Universal Elegance and Correspondence

[bilby]

May I recommend a book titled "A universe from nothing" . The title is self explanatory.

If it's Kraus, he mangles the term nothing way too much. If he named it "A universe from an existing framework that can create asymmetric distributions of positive and negative energy from 0 total energy" I wouldn't think he was being an annoying troll.

That wouldn't look as good on the front cover, and he wouldn't sell as many copies.

Do you insist that all books have titles that describe exactly what their contents say in an unambiguous way?

Perhaps we should give up on having titles for books, and just have the entire text as the title?

 

[Kharakov]

If it's Kraus, he mangles the term nothing way too much. If he named it "A universe from an existing framework that can create asymmetric distributions of positive and negative energy from 0 total energy" I wouldn't think he was being an annoying troll.

That wouldn't look as good on the front cover, and he wouldn't sell as many copies.

Do you insist that all books have titles that describe exactly what their contents say in an unambiguous way?

Can you imagine me not insisting on that?

Perhaps we should give up on having titles for books, and just have the entire text as the title?

The only thing you left out is where nothing goes in the book.

 

[thentian]

The only thing you left out is where nothing goes in the book.

A book is only a framework for text. Any book that is empty will eventually get filled with letters and words, most likely in an asymmetric way!

 

[angelo]

May I recommend a book titled "A universe from nothing" . The title is self explanatory.

If it's Kraus, he mangles the term nothing way too much. If he named it "A universe from an existing framework that can create asymmetric distributions of positive and negative energy from 0 total energy" I wouldn't think he was being an annoying troll.

Would anyone buy a book with that title?

 

[bilby]

If it's Kraus, he mangles the term nothing way too much. If he named it "A universe from an existing framework that can create asymmetric distributions of positive and negative energy from 0 total energy" I wouldn't think he was being an annoying troll.

Would anyone buy a book with that title?

Why not? It would look great on my bookshelf, alongside Steven Hawking's A not particularly brief history of various physical concepts, at least one of which is time, and Richard Dawkins's The un-seeing process that gives rise to complex structures analogous in complexity to watches when compared in a relative way to the much lower complexity found in inorganic chemicals.

 

[dystopian]

Yeah. Those pre BB conditions are so well known.

Where did I say anything about pre-bb conditions?

Ohh, and that time from the BB til the Planck was walked? Yeah, totally understood- even if it took 10^92 subjective years before the Planck length was reached, we don't know. We just know after the Planck, you pirate.

First of all, what the hell are you even talking about, 'subjective years'. Not relevant or applicable in that period. Secondly, we *have*, in fact, experimentally pierced into the Planck Epoch. I have pointed this out to you before, as I recall. If you think that we only know things about what happened after the Planck Epoch, then your information is at least a few years out of date.

Finally, what the hell does "you pirate" even mean in this context?

Nice statement. If nobody just turned on the light, because it's on a timer, the answer to "Who just turned on the light?" is nobody- it's on a timer.

Uh, yes? Again, the question of 'who' is nonsensical in relation to studying the universe's origins; it relies on a pretty huge assumption of the sort that one shouldn't make if one wants to objectively investigate things.

I doubt they include the fact that without consciousness, nothing reacts.

And in what universe is that 'fact'? It certainly isn't this one.

So, God created a universe that you are within, and you aren't going to investigate methods of creating universes with God. You're with a being that can create whole universes, but you don't explore methods of creating universes with said being. I had to say it twice. I still am not getting why you wouldn't explore ideas about creating universes with God.

Look at the average religious person. Does this person engage in investigation of how god creates universes? No. Why would they? They "know" that god did it, and that's enough; after all, "god works in mysterious ways". Indeed, many of them would think of investigating such things as outright blasphemy; us mere mortals aren't supposed to tread on the realm of god. Christian theology states that we were evicted from Eden for becoming too much like god by eating from the fruit of knowledge; and yet you somehow think that christians are *not* discouraged by their beliefs into investigating things? They clearly are discouraged.

Even apart from the specific forms of discouragement that theology provides, there's a huge difference in investigative motivation between someone who claims to already *know* how the universe works and someone who doesn't. If you already "know" how things work, why bother investigating the specifics? That requires doubt, which is the antithesis of faith. Religious belief does not provide motivation to investigate except as a means to reinforce the already existing belief. If you do not hold such faith, however, you acknowledge your own ignorance and the fallibility of what knowledge you do presume to have. Acknowledging this provides motivation to objectively investigate things in order to arrive at the actual truth. After all, you don't start off from a basis of already "knowing" the way things are, and therefore *must* investigate in order to arrive at a solution.

To tell you the truth, your posited idea that people who know God don't want to explore creating universes seems a bit silly,

And your posited idea that they have the same drive and motivation to do so as secular individuals isn't just silly, but demonstrably absurd even just by virtue of the fact that the majority of the world's theologies actively condemn people who try to usurp god's power/knowledge, (such as how to create universes) or who seek to replace faith with evidence. You're not supposed to understand how and why god does shit, you're supposed to have faith in him.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

:mod:

 

[Kharakov]

Where did I say anything about pre-bb conditions?

We're talking about pre-BB conditions- as in conditions that give arise to the BB. After all, assuming there was nothing pre-BB is illogical.

First of all, what the hell are you even talking about, 'subjective years'.

