Perhaps one definition of “certainty” could be: when somebody stops learning.
1 Like
But you, like everyone else without exception, especially WLC, know nothing in math, physics that touches the reality of uniformitarianism. Nothing.
You don’t even understand limits, dude. I don’t know why you’re acting like a mathematical genius. And you continue refusing to address even a single of the countless clear paradoxes in the notion of infinity. I’m afraid your position … makes no sense at all.
Had a quick glance. You completely miss the rational inference that there’s no such thing as fine tuning. Why? It’s the simplest explanation after all.
Huh?
Where does John 1:1 talk about the universe? Which had a beginning of course. As they all do.
It says “In the beginning”. You’re saying that, fundamentally, there is no beginning.
1 Like
Ah yes, blatant circular reasoning. “If we assume the universe already exists, then we can have a quantum field, which therefore allows us to explain how the universe can begin to exist … even though I need to assume that the universe already exists and began in order to then have the quantum field”.
I am just seeing if we are on the same page. If there is a quantum field, then would you agree that a singularity can spontaneously form?
Would you also agree that a quantum field could have existed prior to the beginning of our universe?
I find this sort of argument which purports to fashion certainty about something so very remote from human experience neither compelling nor interesting. If I resorted to anything like this to support any hunch of mine I would so feel ashamed of myself I simply couldn’t do it. I find shocking the moxy required to assert what could or could not be possible in the cosmos as a whole based upon what strikes one earth bound hominid as “absurd”, “unimaginable” or “insane”.
It’s not certainty, it’s just about vast probability. There are dozens of constants which all happen to be within a nearly zero-size interval in order for life to exist. And when I say that the interval of possible values is nearly zero, I mean nearly zero. I’m talking about shifts in the value as small as something like 1 in 10^50 screwing the whole thing over. And, unfortunately, the multiverse doesn’t help explain any of this - though I don’t think there is a multiverse. The multiverse only solves the problem if you make a whole string of assumptions, i.e. that there is a multiverse, and that the number of universes is near infinite, and that the values that these universes take on occupy a random distribution such that we can, by chance, get the perfect values we see. This is a lot of trying to get around what is a straight forward indication that God set up the universe for intelligent life. The big problem people have with fine tuning is that it proves too much.
I am just seeing if we are on the same page. If there is a quantum field, then would you agree that a singularity can spontaneously form?
Why would I agree to that? Have YOU seen a singularity pop out of the quantum field? No, the only thing we see is energy converting to matter (a “virtual particle”) for a fraction of a second and then dissipating back into energy. That’s the only thing we see happening in the quantum field.
Would you also agree that a quantum field could have existed prior to the beginning of our universe?
Dude, the quantum field traverses spacetime. There’s no meaning to the phrase “quantum field” without spacetime, because it is a space-time field. What do you think the “field” in quantum “field” refers to? It’s talking about the abstract set of coordinates, or something like that, that we can set across spacetime. That’s what a field is in physics.
I’m no mathematical genius, neither are you. The last time I used calculus was to go through a proof of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle using second order partial differential equations about 30 years ago. Never needed it as an Oracle DBA. It was most elegant and gratifying.
Huh? huh?
No, uniformitarianism (it’s a science thing) says there is no beginning of beginnings. There’s no end of them. And no end of endings either.
Blatant lying.
Alright, can you say something about, say, the infinity paradoxes? Or do those just not exist now?
That’s not what uniformitarianism is…
Uniformitarianism , also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity or the Uniformitarian Principle , is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe
All uniformitarianism says is that the laws of physics we observe now apply to the whole universe, not just a local part of the universe that we observe, and that it’s applied at all points of time in the universe. It would be a massive misunderstanding to think that this is magically saying that the universe is eternal. I’ve read about this principle in textbooks on the philosophy of science. (Though those discussions mostly involve Hume’s demonstration that the principle of uniformity can never be proven.)
Blatant lying.
Do you know what the quantum field is? Do you know what a “field” is? A field is a region or set of coordinates in space. To say that the quantum field can precede space is just, therefore … logic botching.
Yes [of course] I know and who is saying that? Why would you ask? [Proof is unnecessary. Just think.]
I don’t consider that a sufficient response to my comment.
So you won’t even accept concepts that get something from something. Ok.
Notice that I asked about our universe, not spacetime.
I know how you feel.
Teeee!!! Our universe creates, extends spacetime, everywhere it goes.
Kaaaaaaaay!!! Why couldn’t a spacetime exist before our own?
Not by itself. In isolation. Sorry if you don’t mean that. And yes, of course, the cosmic foam comes with, is coterminous, coeval, congruent with, spacetime. What am I missing here? Seriously.
Kaaaaaayyyyy!!! Why not???
It’s meaningless. It’s the sound of one hand clapping. Space-time always has something filling it, everything occupies space-time. There is no excess space-time beyond matter (stuff: including energy, fields, virtual particles), there is no matter outside space-time, no space-time outside matter. The multiverse zero-point energy field occupies infinite space-time from eternity with universe bubbles of space-time forming from it. Where’s the spare space-time?
So why couldn’t there be this spacetime prior to the beginning of our universe?
What do you mean I “won’t even accept” it? You’re acting like I’m being unreasonable, when you’re the one who literally thinks a singularity can emerge from the quantum field despite the fact that the only thing or evidence we’ve ever seen from it is these tiny virtual particles appearing for a fraction of a second and then dissipating back into energy again.
Notice that I asked about our universe, not spacetime.
Dude … the universe is spacetime. There’s no quantum “field” without spacetime because a field is a region of spacetime. The quantum region of spacetime, therefore, cannot be prior to spacetime, and cannot cause its existence.