Sqrl said:
appolose said:
Sqrl said:
@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.
Although I would concur that it may be premature to assert that the energy in question is bound by our known laws, I would also think that as much of this area of quantum mechanics (correct me if I'm wrong) is unobserved and hypothetical, and, as such, does not weigh too heavily, in the scientific sense, against our observations of a closed system (i.e., energy appears conserved in many more observations and established theories).
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.
Yeah, I completely understand; philisophical arguments do take a long, long time. So as to not detract from the other argument, I'll drop it.
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.
While I do understand (I think) that it's completely plausible to exist within an infinite expanse, but saying the universe has had infinite time in the past would directly imply that the universe had traveled and infinite amount of time. Unless you mean that the universe at some point in time had manifested, in which case there's still the problem of time itself having had gone on for infinity.
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).
|
|
1:
Well quantum mechanics like most fields is certainly full of theory and hypothesis. However, a substantial understanding through observation and testing does exist. Particle Accelerators like CERN's LEP and the newly built LHC are probably the most notable examples of such endeavors. In the case of the Uncertainty Principle its validity has been established through experiment, it's actually fundamental to the way particle accelerators work. So while its fair to say we don't have a fundamental understanding yet, its hardly the case that these are merely ideas without basis.
As for the issue of spontaneous creation itself, I would go no further myself than saying that there is no logical conclusion to be drawn on the issue one way or the other. But the fact that this possibility remains certainly opens up a number of possibilities that many ordinary people have probably ruled out. Not the least of which is a natural origin to the universe. Even if a natural origin were proven, the possibility of a supernatural origin is still preserved because a supernatural being would certainly be capable of using natural forces to do his work.
I think we may have to let this particular point no longer be debated, as I would have to, more or less, take your word for it (on the issue of quantum foam seemingly gaining energy from another source (not that I don't trust you)). Of course, that would probably my whole argument could no longer be debated, since it needs this point :) But what the heck.
2:
Much appreciated.
But how do you know you appreciate it? How can you say you exi- nah, just joshing yah.
3:
I think perhaps it is important to distinguish a bit on this point. The relevant possibilities are that the universe has an infinite past and/or that it has a finite past with beginning. Its future is, I think we can agree, irrelevant to the discussion even if its quite relevant to ourselves personally.
Agreed
The finite past with a beginning is established by point 1 above as being possible, even if we don't understand it yet so logically cannot be ruled out. This discussion I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) is to focus on the second possibility of an infinite past.
Yes, that should be right.
In the case of the infinite past there are several possibilities that can be considered and certainly supernatural creation is one of them. There are also a couple of situations where an infinite past can be indistinguishable from a finite past. For example, the sphere example above where it's important to keep in mind that every instant in time is a function of the prior instant (ie even though you reach the same place on the sphere again its conditions can be vastly different, or in other words in this model the future is the past is the future).
Alternatively if we look at the expanding & contracting universe model we have to consider that we have no way to know that this isn't in fact the first expansion. It is believed that no information survives the singularity and if that is truly the case it is impossible to know how many times we've ridden the roller coaster (so to speak). The expanding/contracting model is actually itself not distinct from the spherical model I presented above, it may simply be that the function loops back on itself each time starting from the same conditions as before and that we've literally done this before.
So, what you're saying is (I think) that there may be a finite number of times the universe has cycled through expand/contract, yes? If that's the case, then that would be tied into point one as to whether it could have originated naturlly in he first place. You do keep mentioning your sphere example, so I may not be getting it.
In the examples of an actually infinite past there are uncertainties introduced by the definition of what exactly an infinite past even is. For example, if we have an infinite expanse in just one dimension their is an infinite amount of prior events occurring at every instant. Of course we can narrow the definition down to an infinite length of time and not just an infinite number of events. Even so we must consider that in any possible pre-modern universe phase any imposed limits on the rate(velocity) of time are unreliable.
This unreliability in regards to the velocity or even existence of time actually creates the perfect conditions for the natural creation of an event as seemingly improbable as the creation of the modern universe. Does a pre-modern universe phase consist of a 0-dimensional universe where time is not even a concept? Does it consist of a 1-dimensional universe where time is the only dimension and unbound from space reaches to infinity itself? Or do all 4 classic dimensions remain un-inflated by the big bang but present nonetheless? In the last scenario I'm unsure what the effects on time would be but infinite and 0 both seem plausible to me.
I'm having some difficulty understanding this (specifically, the second scenario). If it's not too much of a bother, perhaps you could expound upon this section and explain definitions of time more fundamentally; otherwise, I'll just drop this too and read about it from your suggestions.
From all of these possibilities that I can think of (and there are certainly more as I've made no attempt at exhausting the possibilities) I think even the scenarios of infinite past have rational natural explanaitions. After all if time itself is infinite it can traverse an infinite expanse of time to bring us to present day. The Kalam Argument is certainly an interesting one but it (and arguments like it) were formed prior to (or in ignorance of) a great deal of relevant work regarding the fundamental laws of the universe. As a result its premises are no longer considered as foundational as they once were and should now be considered assumptions, yet to be proven or disproven.
|