The idea is that for beings, particles, or whatever operating below the Planck scale, time is scaled differently.

Not relevant or applicable in that period. Secondly, we *have*, in fact, experimentally pierced into the Planck Epoch. I have pointed this out to you before, as I recall.

Ohh really. Is there some great conspiracy to prevent a portion of the populace from knowing that the problem of quantum gravity has been solved? Is the whole claim that the data was actually due to the effects of dust instead of (the data being) indicative of primordial anisotropies a cover up?

Maybe someone stealthily one the Nobel prize without anyone noticing! Or the government killed them off, or a secret organization of physicists conspired to prevent the theory's release from revealing that there is no more to learn about physics or cosmology....

Finally, what the hell does "you pirate" even mean in this context?

It's a joke about walking the Planck....

Uh, yes? Again, the question of 'who' is nonsensical in relation to studying the universe's origins; it relies on a pretty huge assumption of the sort that one shouldn't make if one wants to objectively investigate things.

Ok, apparently you lack the ability to comprehend that not asking who would leave a question unasked. If the answer is "nobody", you've got data. If the answer is "the Doctor", you'll want to know who made Who.

I doubt they include the fact that without consciousness, nothing reacts. In fact, they probably presuppose the opposite of the truth....

And in what universe is that 'fact'? It certainly isn't this one.

Nice presupposition. Anyway, if you want to discuss this topic, start a different thread, and agree to toss out presuppositions (besides the consciousness of the participants- you might be a robot, after all, and if not, don't presuppose that a robot's lack of consciousness indicates that what reacts to itself in the robot to cause the "robot's" actions lacks consciousness.)

So, God created a universe that you are within, and you aren't going to investigate methods of creating universes with God. You're with a being that can create whole universes, but you don't explore methods of creating universes with said being. I had to say it twice. I still am not getting why you wouldn't explore ideas about creating universes with God.

Look at the average religious person. Does this person engage in investigation of how god creates universes? No.

What does being an average anything have to do with the fact that if you live with a being that can create universes, you'd be a nutjob to not investigate creating universes or the very least the creation of the universe you live within?

Christian theology states that we were evicted from Eden for becoming too much like god by eating from the fruit of knowledge; and yet you somehow think that christians are *not* discouraged by their beliefs into investigating things?

. I suppose no Christian has a driver's license, since passing the test involves learning. That's interesting. I wonder if God protects them from getting pulled over by cops, since none of them have licenses? That's the only possible explanation.

If you already "know" how things work, why bother investigating the specifics?

I don't see your reasoning: How did you get from "Goddidit" to "knowing how things work"? How do you get from "the universe is created" to "why bother to investigate the universe"? How does knowing a computer was created equate to knowing how a computer works?

 

[dystopian]

We're talking about pre-BB conditions- as in conditions that give arise to the BB. After all, assuming there was nothing pre-BB is illogical.

Nobody was saying anything about that. However; there is nothing inherently illogical about saying there was nothing pre-BB; in fact, since whatever (if anything) was there before did not exist within our space-time, it might even be more illogical to say there *was* something there instead of nothing; as anything that falls outside of our space-time doesn't really 'exist' to us at all. Any such existence is entirely hypothetical at best.

That said, the scientifically grounded hypotheses that we have for conditions as they existed pre-bb are certainly far better than "god did it"

The idea is that for beings, particles, or whatever operating below the Planck scale, time is scaled differently.

Which is nonsensical, not based in any evidence, and has no relevance to what we're talking about even if it turned out to be true.

Ohh really. Is there some great conspiracy to prevent a portion of the populace from knowing that the problem of quantum gravity has been solved?

At what point did I make any such claim? Also, what Quantum Gravity "problem"? There's no such term. Are you referring to the fact that quantum gravity effects are expected to only become apparent nearing the planck scale? I said we're now verifying aspects of our models of the earliest moments of the universe (within the planck epoch) experimentally; I didn't say anything about quantum gravity. However, quantum gravity *is* in fact being indirectly experimentally touched upon by an increasing number of experiments.

As for the comment about great conspiracy, surely you're joking. Even experts are incapable of staying abrest of all the latest scientific development, even when it concerns their own field of expertise. You, certainly, are no expert. And the populace at large hasn't even heard of quantum gravity so why would we expect them to know anything about experiments that involve it?

It's a joke about walking the Planck....

...I see.

Ok, apparently you lack the ability to comprehend that not asking who would leave a question unasked. If the answer is "nobody", you've got data. If the answer is "the Doctor", you'll want to know who made Who.

I think it's you who don't understand something. Some questions make no sense to even ask to begin with. For instance, if I'm talking about plate tectonics... any question about "who" is ridiculous. There is no who involved, plate tectonics doesn't require a who to function. By inserting a 'who' question, you're priming the audience into thinking a who has to be involved when this is either obviously not the case, or not a question that needs to be considered unless evidence were to surface that a who is indeed involved. The same is the case with the universe: There is absolutely no scientific reason why we would ask 'who'. There just isn't any evidence suggesting a who was involved.

Nice presupposition.

Hardly, physical processes occur (ie; act/react) with or without a conscious mind observing them. This isn't a presupposition, this is something you could easily verify through experimentation using nothing more than a chemistry experiment and a box. The idea that nothing happens without a conscious mind is new age nonsense.

