energy in nothing is not always there and that there is a point in which nothing has no energy in it whatsoever?

Let me be straight with you, theoretical physics is ludicrously maths heavy. I'll wager he knows what he's doing even if we don't. The idea is that he's comparing the angles (the perceived size of the lumps) of different triangles, to see whether they actually add up to the number one would expect in a flat universe.

Physics has always been math heavy, but physics doesn't normally delve into super technical terms. You can't tell me that Krauss's knowledge of mathematics would stack up to that of a learned mathematician.

But again I digress, this isn't really supposed to something to discredit Krauss, I was basically getting at that just because he's a physicist and knows his stuff, doesn't mean he can't make an error.

I actually disagree. It relegates God to a quantum fluctuation that probably would have happened anyway, and does away with all his work creating. There's no mythology there.

Most quantum fluctuations don't last long enough for inflation to begin, this one just happened to. I don't see how it loses it's mythology if he creates himself and then goes about doing what every God fearing person praises that he does. All I did was add the idea of God creating Himself, what then stops him from doing what he does?

Or are you questioning the idea that he's preexisting. Well if time and space come with the universe and God creates Himself the one who creates the universe, than it's still God.

Also, I will ask who came up with all the laws of physics any how?

Well, that's going against the well established definitions of the words "tree" and "quantum fluctuations". It's just confusing and it doesn't actually change anything - all you've done is changed a couple of words around. Why bother?

Says who? Who says that the definition of the word "tree" has to be what Merriam Webster says. Who gave Merriam Webster the authority to make the "tree" what it is. He's just like you and I, a human, so I think I'd have the authority to apply a different idea other than what Webster thought to a word. If I get enough people to follow it then hey I just redefined a word. What then do you say to the existence of slang terms?

 

[KrazyGlue]

I believe it because I feel anything else could not be the case. Obviously my reasons for this are in my previous posts. And yeah you pretty much got my idea correct.

I've been musing over this for a while now. Why does there need to be a mind to precede the universe? You're just saying something immaterial precedes material things, but you also say the universe is immaterial. Couldn't the universe just be the immaterial reality the precedes the material?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

So they are in motion are they not? It just seems like saying "they're not moving yet they're moving apart because they're being pushed away by expanding space" allows it to bypass the laws of motion. I won't push the point any more, but I'm not convinced.

Well, it's kinda complicated, but the point is, that they're not really actually moving due to a force pushing them apart.

So are you saying that when GE gains strength, PE loses strength. Or are you saying that GE replaces PE. If the former I've no argument, if the latter, then that can't be true, because that's a completely changing how the laws of motion work.

The latter.

The magnitude of KE only equals the magnitude of PE at one point in time during an object's motion.

The magnitude of KE always equals the magnitude of GE. If they're the exact same, how come the magnitude of PE doesn't always match that of KE?

That doesn't have anything to do with it. The point is, that the difference arises because we are counting it differently. In my example, subtract 10 from the values of PE, and you have the value of GE! That is the only difference, and it arises because we are counting it differently. Instead of saying that something starts with potential energy and loses it, we say it starts with zero energy and attains negative energy.

Well here is the video again. It should scroll straight to the point in question (I just figured out how to make it go straight to a section). Watch until 0:35:10 and give me your thoughts. I think he's trying to apply spherical geometry to a plane surface.

Okay, my internet is rather slow at the moment, so I'll have to get back to you later on this. But I'm pretty sure he wouldn't fail at mathematics this spectacularly.

I don't believe I understand what you mean when you say "there isn't actually anything permanent." Do you mean that the energy in nothing is not always there and that there is a point in which nothing has no energy in it whatsoever?

Nothing has no total energy. The energy is taken and then given back. So the end result, nothing is there.

Physics has always been math heavy, but physics doesn't normally delve into super technical terms. You can't tell me that Krauss's knowledge of mathematics would stack up to that of a learned mathematician.

But again I digress, this isn't really supposed to something to discredit Krauss, I was basically getting at that just because he's a physicist and knows his stuff, doesn't mean he can't make an error.

True, but he should display some degree competency at mathematics. He probably does. So, most of the time, he'll get these sort of things right. If he doesn't he'll probably check it with someone else, and that will point out any glaring failures.

Most quantum fluctuations don't last long enough for inflation to begin, this one just happened to. I don't see how it loses it's mythology if he creates himself and then goes about doing what every God fearing person praises that he does. All I did was add the idea of God creating Himself, what then stops him from doing what he does?

He doesn't actually create anything. No net creation has occurred, he can't be the creator, if he hasn't done any creating.

Or are you questioning the idea that he's preexisting. Well if time and space come with the universe and God creates Himself the one who creates the universe, than it's still God.

I'm unsure of what you mean. He creates himself and then creates the universe? How is that possible, if he needs creating then we have infinite regression. He needs a simple begining, and a quantum fluctuation is simple, if he began like that then fine... However, the universe could have begun with a quantum fluctuation and Occam's Razor demands that we skip the "God" step and just have the quantum fluctuation.

Also, I will ask who came up with all the laws of physics any how?

We don't know.

Says who? Who says that the definition of the word "tree" has to be what Merriam Webster says. Who gave Merriam Webster the authority to make the "tree" what it is. He's just like you and I, a human, so I think I'd have the authority to apply a different idea other than what Webster thought to a word. If I get enough people to follow it then hey I just redefined a word. What then do you say to the existence of slang terms?

Okay, you can redefine a word, but why bother? It doesn't change the reality and it just causes confusion during the period in which your redefining the word. It

 

[Mewter]

I do think there is a distinction between mind and brain, but consciousness isn't my strong my point, and it's not really my interest. It's also not really relevant to the topic, because my God argument doesn't hinge on whether there is a distinction between mind and rbain.

You could argue that if minds are immaterial, then the universe may be partly comprised of immateriality. It would give you more of a basis to your claim of an immaterial realm (which is actually a central part to your argument.)

I'd be happy if you could answer my questions though.

Was this an accidental leftover from the quote?

Complexities rely on something else because they have a specific form which is necessitated by another truth. What makes a being simple is that is has no form, it essentially almost a nothingess, for nothingness necessitates no prior truths.

So it doesn’t exist in space-time (since physical objects have a form) is what you’re saying?

Being dependant on time does not mean it was actuated by time though. Time is the medium through which X actuates Y, but it isn't time itself that actuates Y.
Maybe I'm jumping into a field I'm not educated in here, but it certainly seems conceiveable that time-space could exist wothout matter.

It's conceivable, but is it realistic? That could be. Like I said earlier, the best person at present to ask on the relationship between matter and space-time in case of this debate would be a physicist. Since the question is unanswered, no conclusion can be drawn.

