Do you believe in god?

[Sqrl]

appolose said:

Sqrl said:

In case you missed it.

@premise 1,

Sqrl said:

Not quite...

The first law of thermodynamics assumes a closed system, we do not know if the universe is a closed sysytem (and actually have indications it isn't) and if it isn't we don't necessarily know that what is external to the universe operates under the same laws. 

In fact we know that particles (and even micro-black holes) pop into existance all the time, they are allowed to do so so long as they repay their cost shortly after, typically a given particle will be anilihated by its anti-particle paying for both of them but there are some circumstances that can lead to particles avoiding the cost and yet still existing.  The only logical scenarios this agrees with are that the universe is NOT a closed system or there is some method by which the energy cost is being paid that we are entirely unaware of and is part of this universe.  The more likely scenario is that the univsere is not a closed system.

 

"To us, vacuums appear to contain nothing at all. But, if you were to look closely, very, very closely (to the order of 10^-35m), space is actually a foaming mass of quantum activity. This quantum foam is made of particles and micro-black holes popping in and out of existence, apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, they appear out of nothing with energy, then disappear again just as quickly. The key to this is the uncertainty principle. The disturbance is permitted to ‘borrow’ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short length of time, and then it must return the energy and disappear again. But, the more energy it borrows, the less time it is allowed to exist. These ‘temporary’ particles, called virtual particles, are not just theoretical, they have been proven to have real effects on scientific experiment."

Note: The 2nd law of thermodynamics is essentially that the entropy in a system will always increase. Also the links in this quote were added by me.

Perhaps the universe is indeed open to another source of energy (not that quantum "foam" and the like has really been observed), but I don't see how that alleviates the problem, as it's still energy coming form a different source, and we certainly can't say this energy (which apparently acts (while it's manifested) in the same way) is not bound by our observed laws.  So I would conclude that energy still cannot be created, just moved from a mysterious source.  Futhermore, I would think it's a little early to claim that particles are simply popping out of nowhere in defiance of known physics.

 

 

Oh BTW this quote:

"Science doesn't really work, anyway. You can't prove anything with it, you can't even claim it can give a good guess. You can never prove that you're not hallucinating, or being manipulated by some sinister force. And you can't say that it's indicative of anything because you would be using science to demonstrate that, which would be circular. I'm not even sure if methods of truth exist, or if the idea makes any sense at all.

Is nothing but philosophical skepticism.  Most people recognize that you must reject it completely or live paralyzed in indecision.  Note what happens when you turn this position on itself, now we cannot trust the idea that we cannot trust things.  Note what happens when you turn this position on god, now we cannot be sure that anything that allegedly happened regarding any religion has ever happened.  Note what happens when you turn this on existence, now we cannot be sure that anyone exist and must accept the possibility that we are nothing but the figment of a delusional imagination, but of who?.  The thinking is circular and paralyzing and it must be ignored for progress to be made. So long as science continues to explain the universe to great accuracy, consistency, and agreeance with objective observable evidence people will logically continue to ignore the idea of philosophical skepticism in favor of what works.

Even if skepticism does lead you to nothing, that certainly doesn't validate any other method of thought; they're still just as far away from proving anything.  And I merely contest science, not ideas or truth themselves.  Presuppositionalism (although I 'm not so sure how well it works) is an alternative to circularity of knowing nothing.  Or there's the possibility of revelation (which may be a from of Pressup., and I'm not so sure how it works either); that is, an all-powerful being (sorry if that sounds Christian cliche-ish) gives you the ability to know things for certain.

Ok with premise 1 addressed I'd like to point out that premise 2 is irrelevant since with the 1st law of thermodynamics properly used in this context there is no rule that says the universe cannot spring from "nothing" (the term is used loosely) and thus no longer has a need to be infinite. I address it for completeness.

Now to address premise 2,

As for the "infinite paradox", its not really a paradox although I should point out that a paradox is not necessarily a contradiction (read more) to begin with. 

But to more concretely deal with it I shall go to space-time, something most people are familiar with by now is the concept that time is simply another dimension of space.  All mass has a constant velocity through these 4 (or more) dimensions which is why if you increase your spatial velocity you lose velocity (aka "Slow down") in your movement through time.  I point these proven facts out because it is important to understand that time is literally another dimension just like space.

Now understanding this consider the "paradox" of where you are right now.  Just like where we are in time at this moment (an infinite expanse of time) you are in an infinite expanse of space.  No, not the infinitely large kind of space, the infinitely small kind of space.  You're standing at 6.734572342456673452345667.....etc which can go to infinite precision and yet you can still exist within this infinite expanse.

Now, the point here is that many people often mistake their own inability to comprehend an infinite expanse for an inability to exist in one.  Consider this, if it were impossible for you or I to exist within an infinite expanse, what can exist within an infinite expanse?  And if nothing can exist within an infinite expanse how can anything be infinite if nothing can be part of it? 