What does being an average anything have to do with the fact that if you live with a being that can create universes, you'd be a nutjob to not investigate creating universes or the very least the creation of the universe you live within?

Because what we're talking about isn't what makes logical sense to do (I agree it would make logical sense to investigate how such a being creates universes if he exists); we're talking about how BELIEF in such a being discourages it. Religious belief isn't logical, and it does not inspire logic in the majority of the people who hold it. What we're talking about is the demonstrable fact that religious populations tend to be far less interested in pursuing science and logic than secular populations.

I suppose no Christian has a driver's license, since passing the test involves learning. That's interesting. I wonder if God protects them from getting pulled over by cops, since none of them have licenses? That's the only possible explanation.

To the average christian, learning how to drive a car doesn't infringe on the realm of god. Learning how the universe was created, however, *is* treading on his domain. This was the issue with eating from the forbidden fruit. Before doing so, humans were innocent. They didn't know right from wrong. Afterwards, they did... and in doing so became more like god. Which god didn't like so he cursed them with mortality. How much more pissed off do you think most christians imagine god would be if we figured out the trick that makes him a god in the first place?

I don't see your reasoning: How did you get from "Goddidit" to "knowing how things work"? How do you get from "the universe is created" to "why bother to investigate the universe"? How does knowing a computer was created equate to knowing how a computer works?

Not me; religious people. The average person knows that because a computer was created by smart people to do the job it does, its functioning will make some amount of sense. That is enough for most people. Most people do not care how a computer works; just that it does. Someone who has never seen or heard of a computer before, however, will be baffled by it and will likely investigate beyond what the average person would. It's the same with gods. To the average person who believes, with absolute faith, that god is real; there is no point in knowing the specifics. Just like you probably don't feel the need to pull apart your car engine so you can investigate how it works, the average believer doesn't care how god did it, just that he did. If at any point he does get faced with the question of how/why a certain thing is the way it is... the question "god did it" *feels* like it answers the question for them (without actually answering anything). They don't *want* to put in the time and effort required to understand it, they just want the comfort of having an answer. Even if that answer doesn't actually answer anything. This, of course, is much harder to do when you don't believe in religion; because then you don't have an easy stock answer to throw at every difficult question. Then you actually do need to investigate before you can answer the questions that pop up.

 

[Kharakov]

We're talking about pre-BB conditions- as in conditions that give arise to the BB.

Nobody was saying anything about that.

The topic is the creation of the universe, which entails the conditions which gave arise to the universe, which are the pre-BB conditions. In other words, it's an integral part of the conversation.

After all, assuming there was nothing pre-BB is illogical.

However; there is nothing inherently illogical about saying there was nothing pre-BB;

I agree that saying an illogical statement isn't illogical. The statement "nothing existed prior to the BB" is illogical. Of course there was something pre-BB- something does not arise from nothing.

The idea is that for beings, particles, or whatever operating below the Planck scale, time is scaled differently.

Which is nonsensical, not based in any evidence, and has no relevance to what we're talking about even if it turned out to be true.

Given your statement, perhaps you don't understand the concept or its relevance to the issue. At a smaller scale there could be a whole different paradigm of interacting particles- before (maybe far before) the Planck epoch ended, many 10^10^10^10s tetrations of calculations could have been carried out by a first generation of particles that existed at a scale far different than the one we experience. There could have been a virtually infinite number of actions and calculations before the Planck scale was crossed. The reference to subjective years was to describe the amount of subjective time, for consciousness, that could have passed (although we all know how fast that time would pass looking at a pretty girl).

Secondly, we *have*, in fact, experimentally pierced into the Planck Epoch.

Ohh really. Is there some great conspiracy to prevent a portion of the populace from knowing that the problem of quantum gravity has been solved?

At what point did I make any such claim?

Maybe you don't realize it, but the current attempts (that I am savvy to) to "probe the Planck epoch" involve looking for the effects of quantum gravity (in the CMB), and formulating a theoretical framework around it.

Since you're not going to find any non-wackadoodle claims about "experimental evidence that pierced the Planck epoch" anywhere, at this point in time, you're claim isn't supported whatsoever.

I said we're now verifying aspects of our models of the earliest moments of the universe (within the planck epoch) experimentally;

You said "we have pierced the Planck epoch experimentally", which isn't true. In fact, you apparently don't even know about the experiments that attempted (and failed) to "pierce" (gather information about) the early universe, which are focused on the effects of primordial gravitation.

Just so you know, a theory of quantum gravitation is required to unify gravity with the other forces, to "pierce" the Planck Epoch.

As for the comment about great conspiracy, surely you're joking.

I never joke, and don't call me Shirley.

It's a joke about walking the Planck....

...I see.

That's cold.

For instance, if I'm talking about plate tectonics... any question about "who" is ridiculous. There is no who involved, plate tectonics doesn't require a who to function.

The assumption that there are not many individual particles involved is ridiculous- I know you agree with this. How about the presupposition that they are not individuals, with their own sense of self?

Hardly, physical processes occur (ie; act/react) with or without a conscious mind observing them.

No, they react without a human observer. This has nothing to do with there being no observers. In fact, at the quantum level, there are many.

What does being an average anything have to do with the fact that if you live with a being that can create universes, you'd be a nutjob to not investigate creating universes or the very least the creation of the universe you live within?

