webdiplomacy.net

orathaic wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:26 am

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:06 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 11:38 pm

Great!

So we're done here.

There is no requirement for the universe to have been created.

The universe might always have existed.

Thus there is no "cosmological" argument for "God" to exist.

Good. Glad we could bottom that out.

I'm not talking about the universe as in big bang onward. I'm talking about all of existence. I think existence has always existed. And then the question becomes what are the qualities of this existence that has always existed.

I don't think that is required for a universe. I think time itself began with the big bang and always doesn't have a meaning before the start of time.

We don't understand singularities, and while there is room for a cause, I don't think it is necessary. Virtual particles create themselves all the time.saying their is a quantum field from which they become excited and then returns to the ground state of doesn't change the fact that they spontaneously create themselves.

And if things can spontaneously create themselves, there is no reason the Universe (from the big bang onwards) can't be one of those things.

They spontaneously create themselves, but this quantum field still exists outside of time. So this quantum field would be timeless. Then the interesting part would be asking what is the nature of this quantum field.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:06 pm

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:01 am

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 28, 2021 4:52 pm

CosmicSkeptic does a decent takedown of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P28hy8JRYUk

His debate/discussion with William Lane Craig on the Kalam-Cosmological is honestly the main reason this thread was triggered.

I think this discussion was misunderstood. It wasn't in any way shape or form a debate. Cosmic Skeptic was just trying to make him expand on his argument rather than shoot it down. I watched about 20 minutes of it - William Lane Craig's argument wasn't getting any more compelling. It was just one arbitrary assertion after another.

One interesting part of this debate, was Cosmic Skeptic (the atheist) saying IF there's a timeless cause (which is what I'm arguing for in this thread) it has to be a personal agent. Do you agree with the Cosmic Skeptic on that?

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 07, 2021 1:02 pm

Sorry I haven't followed the thread but I want to ask a question:
Do we observe any creation in present time? I think I heard particles appearing from nothing which causes Hawking radiation (opposite particle is consumed by black hole, other particle is radiated) but I didn't follow that either so I'd like a better explanation. As far as I know this makes black holes shrink so this may not be creation from nothing. But if it is, then I will be more open to the idea of universe being interfered.

The thing is, this "nothing" that Lawrence has popularized is still something. He's tried redefining the term.

Crazy Anglican wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 07, 2021 10:09 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:26 am

Virtual particles create themselves all the time. Saying their is a quantum field from which they become excited and then returns to the ground state of doesn't change the fact that they spontaneously create themselves.

Hi orathaic,

I am certainly no scientist, so I am showing my own ignorance here. I would like to know how this affects (or is affected by) the law of conservation of matter. I know nothing of gluons or their properties. Is their creation of themselves a creation out of nothing, or a rearranging of material into a new form? That was a new concept for me, so I wanted a little more information is all.

It is not just gluons, photons also do it.

It violates conservation of mass/energy (they are one thing) but only for a short amount of time, as determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (basically the larger the mass/energy created, the shorter the time it can exist - ΔEΔt = ħ/2 )

This is why they are called virtual particles, they self annihilated after a short amount of time.but also govern the strong nuclear force (virtual gluons) and the electromagnetic force (virtual photons), and I presume the weak nuclear force... (gravity governed by virtual gravity should seems to be different, I doubt the gravity will ever be discovered, general relativity refused to be quantised).

Also, in the presence of a black hole, virtual particles, spontaneously created near the event horizon seem to fail to self-annihilate as one gets pulled into the black hole and the other escapes, creating a new real particle (and eventually destroying the black hole). This isn't creating particles from a black hole (which is impossible) it is creating real part from virtual particles by the nature of event horizons (separating the virtual particles pair into two separate space-times, distinguished by the event horizon).

It is like, creation is only possible if there is a separate reverse universe which exists on the other side of an event horizon (maybe the big bang?)

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 5:20 am

And if things can spontaneously create themselves, there is no reason the Universe (from the big bang onwards) can't be one of those things.

They spontaneously create themselves, but this quantum field still exists outside of time. So this quantum field would be timeless. Then the interesting part would be asking what is the nature of this quantum field.

Is the quantum field timeless? I am not making that claim, nor indeed that evidence of spontaneously created particles (from a quantum vaccinated state) is the mechanism by which the Universe came into existence. I am merely demonstrating that things can spontaneously create themselves. My limited understanding is that quantum fields assume an infinite space-time on which they exist. And that General Relativity (which isn't quantum) describes several possible non-infinite space-time alternatives.

We explicitly don't know or understand quantum gravity. And so I can't state with any confidence how space-time could have been created out of a singularity (which we also know we can't describe without quantum gravity).

