Not exactly. They pop in and out of the zero point energy field in, below the vacuum, as they must. Pure vacuum ain’t nuthin’. And nuthin’ is average.
Your link says nothing about the obvious logical nonsense of an eternity. It only tries to explain away fine tuning by appeal to the multiverse. But I’ve debunked this elsewhere. Also @MarkD I’d also like you to read what proceeds in this comment.
First of all, we obviously know the constants have to be within such a small range of values that it is insane they could have been arrived at, by random, with one universe. So the magic trick is to simply say we live in a multiverse and therefore at least one universe of the many would have our values. But this fails. If a multiverse existed, why would there not be just, say, two universes? Or ten? Or a hundred? Even on two or ten or a hundred, that’s not nearly conceivably enough to get the values we want by random chance. Why not a billion? Or 10^10 universes? Still not enough. Why should we believe that, if a multiverse existed, it would have the near infinite number of universes needed to reduce fine tuning to a sheer matter of chance?
Not only that, but an additional problem crushes this magic hand waving of the multiverse explanation. If there were some infinite multiverses or so, why would we assume that they have different constants than the one we see in our universe? How do we know the infinite number of universes aren’t all identical, for example? In that case, the probability of getting our constants given a multiverse is no different than having one universe.
So, all in all, the multiverse hand waving doesn’t help solve the problem of fine tuning.
I need no introduction to calculus
Why did you think that differentiation is relevant to the limits I was describing? Since it is not, you haven’t addressed one of my many demonstrations of the incoherence of infinity.
And how is the gospel dependent on any of this one way or the other?
John 1:1 says that the universe has a beginning.
Looks like @Klax beat me to it. You’re just kind of using a popular misrepresentation of quantum mechanics. These virtual particles are just matter converted from energy in the quantum vacuum. Energy isn’t nothing, sorry to say.
tl;dr, particularly as it’s all about disposition on your part. You can’t abide reality. I don’t blame you. It is head spinning. But you, like everyone else without exception, especially WLC, know nothing in math, physics that touches the reality of uniformitarianism. Nothing.
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.
Where does John 1:1 talk about the universe? Which had a beginning of course. As they all do.
Forever is simple[st]. Anything else is imparsimonously not.
So if there was a quantum field then a universe could pop into existence, and this is the case that was presented.
If we have spacetime then we have a quantum field.
So if we had a quantum field then we wouldn’t need a singularity to pop out of nothing?
1 Like
Da DAHHHHHHH!
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”.
You drew the wrong impression if you thought I had any interest at all in discussing that novelty logic puzzle:
It is not of any interest to me to dispute the Kalam nor to think about anything like that. I am a human being concerned with human things. Whatever it is which has given rise to God belief is interesting. But for these pretentious, logical appeals built up upon anyone’s personal incredulity I have only contempt. I leave it to you and anyone who enjoys empty logic more than I do.
1 Like
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.