Because what we're talking about isn't what makes logical sense to do (I agree it would make logical sense to investigate how such a being creates universes if he exists); we're talking about how BELIEF in such a being discourages it.

Your comments are absolutely insane. If such a being exists, and you believe they exist, and it's logical to investigate how the being creates universes if they exist, how the hell is belief in the being going to discourage the pursuit of knowledge of universe creation? Seriously...

I don't see your reasoning: How did you get from "Goddidit" to "knowing how things work"? How do you get from "the universe is created" to "why bother to investigate the universe"? How does knowing a computer was created equate to knowing how a computer works?

Not me; religious people.

Say, for example, you believed what you say about religious people. It would indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of what the majority of religious people think. I know a few- absolutely none are the way you describe. I could see them acting like they were that way to fuck with moronic atheists who were acting accusatory towards them, or to joke around with someone they thought understood their humor.

This, of course, is much harder to do when you don't believe in religion; because then you don't have an easy stock answer to throw at every difficult question. Then you actually do need to investigate before you can answer the questions that pop up.

Believing in metaphysical naturalism doesn't lead to questions about inaccurate beliefs handed down about nature, just like believing in God doesn't lead to questions about inaccurate beliefs handed down about God.

 

[Underseer]

Starman, are you unaware of all the pre-Big Bang hypotheses floating around out there?

New ones are being generated all the time. It's a really fascinating topic if you want to look into it.

Although I suspect that your interest is feigned. You are only interested in the question because you think one particular answer is correct, and thus I predict you will not look into any of the work that has been done on this subject for fear that a different answer may prove more plausible than the one you're already thinking of.

I think you're just doing the "god of the gaps" thing. There is a question you don't know the answer to, so rather than do any work to find out what the actual answer is or could be, you are just using your own ignorance as an excuse to make up answers that you find comforting.

 

[bilby]

...
The statement "nothing existed prior to the BB" is illogical. Of course there was something pre-BB- something does not arise from nothing.
...

Virtual particles do.

 

[dystopian]

I agree that saying an illogical statement isn't illogical. The statement "nothing existed prior to the BB" is illogical. Of course there was something pre-BB- something does not arise from nothing.

I already explained why this isn't the case. It only seems illogical because you're insisting on applying cause and effect. However, when you insist on this with the very origins of the universe, you run into the problem of infinite regress, which is far more illogical than the notion that something can come from nothing... especially since we already know that things can actually come into existence without a definable cause to them; ala virtual particles (which despite the name, are actually real particles). Furthermore, there is the physics argument that any cause of the universe that falls outside of our space-time violates the principle of locality and therefore causality as we understand it.

Besides, as I explained, it very well might be that something 'existed' before the big bang. However, if that something caused the formation of our space-time, it would've existed *outside* of our space-time... and since existence is defined by the parameters of our space-time, we can not actually claim that said something has any sort of real existence. It would have to exist in a space-time of its own, but since that space-time would not be connected to ours it doesn't actually practically exist. Because of this, the rules of logic would dictate that there is no difference between whether or not it actually exists.

Given your statement, perhaps you don't understand the concept or its relevance to the issue. At a smaller scale there could be a whole different paradigm of interacting particles- before (maybe far before) the Planck epoch ended, many 10^10^10^10s tetrations of calculations could have been carried out by a first generation of particles that existed at a scale far different than the one we experience.

I understand the concept perfectly well. Which is also why I understand you're just talking out of your ass. It could very well be the case that within a planck unit or below the interaction of particles happens in entirely unexpected ways. However, to say that this somehow means there's a ridiculously large number of 'subjective years' before reaching the planck epoch is to A) not understand time, and B) not understand the word 'subjective'. The causal chain of events during the first second of existence would still have been, objectively, taking place over no more or less than a second. Just because you're cramming more events into a second doesn't mean it becomes something other than a second; subjectively OR objectively.

There could have been a virtually infinite number of actions and calculations before the Planck scale was crossed.

No, there couldn't. While time itself can be infinite in either direction, time must necessarily still be divided into finite units; there must ultimately be an indivisible unit of time; which makes it impossible for an infinite number of actions to have occurred between the big and before the end of the Planck Epoch. Besides, it doesn't particularly matter how many actions/interactions occurred during this time, since it doesn't fundamentally change the chain of events. One can, for example, understand the mechanics behind a thrown baseball without being able to map its exact location in space with nano-scale (or better) accuracy at any given point along its trajectory; which means that your initial objection, and the sole reason we're off on this tangent, is moot.

The reference to subjective years was to describe the amount of subjective time, for consciousness, that could have passed (although we all know how fast that time would pass looking at a pretty girl).

Which is nonsensical as I already explained. We know of no way consciousness could possibly exist during this time; and we have no need to postulate it.

Maybe you don't realize it, but the current attempts (that I am savvy to) to "probe the Planck epoch" involve looking for the effects of quantum gravity (in the CMB), and formulating a theoretical framework around it.

Since you're not going to find any non-wackadoodle claims about "experimental evidence that pierced the Planck epoch" anywhere, at this point in time, you're claim isn't supported whatsoever.

You said "we have pierced the Planck epoch experimentally", which isn't true. In fact, you apparently don't even know about the experiments that attempted (and failed) to "pierce" (gather information about) the early universe, which are focused on the effects of primordial gravitation.