As for whether they're interrelated or spearate beings it doesn't really matter because it is still a complexity. The No Boundary Proposal is essentailly saying that they are all one unified compelxity, because there is no beginning to the universe, so there is no causation, everything would exist eternally. This doesn't solve the problem though of why an unecessary complexity exists as the ultimate reality, when observation of nature tells us that all complexities are actuated into existence by prior beings.

So let’s say the universe is one “unified complexity.” It’s plausible that everything is derived from one main form, or the entirety of the universe put together forms a simplicity. Your answer above is also possible. This is basically the same as the reply above.

Because a simple being essentially has to be nothingness, for only nothingness has no specific form. You can't have two nothingnesses, for that then gives it a form.

Okay, so you’re saying the simple being (Being) is not made of the stuff of space-time (since according to you it has a form), and probably doesn’t work in accordance to its laws, right?

This is also goes back to my old self-necessity argument. You can't have two original self-necessary beings, because they would in fact be dependant on each other. Secondly, the SN being is supposed to encompass being tiself, it is supposed to be being, not a being. If you have two SN beings, neither of them is being, for there is a being that exists independent of what they encompass. This renders them both a being rather than being itself, or all being. As soon as you say the both of them are beings, then there needs to be a prior existence which is being itself to account for how these two SN beings existed, which of course makes the original being the SN one.

That’s only if you equate self-necessity exclusively with the essence of Being. And of course, there’s nothing that says that the object of Being even needs to exist. “Existing” or having the trait of “being” is something everything shares, but that doesn’t mean that “being” takes on its own form simply becauseit can be applied to a group of things. Take redness for example. Lots of things are red: apples, plastic cups, blood, but that doesn’t mean that Red itself becomes its own entity.

Only if you assume that being, which when it comes down to it is just a trait and an adjective that says that something is physically there, becomes its own thing (Being) do you end up with it becoming the simplest thing, which makes it the only self-necessary thing (because everything else would be complexities) and binds self-necessity and simplicity. Only when you turn the adjective or physical trait into its own entity do you end with the impossibility of having multiple self-necessary beings.

If I am correct about your argument making the assumption that the shared trait of being is dependent on a single entity of Being, then I find that questionable.

Here's a an illustrative chart of Dre.'s argument and the roots of the argument as a whole (including some other arguments that were used in the debate.)

[collapse="Sorry for the pieces, Photobucket makes it unreadable at higher sizes."]

[/collapse]
So Dre., what it basically comes down to is:
Do traits have a universal embodiment that needs to exist in order for the traits to be bestowed on other beings? Is everything in space-time really a complexity? Does everything share one unifying mathematical formula or can be formulated into a universal law or theory? Is M Theory or the No Boundary Proposal correct, or is there another theory out there? Can something come from nothing, or can a quantum fluctuation appear from nothingness? Are minds immaterial?

 

[Sieguest]

Well, it's kinda complicated, but the point is, that they're not really actually moving due to a force pushing them apart.

Okay. I might bring this back up later, but I'm doing some reading first.

That doesn't have anything to do with it. The point is, that the difference arises because we are counting it differently. In my example, subtract 10 from the values of PE, and you have the value of GE! That is the only difference, and it arises because we are counting it differently. Instead of saying that something starts with potential energy and loses it, we say it starts with zero energy and attains negative energy.

But the starting points entail two totally different things. Starting from a point of rest, counting the objects potential energy means that it has total energy greater than zero. Counting the objects negative energy means the total energy is zero. The two numbers go to two different results that lead to two vastly different implications on our universe, with an object being in the same position. If GE replaced PE, then shouldn't I be able to achieve the same result when the object is in the same position. It's not as simple as they're the same value, but they just started in a different spot. Identical values would share the exact same relationships to any other values they are related to, and any further ideas derived from the identical values, if they are the same, should not be drastically different from each other. Else it begs the question, what is the definition of the word "same"? And how does the nature of the values not have anything to do with whether they are the same value?

Nothing has no total energy. The energy is taken and then given back. So the end result, nothing is there.

So how does it, according to Krauss, make up 70% of the energy in our universe?

True, but he should display some degree competency at mathematics. He probably does. So, most of the time, he'll get these sort of things right. If he doesn't he'll probably check it with someone else, and that will point out any glaring failures.

Probably, but only the video can tell for sure.

He doesn't actually create anything. No net creation has occurred, he can't be the creator, if he hasn't done any creating.

The universe?

I'm unsure of what you mean. He creates himself and then creates the universe? How is that possible, if he needs creating then we have infinite regression. He needs a simple begining, and a quantum fluctuation is simple, if he began like that then fine... However, the universe could have begun with a quantum fluctuation and Occam's Razor demands that we skip the "God" step and just have the quantum fluctuation.

How is a quantum fluctuation simple? Creating something from "nothing." I would call that far from a simple beginning. The simplest beginning one can think of is that He all ready existed.

We don't know.

So outside of the laws that are obvious, how can we be certain they are true? What makes one quantum fluctuation last longer than another? How does inflation theory work? (Of course, I'm going to be reading up on this stuff too.)

Okay, you can redefine a word, but why bother? It doesn't change the reality and it just causes confusion during the period in which your redefining the word.

The point is, your response earlier:

Originally Posted by NaCl
This can go both ways:

Why call it quantum fluctuations? *insert reasoning here*. That jumps into the one hole language has. We don't have a completely correct definition. But that's another cup of tea.

Well, not really, quantum fluctuations are for the most part quantum fluctuations.

Isn't justified for clearing the hole in language. But as I said earlier that's another cup of tea.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But in this beginning, there wasn't any space to pop into.
The universe wasn't empty, there was no universe.

Yeah, I know, but in the absence of everything including space, the uncertainty principle is still likely to apply. Particles popping in and out of existence, does they really need space to exist? Or maybe, they create space for themselves. I'm not a physicist, so I wouldn't really know, but Krauss, a physicist seems to think that this is possible.

But the starting points entail two totally different things. Starting from a point of rest, counting the objects potential energy means that it has total energy greater than zero. Counting the objects negative energy means the total energy is zero. The two numbers go to two different results that lead to two vastly different implications on our universe, with an object being in the same position. If GE replaced PE, then shouldn't I be able to achieve the same result when the object is in the same position. It's not as simple as they're the same value, but they just started in a different spot. Identical values would share the exact same relationships to any other values they are related to, and any further ideas derived from the identical values, if they are the same, should not be drastically different from each other.

They aren't drastically different from each other. The relation ships are the same to everything else, aside from the different starting point. If we ignore that, they are exactly the same!

Look, I don't believe we're getting anywhere with this. It's just brick wall to brick wall and nothing's really moving.

So how does it, according to Krauss, make up 70% of the energy in our universe?

I believe that the nothing we're talking about is slightly different. This "nothing" is empty space, but it's not actually empty. If I'm right the extra energy comes from the Cosmological Constant. The nothing mentioned in my earlier is different, it isn't actually in our universe, it doesn't have the Cosmological Constant acting on everything.

