Why did our universe begin? (Split from Atheist wins Nobel Prize thread)

[Swammerdami]

If an agent is God, it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect ('omnimax' for short).

So perhaps mathematics does qualify!

What do you mean by "mathematics"?

 Mathematical universe hypothesis

Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure). Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world."

This viewpoint will seem far-fetched to many, but has a "ring of truth" for me!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In no way could the Genesis account of creation be interpreted as evolution.

AiG is good with it... one horse on ark -> countless horse breeds 4,500ish years later... so it must be somewhere in that book.

 

[skepticalbip]

What do you mean by "mathematics"?

 Mathematical universe hypothesis

Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure). Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world."

This viewpoint will seem far-fetched to many, but has a "ring of truth" for me!

I am apparently one of those who see it as far-fetched. Mathematics can be used to describe the real world but that doesn't make the real world a mathematic structure. Just as words can be used to describe the real world but that doesn't make the real world a word structure. A map can be used to describe a territory but the territory isn't a map structure.

The difference between using mathematics and words to describe the real world is that mathematics makes a more precise language but either are just descriptions not the thing being described.

 

[Treedbear]

 Mathematical universe hypothesis



This viewpoint will seem far-fetched to many, but has a "ring of truth" for me!

I am apparently one of those who see it as far-fetched. Mathematics can be used to describe the real world but that doesn't make the real world a mathematic structure. Just as words can be used to describe the real world but that doesn't make the real world a word structure. A map can be used to describe a territory but the territory isn't a map structure.

The difference between using mathematics and words to describe the real world is that mathematics makes a more precise language but either are just descriptions not the thing being described.

Mathematics describes the world in terms of absolutes. Much like religion only having a logical basis.

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” ― Albert Einstein.

 

[Swammerdami]

 Mathematical universe hypothesis

... Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world."

This viewpoint will seem far-fetched to many, but has a "ring of truth" for me!

I am apparently one of those who see it as far-fetched. Mathematics can be used to describe the real world but that doesn't make the real world a mathematic structure. Just as words can be used to describe the real world but that doesn't make the real world a word structure. A map can be used to describe a territory but the territory isn't a map structure.

The difference between using mathematics and words to describe the real world is that mathematics makes a more precise language but either are just descriptions not the thing being described.

I lack the eloquence to explain why I find Tegmark's idea plausible (does Tegmark have an eloquent argument?) — perhaps you either "get it" or you don't.

I will say that having "Mathematical" in the name is misleading. I think the main reason Tegmark specifies "mathematical description" rather than "English-language description" is just for the connotation of precise clarity. It's hard to imagine a complete English-language description of our universe, but it's easier to imagine, at least in principle, a complete enumeration of axioms (physical laws) and a rigorous list of all individual particles and their attributes.

 

[aupmanyav]

Why did our universe begin?

Is there a universe?

 

[bilby]

 Mathematical universe hypothesis



This viewpoint will seem far-fetched to many, but has a "ring of truth" for me!

I am apparently one of those who see it as far-fetched. Mathematics can be used to describe the real world but that doesn't make the real world a mathematic structure. Just as words can be used to describe the real world but that doesn't make the real world a word structure. A map can be used to describe a territory but the territory isn't a map structure.

The difference between using mathematics and words to describe the real world is that mathematics makes a more precise language but either are just descriptions not the thing being described.

^This.

There's a tendency I have observed even today to give the written word undue reverence, even in mundane settings. If you ask someone (for example) not to smoke, they may well decide to go ahead and light up anyway. But put up a 'No Smoking' sign, and the odds of non-compliance drop noticeably - even if the person who puts up the sign is the same person who issued the verbal request that was ignored.

"It is written" somehow implies "It is important", even in a world where literacy is commonplace. It's hardly surprising that writing stuff down caused it to be given undue reverence in an era where literacy was an elite skill reserved for the wealthy and/or powerful.

Written language still evokes a sense of gravity and importance, and mathematics is perhaps the language most prone to being revered in our modern world, being as it is the elite language of the intelligent and knowledgeable. But really, there's nothing magical about language (in the broadest sense, including mathematics); That something (perhaps justly) evokes a sense of wonder, does not imply that that something is all powerful, or all encompassing.

Humans have a tendency to massively overestimate the power of anything that is powerful, or even effective. That's usually an error.

 

[bilby]

Why did our universe begin?

Is there a universe?

Yes.

 

[Learner]

Microbes on Mars does cause serious problems for Special Creationism, such as described in Genesis....

