Do you believe in gravity?

[samsara15]

The mathematician Max Tegmark believes that universe is mathematics. I find that a compelling concept. If not true, it is at least amusing.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2734,n,n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_ensemble

 

[Dr.Who]

The mathematician Max Tegmark believes that universe is mathematics. I find that a compelling concept. If not true, it is at least amusing.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2734,n,n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_ensemble

Maybe it is all just a dream that you are having? Or would it be a dream that God is having?

But that indicates that even something as basic as the nature of reality is in question. Materialism is an assumption. Materialists live by faith just as much as any religionists.

 

[Dr.Who]

P.S.

Could this:

You're talking about the way the observer appears to affect the measurement of what's being observed.
Right. There is this beautiful mathematical equation in quantum theory called the Schr�dinger equation. It uses something called the wave function to describe the system you are studying—an atom, an electron, whatever—and all the possible ways that system can evolve. The usual perspective of quantum mechanics is that as soon as you measure something, the wave function literally collapses, going from a state that reflects all potential outcomes to a state that reflects only one: the outcome you see at the moment the measurement is done. It seemed crazy to me. I didn't get why you were supposed to use the Schr�dinger equation before you measured the atom, but then, while you're measuring it, the equation doesn't apply. So I got up my courage and knocked on the door of one of the most famous physicists in Sweden, a man on the Nobel committee, but he just blew me off. It wasn't until years later that I had this revelation that it wasn't me who didn't get it; it was him!​

be an answer to the apparent dilemma that God cannot logically be both absolutely omniscient and endow man with free will?

 

[Lagboltz]

I hate to burst you big bubble but that is not the most popular theory among physicists.

“If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ‘creation’ of some sort is forced upon us.”

Barry Parker
Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe
New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, p. 202

Barry has a PhD in physics, but is a popular writer in many areas. His book was on layman science published 20 years ago. A lot has happened since then. The above quotation is rather suspect under those conditions. I would rather see more contemporary figures say something about creation before I would accept him and Whittaker as representing the "most popular theory".

"Compared to the alternative of supposing that matter and energy somehow always existed, British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, “It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo—Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.”

Whittaker died in 1956 and represents a very early school of cosmology.

 

[Lagboltz]

The mathematician Max Tegmark believes that universe is mathematics. I find that a compelling concept. If not true, it is at least amusing.

That reminds me of a sci fi book I once read 40 years ago. Scientists created a simulation of evolving creatures on a huge computer. Some of these artificial creatures evolved into scientists who tried to understand their universe. They discovered they were actually a simulation.

The scientists who created the simulation were fascinated with the technique and applied it to their own universe and discovered that they were also simulations. End of story.

 

[samsara15]

Maybe it is all just a dream that you are having? Or would it be a dream that God is having?

But that indicates that even something as basic as the nature of reality is in question. Materialism is an assumption. Materialists live by faith just as much as any religionists.

Some Hindus believe that reality is just a dream of Brahma, and that Brahma's dreams last several trillion years, then he wakes up and the universe ends when he dies, until his born again and dreams again and makes another universe. They believe Brahma lives and dies over and over agaim, but the being Brahman (the God, not the caste) is the universe incarnate fom which reality (and the various incanations of Brahma) springs.

Quaint idea, but I suppose fairly advanced at the time of its origination, which must have been circa 800 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

 

[Dr.Who]

Barry has a PhD in physics, but is a popular writer in many areas. His book was on layman science published 20 years ago. A lot has happened since then. The above quotation is rather suspect under those conditions. I would rather see more contemporary figures say something about creation before I would accept him and Whittaker as representing the "most popular theory".

Whittaker died in 1956 and represents a very early school of cosmology.

Hmmm? Those were old quotes. Of course it could still be true that most physicists accept the big bang theory as the best explanation of the origin of the universe. It could still be completely wrong that most physicist believe that the universe has always existed. I suspect that is still the case. So let's go find out:

(puts HOP on hold and opens another window)

I found:

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding the physics of the universe at earlier and earlier times, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.

Huge strides in Big Bang cosmology have been made since the late 1990s as a result of major advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of copious data from satellites such as COBE,[18] the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP.[19] Cosmologists now have fairly precise measurement of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.

While very few researchers now doubt the Big Bang occurred, the scientific community was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of alternative cosmological models. Throughout the historical development of the subject, problems with the Big Bang theory were posed in the context of a scientific controversy regarding which model could best describe the cosmological observations (see the history section above). With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big Bang model, many of these problems are remembered as being mainly of historical interest; the solutions to them have been obtained either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations. Other issues, such as the cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter, are not considered to be fatal as it is anticipated that they can be solved through further refinements of the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Ok now that that is settled. Most physicists today still believe in the Big Bang model rejecting the idea that the universe always existed. The quotes are not obsolete.