For the record the infinitely small example is a false example but I thought it would be easier than attempting to relate the details of a non-euclidian geomotry to you to explain that space can be infinite in the large scale.  Its used as a proxy example because it is far easier to understand for those who don't want to spend a bunch of time reading about math (like me =p).

I'm not sure how this gets around crossing an infinite amount of time though; if we had an infinite amount of time in the future, we really couldn't get to the end of it (as that's impossible via definition), so how could we have an infinite time before us, indicating that we somehow did cross an infinte amount of time?

 

But I do love math, so lay on the good links!

Pardon me if I sounded arrogant in this post; I can't tell how I'm coming across (including this sentence).

 

@Appolose,

Responding to bolded paragraphs...

Paragraph 1:

Nothing you stated here contradicts my point, we appear to agree.  Any energy external to the universal system is by definition not bound to our universal laws.  You are absolutely correct in saying that this energy could still be subjected to the same laws but the underlying point I'm making is that the 1st law of thermodynamics does not set out a requirement that the universe has supernatural origin and that natural origins have yet to be ruled out.  Note that the laws of physics in our universe are known to be heavily dependent on its makeup (and vice versa), even a relatively small difference in another universe could easily result in completely foreign laws.

I want to point out that my position is that there is insufficient evidence one way or the other, appeals to what seems likely from a given persons view is interesting and I believe it is an instrumental part in working our way towards a solution but alone I ultimately view it as an invalid basis for conclusion.

So, there is a real possibility that our universe could come into existence through natural means from nothing. As such we cannot logically deduce its origins are natural or supernatural.  The question is still unanswered.

Paragraph 2:

Again I agree. Philosophical skepticism's problems do not necessarily validate other schools of thought or even invalidate it, but its lack of producing a rational solution for even basic tasks such as eating make it very easy to rule out as a worthwhile endeavor to me personally. In short I'm uninterested in a debate on the topic because I don't believe it is capable of producing anything worth discussing.  If you'd like to keep it as part of your argument I'd just as soon not have the debate.  Not trying to piss in your cheerios (so to speak), but I don't like beating around the bush and pointing out the inherit uncertainty in all things however unlikely seems to qualify. I think you'll understand where I'm coming from though.

Paragraph 3:

The point is that you do not need to enter from the start of an infinite expanse to exist within it.  This is a misconception.  If we had to travel infinitely then yes there would be a problem but no such requirement exists. To use another very loose analogy you can picture the surface of a sphere as the model for a universe and all of its dimensions (time being latitude and  1-dim space being longitude).  Now imagine walking around the sphere(universe) in the time dimension until you get to the end or turning around to walk back to the beginning. Obviously you cannot reach either goal and would walk seemingly forever,  yet the total surface area  of the sphere (ie the area of  this universe's space-time) is non-infinite and the circumference around a specified  portion of the sphere (its history) is also non-infinite.  Understanding from above that it is possible for something to come from nothing you will see that there is no requirement for any "thing" to begin on the "edge" of a dimension. Please note that this explanation is actually somewhat redundant, parts of it are over explained for clarity.

Fundamentally we exist within dimensions not on them, the concept of entering is something based in our every day view of the world.  One of the reasons I mentioned the need to understand non-euclidean geometry before is because the majority of people have assumed our universe is based in euclidean geometry (ie what you learned in school where the function of a line is "y=mx+b" (where m=slope and b=y-intercept) etc... Now, even though euclidean geometry appears to work flawlessly in our daily lives there is uncertainty as to which form of geometry truly holds for the universe.  What we do know is that it must be a homogeneous and isotropic geometry which narrows it down to euclidean, hyperbolic, and elliptic.

I know you want me to post links but honestly the best I can do is suggest you read Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality". It is a book steeped in the mathematical beauty and complexity of a number of topics including (but not limited to) Pythagorean theorem, Hyperbolic geometry, Fourier Decomposition, Hypercomplex numbers, Minkowskian Geometry, Quantam Field theory, etc....  Penrose is one of the most respected physicists in his field and he does an excellent job in the book of pointing out when what he is telling you is an unsettled matter and presents the main competing positions for you to consider yourself.  I'm still working my way through it honestly and its hardly a light read, but his insights far exceed the value of any free source of knowledge on the subject that I've found (and I've scoured the net quite a bit).  The topics are simply too interconnected to give a truly adequate explanation and honestly Penrose has done such an excellent job explaining it already so it would be silly to reproduce his works in detail here.

If you're looking for something more towards the layman's side of things I have two other book suggestions for you, PM me if you're interested in those.  Honestly they aren't a bad read to start with for getting introduced to the concepts before learning the math behind them (although they don't cover nearly the ground that Penrose does).