I will concede that I chose my words poorly. I didn't mean to claim we'd solved anything, I was referring to the fact we're now actually capable of performing scientific experiments into this era; whereas it wasn't that long ago people were saying we'd never be able to. Though there's no such thing as a failed experiment; in a scientific experiment, failure is itself a meaningful result and therefore a success.

Just so you know, a theory of quantum gravitation is required to unify gravity with the other forces, to "pierce" the Planck Epoch.

Such as Loop Quantum Gravity.

The assumption that there are not many individual particles involved is ridiculous- I know you agree with this. How about the presupposition that they are not individuals, with their own sense of self?

...Is your goal actually to get me to dismiss you as a crazy person? Are you seriously positing that a particle is a 'who'? What could possibly possess you to put forth such a batshit crazy notion?

No, they react without a human observer. This has nothing to do with there being no observers. In fact, at the quantum level, there are many.

You're being nonsensical again.

In quantum mechanics an observer refers to a measurement device. A device is not a who, it's a what. In general relativity, 'observer' refers to either a person (who) or a machine (what) taking measurements. So that leaves us with what you appear to be talking about (or indeed, the only thing you could be talking about): an observer in Special Relativity, being simply a frame of reference from which events/objects are measured. This however, is not a who either. Indeed, it isn't even really a 'what' either since we're talking about an abstract concept there.

However you slice it, "who" makes no sense. But I suspect you understand this perfectly well and are just trying to obfuscate the issue by pretending we weren't both talking about 'who' as in a conscious entity; as in a creator-god.

Your comments are absolutely insane. If such a being exists, and you believe they exist, and it's logical to investigate how the being creates universes if they exist, how the hell is belief in the being going to discourage the pursuit of knowledge of universe creation? Seriously...

Some would say that insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time. Which is why I won't bother trying to explain it to you again. I refer you to my previous posts.

Say, for example, you believed what you say about religious people. It would indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of what the majority of religious people think.

No, it would demonstrate a pretty standard observation shared by a great many people.

I know a few- absolutely none are the way you describe.

So *your* anecdotal knowledge is something we should accept as true, but *mine* is not? The majority of the religious people I know are the way I describe, shouldn't that count for something? Why should my understanding of them be any less accurate than yours?

I could see them acting like they were that way to fuck with moronic atheists who were acting accusatory towards them,

Sure. Because what christian *wouldn't* respond to "moronic" accusations by atheists about how christians are opposed to science and objective investigation by pretending to perfectly fit the accusations! That'll show those atheists!

or to joke around with someone they thought understood their humor.

"No no, you don't understand! I was only pretending to be mentally deficient as a joke! DOOOH! ME HURT BRAIN THINKING HARD THINKINGS! LOL! FUNNY NO?"

I mean come on, really?

Believing in metaphysical naturalism doesn't lead to questions about inaccurate beliefs handed down about nature, just like believing in God doesn't lead to questions about inaccurate beliefs handed down about God.

And this analogy might actually make sense if... no wait, it really wouldn't ever make sense.

 

[Kharakov]

...
The statement "nothing existed prior to the BB" is illogical. Of course there was something pre-BB- something does not arise from nothing.
...

Virtual particles do.

ARARHHRGGETERRW..

 

[Kharakov]

However, to say that this somehow means there's a ridiculously large number of 'subjective years' before reaching the planck epoch is to A) not understand time, and B) not understand the word 'subjective'.

The idea is that a consciousness that exists at that scale may have experienced far more things in 10^-60 seconds then we have in 10^60 lifetimes.

there must ultimately be an indivisible unit of time

No, but you can play with the concept of now being both eternal and 0 length if you want to fantasize.

Besides, it doesn't particularly matter how many actions/interactions occurred during this time, since it doesn't fundamentally change the chain of events.

Except for the fact that if a different amount of interactions had happened in a different way, the CMB anisotropies would be different. Look at the sky....

it doesn't particularly matter how many actions/interactions occurred during this time, since it doesn't fundamentally change the chain of events.One can, for example, understand the mechanics behind a thrown baseball without being able to map its exact location in space with nano-scale (or better) accuracy at any given point along its trajectory; which means that your initial objection, and the sole reason we're off on this tangent, is moot.

That is a COLOSSAL misunderstanding of cause and effect. I can salt an equation with the value 10^-30, and for 1000s and 1000s of iterations, the value remains very similar to an unsalted equation. However, when we approach millions of iterations, the magnitude of the effects can become enormous.

Being able to approximate a baseballs trajectory with close enough math isn't anything at all like actual reality. Classic stuff approximates- it doesn't even get close to the truth.

I was referring to the fact we're now actually capable of performing scientific experiments into this era; whereas it wasn't that long ago people were saying we'd never be able to. Though there's no such thing as a failed experiment; in a scientific experiment, failure is itself a meaningful result and therefore a success.

Ok, I read that we don't have any experiments on the horizon that will be capable of probing that epoch. I don't know about the experiments you're referring to?

As to the rest, your experience of religious people is far different than mine.

 

[dystopian]

The idea is that a consciousness that exists at that scale may have experienced far more things in 10^-60 seconds then we have in 10^60 lifetimes.

Yes, I got that... however, this is meaningless for reasons already explained.

