Noah's flood real

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3786 May 11, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Universe is defined as all matter, Time, energy and space. ALL! That would include all dimensions.[/QUOTE]

So if you claim your god is real, where the f*ck is it you liars.
Should have thought about that before wasting trees on the bible and stones and lives on churches.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3787 May 11, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
So the Big Bang came from nothing?
[/QUOTE]

No, in that model, the Big bang didn't come from anything. To even speak of it 'coming from' is to make an assumption about time which is wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3788 May 11, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Yes, that's why I said pre-Big Bang. But you didn't like that word so I'm stuck using when there was no Time and matter and space and energy.
[/QUOTE]

You have two problems with this: you have the word 'when': that alone implies a time. So your basic concept is self-contradictory.

Second, you want some sort of causality between that 'when' where there was no time, etc and the universe we see now. But causality requires time. So there simply cannot be a cause of time.

So, suppose you take your 'snapshots': one shows our expanding universe. The other shows 'complete non-existence'. How you would take a snapshot of the second, I have no idea, but let's go with it for a while. Why do you say the second is 'pre' the first? Without time, you can't have pre- or post-, only exists. No order, no causality, just raw existence. And yet, you want to say that one is 'pre' the other with no logic to back it up.

You repeatedly fail to grasp that you cannot talk about 'pre-time': it is simply non-sense.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3789 May 11, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Universe is defined as all matter, Time, energy and space. ALL! That would include all dimensions.[/QUOTE]

OK, good. So by your definition, the universe cannot be caused. Why not? Because causality requires time and time is *part of the universe*.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3790 May 11, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to look it up, I already know what Quantum Mechanics is Bob ... It proves that your thinking doesn't go beyond the small part of the Universe that God has allowed you to access...:)
Most people that claim to know something about quantum mechanics have absolutely no idea what it really is. In particular, if you have never solved a differential equation, you don't know anything about quantum mechanics except for poor popularizations.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3791 May 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have two problems with this: you have the word 'when': that alone implies a time. So your basic concept is self-contradictory.
Second, you want some sort of causality between that 'when' where there was no time, etc and the universe we see now. But causality requires time. So there simply cannot be a cause of time.
So, suppose you take your 'snapshots': one shows our expanding universe. The other shows 'complete non-existence'. How you would take a snapshot of the second, I have no idea, but let's go with it for a while. Why do you say the second is 'pre' the first? Without time, you can't have pre- or post-, only exists. No order, no causality, just raw existence. And yet, you want to say that one is 'pre' the other with no logic to back it up.
You repeatedly fail to grasp that you cannot talk about 'pre-time': it is simply non-sense.
Wrong.

Causality does not require a temporal succession.

Causal order is not necessarily temporal order.

In other words, the cause of the origin of the universe is causally prior to the Big Bang, though not necessarily temporally prior to the Big Bang

Second, the cause of the universe is not required to be "before" universe time; but only independent of universe time.

Third, you don't know whether "universe time", which became initiated with the Big Bang, is the only "time" there is.

So no, you are wrong in that you are building on assumptions you cannot back up.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3792 May 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, good. So by your definition, the universe cannot be caused. Why not? Because causality requires time and time is *part of the universe*.
Wrong.

The universe CANNOT be defined that way in any legitimate sense.

You could legitimately define it as "all KNOWN", but not "ALL".

Unless you claim to know everything, and I do not accept the claim that you are omniscient.

If you can prove you are omniscient, then fine, go ahead and define the universe as "ALL".

If I define MY ASS as all there is, then MY ASS is the origin of the universe.

And again, a sequence of time IS NOT required for causality.

In fact, it can be logically argued that ALL EFFECTIVE CAUSALITY is simultaneous with its effect.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3793 May 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, good. So by your definition, the universe cannot be caused. Why not? Because causality requires time and time is *part of the universe*.
The universe requires a cause.

Anything that begins to exist is caused.

No exceptions.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3794 May 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The universe requires a cause.
Anything that begins to exist is caused.
No exceptions.
We've said it before and we will say it again. Where is the proof of the god you are lying about you creationist sack of sh*t?

