Do you believe in gravity?

[numinus]

Alan Guth and a host of others have proposed that the Big Bang / Universe could have resulted from a Quantum Fluctuation. No Supernatural agent required. Matter spontaneously pops into and out of existence all the time, as long as the net energy is zero and the time is short enough.

Of course he did. Allan guth was originally a particle physicist.

Inflationary cosmology, indeed suggests a solution to the horizon, homogeneity and flatness problems -- space simply expanded a couple of thousand times the speed of light. That explains a universe that is in thermodynamic contact everywhere plus it eliminates horizons. At some point, inflation stops and the universe expands at the rate we are observing presently.

What no one bothered to tell you is that such a thing is a bit contrived. You need to fine tune the initial conditions of the universe first. Next, you need omega to be very close to the critical density (in the order of 10^-50) for 13 billion years -- a tightrope act of cosmic proportions.

Now, while that is possible, it certainly isn't probable -- in much the same way that it is possible for you to hit the jackpot in any lottery but you do not go about your life as if you are going to, tomorrow. And the odds that inflation has anything to do with the truth is roughly equivalent to you hitting that jackpot a couple of weeks straight.

Oh, and it fails completely with the lambda problem.

 

[numinus]

I always wondered what the H stood for.

I have no idea what you are getting at. Samsara understands what I'm talking about. A quantum fluctuation creates particles, but still has a total energy of zero. The total energy of the universe is zero, so the two concepts are self consistent.

It is NOT self-consistent.

The creation/annihilation of particles occur in quantum scales -- NOT cosmological scales.

And it is zero (or very close to zero) because it is a CONDITION of a flat space-time geometry. And since nothing else can be seen in the cosmological fluid to account for this, then vacuum MUST have a negative energy density.

What do you suppose happens to this negative energy when space expands INDEFINITELY, hmmm?

Maybe it rejects your definition of God, but not mine.

There is no place for a god in a unity of everything.

Conversely, a god that is not eminent, 'theoretically', isn't a god.

...What I'm saying is that just because an equation has a singularity it doesn't mean that nature has a singularity.

Correct. It just means that some things are BEYOND the field of inquiry of the natural sciences.

...There will most likely be no singularity in the equations when things are understood and modeled in more detail.

Which is a statement of faith, more than science.

You don't want to compare singularities in equations to morality, aesthetics, etc.

But 'theoretically', you can.

After all, no scientific law holds for both cases.

 

[samsara15]

Our mere belief in the existence of the physical universs and other people is based on faith. We could retreat into solipism, the ultimate form of skepticism. Assuming that we do not:

Why is there no place for god in a unity of everything? Cannot God simply be how things work? Does God have to be both conscious and sentient?

How do you define God?

Do you really need the God concept at all?

 

[samsara15]

Commonly accepted story about aborgines got to Australia

http://media.uow.edu.au/news/2004/0917a/index.html

When did Australia’s earliest inhabitants arrive?
Sep 17, 2004

A public presentation was given in Wollongong on Wednesday (September 15) that explored the evidence for and against the various dates proposed for when the initial inhabitants of Australia arrived.

It is widely accepted that the earliest inhabitants of Australia, Aborigines, arrived via the Indonesian islands. However, when did this initial migration of people occur? Currently, there is little consensus between researchers about the timing of this event. Estimates pertaining to this initial occupation range from 125,000 years before present to as recent as 40,000 years ago.

Dead and Buried: Dating the earliest Australians, explored the evidence for and against the various dates currently proposed. It was presented by Associate Professor Richard (Bert) Roberts from the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences as part of the Frontiers in Science series of presentations.

The discovery and subsequent archaeological dating of human remains and artefacts, both in Australia and Southeast Asia, has provided valuable insights and clues as to when initial colonisation occurred. Furthermore, the forum addressed recent developments in archaeological dating techniques.

Professor Roberts specialises in thermoluminescence and optical stimulated luminescence dating of Quaternary sediments. Throughout his career he has been awarded several prestigious awards including the Queen Elizabeth II and Senior Research Fellowship from the Australian Research Council, and the J.G. Russell Award for young scientists. His research has been the subject of television, radio, newspaper and magazine reports.

 

[Chip]

Maybe it rejects your definition of God, but not mine.

There is no place for a god in a unity of everything. Conversely, a god that is not eminent, 'theoretically', isn't a god.

Then there's panentheism -- kind of like having a God capable of being the best of both the pantheistic and theistic worlds ... and, still retains the notion that "nothing" cannot possibly exist.

I like it.

 

[Lagboltz]

It is NOT self-consistent.

The creation/annihilation of particles occur in quantum scales -- NOT cosmological scales.

And it is zero (or very close to zero) because it is a CONDITION of a flat space-time geometry. And since nothing else can be seen in the cosmological fluid to account for this, then vacuum MUST have a negative energy density.

What do you suppose happens to this negative energy when space expands INDEFINITELY, hmmm?

To answer your questions read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
Of course his answer lies in the dreaded word Quantum Mechanics.

There is no place for a god in a unity of everything.

Conversely, a god that is not eminent, 'theoretically', isn't a god.

I'm still a pantheist. So maybe I believe in a false god. Drat.

Correct. It just means that some things are BEYOND the field of inquiry of the natural sciences.

Which is a statement of faith, more than science.

But 'theoretically', you can.

After all, no scientific law holds for both cases.

No. It means that theory has not caught up with nature yet. Don't follow the ancients and rush over to God prematurely for an explanation. Have faith in science. Try being an agnostic till then. Maybe another 50 years and science will get there.