The universe?

But, no net creation has occurred. There is no creating to do. The universe amounts to 0 total energy, so there is nothing to create. He is unnecessary if the Zero Energy Hypothesis is true.

How is a quantum fluctuation simple? Creating something from "nothing." I would call that far from a simple beginning. The simplest beginning one can think of is that He all ready existed.

Lets look at the components required to make either of these work:

For God to have always existed, we need God, an infinitely intelligent, all powerful, all loving being with a very specific personality (if you're not a deist). That's not very simple. It's actually extremely complex.

On the other hand, to create nothing from nothing, all we need is physics, which seems complex to us, but it's just a bunch of laws by which things abide by.

I think the latter is much more simple.

So outside of the laws that are obvious, how can we be certain they are true? What makes one quantum fluctuation last longer than another? How does inflation theory work? (Of course, I'm going to be reading up on this stuff too.)

We can be certain that various laws of physics apply to our universe because of observation and experimentation. Things like the LHC and the Hubble Telescope allow us to make observations about the natural world and derive laws of physics from these observations.

What makes one Quantum Fluctuation last longer than another? I believe it's chance, I'm not sure though, we probably should ask a physicist.

How does inflation theory work? Basically, the universe started as a singularity and expanded ludicrously quickly for a time. It all comes from a small area, so the universe is pretty much homogeneous as we now know. Then the expansion slowed down and the universe became much like the universe we see today. I think that's basically it. It's rather complex though once you delve into the details.

It's relevant to the Zero-Energy Universe Hypothesis because, inflation is actually supposed to balance the amount of positive and negative energy in an area. This will yield an area will zero energy density. This can be extended to the entire universe, and hey presto, we've got ourselves a universe with zero total energy. It's interesting however, that these energies don't actually cancel each other out.

The point is, your response earlier:

Isn't justified for clearing the hole in language. But as I said earlier that's another cup of tea.

Okay... I don't really understand what you mean there, but I'll leave it at that.

 

[Deleted member]

Fair enough.
Now I'd wish it wasn't vacation already so I could ask some professors at the faculty about it. Guess that's going to have to wait until august then.

2 last question before I'm (probably) stepping back out of this debate:
-Is the big bang, or how it currently is described, consistent with this quantum fluctuation creating the universe? because I always see the big bang being described as a huge outburst of pure energy (whatever that may be).
-do measurements of the current (observable) universe give a total net energy of zero?

 

[Sieguest]

They aren't drastically different from each other. The relation ships are the same to everything else, aside from the different starting point. If we ignore that, they are exactly the same!

Look, I don't believe we're getting anywhere with this. It's just brick wall to brick wall and nothing's really moving.

If we compare the magnitudes of the energies we will find the relationships are different, and the strengths of the energies are something we can't ignore.

I agree, we've definitely hit a road block here. Might as well save typing time and drop this.

I believe that the nothing we're talking about is slightly different. This "nothing" is empty space, but it's not actually empty. If I'm right the extra energy comes from the Cosmological Constant. The nothing mentioned in my earlier is different, it isn't actually in our universe, it doesn't have the Cosmological Constant acting on everything.

Oh, so the nothing you're talking about has no extra energy. All right, then what compensates for that other 70% of energy we need for the universe to be flat?

But, no net creation has occurred. There is no creating to do. The universe amounts to 0 total energy, so there is nothing to create. He is unnecessary if the Zero Energy Hypothesis is true.

Woah, so the negative energy and the positive energy of matter destroy each other? That's the only way I can actually see there being zero total energy. Because if they don't destroy each other, then we can just consider the magnitude of said energies and it not be zero.

Lets look at the components required to make either of these work:

For God to have always existed, we need God, an infinitely intelligent, all powerful, all loving being with a very specific personality (if you're not a deist). That's not very simple. It's actually extremely complex.

On the other hand, to create nothing from nothing, all we need is physics, which seems complex to us, but it's just a bunch of laws by which things abide by.

I think the latter is much more simple.

Yeah, but these laws work in numerous equations as to how they work, overall making them extremely complex.
But given what you've said, I'd have a hard time determining which is more simple. Although after looking back over previous posts, it probably wouldn't be very plausible (in my views) for God to be a quantum fluctuation seeing as how a quantum fluctuation doesn't have an intellect or couldn't have any of those traits that I would assert God has.

We can be certain that various laws of physics apply to our universe because of observation and experimentation. Things like the LHC and the Hubble Telescope allow us to make observations about the natural world and derive laws of physics from these observations.

What makes one Quantum Fluctuation last longer than another? I believe it's chance, I'm not sure though, we probably should ask a physicist.

How does inflation theory work? Basically, the universe started as a singularity and expanded ludicrously quickly for a time. It all comes from a small area, so the universe is pretty much homogeneous as we now know. Then the expansion slowed down and the universe became much like the universe we see today. I think that's basically it. It's rather complex though once you delve into the details.

Yeah, but how did they determine that gravity has negative energy? We can detect energy, but how do we differentiate positive and negative in it? Isn't it all the same, just in different form?

And now we need a physicist.

I'm reading up stuff I find on Google to see if I can get a better understanding. I get the basic concept, the part I'm unsure about is how exactly this inflation is working. From my understanding of it right now, it seems like it's breaking the law of conservation of energy.

It's relevant to the Zero-Energy Universe Hypothesis because, inflation is actually supposed to balance the amount of positive and negative energy in an area. This will yield an area will zero energy density. This can be extended to the entire universe, and hey presto, we've got ourselves a universe with zero total energy. It's interesting however, that these energies don't actually cancel each other out.

And that's one of the things that confuses me. Because if inflation is actually creating more energy (I don't see how the rest of the universe could come to existence if it wasn't), then more negative energy must be created to zero it out. While this may lead to zero net energy which is the same as it was earlier so there being no net creation. That doesn't mean that creation didn't happen, it just means that something was created first and then another creation counter-active to the first cancels the effects of the first. The creation still happened and because of that I think it breaks the law of conservation of energy.

Okay... I don't really understand what you mean there, but I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, it really only holds a little relevance to the topic at hand so it doesn't change much.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Oh, so the nothing you're talking about has no extra energy. All right, then what compensates for that other 70% of energy we need for the universe to be flat?

Here we're talking about two "nothings". I'm saying that the "nothing" before the universe had no total energy, it had no cosmological constant. The "nothing" in our universe has the cosmological constant which provides this extra 70% of energy.

Woah, so the negative energy and the positive energy of matter destroy each other? That's the only way I can actually see there being zero total energy. Because if they don't destroy each other, then we can just consider the magnitude of said energies and it not be zero.