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#3795 May 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I grew up in Kansas. I managed to escape.
Yes Kansas is very religious, but the numbers are coming up on the non-religious as people become more and more disgusted with the fanatical attitudes of the religious sect. that is where people of non-religious beliefs and the religious really differ. The religious want to push their beliefs and idealism on the public and the non-religious just want a functional society not a religious one.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3796 May 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The universe requires a cause.
Anything that begins to exist is caused.
No exceptions.
I disagree. And the evidence supports my position.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3797 May 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Causality does not require a temporal succession.
Causal order is not necessarily temporal order.
Yes, it is. This is your basic mistake.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3798 May 11, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
We've said it before and we will say it again. Where is the proof of the god you are lying about you creationist sack of sh*t?
I'll do better than that.

I can prove God hates you, Septic.

Proof: He made you so stupid and ugly.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3799 May 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. And the evidence supports my position.
No, the evidence and reason defy your position.

You have zero ("0") evidence for an uncaused universe, and reason dictates that it is not even possible. It takes you right back to asserting "something from nothing".

What you offer is simply a theory of necessity - necessary to support your philosophical beliefs.

I refrained from calling it your religious belief out of courtesy, even though it is.
KJV

United States

#3800 May 11, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Universe is defined as all matter, Time, energy and space. ALL! That would include all dimensions. "

Including any that your fictional god might inhabit.

Alas-- Quantum Mechanics has shown, beyond a doubt, that your god cannot possibly exist in our universe.

Simply by being omniscient, your god's very existence, would collapse all the universe, making it end.

An omniscient god and our universe cannot co-exist.

One precludes the other-- since the Universe DOES exist?

Obviously, your god does not.

End of Discussion.
Nope wrong again. My God is not made out of his own creation. No sir the universe is God creation and all that is in it. He's not in it. His make up and existence outside of time and the universe cannot be grasped by atheist that is why you are atheist. It's a weakness of your brain not being able to think outside the box. It's truly to bad you will be condemned for this weakness. Just remember God gave you a chance right here and right now to save your soul from hell.
KJV

United States

#3801 May 11, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>No need to look it up, I already know what Quantum Mechanics is Bob ... It proves that your thinking doesn't go beyond the small part of the Universe that God has allowed you to access...:)
QM nice equation. Theory nope!

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3802 May 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is. This is your basic mistake.
You are proven wrong by simultaneous causality, impossibility of infinite past universe, and the law of identity.

Your beginningless universe is physically impossible and logically incoherent.

And that's cool with you, because that's what you want to BELIEVE.
KJV

United States

#3803 May 11, 2013
CMS Black Hole The Compact Muon Solenoid seen under construction in late 2008. Wikimedia Commons
Physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider report that after a series of tests, they have not seen any mini black holes, to the chagrin of string theorists and the relief of disaster theorists.

Researchers working on the Compact Muon Solenoid team have been crunching numbers to test a form of string theory that calls for the creation and instant evaporation of miniature black holes. They report that the telltale signs of these black holes are disappointingly absent, however.

String theory is the most widely accepted attempt to unify the two major fields of physics, quantum mechanics and relativity. It holds that electrons and quarks are not objects, but one-dimensional strings whose oscillation gives them their observed qualities. It also says the universe has about a dozen dimensions, rather than the usual four (length, width, height and time).

In one version of string theory, if these dimensions exist, gravitons — hypothetical particles that transmit gravity — would leak into them, explaining why gravity is so much weaker than the other forces, as New Scientist explains it. It’s not really weaker, it just seems weaker, because some of its particles are in another dimension we can’t see. Happily, it takes a lot less energy to test this than it would to actually unify all the forces, and it just so happens it’s is in the energy range that the LHC, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator, is capable of testing.
If this is all true, particles that collided at energies beyond this graviton-leaking energy cutoff would get so close together that gravity would take over, and they would merge to form a tiny black hole. The black holes would instantly decay, so there would be no danger of Earth being swallowed whole, and the decay would be visible as jets of particles. But the researchers have so far seen no jets.
KJV

United States

#3804 May 11, 2013
Forty Years of String Theory

Posted on December 5, 2012 by woit
The journal Foundations of Physics has been promising a special issue on “Forty Years of String Theory: Reflecting on the Foundations” for quite a while now, with a contribution first appearing back when it really was 40 years since the beginnings (more like 43 now). The final contribution has now appeared, an introductory essay by the editors (’t Hooft, Erik Verlinde, Sebastian de Haro and Dennis Dieks).