A) Simply inserting more events into a unit of time does *not* mean a consciousness existing at that point experiences time differently. The subjective experience of time does not change based on the volume of events. Time dilation *does* happen because of proximity to high gravity or relative velocity, but these are very different mechanisms to the one you proposed.

B) There is no mechanism known that would allow for a consciousness to exist at that point in time.

C) There is no mechanism known that would explain why a consciousness would exist to begin with, at that point in time.

D) There is no need to posit a consciousness in order to explain conditions and causes at that point in time.

E) There is no relevance to positing a consciousness existing at that point in time which experiences time according to the parameters you've described, since even IF such a consciousness *could* exist at that point in time, and even IF it could interact with the physical universe at that point in time, all it could possibly do was poke particles around for it's subjective near-eternity; which by itself can't produce very god-like results.

No, but you can play with the concept of now being both eternal and 0 length if you want to fantasize.

"Now" is a just a frame. Just because you can imagine it being eternal with 0 length doesn't mean anything.

Except for the fact that if a different amount of interactions had happened in a different way, the CMB anisotropies would be different. Look at the sky....

Which is a far cry from any god-like manipulation/formation of reality.

That is a COLOSSAL misunderstanding of cause and effect. I can salt an equation with the value 10^-30, and for 1000s and 1000s of iterations, the value remains very similar to an unsalted equation. However, when we approach millions of iterations, the magnitude of the effects can become enormous.

Except I wasn't talking about cause and effect there; and no, it isn't a misunderstanding thereof. Physical processes, when constant, will still produce results that fit within a general model no matter how many iterations there are. You might imagine the baseball example to have only thousands of possible variations. It doesn't. Its flightpath has trillions of possible variations. The initial conditions governing the start of its trajectory still easily number in the hundreds of billions of possible variations. This, however, is irrelevant. You could throw the baseball a trillion times, and it will follow a slightly different path each time... but it will still follow a path that can be understood according to the general model. It won't suddenly pop out of existence, or take a left turn until it falls down into Saturn's atmosphere. Its behavior will follow rules we understand each and every time.

So far so good.

Now you're trying to argue that because during the planck epoch it might be the case (even though we have absolutely no reason to assume this is true and therefore this whole line of argument isn't particularly useful for anything) that many more particle interactions take place during a second than during a second in our current epoch; that the universe could look very differently as a result of changing anything about those interactions during the planck epoch.

Yes, IF your assumption is true (which we have no reason to do), then changes to those initial conditions would result in very different results in our universe today.

However, this is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter that a slightly different set of initial conditions would've resulted in a very different universe; the fact is we *don't* have a different set of initial conditions. The universe is the way it is; that it *could* be different is irrelevant to the question. No matter how many interactions you insert into the planck epoch, the *results are exactly the same*, since we're here to wonder about it.

Being able to approximate a baseballs trajectory with close enough math isn't anything at all like actual reality. Classic stuff approximates- it doesn't even get close to the truth.

It doesn't matter if your measurements are approximate or 100% accurate down to the smallest units of time and scale possible. So long as the approximation reaches a good enough threshold you become capable of understanding the physics behind it. That is truth.

Ok, I read that we don't have any experiments on the horizon that will be capable of probing that epoch. I don't know about the experiments you're referring to?

Planck and WMAP were both designed in part to do so, and quantum encryption satellites; which both China and the EU are developing, have the potential to produce relevant data.

As to the rest, your experience of religious people is far different than mine.

I'm not surprised, given you appear to hold theistic views yourself. Perhaps you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Kharakov]

A) Simply inserting more events into a unit of time does *not* mean a consciousness existing at that point experiences time differently. The subjective experience of time does not change based on the volume of events.

Except if the events are changes in states of consciousness that include some form of awareness of events passing.

B) There is no mechanism known that would allow for a consciousness to exist at that point in time.

I suppose that means that we might as well stop searching, right? Just stop looking for the truth after we decide Goddidn'tdoit.

Just say "there is a framework which our consciousness reacts to, and causes a reaction within, in which all other reactions that have existed since the beginning of time have not been conscious reactions, until the reaction was a reaction in a nervous system, because nervous systems are what we have, so only things with nervous systems that react to other things are conscious, and things that react without an integrated system are non-conscious, although all of them are made of the same substance that we are..." uhuh..

C) There is no mechanism known that would explain why a consciousness would exist to begin with, at that point in time.

Yup, let's just assume that because you believe that all consciousness needs mechanisms, instead of simply needing awareness of self, that you're right.

D) There is no need to posit a consciousness in order to explain conditions and causes at that point in time.

Except if there was a consciousness that existed and caused various things at that point in time. Than positing that there was no consciousness would lead us to make up scenarios that neglect the truth.

No, but you can play with the concept of now being both eternal and 0 length if you want to fantasize.

"Now" is a just a frame. Just because you can imagine it being eternal with 0 length doesn't mean anything.

Boring.

That is a COLOSSAL misunderstanding of cause and effect. I can salt an equation with the value 10^-30, and for 1000s and 1000s of iterations, the value remains very similar to an unsalted equation. However, when we approach millions of iterations, the magnitude of the effects can become enormous.

Except I wasn't talking about cause and effect there;

You said a change in the number of events wouldn't cause a fundamental change, which isn't correct. If each event has an infinitesimal impact on the structure of the preBB framework (or Planck Epoch), removing an event, while it may be like removing a single rain drop from the path of your baseball, will have a huge impact down the line, when the universe is 10^90 times as big. It might be the difference between a home run, and no home run, or whatever.