No. The total energy is 0, because of negative energy. No cancelling is required. If there is no total energy, no creation is required, because there was nothing to create. And honestly, just because you can't see there being 0 total energy doesn't mean there isn't, physics is often unintuitive. When counting the total energy we reach zero, because while counting we cancel the numbers out. In reality, it doesn't quite cancel so readily, if it can at all, because I don't think they actually "cancel" the way you say they do.

Yeah, but these laws work in numerous equations as to how they work, overall making them extremely complex.
But given what you've said, I'd have a hard time determining which is more simple. Although after looking back over previous posts, it probably wouldn't be very plausible (in my views) for God to be a quantum fluctuation seeing as how a quantum fluctuation doesn't have an intellect or couldn't have any of those traits that I would assert God has.

But, God designed those laws, so he must be very complex, to be able to that. But yeah, God being a quantum fluctuation is a little iffy.

Yeah, but how did they determine that gravity has negative energy? We can detect energy, but how do we differentiate positive and negative in it? Isn't it all the same, just in different form?

I'm not entirely sure, we determined that gravity had negative energy, from counting it differently. Instead of potential energy, we lower the amount of energy in the system and call it negative energy. I'm not entirely sure how it was determined.

Positive energy is easy, heat, light, sound, kinetic energy. Negative energy is basically the flip-side of potential energy, with a little twist that we were arguing about earlier. And this means that their in different forms.

I'm reading up stuff I find on Google to see if I can get a better understanding. I get the basic concept, the part I'm unsure about is how exactly this inflation is working. From my understanding of it right now, it seems like it's breaking the law of conservation of energy.

Well, it probably doesn't; Physicists aren't idiots, that's the main thing we have to remember.

And that's one of the things that confuses me. Because if inflation is actually creating more energy (I don't see how the rest of the universe could come to existence if it wasn't), then more negative energy must be created to zero it out. While this may lead to zero net energy which is the same as it was earlier so there being no net creation. That doesn't mean that creation didn't happen, it just means that something was created first and then another creation counter-active to the first cancels the effects of the first. The creation still happened and because of that I think it breaks the law of conservation of energy.

Not really, it just increases (moves the values further away from zero) both negative and positive energy amounts. The creation of both energies occur simultaneously, so at any point during inflationary era, there would still be 0 total energy, at least that's what I think.

 

[Sieguest]

Here we're talking about two "nothings". I'm saying that the "nothing" before the universe had no total energy, it had no cosmological constant. The "nothing" in our universe has the cosmological constant which provides this extra 70% of energy.

Okay, so before the universe there was "nothing" without any energy. Then when the universe started coming to being, this energy showed up in the "nothing" we have now. Am I getting that correctly?

No. The total energy is 0, because of negative energy. No cancelling is required. If there is no total energy, no creation is required, because there was nothing to create. And honestly, just because you can't see there being 0 total energy doesn't mean there isn't, physics is often unintuitive. When counting the total energy we reach zero, because while counting we cancel the numbers out. In reality, it doesn't quite cancel so readily, if it can at all, because I don't think they actually "cancel" the way you say they do.

But the negative energy is the means for this cancelling. So cancelling is required. And I know just because I can't see something doesn't mean it isn't, but the numbers just don't add up to this. This negative energy comes into conflict with so many things in conventional physics. We've hit a wall on the laws of motion, and I'm starting to see a paradox in the ideas of creation, that would make physics seem contradictory of itself if the negative energy is true. (I'll bring this up later).
So how would these energies exactly "cancel" without eliminating each other. If they don't eliminate each other. Then how do we have total energy zero, with the presence of energy. Entertaining the idea that previous assertions are true, we numerically reach zero, but what about in reality?

But, God designed those laws, so he must be very complex, to be able to that. But yeah, God being a quantum fluctuation is a little iffy.

So what objection is there to a complex God? (Besides the assertion of being unnecessary)

I'm not entirely sure, we determined that gravity had negative energy, from counting it differently. Instead of potential energy, we lower the amount of energy in the system and call it negative energy[/COLOR]. I'm not entirely sure how it was determined.

Positive energy is easy, heat, light, sound, kinetic energy. Negative energy is basically the flip-side of potential energy, with a little twist that we were arguing about earlier. And this means that their in different forms.

I actually thought about this for a while and dug up my physics notes from last year. That and I found this site.

It's not necessarily that they counted it differently more so than the zero of potential energy is placed differently. In fact, the point of zero potential energy is inherently arbitrary. Basically that wall we hit was due to the arbitrary nature of the point of zero potential energy. In a sense, both of us were correct. But the arbitrary nature of the point of potential energy also creates some huge problems for both sides of this debate. Entertaining the idea that everything we said is true, but different due to the point of zero potential energy. Then the whole God Debate is reset, for one could manipulate this point of zero potential energy to suit their purposes and while they may be right in there own respect. Someone else may set the point of zero potential energy elsewhere and get results proving exactly opposite from the first person. Neither of them are wrong.

And since everything is attracting each other via this force of gravity, we can logically set the point anywhere. And use either of the two equations for finding the potential energy of an object. One result is positive while the other is negative.

That was entertaining the idea that everything both of us have said is correct. However I now direct your attention to this:

All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The one thing I came to notice about this paragraph. The example provided reference to energy is only referencing the total energy of the ball. Not the total energy of the Ball/Earth system.
Consider the ball at rest again. This time I'm using the general equation of PE. (PE will end up negative)
KE=0
PE= A large negative non-zero answer.

KE+PE=TE
0+ -(large number)= -(large number)

When the object gains KE the large negative non-zero answer that is PE decreases (grow even more negative.)

So if KE went up to 5
5+-(large number plus 5)= -(large number).

Assuming we keep the point of zero potential energy at that same spot as used in this example (an infinite point away) and keep the energy in reference to it's position to Earth. Then every gravity system (particle to the reference point) in reference to earth ends up negative. Put all those negatives together and the total energy of the universe is a ridiculously large negative number. You could set the reference we use to calculate the potential energy of an object to any particle in the universe and keep the point of zero potential energy and infinite distance away and we still end up with a ridiculously large negative number for our total energy. If we make the point of potential energy finite, then when we perform the calculations for the total energy of each system. (particle to the reference point). We will end up with an extremely large positive number.
So even with the arbitrary nature of the point of zero potential energy. We cannot have a universe with total energy zero.

Well, it probably doesn't; Physicists aren't idiots, that's the main thing we have to remember.

In that case I wouldn't be trying to prove them wrong rather than use their ideas and trusting the fact that they're physicist and are most likely correct, show how what their theories entail make physics a contradiction of itself. Example being if inflation theory took the small amount of energy created from a quantum fluctuation and created more energy from it. That it violates the part of the law of conservation of energy which says that "energy is not created". In fact given the "nothing" that you described to me that was before the universe came to being, the quantum fluctuation that occurred then would be violating the law of conservation of energy.
The whole premise behind the conservation laws entails that we cannot have something from nothing. Since all say that "____ cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms."