As I was sort of alluding to ... the bibical narrative - like for example the sons of God leaving their heavenly states - coming down to earth and 'physically' mingling with the 'daughters of men', in Genesis, etc., may not be a problem as such, although to be honest, I would concur with you on the above, from the view that I wouldn't be expecting to find microbes on Mars - obviously because it doesn't mention it in the bible. Even then, it may not be a problem like I was saying (as mentioned, sons of God etc.), depending how one (or some theists) sees it.

Funny enough, I have mentioned somewhere on the forum that I would find it problematic, a rethink to the faith perhaps... IF humans were able to colonize Mars & other planets - not forgetting of course our very own moon. Non of which is mentioned in the bilble, having taking place in anytime.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Microbes on Mars does cause serious problems for Special Creationism, such as described in Genesis....

As I was sort of alluding to ... the bibical narrative - like for example the sons of god leaving their heavenly states - coming down to earth and 'physically' mingling with the 'daughters of men', in Genesis, etc., may not be a problem as such, although to be honest, I would concur with you on the above, from the view that I wouldn't be expecting to find microbes on Mars - obviously because it doesn't mention it in the bible. Even then, it may not be a problem like I was previously alluding to, depending how one sees it.

Funny enough, I have mentioned somewhere on the forum that I would find it problematic, a rethink to the faith perhaps... IF humans were able to colonize Mars & other planets - not forgetting of course our very own moon. Non of which is mentioned in the bilble, taking place.

A big rewrite. We thought we were the center of the universe because we were God's creation. It was a pretty big deal when we learned we weren't not only not the center of the universe, we weren't even the center of our own solar system! But after centuries of threats, Churches pretended it wasn't a big deal.

To find out God was making with magnificent beasts on other planets millions of years ago? That would require a substantial rewrite! But it is okay, because just like how religion has successfully pivoted on astronomy and then biology, we'll find out that God "spread his gift" across the universe... and 'we totally expected that all along'!

 

[Learner]

Which telscope would you use to see the centre of even our own solar system, telling you where you were? Pretty much looks the same all around in each direction, no observable edges to the outer universe at least.

Let us accept the microbes in the universe. No evidence that theres more than the mere microbes existing and having "evolved" as the creatures have on earth. Perhaps we are alone -we certainly seem to be... as developed life-forms we ARE the centre, in that case... the Adams and Eves - the very first to advance to the current developement, out of the whole microbial universe.

 

[DBT]

In no way could the Genesis account of creation be interpreted as evolution.

AiG is good with it... one horse on ark -> countless horse breeds 4,500ish years later... so it must be somewhere in that book.

I think they are big on 'kind'- kind breeds kind, cats breed cats, horses breed horses....no microbes to multicell creatures, no macro evolution.

 

[Learner]

Consciousness and intelligence in our universe is always associated with complex neural networks. They are emergent phenomena that arise from complex arrangements of matter/energy interacting in complex ways. There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness and intelligence can exist without such an underlying material platform. And, such networks naturally decay over time. Therefore,
(1) an immaterial god would not have the ability to think (whatever immaterial supposedly means in this context, since you haven't defined it), and
(2) a material god could not exist forever.

So much for the first cause/kalam cosmological argument.

A quick post, But the science studies seem to be suggesting otherwise :

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHrpBPdtSI[/YOUTUBE]
(sorry to bore some of you with the same vid)

It's strange but you and bilby seemed have defined immaterial i.e. Gods cosmic properties, and as to why it's an impossibilty outside organic material for any such thing especially God.

Why should it be impossible for electrical data or infomation not to be held (in natural containment) of electrical or magnetic fields? Like the varying fundamental forces that each have particular unique characteristics affecting the properties of matter, in a predicatable fixed manner, like from memory when observed.
(not the best analogy)

I suppose you could take a philosophical approach and say the above is like the chicken or egg scenario (other than the bible POV). Both can be forever, but which came first?

Neither came first. YThey have both existed forever, remember? you just stated that as a premise, for fuck's sake. Do you really not understand this?

I don't remember this being my premise - saying both existed!!? Certainly not a biblical view, you could have pointed out. I would have thought at least you would have summized from the biblical narrative, and saying the usual rhetoric "Other Christians would disagree with you" when the narrative says: God Himself created the universe.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What do you mean by "mathematics"?

 Mathematical universe hypothesis

Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure). Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world."

This viewpoint will seem far-fetched to many, but has a "ring of truth" for me!

Okay, so definitely that could not be God. On the other hand, that wouldn't rule out God, either (I'm assuming the theory is consistent; I'm having some trouble grasping it).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Microbes on Mars does cause serious problems for Special Creationism, such as described in Genesis....