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 5:23 am

One interesting part of this debate, was Cosmic Skeptic (the atheist) saying IF there's a timeless cause (which is what I'm arguing for in this thread) it has to be a personal agent. Do you agree with the Cosmic Skeptic on that?

No, in fact I think I would disagree (though having not listened to Cosmic Skeptic's argument). If there is a timeless quantum environment from which things can randomly and spontaneously self create. Then there is no need for it to be personal.

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 5:25 am

The thing is, this "nothing" that Lawrence has popularized is still something. He's tried redefining the term.

I will admit that I haven't read (Lawrence) Krauss, but I believe the distinction here is between philosophical nothing and physical nothing.

Classical Physics would have allowed an empty reference frame, with separate space and time in the background, assumed, absolute and separate, with nothing in it. I suspect there would be few philosophical arguments against this being nothing.

But modern physics would say, no your space-time has a curvature which depends on the mass-energy contained within the volume, and it is relative not absolute. Which is still nothing (as soon as we set the mass-energy to zero and derive the space-time curvate, which I think is then 0...). But perhaps for some philosophical reasons will be argued to not be nothing.

Who changed the definition of nothing is arguable physicists took the common idea of nothing and applied it to the physics as we understand it, and got something which no longer satisfies (some) philosophical definition of nothing...

I think it raises the question (for philosophy) does nothing exist? Which is probably more interesting than discussing who changed what definition (or who has been moving the goal posts).

Again, I do claim that excitations of a quantum field required by the uncertainty principle are an example of something from nothing. That is fundamental to the nature of the Universe.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 9:59 am

It is not just gluons, photons also do it.

It violates conservation of mass/energy (they are one thing) but only for a short amount of time, as determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (basically the larger the mass/energy created, the shorter the time it can exist - ΔEΔt = ħ/2 )

This is why they are called virtual particles, they self annihilated after a short amount of time.but also govern the strong nuclear force (virtual gluons) and the electromagnetic force (virtual photons), and I presume the weak nuclear force... (gravity governed by virtual gravity should seems to be different, I doubt the gravity will ever be discovered, general relativity refused to be quantised).

Also, in the presence of a black hole, virtual particles, spontaneously created near the event horizon seem to fail to self-annihilate as one gets pulled into the black hole and the other escapes, creating a new real particle (and eventually destroying the black hole). This isn't creating particles from a black hole (which is impossible) it is creating real part from virtual particles by the nature of event horizons (separating the virtual particles pair into two separate space-times, distinguished by the event horizon).

It is like, creation is only possible if there is a separate reverse universe which exists on the other side of an event horizon (maybe the big bang?)
They spontaneously create themselves, but this quantum field still exists outside of time. So this quantum field would be timeless. Then the interesting part would be asking what is the nature of this quantum field.

Your Response
















Anglican’s head

Okay, so taking what I can from that. The general situation is that these virtual gluons and photons violate the conservation of matter / energy, but are very small, and the general rule is that the larger the mass the shorter the time it can exist before self annihilating? Then how can that be generalized to a hugely massive set of objects such as the universe (observable or just everything in existence)?

Let me proffer up front that this is one argument I don’t engage in. I am expressly not setting up a god of the gaps argument. I am simply curious.

Crazy Anglican wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 1:48 pm

Okay, so taking what I can from that. The general situation is that these virtual gluons and photons violate the conservation of matter / energy, but are very small, and the general rule is that the larger the mass the shorter the time it can exist before self annihilating? Then how can that be generalized to a hugely massive set of objects such as the universe (observable or just everything in existence)?

Let me proffer up front that this is one argument I don’t engage in. I am expressly not setting up a god of the gaps argument. I am simply curious.

Just one correction, I noticed a typo, the gravity virtual particle equivalent is the graviton.not as my phone auto corrected the gravity. I doubt the existence of gravitons.

OK, one the Krauss might argue is the the Universe on a grand scale has 0 energy (with equal amounts positive and negative contributions. That would allow creation from nothing. Unfortunately in most of science (I think general relativity excluded -and you really need to include general relativity for this kind of cosmological net zero energy argument) we don't actually care about the absolute zero point of energy, only relative changes in energy. So we can just define the zero point to be where ever we want (like zeroing my weighing scales when cooking, cause it is easier to not include the weight of my container).

If we are able to arbitrarily define the zero point, then yes the Universe seems to have precisely zero (net) energy. but also that seems less important a fact.

So, then all that is required to spontaneously create oneself is equilibrium?

Crazy Anglican wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 3:45 pm

So, then all that is required to spontaneously create oneself is equilibrium?

I suppose yes. The expansion of space may indeed require a negative energy 'pressure' - where a positive energy (mass as we understand it) tends to do the opposite, resulting in gravity.