You may say that both positive and negative energy were created so no net creation occurred, but that doesn't remove the fact that creation happened.

Not really, it just increases (moves the values further away from zero) both negative and positive energy amounts. The creation of both energies occur simultaneously, so at any point during inflationary era, there would still be 0 total energy, at least that's what I think.

Yeah, but the crux here is that creation occurred, whenever the conservation laws say that creation cannot occur. While there maybe was no net creation, creation still happened.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

2 last question before I'm (probably) stepping back out of this debate:
-Is the big bang, or how it currently is described, consistent with this quantum fluctuation creating the universe? because I always see the big bang being described as a huge outburst of pure energy (whatever that may be).
-do measurements of the current (observable) universe give a total net energy of zero?

The first question:

It seems to be consistent, because the outburst of positive energy would be matched by an outburst of negative energy.

The second:

Here's a link. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605063

Also, the universe has been measured flat accurate to about 1%. Now, the interesting thing is, that a flat universe is also a universe with 0 total energy.

Okay, so before the universe there was "nothing" without any energy. Then when the universe started coming to being, this energy showed up in the "nothing" we have now. Am I getting that correctly?

Yes, but the "nothings" are actually different.

But the negative energy is the means for this cancelling. So cancelling is required. And I know just because I can't see something doesn't mean it isn't, but the numbers just don't add up to this. This negative energy comes into conflict with so many things in conventional physics. We've hit a wall on the laws of motion, and I'm starting to see a paradox in the ideas of creation, that would make physics seem contradictory of itself if the negative energy is true. (I'll bring this up later).
So how would these energies exactly "cancel" without eliminating each other. If they don't eliminate each other. Then how do we have total energy zero, with the presence of energy. Entertaining the idea that previous assertions are true, we numerically reach zero, but what about in reality?

Okay, I'm not entirely sure on this but, the loss of potential energy is the gaining of negative energy. They cancel out to produce a total energy of 0, but this doesn't mean there isn't any movement or anything happening.

If we gain positive energy, we also gain negative energy, but these don't cancel out, to mean no positive or negative energy at all. If that were to happen, physics would be very strange. That would mean that nothing moves at all, and falling bodies would stop falling, turn around and head back to infinity. Masses would disappear, and then the gravity the produce would do the same. Them actually cancelling out to produce no positive or negative energy at all would result in a really weird universe.

We only cancel it out when figuring out the total energy of the universe.

So what objection is there to a complex God? (Besides the assertion of being unnecessary)

Occam's Razor.

I actually thought about this for a while and dug up my physics notes from last year. That and I found this site.

It's not necessarily that they counted it differently more so than the zero of potential energy is placed differently. In fact, the point of zero potential energy is inherently arbitrary. Basically that wall we hit was due to the arbitrary nature of the point of zero potential energy. In a sense, both of us were correct. But the arbitrary nature of the point of potential energy also creates some huge problems for both sides of this debate. Entertaining the idea that everything we said is true, but different due to the point of zero potential energy. Then the whole God Debate is reset, for one could manipulate this point of zero potential energy to suit their purposes and while they may be right in there own respect. Someone else may set the point of zero potential energy elsewhere and get results proving exactly opposite from the first person. Neither of them are wrong.

And since everything is attracting each other via this force of gravity, we can logically set the point anywhere. And use either of the two equations for finding the potential energy of an object. One result is positive while the other is negative.

Right, that's basically what I was trying to tell you, except I wasn't quite eloquent enough to do so. We were counting it differently in that we were changing the point of 0.

That was entertaining the idea that everything both of us have said is correct. However I now direct your attention to this:


The one thing I came to notice about this paragraph. The example provided reference to energy is only referencing the total energy of the ball. Not the total energy of the Ball/Earth system.
Consider the ball at rest again. This time I'm using the general equation of PE. (PE will end up negative)
KE=0
PE= A large negative non-zero answer.

KE+PE=TE
0+ -(large number)= -(large number)

When the object gains KE the large negative non-zero answer that is PE decreases (grow even more negative.)

So if KE went up to 5
5+-(large number plus 5)= -(large number).

Assuming we keep the point of zero potential energy at that same spot as used in this example (an infinite point away) and keep the energy in reference to it's position to Earth. Then every gravity system (particle to the reference point) in reference to earth ends up negative. Put all those negatives together and the total energy of the universe is a ridiculously large negative number. You could set the reference we use to calculate the potential energy of an object to any particle in the universe and keep the point of zero potential energy and infinite distance away and we still end up with a ridiculously large negative number for our total energy.

If we make the point of potential energy finite, then when we perform the calculations for the total energy of each system. (particle to the reference point). We will end up with an extremely large positive number.
So even with the arbitrary nature of the point of zero potential energy. We cannot have a universe with total energy zero.

Now with counting negative gravitational energy from infinity the question I have is there enough positive energy keep balance it out? I believe yes. Remember Einstein. E=mc^2. Mass, and, the cosmological constant other forms of energy should be able to even this out.

In that case I wouldn't be trying to prove them wrong rather than use their ideas and trusting the fact that they're physicist and are most likely correct, show how what their theories entail make physics a contradiction of itself. Example being if inflation theory took the small amount of energy created from a quantum fluctuation and created more energy from it. That it violates the part of the law of conservation of energy which says that "energy is not created". In fact given the "nothing" that you described to me that was before the universe came to being, the quantum fluctuation that occurred then would be violating the law of conservation of energy.

However, the uncertainty principle is extremely accurate and numerous observations have been made that support it. Quantum fluctuations only appear to violate the law of conservation of energy. They then give the energy back, so in the end, nothing's happened.

The whole premise behind the conservation laws entails that we cannot have something from nothing. Since all say that "____ cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms."

You may say that both positive and negative energy were created so no net creation occurred, but that doesn't remove the fact that creation happened.

Creation may have happened, but if no net creation happened, we aren't creating something from nothing. We're creating nothing from nothing, and that's much easier, physics can produce a universe from nothing. Inflation takes over and it rapidly increases the magnitudes of negative and positive energy, allowing a universe like ours to exist.

 

[Sieguest]

Yes, but the "nothings" are actually different.

Okay. I understand it now.

Okay, I'm not entirely sure on this but, the loss of potential energy is the gaining of negative energy. They cancel out to produce a total energy of 0, but this doesn't mean there isn't any movement or anything happening.

If we gain positive energy, we also gain negative energy, but these don't cancel out, to mean no positive or negative energy at all. If that were to happen, physics would be very strange. That would mean that nothing moves at all, and falling bodies would stop falling, turn around and head back to infinity. Masses would disappear, and then the gravity the produce would do the same. Them actually cancelling out to produce no positive or negative energy at all would result in a really weird universe.