The baseball example is one of those classical physics homogenized reality scenarios, a non-chaos theory view of reality that is in no way correct because it leaves out an infinite amount of other interactions that are occurring. One change, especially in the initial conditions of something, can be huge.

It doesn't matter that a slightly different set of initial conditions would've resulted in a very different universe; the fact is we *don't* have a different set of initial conditions. The universe is the way it is; that it *could* be different is irrelevant to the question. No matter how many interactions you insert into the planck epoch, the *results are exactly the same*, since we're here to wonder about it.

I'm not inserting them into the planck epoch. You made some claims about something I said that weren't correct, and the conversation progressed.

I suppose the whole thing about how ridiculous the idea of someone who believes they are living in a universe with a being that creates universes not being curious about universes being created is over?

Ok, I read that we don't have any experiments on the horizon that will be capable of probing that epoch. I don't know about the experiments you're referring to?

Planck and WMAP were both designed in part to do so,

And failed, as of yet. That's why I mentioned the dust.

and quantum encryption satellites; which both China and the EU are developing, have the potential to produce relevant data.

How? That sounds like woo to me.

As to the rest, your experience of religious people is far different than mine.

I'm not surprised, given you appear to hold theistic views yourself. Perhaps you can't see the forest for the trees.

In my circles, religion or religious affiliation doesn't come up in conversation, except to make fun of or gripe about those with religious views (try to keep from hurting anyone with comments, of course). The religious people I know are predominately kind, I don't know any YECs, Mormon missionaries crack me up, etc. etc.

 

[dystopian]

Except if the events are changes in states of consciousness that include some form of awareness of events passing.

Irrelevant, since consciousness can not exist during the time period in question

I suppose that means that we might as well stop searching, right? Just stop looking for the truth after we decide Goddidn'tdoit.

A non-sequitur. Not only do we know of no way consciousness can exist at such an elementary period of time; we have no *reason* to search for it. Consciousness at the start of time is an irrelevant fiction that only serves to waste our time if we give it any serious thought. We are continuing to investigate the mechanisms and causes of the big bang. God is an irrelevance to such an investigation and will forever remain so unless we uncover actual evidence that a god exists and was involved. Until such a time, you're not making any sense.

What you're doing is the equivalent of someone kicking up a fuss when a detective, when faced with a murder scene where the victim has a bullet-shaped hole in his head and the other guy found at the crimescene had a smoking gun in his hand, doesn't investigate whether or not maybe a ghost killed the guy instead.

Just say "there is a framework which our consciousness reacts to, and causes a reaction within, in which all other reactions that have existed since the beginning of time have not been conscious reactions, until the reaction was a reaction in a nervous system, because nervous systems are what we have, so only things with nervous systems that react to other things are conscious, and things that react without an integrated system are non-conscious, although all of them are made of the same substance that we are..." uhuh..

You're putting out another non-sequitur.

Yup, let's just assume that because you believe that all consciousness needs mechanisms, instead of simply needing awareness of self, that you're right.

First; awareness of self is an aspect of consciousness; so by arguing that consiousness can exist through nothing more than self-awareness, you're engaging in circular reasoning.

Second; it has nothing to do with what I believe. It has to do with objective fact. Consciousness needs a physical mechanism. Period. There is no difference between arguing that consciousness can exist without such a mechanism, and arguing that magic is real. We will not be taking such suggestions seriously.

Except if there was a consciousness that existed and caused various things at that point in time. Than positing that there was no consciousness would lead us to make up scenarios that neglect the truth.

More circular reasoning. You're now *literally* arguing that if the hypothesis that god is real is true, we need to hypothesize that god is real.

The thing is, nobody is saying a priori that god isn't real. We're just saying that there is no reason to assume that gods exist or are needed. Nothing in reality or beyond requires a god to explain. Nothing *suggests* a god is involved. Therefore, it is foolish to insert a god into things regardless. There is no purpose to positing a god so long as gods are neither required to explain things or in evidence.

Boring.

Reality does not change because you happen to find it boring.

You said a change in the number of events wouldn't cause a fundamental change, which isn't correct.

But it IS correct. If you walk from one end of the street to the other end of the street, it doesn't MATTER if after the fact you can argue that time can be broken down to smaller units of time than previously believed possible. You've already crossed the street.

The universe already exists in its current state. Whether or not you posit that more or fewer interactions of particles in the first second of the universe happened than we currently assume possible does NOT change anything. The universe will not alter its existing state because of it. You can't change the result of a football match after it's been played.

The baseball example is one of those classical physics homogenized reality scenarios, a non-chaos theory view of reality that is in no way correct because it leaves out an infinite amount of other interactions that are occurring. One change, especially in the initial conditions of something, can be huge.

What you fail to realize is that I was in fact arguing within the realm of chaos theory. Yes, changes in the initial conditions can produce vastly different results. This is irrelevant; since the general mechanics can still be understood. Chaos theory does NOT allow for the baseball to randomly violate the laws governing its general mechanical behavior. Chaos theory argues that long-term deterministic *prediction* is impossible. It does not argue anything about the impossibility of understanding general deterministic mechanics. Take the example of the baseball. Let's assume that the flight path of the baseball and its end resting point is 'long-term' enough for chaos to result from changes in the initial conditions. All this means is that we can not predict *where* the baseball will land. However, its behavior will still follow the same rules we understand. It will still land *somewhere*. It will still arc through the air. It will still spin. Chaos prohibits exact predictions over long enough time-scales. It does not prohibit understanding of the involved mechanics.