The overall tone of the collection is one of defensive promotion of the subject. The fact that string theory’s massively overhyped claims to give a unified theory of particle physics have led to miserable failure is mostly completely ignored. From the introductory essay one would never guess that string theory was ever supposed to have something to do with explaining the Standard Model of particle physics and that there were hopes that it would find some sort of vindication at the LHC, perhaps via the discovery of SUSY (the LHC is not even mentioned in this essay). String theory is presented purely as a theory of quantum gravity that has led to new insights in mathematics and had various other applications through the dualities it has uncovered. It’s main shortcoming is described as

the lack of directly testable experimental predictions that would signal ‘string physics’

which seems to me intentionally misleading, implying that string theory makes indirectly testable predictions. The problem with string theory is that it makes no predictions about anything, not that it only makes indirectly testable ones.

Three of the eleven articles in the collection are described as representing critics of string theory. The first, from Carlo Rovelli, does do a good job of explaining many of the problems of string theory. Lee Smolin’s contribution is not much about string theory, but more an examination of the general issue of the “Landscape problem”, comparing a range of different theories in which the laws of physics are different outside our observable universe.

’t Hooft’s On the Foundations of Superstring theory calls for more attention to the lack of any fundamental description that tells us what string theory really “is”, taking the point of view:

we conjecture that the “true theory” is something totally different from superstring theory (and certainly also different from gravitating quantum field theories), but that string theory may approximate the truth to various degrees of accuracy in one or several of its compactified realizations, just as it does for some condensed matter systems and QCD.

He ends with an argument (which he notes is “one where only few readers will follow me”) that one problem with string theory is that it uses the conventional quantum formalism, which he feels is flawed, needing replacement by an “emergent” version of quantum mechanics. For more about the sort of thing he has in mind, see here.

Two articles by philosophers of science, Dean Rickles and Richard Dawid address the question of how to evaluate a supposedly scientific theory that, like string theory, makes no experimentally testable predictions. Both pieces seem to me to suffer from a rather uncritical attitude towards various forms of string theory hype. For Rickles, the dominance of string theory can be justified by its “mathematical fertility”, for Dawid the justification is “the assessment of scientific underdetermination”(roughly, there aren’t any other good ideas). That it has led to some interesting mathematics and that there’s not a lot of good alternative ideas out there are perhaps the two best arguments for pursuing string theory, but in both cases the situation is far more complicated than string theory advocates would have one believe.
KJV

United States

#3805 May 11, 2013
The articles by string theorists (Balasubramanian, Giddings, Gubser. Martinec, Susskind and Duff) have a range of interesting things to say, sometimes amidst large dollops of string theory hype. Almost all evade serious discussion of string theory’s failure to say anything about the Standard Model (although Susskind argues, a la Multiverse, that this a positive feature of string theory). Giddings perhaps makes the most serious criticism of string theory in the entire volume, discussing its problems as a theory of quantum gravity, where other authors see a big success and the theory’s main selling point.

The article by Duff is by far the most bizarre thing in the volume, and I wrote about it extensively a year ago here. As Duff sees it, the problem is just that critics of string theory are misguided and misinformed. He includes a three page denunciation of Garrett Lisi which has nothing to do with string theory, characterizes the major recent research directions in string theory as fluid mechanics and the black hole/qubit correspondence, and has an appendix about the press release Imperial College put out making absurd claims that he had finally figured out how to make predictions from string theory (see here). The editors of the volume seem to be rather defensive about publishing such a thing, noting

Needless to say that the opinions expressed in this paper are entirely the author’s own and that it is not our intent to spark new popular or otherwise heated discussions.

but justifying it as

we are happy to include this paper in our special issue as addressing questions that are important not only to scientists but also to the wider public, which was among our initial intents.

and ending with

We warmly recommend Duff’s very readable and playful contribution.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 36 min blacklagoon 3 78
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Simon 93,358
News American Atheists terminates its president over... 13 hr Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Apr 9 Wisdom of Ages 6,048