We only cancel it out when figuring out the total energy of the universe.

Yeah, I suppose it's kind of like two forces equal in strength but opposite in direction pulling on a box. We cancel out the numbers but the forces are still there. I think I understand this now too.

Occam's Razor.

What is Occam's Razor? Is it something that just says that we cut God out of the equation of the universe. If so, then why?

Right, that's basically what I was trying to tell you, except I wasn't quite eloquent enough to do so. We were counting it differently in that we were changing the point of 0.

Glad we got past that wall!

Now with counting negative gravitational energy from infinity the question I have is there enough positive energy keep balance it out? I believe yes. Remember Einstein. E=mc^2. Mass, and, the cosmological constant other forms of energy should be able to even this out.

I'm not sure. The positive energy of each particle would range from the E you get from putting the atomic mass of Hydrogen in the equation to the E you get after putting whichever atom we have with the greatest atomic mass on the periodic table. But as a general trend this means that the negative energy of particles closer to the reference point would have to greatly out do the the positive energy provided by E=mc^2 and this deficit be compensated by particles as we get further out from the reference point. But the problem here is that at the moment we've no way to mathematically show that. I know you posted that link earlier showing the work those guys did, but they didn't even perform math of this magnitude. I'm not sure there is a way to be exact.

But for the sake of the point, lets consider that the positive energy of all the matter in the universe is equal to the negative energy of gravity working on all of these objects and that all other laws remain intact. If that's the case there can be zero total energy. However, the biggest problem here, is that this conclusion has been derived completely arbitrarily. The math and physics is all correct in the situation given, but consider this:

If we instead used PE=Weight x Height. Kept the zero point the same and the same reference particle. Then the gravitational potential energy of the matter in the universe is positive, added to the the value of E=mc^2 of every particle of matter in the universe and our final answer is an absurdly large positive number.

This one is also mathematically and physically sound, but it has also been derived arbitrarily.

This poses a problem. Whatever implications we draw from either of these situations would be sound, but they entail two conflicting results.

However, the uncertainty principle is extremely accurate and numerous observations have been made that support it. Quantum fluctuations only appear to violate the law of conservation of energy. They then give the energy back, so in the end, nothing's happened.

Then we violate the part that says "energy cannot be destroyed."

This uncertainty principle says that we can't tell for sure what happens unless we can observe it correct? But can only account for the range of what may happen. So we can't be certain that quantum fluctuations don't violate the law of conservation of energy.
Sourced here.

So by this token, why is it assumed that quantum fluctuations are not breaking this fundamental law of physics?

Creation may have happened, but if no net creation happened, we aren't creating something from nothing. We're creating nothing from nothing, and that's much easier, physics can produce a universe from nothing. Inflation takes over and it rapidly increases the magnitudes of negative and positive energy, allowing a universe like ours to exist.

But isn't the nothing that makes up our universe comprised of something? Since the nothing in the universe has energy in it. And the dual nature matter means that matter is energy. The creation of nothing is in fact the creation of something.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah, I suppose it's kind of like two forces equal in strength but opposite in direction pulling on a box. We cancel out the numbers but the forces are still there. I think I understand this now too.

That's a pretty good analogy, in my mind.

What is Occam's Razor? Is it something that just says that we cut God out of the equation of the universe. If so, then why?

Basically, Occam's Razor says that the simplest accurate explanation is probably the best. By simplest, we mean requires the fewest components. For example if we were to try and explain why a person X disappeared, it would be reasonable to say that someone may have killed him and disposed of the body. It would be unreasonable to suggest that UFOs abducted him in tandem with the CIA.

I'm not sure. The positive energy of each particle would range from the E you get from putting the atomic mass of Hydrogen in the equation to the E you get after putting whichever atom we have with the greatest atomic mass on the periodic table. But as a general trend this means that the negative energy of particles closer to the reference point would have to greatly out do the the positive energy provided by E=mc^2 and this deficit be compensated by particles as we get further out from the reference point. But the problem here is that at the moment we've no way to mathematically show that. I know you posted that link earlier showing the work those guys did, but they didn't even perform math of this magnitude. I'm not sure there is a way to be exact.

Well, sure it's a mammoth calculation. I think Relativity may have something to say here though. Okay, lets consider everything in relation to the earth.

Now, the universe is 13.73 Billion Years Old. That means that beyond 13.73 Billion Light Years away from us, the gravity of the earth and thus the negative energy produced by such gravity doesn't exist. Gravity waves travel at the speed of light, and this means that objects more than 13.73 Billion Light Years away haven't yet received our gravity waves, because the universe isn't old enough to give it time. Therefore, objects beyond 13.73 Billion Light Years, don't produce negative energy in relation to the earth. This works both ways.

I believe that this may make the calculation slightly easier, and reduce the amount of negative energy.

But for the sake of the point, lets consider that the positive energy of all the matter in the universe is equal to the negative energy of gravity working on all of these objects and that all other laws remain intact. If that's the case there can be zero total energy. However, the biggest problem here, is that this conclusion has been derived completely arbitrarily. The math and physics is all correct in the situation given, but consider this:

If we instead used PE=Weight x Height. Kept the zero point the same and the same reference particle. Then the gravitational potential energy of the matter in the universe is positive, added to the the value of E=mc^2 of every particle of matter in the universe and our final answer is an absurdly large positive number.

This one is also mathematically and physically sound, but it has also been derived arbitrarily.

This poses a problem. Whatever implications we draw from either of these situations would be sound, but they entail two conflicting results.

This seems to be an issue, and I'm not sure how to rectify it.

Then we violate the part that says "energy cannot be destroyed."

Yes, but the Uncertainty principle has been tested and it works.

This uncertainty principle says that we can't tell for sure what happens unless we can observe it correct? But can only account for the range of what may happen. So we can't be certain that quantum fluctuations don't violate the law of conservation of energy.
Sourced here

Yeah, but that doesn't mean anything. We can't actually be certain that the law of conservation of energy is right in the first place, we just observe it to be so.

And secondly we're able to the predict possible outcomes of the a certain event. We don't have exact knowledge, and we can't, all we can do is list a range of probabilities. However, I truly doubt that in any instance the possible outcomes broke the conservation of energy in any way that doesn't rectify itself.

Quantum Fluctuations rectify themselves, they produce energy, then give it back, so in the end, nothing really has happened.

So by this token, why is it assumed that quantum fluctuations are not breaking this fundamental law of physics?

Because quantum fluctuations have been measured and observed.

But isn't the nothing that makes up our universe comprised of something? Since the nothing in the universe has energy in it. And the dual nature matter means that matter is energy. The creation of nothing is in fact the creation of something.