But seriously I don't know what the future of cosmology has in store for us. Very surprising discoveries are happening every few years. I really can't force myself to believe one way or another that the end of science has or has not come in the way of the origin of the universe. There are and will be many theories floating around and maybe none of them are correct yet. However, I believe that there is no case for God right now.

 

[numinus]

Our mere belief in the existence of the physical universs and other people is based on faith. We could retreat into solipism, the ultimate form of skepticism. Assuming that we do not:

Why is there no place for god in a unity of everything?

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

Theism and Deism

Theism generally holds that God exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought; that God created and sustains everything; that God is omnipotent and eternal; personal and interacting with the universe through for example religious experience and the prayers of humans.[22] It holds that God is both transcendent and immanent; thus, God is simultaneously infinite and in some way present in the affairs of the world.[23] Not all theists subscribe to all the above propositions, but usually a fair number of them...

Clearly, a monist world-view contradicts most, if not all of these.

Cannot God simply be how things work?

'How things work' cannot be objective nor transcendent of the things they work on, can they?

Does God have to be both conscious and sentient?

This begs the question -- are consciousness and sentience a function of the material world or are they of a higher form of existence?

How do you define God?

The above definition is sufficient for me.

Do you really need the God concept at all?

As dr who already asserted, if the simple logic of the cosmological argument is false, then NOTHING can be asserted as true -- at least not in a manner that suggests existence.

 

[numinus]

To answer your questions read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
Of course his answer lies in the dreaded word Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum mechanics that IS NOT consistent with general relativity. And yet, your faith compels you to assert that, indeed, it is self-consistent.

Round and round and round....

I'm still a pantheist. So maybe I believe in a false god. Drat.

From the definition of god, that seems to be the inescapable conclusion.

No. It means that theory has not caught up with nature yet. Don't follow the ancients and rush over to God prematurely for an explanation. Have faith in science. Try being an agnostic till then. Maybe another 50 years and science will get there.

You ask for faith when it is not required, and you withhold the same when it is required.

Hmmm.

Wouldn't it be more logical to remain 'agnostic' to science and have faith in god?

But seriously I don't know what the future of cosmology has in store for us. Very surprising discoveries are happening every few years. I really can't force myself to believe one way or another that the end of science has or has not come in the way of the origin of the universe. There are and will be many theories floating around and maybe none of them are correct yet. However, I believe that there is no case for God right now.

I'm sorry but you do not seem to recognize the point at which physics ends and metaphysics begins. Until you do, I'm afraid that your inquiries would remain misplaced.

 

[numinus]

Then there's panentheism -- kind of like having a God capable of being the best of both the pantheistic and theistic worlds ... and, still retains the notion that "nothing" cannot possibly exist.

I like it.

I like it too.

 

[samsara15]

Yes, I am a monist. I see Consciousness as purely a result of cells performing physical functions. I see no reason to be a dualist, or to accept the existence of any supernatural agents, or of any 'higher planes of existence'.

Panentheism may be a viable concept, but it is not dualistic.

 

[numinus]

Yes, I am a monist. I see Consciousness as purely a result of cells performing physical functions. I see no reason to be a dualist, or to accept the existence of any supernatural agents, or of any 'higher planes of existence'.

Panentheism may be a viable concept, but it is not dualistic.

Would you kindly explain how mathematics or logic fits your pantheistic world-view -- knowing the nature of, say, transcendental numbers and how this nature is the same in ANY base n number system.

How can the human mind -- something predisposed to discern pattern -- contrive a number capable of extending to an infinite decimal places WITHOUT ANY DISCERNABLE PATTERN?

Please venture an intelligent guess.

 

[samsara15]

What are you trying to say, numinus? We found pi and e easily enough, because they were part of the natural order of the universe, as we found sine and the other trigonometric functions. Leibnitz, Euler, and Liouville extended the concept. There's nothing magical about transcendental numbers.

 

[samsara15]

Here's an easily generated transdescental number:

1.010010000010000000000000000000000001....

The number of zeros corresponds to N!. Liouville made that one up.

 

[Lagboltz]

You ask for faith when it is not required, and you withhold the same when it is required.

I think we are quite opposite. I would ask the question: Wouldn't it be more logical to remain agnostic to god and have faith in science.

Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but dropping science and going to faith in god simply ends the whole process of thought. If you say "god started it all", end of story. There is nothing left to analyze or do.

I'm sorry but you do not seem to recognize the point at which physics ends and metaphysics begins. Until you do, I'm afraid that your inquiries would remain misplaced.

No need to be sorry. Physicists will continue to look deeper into the problem. There isn't any reason to believe that they have hit the end of the story. You yourself can deal with the metaphysics. It seems that you are actively interested in the physics of the universe. Are you going to be similar to the scientists that devote their lives to trying to disprove evolution through "scientific" counter-arguments?

 

[numinus]

What are you trying to say, numinus? We found pi and e easily enough, because they were part of the natural order of the universe, as we found sine and the other trigonometric functions. Leibnitz, Euler, and Liouville extended the concept. There's nothing magical about transcendental numbers.

Nothing magical but certainly objective.

It doesn't matter if you have 10, 3 or 7 fingers. You can remove all human consciousness and the transcendental nature of pi is still the same -- the ratio of a circle's circumference and its diameter is a decimal that is non-repeating and non-terminating.

And even if you collapse the universe into the nothingness that it came from, mathematics and logic would still be the same.