How? That sounds like woo to me.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0008/0008049.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4949

In my circles, religion or religious affiliation doesn't come up in conversation, except to make fun of or gripe about those with religious views (try to keep from hurting anyone with comments, of course). The religious people I know are predominately kind, I don't know any YECs, Mormon missionaries crack me up, etc. etc.

If religion and religious affiliation does not come up in conversation except to make fun of those *with* religious views; then how can you know any religious people? Do you ascertain their religiosity through telepathy?

And again, why should *your* anecdotal experiences with religious people be any more relevant than mine?

 

[Kharakov]

Irrelevant, since consciousness can not exist during the time period in question

No evidence for your false assertion, ehh?

I suppose that means that we might as well stop searching, right? Just stop looking for the truth after we decide Goddidn'tdoit.

A non-sequitur. Not only do we know of no way consciousness can exist at such an elementary period of time; we have no *reason* to search for it.

Obviously the presupposition of Goddidit or Goddidn'tdoit is enough to satisfy all inquiry into the matter for someone such as yourself.

And you're right- this whole branch of conversation that you keep bringing up is totally non-sequitur to the fact that God belief does not stop someone from inquiring into the origins of the universe.

Neither does lack of God belief, although desire to avoid research into consciousness may influence some anti-theists into avoiding certain branches of thought, much like the hypothetical weird fears you claim religious people have that will cause them to avoid looking into the origins of the universe.

On a side note, if all forces exist at the beginning, and consciousness is a manifestation of force, consciousness was probably around at the beginning as well.

First; awareness of self is an aspect of consciousness; so by arguing that consiousness can exist through nothing more than self-awareness, you're engaging in circular reasoning.

Even worse, I don't present rudimentary consciousness of various details, like an attraction for something with certain characteristics.

Second; it has nothing to do with what I believe. It has to do with objective fact. Consciousness needs a physical mechanism. Period.

Consciousness is the physical mechanism. Period.

Except if there was a consciousness that existed and caused various things at that point in time. Than positing that there was no consciousness would lead us to make up scenarios that neglect the truth.

More circular reasoning. You're now *literally* arguing that if the hypothesis that god is real is true, we need to hypothesize that god is real.

No. It's not circular, although I can see how you thought that. Mirror technique, many apologies for the asymmetry of the beginning:

If there is not a consciousness, then positing there is can lead to the creation of incorrect imaginary scenarios that neglect the truth.
If there is a consciousness, then positing there is not can lead to the creation of incorrect imaginary scenarios that neglect the truth.

We're just saying that there is no reason to assume that gods exist or are needed. Nothing in reality or beyond requires a god to explain.

You don't know that.

Therefore, it is foolish to insert a god into things regardless.

What, the old assert God isn't required to explain things, therefore it is foolish to insert God into things claim?

You said a change in the number of events wouldn't cause a fundamental change, which isn't correct.

But it IS correct.

Nope. I'm obviously (context!) not talking about taking events and chopping them into more events. More events = more calculations. At smaller distance scales, more interactions occur. The number of calculations might be balanced out by gravitational time dilation... but maybe not- there is, after all, absolutely no complete quantum theory of spacetime that I am aware of (I'm not talking about speculation, like loop QG).

How? That sounds like woo to me.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0008/0008049.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4949

Lol... the main researcher has "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom..." at the bottom of their webpage. Get it?

In my circles, religion or religious affiliation doesn't come up in conversation, except to make fun of or gripe about those with religious views (try to keep from hurting anyone with comments, of course). The religious people I know are predominately kind, I don't know any YECs, Mormon missionaries crack me up, etc. etc.

If religion and religious affiliation does not come up in conversation except to make fun of those *with* religious views; then how can you know any religious people? Do you ascertain their religiosity through telepathy?

Religious people gripe about and make fun of certain religious views- religion isn't what you think it is, it's what it is.

And again, why should *your* anecdotal experiences with religious people be any more relevant than mine?

Your claims indicate prejudice against religious people as a whole. Mine do not.

 

[Starman]

I'm not surprised, given you appear to hold theistic views yourself. Perhaps you can't see the forest for the trees.

Theistic views are bad. Only atheistic views are good. That's precisely why there are so *many* atheists, some 2% of the population.
Now evolutionists and global warmers insist that they are right because of consensus. Lots of people in agreement.

But when very few people agree with atheists, they abandon the "consensus" perspective. This is just one of very many nonsensical and irrational
positions of atheists, the most important and amusing of which is that they are *smart* and anyone who disagrees with their dogma is terminally stupid.

A young boy comes home to his atheist father after school one day and says, "Father, my friend told me about the trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Is this true?"
The atheist father says, "No, son. There is only one God, and we don't believe in him."

Now, about the Easter Bunny Non-Believer's Association, and the Tooth Fairy Deniers, and the Santa Claus Naysayers, and the Unicorn Non-Believers.
Oh wait, they don't exist. Only atheists who obsess on what they "don't believe in."

Pretty funny.