No, but the total energy of the universe is 0, so no actual net creation has occurred. This means that overall, nothing was created. The fact that universe is full of stuff, doesn't mean that overall nothing wasn't created, because we don't have any more energy than we started with. The creation of 0 energy is the creation of 0 energy + or - a few quantum fluctuations, that eventually return the later energy level back to 0. Now I'm arguing that the creation of 0 energy doesn't require a deity, for physics can take the wheel.

 

[Sieguest]

Basically, Occam's Razor says that the simplest accurate explanation is probably the best. By simplest, we mean requires the fewest components. For example if we were to try and explain why a person X disappeared, it would be reasonable to say that someone may have killed him and disposed of the body. It would be unreasonable to suggest that UFOs abducted him in tandem with the CIA.

Oh, okay.

Well, sure it's a mammoth calculation. I think Relativity may have something to say here though. Okay, lets consider everything in relation to the earth.

Now, the universe is 13.73 Billion Years Old. That means that beyond 13.73 Billion Light Years away from us, the gravity of the earth and thus the negative energy produced by such gravity doesn't exist. Gravity waves travel at the speed of light, and this means that objects more than 13.73 Billion Light Years away haven't yet received our gravity waves, because the universe isn't old enough to give it time. Therefore, objects beyond 13.73 Billion Light Years, don't produce negative energy in relation to the earth. This works both ways.

I believe that this may make the calculation slightly easier, and reduce the amount of negative energy.

But wouldn't those objects more than outside of 13.73 light years away be considered outside of our universe in the first place and wouldn't be factored into the original calculation anyway?

This seems to be an issue, and I'm not sure how to rectify it.

I'm not sure either, but there is one thing for certain. (Depending on how the rest of the debate goes) That there is the realm of possibility. There would be no logical reason to persecute anyone for their beliefs (unless it's completely off the wall).

Yes, but the Uncertainty principle has been tested and it works.



Yeah, but that doesn't mean anything. We can't actually be certain that the law of conservation of energy is right in the first place, we just observe it to be so.

And secondly we're able to the predict possible outcomes of the a certain event. We don't have exact knowledge, and we can't, all we can do is list a range of probabilities. However, I truly doubt that in any instance the possible outcomes broke the conservation of energy in any way that doesn't rectify itself.

But doesn't the fact that we've observed what the law of conservation of energy entails mean that it is no longer in the realm of uncertainty and that we can determine that it is true?

I'll refer to your statement below concerning the second part.

Quantum Fluctuations rectify themselves, they produce energy, then give it back, so in the end, nothing really has happened.

But the thing I'm getting at is that at some point creation did happen. And at that time the law was broken. And was broken again whenever that energy was given back or destroyed.

If I happened to be playing a game where the rules say I can't move anywhere or else I'll lose the game, and I take two paces forward and two paces back. Although I'm in the same spot, I did move somewhere and therefore I broke the rules and lost the game.

Point being that although the result may entail that nothing happened, the means that came to this result show that laws were violated and that there is something wrong in this mix.

Because quantum fluctuations have been measured and observed.

So has the law of conservation of energy, and those are the exact two things I've brought into conflict.

No, but the total energy of the universe is 0, so no actual net creation has occurred. This means that overall, nothing was created. The fact that universe is full of stuff, doesn't mean that overall nothing wasn't created, because we don't have any more energy than we started with. The creation of 0 energy is the creation of 0 energy + or - a few quantum fluctuations, that eventually return the later energy level back to 0. Now I'm arguing that the creation of 0 energy doesn't require a deity, for physics can take the wheel.

Yes, but in this process of creating zero energy both creation and destruction happened, which violates the law of conservation of energy. My problem is that because this process of our universes's creation violates a law of physics that it couldn't be possible, or that it implies that other facets of physics that have been well established and proven for a long time, are wrong.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But wouldn't those objects more than outside of 13.73 light years away be considered outside of our universe in the first place and wouldn't be factored into the original calculation anyway?

Yes True.

But doesn't the fact that we've observed what the law of conservation of energy entails mean that it is no longer in the realm of uncertainty and that we can determine that it is true?

Well, we can't be 100% certain it's correct, a case could arise where the law is violated, and then it's no longer considered a law.

Also, the idea of "how can we be sure that quantum fluctuations are not breaking the laws of physics", is easily rebutted. Breaking the laws of physics is impossible right? Well, obviously if quantum fluctuations have been observed, then we're not breaking the laws of physics. We're just going against an old understanding of physics.

But the thing I'm getting at is that at some point creation did happen. And at that time the law was broken. And was broken again whenever that energy was given back or destroyed.

If I happened to be playing a game where the rules say I can't move anywhere or else I'll lose the game, and I take two paces forward and two paces back. Although I'm in the same spot, I did move somewhere and therefore I broke the rules and lost the game.

Point being that although the result may entail that nothing happened, the means that came to this result show that laws were violated and that there is something wrong in this mix.

So has the law of conservation of energy, and those are the exact two things I've brought into conflict.

There is nothing wrong with this "mix", it is perfectly possible and within the realm of reality. Creation and destruction on tiny scales in equal amounts occur all the time, it's just that no net creation or destruction occurs. That's where the law of conservation of energy/matter steps in; it's the "net" bit.

Secondly, old scientific laws, that seem to work in everyday life, aren't always 100% accurate when it comes to detail. Newton's Laws for example, that defined gravity and dealt with it were slightly wrong. They didn't predict the motion of the planets perfectly. The law of conservation of energy/matter could be much the same. It could work on the macroscopic scale, and everyday life, but it may become inaccurate in some of the smaller details.

Yes, but in this process of creating zero energy both creation and destruction happened, which violates the law of conservation of energy. My problem is that because this process of our universes's creation violates a law of physics that it couldn't be possible, or that it implies that other facets of physics that have been well established and proven for a long time, are wrong.

I might point out, that creating zero energy, with positive and negative energy doesn't break the laws of physics. Inflation is a well supported theory and it postulates this.

 

[Sieguest]

Well, we can't be 100% certain it's correct, a case could arise where the law is violated, and then it's no longer considered a law.

Why couldn't we be certain that it's correct? There have been calculations done supporting it haven't there?

Also, the idea of "how can we be sure that quantum fluctuations are not breaking the laws of physics", is easily rebutted. Breaking the laws of physics is impossible right? Well, obviously if quantum fluctuations have been observed, then we're not breaking the laws of physics. We're just going against an old understanding of physics.

It just so happens that this old understanding of physics is solidly rooted in today's studies.

There is nothing wrong with this "mix", it is perfectly possible and within the realm of reality. Creation and destruction on tiny scales in equal amounts occur all the time, it's just that no net creation or destruction occurs. That's where the law of conservation of energy/matter steps in; it's the "net" bit.

Where exactly does that happen outside of quantum fluctuations? Also I think that the law steps in before the we consider net energy, else why would it take the trouble to say that that energy "can only change forms."?