 

[Lagboltz]

Hmmm? Those were old quotes. Of course it could still be true that most physicists accept the big bang theory as the best explanation of the origin of the universe. It could still be completely wrong that most physicist believe that the universe has always existed. I suspect that is still the case. So let's go find out: .................

Ok now that that is settled. Most physicists today still believe in the Big Bang model rejecting the idea that the universe always existed. The quotes are not obsolete.

Oops, I didn't mean for you to go to that much trouble. I agree that most cosmologists are dealing with events starting from the time of the big bang because we don't have a solid theory about what may have preceded it. Just because pre-bang is ignored in most discussions, doesn't mean that most scientists think it is wrong. Many others are working on the harder problem of what may have preceded the big bang. So that is why I was saying that your references are a bit dated. The wiki site you cited would be more complete if they touched on those newer models.

 

[Dr.Who]

Oops, I didn't mean for you to go to that much trouble. I agree that most cosmologists are dealing with events starting from the time of the big bang because we don't have a solid theory about what may have preceded it. Just because pre-bang is ignored in most discussions, doesn't mean that most scientists think it is wrong. Many others are working on the harder problem of what may have preceded the big bang. So that is why I was saying that your references are a bit dated. The wiki site you cited would be more complete if they touched on those newer models.

If they find something that preceded the big bang wouldn't that make it incorrect to claim that the universe (everything) was created in the big bang?

If most scientists say that the big bang created the universe they are also saying that there was nothing before it. So that would mean that most scientists think that idea is wrong.

Now if you can find where most scientist think that the big bang created the universe in it's present form or as we know it and that before the big bang there was another form of the universe then that would be true. But that is not what most scientists think is it?

 

[Lagboltz]

If they find something that preceded the big bang wouldn't that make it incorrect to claim that the universe (everything) was created in the big bang?

Yes. I would say so.

If most scientists say that the big bang created the universe they are also saying that there was nothing before it. So that would mean that most scientists think that idea is wrong.

I would think that practically all would say that the big bang created our observable universe. It is the observable universe that most theories focus on.

Now if you can find where most scientist think that the big bang created the universe in it's present form or as we know it and that before the big bang there was another form of the universe then that would be true. But that is not what most scientists think is it?

I would think that scientists who think string theory has some validity would also accept the possibility of a mega-universe. A lot of scientists feel this way, but I don't know if it is most of them. I have seen enough articles that tout mega-universes to believe this should not be simply brushed aside even though it might not be the majority opinion. If an eternal mega-universe had provably credibility, I would be in even more awe of the whole thing. How the hell did this all happen.

IMHO, You can call it God if you want, but to me the mega-universe would define god. God is an empty word that is a substitute for "M-theory" or whatever it would be called in the future.

 

[numinus]

There is still a disconnect. Look at the bottom of post #130 to see what I am talking about.

That is my point, your continual reference to a changing lambda lead to a lot of confusion as to what you were thinking.

I'm sorry but the only disconnect going on comes from you -- particularly, your insistence on applying quantum mechanical models in particle physics on cosmology. And it doesn't help much that you are using a theory that is, at best, a work in progress.

I could've told you this way back, if I had known the discussion would end this way -- THERE IS NO EFFECTIVE SPACE-TIME QUANTIZATION ON COSMOLOGICAL SCALES. I know it. I know you know it. And it is unfortunate that you talk as if there is.

And to compound things further, you make a ruckus out of a 'changing cosmological constant'. The constant does not change, of course. In efe, the constant is multiplied to the metric tensor which is responsible for the tensile tendency of the universe -- and it is this tensile tendency that I'm refering to as lambda. And quite frankly, I have read a number of books using the word lambda in this context.

Yes I took philosophy classes too and I know what it is. However the point I was making is that physics is the only aspect of philosophy that deals rigidly with mathematical modeling.

What exactly is your problem with physics and mathematics being philosophical models, hmm?

The thing is, mathematics is merely a formal axiomatization of SET THEORY. And the logic of set theory holds (as I have already demonstrated), whether you are talking about the real number system, the set of people a barber shaves (russell's paradox), the set of uncountably many, non-empty bins (the axiom of choice), or the subdivided parts of a ball being reconsituted into two balls identical to the first(banach-tarski paradox).

Neither rigidity nor logical rigor makes the fundamental difference between philosophy, mathamatics and physics. They differ only in the subject of inquiry and the postulates on which they are built.

No. The word god has many connotations. I don't know what you are referring to here. The theories behind the origin of the universe are still in the formative stages. It is sort of like the few years before special relativity when people were trying to think in terms of properties of ether, puzzling over the Michaelson-Morley experiment, and putting patches on electrodynamics.