As I was sort of alluding to ... the bibical narrative - like for example the sons of God leaving their heavenly states - coming down to earth and 'physically' mingling with the 'daughters of men', in Genesis, etc., may not be a problem as such, although to be honest, I would concur with you on the above, from the view that I wouldn't be expecting to find microbes on Mars - obviously because it doesn't mention it in the bible. Even then, it may not be a problem like I was saying (as mentioned, sons of God etc.), depending how one (or some theists) sees it.

Funny enough, I have mentioned somewhere on the forum that I would find it problematic, a rethink to the faith perhaps... IF humans were able to colonize Mars & other planets - not forgetting of course our very own moon. Non of which is mentioned in the bilble, having taking place in anytime.

By the way, what if we were to find (with sufficiently big space telescopes, etc.) alien megastructures, or alien signals? Would you consider that that shows that Christianity is false? Or would you think that demons did it rather than aliens? Or some other alternative?

 

[steve_bank]

Which telscope would you use to see the centre of even our own solar system, telling you where you were? Pretty much looks the same all around in each direction, no observable edges to the outer universe at least.

Let us accept the microbes in the universe. No evidence that theres more than the mere microbes existing and having "evolved" as the creatures have on earth. Perhaps we are alone -we certainly seem to be... as developed life-forms we ARE the centre, in that case... the Adams and Eves - the very first to advance to the current developement, out of the whole microbial universe.

Observationally we see the planets circling what is called the center of mass of the solar system. The sun us near the center point but not the accrual center. The sun revolves around the center of mass due to mass of the planets.

As I said before all motion is relative to an artistry interrail frame of reference, or simply a set of xyz axis. There is no preferred or absolute inertial frame. If there is we have no way to identify it.

The story of gods down from heaven breeding with humans is pure Greek methology. In Greek terms Jesus was a demigod. Son of a human and god, has some powers but all the power of the god. In Greek fasion Jesus demigod dies in the act of saving the tribe or group.

Pure mythology.

Like ancient Zog who while crafting a spear concludes someone must have made the Earth, he would also conclude there must have been an original man and woman. Lacking science the myths are created to answer questions.

Material vs immaterial is philosophical semantics.

Science deals with what can be observed, measured, plus extrapolation based on measurement.

Supernatural means cause and effect not subject to 'natural laws'm another semantic debate.

Theory uses concepts of mass, energy, and fields. Fields are a general technique for analysis and modeling not just in physics proper.

Despite many controlled experiments to evaluate ESP, there is no evidence. If it exists it can nor be addressed by science. Believers claim it exists by the same approach as theists.

Back in the early days of radio people were spooked. The idea that something 'immaterial' could pass through walls in a locked house for some was hard to take.

 

[steve_bank]

In no way could the Genesis account of creation be interpreted as evolution.

Putting on a theist hat, the bible says god di it, did not say how.

 

[bilby]

Microbes on Mars does cause serious problems for Special Creationism, such as described in Genesis....

As I was sort of alluding to ... the bibical narrative - like for example the sons of God leaving their heavenly states - coming down to earth and 'physically' mingling with the 'daughters of men', in Genesis, etc., may not be a problem as such, although to be honest, I would concur with you on the above, from the view that I wouldn't be expecting to find microbes on Mars - obviously because it doesn't mention it in the bible. Even then, it may not be a problem like I was saying (as mentioned, sons of God etc.), depending how one (or some theists) sees it.

Funny enough, I have mentioned somewhere on the forum that I would find it problematic, a rethink to the faith perhaps... IF humans were able to colonize Mars & other planets - not forgetting of course our very own moon. Non of which is mentioned in the bilble, having taking place in anytime.

Mars?

Shit, the Bible doesn't even mention the Americas, or Australasia.

The existence of marsupials isn't so much as hinted at, despite their being dropped off from Noah's zoo cruise in a wildly different location from all the other animals.

If creationists can tolerate life in Australia, they can surely manage to rationalise life on Mars.

 

[DBT]

In no way could the Genesis account of creation be interpreted as evolution.

Putting on a theist hat, the bible says god di it, did not say how.

Genesis describes literal days, morning and evening of each day of Creation....which appears to rule out evolution.

 

[skepticalbip]

In no way could the Genesis account of creation be interpreted as evolution.

Putting on a theist hat, the bible says god di it, did not say how.

Genesis describes literal days, morning and evening of each day of Creation....which appears to rule out evolution.

But religious beliefs evolve significantly over time. Early Bible believers knew that all creation happened in exactly six days... the Bible days being the same as our days. Today, Biblical apologists will say "We can't know how long god's day is."