Secondly, old scientific laws, that seem to work in everyday life, aren't always 100% accurate when it comes to detail. Newton's Laws for example, that defined gravity and dealt with it were slightly wrong. They didn't predict the motion of the planets perfectly. The law of conservation of energy/matter could be much the same. It could work on the macroscopic scale, and everyday life, but it may become inaccurate in some of the smaller details.

I believe it's also been shown on a small scale. Examples being an individual chloroplast performing photosynthesis, and the life processes of microorganisms.

I might point out, that creating zero energy, with positive and negative energy doesn't break the laws of physics. Inflation is a well supported theory and it postulates this.

From what I read here, inflation theory seems to be an extension of the big bang theory, covering holes in the big bang theory. Those assume that the matter all ready existed and just expanded and deals nothing with creation. Inflation performing this expansion much faster than the Big Bang.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Why couldn't we be certain that it's correct? There have been calculations done supporting it haven't there?

Yeah, but all it takes is for one case to prove it wrong and it's wrong. We can never be totally sure it's 100% correct.

It just so happens that this old understanding of physics is solidly rooted in today's studies.

Yes, but it may need modification, or an exception for the uncertainty principle.

It just so happens that this old understanding of Where exactly does that happen outside of quantum fluctuations? Also I think that the law steps in before the we consider net energy, else why would it take the trouble to say that that energy "can only change forms."?

Firstly, I was referring to quantum fluctuations. Secondly, the Law of Conservation of Energy appears to be a little inaccurate on the issue regarding Quantum Fluctuations, it is correct though, that no net energy has been created or destroyed. However, this doesn't render it totally useless, it still applies for pretty much everything else.

I believe it's also been shown on a small scale. Examples being an individual chloroplast performing photosynthesis, and the life processes of microorganisms.

We're talking far smaller scales. We're talking subatomic particles here. I'm basically saying that the Law of Conservation of Energy is inaccurate when regarding Quantum Fluctuations.

From what I read here, inflation theory seems to be an extension of the big bang theory, covering holes in the big bang theory. Those assume that the matter all ready existed and just expanded and deals nothing with creation. Inflation performing this expansion much faster than the Big Bang.

Yeah, but it also postulates that during this period of rapid expansion, large quantities of both positive and negative energy were produced, most probably in equal amounts. This is the creation of 0 energy, and inflation is well supported.

 

[Sieguest]

Yeah, but all it takes is for one case to prove it wrong and it's wrong. We can never be totally sure it's 100% correct.



Yes, but it may need modification, or an exception for the uncertainty principle.

Ah, okay.

Firstly, I was referring to quantum fluctuations. Secondly, the Law of Conservation of Energy appears to be a little inaccurate on the issue regarding Quantum Fluctuations, it is correct though, that no net energy has been created or destroyed. However, this doesn't render it totally useless, it still applies for pretty much everything else.




We're talking far smaller scales. We're talking subatomic particles here. I'm basically saying that the Law of Conservation of Energy is inaccurate when regarding Quantum Fluctuations.

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. I guess this can be true because most times we employ the Law of Conservation of Energy it is in traceable amounts. I guess when it gets down to amounts that are difficult to trace or measure answers are more likely to be skewed. Am I understanding you correctly?

Yeah, but it also postulates that during this period of rapid expansion, large quantities of both positive and negative energy were produced, most probably in equal amounts. This is the creation of 0 energy, and inflation is well supported.

I don't remember reading that, but okay.
There are a lot of things in science that have been well supported but have been shown to be incorrect even if only on a circumstantial basis. (Just like Newton)

So I guess this is it. I can't help but laugh at how our discussion has led us in one giant circle. We're back at square one!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. I guess this can be true because most times we employ the Law of Conservation of Energy it is in traceable amounts. I guess when it gets down to amounts that are difficult to trace or measure answers are more likely to be skewed. Am I understanding you correctly?

Well, sort of. See, with quantum fluctuations, they actually break the law of conservation of energy for a short period of time, and then return back to normal. The idea is that, these laws (conservation of matter/energy) are fine on the macroscopic scale, and are perfectly accurate on everything upwards of subatomic particles. However, at the scale of subatomic particles, quantum fluctuations mean that the laws don't really work there.

I don't remember reading that, but okay.
There are a lot of things in science that have been well supported but have been shown to be incorrect even if only on a circumstantial basis. (Just like Newton)

Uh... I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Newton wasn't 100% wrong, he was almost correct, it's just there's this tiny margin of error that we have to rectify. General Relativity did that, but it's still not quite 100% either. There's always room for improvement in science.

So I guess this is it. I can't help but laugh at how our discussion has led us in one giant circle. We're back at square one!

Yeah, it's pretty silly, the question of whether god may or may not exist is quite possibly an unanswerable question at the current moment. There simply isn't enough evidence either way, that's why I'm an agnostic atheist. I admit there's a possibility of God's existence, but highly doubt it's probability.

 

[Sieguest]

Well, sort of. See, with quantum fluctuations, they actually break the law of conservation of energy for a short period of time, and then return back to normal. The idea is that, these laws (conservation of matter/energy) are fine on the macroscopic scale, and are perfectly accurate on everything upwards of subatomic particles. However, at the scale of subatomic particles, quantum fluctuations mean that the laws don't really work there.

All right then.

Uh... I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Newton wasn't 100% wrong, he was almost correct, it's just there's this tiny margin of error that we have to rectify. General Relativity did that, but it's still not quite 100% either. There's always room for improvement in science.

No no no. I'm not saying that Newton was 100% wrong (that would be silly), I'm saying that there are certain circumstances in which what Newton put forward isn't always true (the tiny margin of error you just now mentioned and the example you brought up concerning where Newton's laws were not 100% correct). Always learning something new in science (else scientists would be out of a job!).

Yeah, it's pretty silly, the question of whether god may or may not exist is quite possibly an unanswerable question at the current moment. There simply isn't enough evidence either way, that's why I'm an agnostic atheist. I admit there's a possibility of God's existence, but highly doubt it's probability.

I see. Our debate was a real eye opener to me; most in depth I've ever gotten into science. Was pretty cool to learn about some theories I never heard of.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

No no no. I'm not saying that Newton was 100% wrong (that would be silly), I'm saying that there are certain circumstances in which what Newton put forward isn't always true (the tiny margin of error you just now mentioned and the example you brought up concerning where Newton's laws were not 100% correct). Always learning something new in science (else scientists would be out of a job!).

I see what you mean.

I see. Our debate was a real eye opener to me; most in depth I've ever gotten into science. Was pretty cool to learn about some theories I never heard of.

Yeah, I learnt quite a bit too. Most of these topics such as cosmology and physics are actually quite interesting; it's part of the reason I'm a science buff.