The only reason god has many connotations is because there are as many notions of god as there are religions. That is why I am talking about an ONTOLOGICAL GOD -- one discerned by reason alone and according to the rules of logic employed by everyone.

 

[numinus]

Oops, I didn't mean for you to go to that much trouble. I agree that most cosmologists are dealing with events starting from the time of the big bang because we don't have a solid theory about what may have preceded it. Just because pre-bang is ignored in most discussions, doesn't mean that most scientists think it is wrong. Many others are working on the harder problem of what may have preceded the big bang. So that is why I was saying that your references are a bit dated. The wiki site you cited would be more complete if they touched on those newer models.

There is a reason why there is no serious speculation on events prior to the big bang -- or more precisely, within the planck epoch after the big bang.

Speculations regarding pre-big bang, event horizons at the lead end of cosmic expansion, or the nature of matter smaller than a planck length are speculations that are ESSENTIALLY METAPHYSICAL. There is nothing science can say about these with any authority simply because the FUNDAMENTAL UNITS of mass, length and time (the units by which any physical law is phrased) are INDETERMINATE.

 

[numinus]

A random quantum fluctuation could have created the universe, or two branes rubbing together, or perhaps there are an infinite numbers of universes springing out of black holes...many people have many different ideas how a universe could come into being. Some even speculate we could learn how to create universes ourselves. We don't have to give up and conclude it's magic, which is what most examples of the God hypothesis do.

And what do you suppose is the fundamental difference between hypothesizing god and hypothesizing vibrating branes, hmmm?

To my mind, the former is nothing more than an honest statement of what logically follows, while the latter is a vain attempt at sounding smart.

 

[Lagboltz]

I'm sorry but the only disconnect going on comes from you -- particularly, your insistence on applying quantum mechanical models in particle physics on cosmology. And it doesn't help much that you are using a theory that is, at best, a work in progress.

I could've told you this way back, if I had known the discussion would end this way -- THERE IS NO EFFECTIVE SPACE-TIME QUANTIZATION ON COSMOLOGICAL SCALES. I know it. I know you know it. And it is unfortunate that you talk as if there is.

And to compound things further, you make a ruckus out of a 'changing cosmological constant'. The constant does not change, of course. In efe, the constant is multiplied to the metric tensor which is responsible for the tensile tendency of the universe -- and it is this tensile tendency that I'm refering to as lambda. And quite frankly, I have read a number of books using the word lambda in this context.

Golly Jeepers Mr. Numinus, you are still reading the wrong thing. What I wanted you to read has nothing to do with quantum theory. Here, I will copy what I was referring to here:

From Post 130
Here is more food for thought:
http://www.generationterrorists.com/.../abhotswh.html
Hawking, A Brief History of Time: "...the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero".

This is one calculation of the total energy:
http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm

This abstract says that the total energy of the universe is zero but only according to some models.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h316307258181076/

And to compound things further, you make a ruckus out of a 'changing cosmological constant'. The constant does not change, of course. In efe, the constant is multiplied to the metric tensor which is responsible for the tensile tendency of the universe -- and it is this tensile tendency that I'm refering to as lambda. And quite frankly, I have read a number of books using the word lambda in this context.

I know all that, but you were misusing the word. I have not seen lambda used in that context, and I have never seen the word "tensile tendency" used. In fact a google search of that phrase and "universe" results in only 4 hits. One for plastics, two on this forum, and one on another forum by a rather abrasive poster.

What exactly is your problem with physics and mathematics being philosophical models, hmm?

I have no problem with calling physics a branch of philosophy.

The only reason god has many connotations is because there are as many notions of god as there are religions. That is why I am talking about an ONTOLOGICAL GOD -- one discerned by reason alone and according to the rules of logic employed by everyone.

If you want to call that God, I don't care, but it does not come about by reason alone. Not by a long shot. The majesty of the universe is far larger than a word you want to tag on to it. Are you thinking of pantheism? That would make more sense.

 

[Lagboltz]

There is a reason why there is no serious speculation on events prior to the big bang -- or more precisely, within the planck epoch after the big bang.

Speculations regarding pre-big bang, event horizons at the lead end of cosmic expansion, or the nature of matter smaller than a planck length are speculations that are ESSENTIALLY METAPHYSICAL. There is nothing science can say about these with any authority simply because the FUNDAMENTAL UNITS of mass, length and time (the units by which any physical law is phrased) are INDETERMINATE.

Of course they are only theories right now, but as more is known about the nature of the universe, stronger models may come out that have predictive effects toward possibility of a pre-existing mega-universe. As I said before, have patience. These new models are still evolving.