But the mechanism I was describing also requires a quantum field in the ground state to excite itself. I am not proposing that this is the same mechanism which the Universe used, as I believe the quantum field , background space-time, were all created in the same event.

I am only proposing that our intuitive ideas about things which exist needing to be created by some external action are not how the Universe works.

Wasn’t the opposite universe being required for creation an outside force?

Crazy Anglican wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 7:39 pm

Wasn’t the opposite universe being required for creation an outside force?

Yeah, again, presupposing the rules of existence applied before the creation of existence... but I am kinda assuming the opposite universe would see us as the outside force, so that just requires universes to self create in pairs...

But I don't really think this idea works. I mean, I'm not the first person to come up with something like this, I'm sure someone smarter than I am has looked at the maths and found an issue I can't intuit.

And don't get me started with blackbody interiors...

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:49 pm

Yeah, again, presupposing the rules of existence applied before the creation of existence... but I am kinda assuming the opposite universe would see us as the outside force, so that just requires universes to self create in pairs...

But I don't really think this idea works. I mean, I'm not the first person to come up with something like this, I'm sure someone smarter than I am has looked at the maths and found an issue I can't intuit.

And don't get me started with blackbody interiors...

Surely, you have a dizzying intellect.

Again, bloody typos, *blackholes, not blackbodies.

And yes, I studied physics at university, but i don't think that alone qualifies me as an expert, rather than a webdip opinion haver.

As a practicing psychotherapist to a number of minor Gods and Dieties I would suggest that it's just not a winning strategy to deny their existence and annoy them.
If gods exist then denying that will only cause them to dislike a Chap and possibly inflict an eternal punishment, eg you're trapped for Eternity with Forty Fatimas nagging incessantly, something these Daffy Jihadists should consider.
If gods exist then ingratiating oneself with them might be useful in Eternity, but they're a sensitive crew and if you punt on praising one God over all others then you risk alienating the majority.

I note that Fluminator treats this as a "Does a singular God exist?" question and expresses his opinion that it is possible this single God exists.
In the example of the Christian God, it's as a single entity but with three personalities in one & a demonic protagonist in Lucifer & that's serious delusional schizophrenia which I am working on with that divine patient.

My point is this, if you allow the existence of one God then it's an allowance that many God's and Dieties exist.
There's simply no upside in denying that Gods und Dieties exist and risk on the downside.
Taking the Philosophical position that allows the existence of numerous God's and Dieties and remaining relatively nuetral in adoration of any particular one is for me, the least risk choice.

What I find most interesting is the behaviour of those who claim to represent a God as a means to manipulate others and enrich themselves. That's top level Machiavellian thinking and should be respected. No wonder that the Clergy dominate the top 200 Ghost Ratings spots.

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:47 am

My point is this, if you allow the existence of one God then it's an allowance that many God's and Dieties exist.

Why, though? Belief in higher powers tends to be divided into those who believe in a single all powerful god (sometimes backed up by lesser supernatural creatures) and those who believe in a race of gods. Those who believed in the latter were often not at all troubled by believing others may exist. Those who believe in the former are often not troubled by the idea that their God may appear to others in different ways. But there's no logical reason why someone who believes in a single God should accept that other Gods may exist.

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:47 am

There's simply no upside in denying that Gods und Dieties exist and risk on the downside.
Taking the Philosophical position that allows the existence of numerous God's and Dieties and remaining relatively nuetral in adoration of any particular one is for me, the least risk choice.

You're assuming that a god prefers you to worship a rival than to remain neutral. I don't know what you're basing that assumption on. If I was a god (big if) I'd smite the worshipers of false idols over your average agnostic any day. There'd also be a special place in hell reserved for the sort of smart arse that tries to game the system

There's simply no upside in denying that Gods und Dieties exist and risk on the downside.

Are you familiar with Roku's Basilisk argument? It proposes an AI so intelligent that it can simulate you, and can threaten to torture (stimulated) you unless you do everything in your power to help create the Basilisk, and release it into the wild (in some AI discussions the AI is isolated from the rest of the world to prevent it taking over).

Now you might be the real you, or you might be the simulation, but why risk eternal torment? Oh and the AI can simulate 100 million copies of you, so chances are you're a simulation.

Now that you know about the idea of the Basilisk, you should clearly give up all this God worship rubbish and deal with the real (hypothetical) threat of infinite torture.

At least, based on the same logic...

PS the Basilisk had no interest in simulatd torture of anyone who didn't know about it. But once you read my previous post you are now at risk.

PPS this is indeed the AI techbro equivalent of Pascal's wager. You now have the option of dedicating all of your wealth, time and resources to AI research. Good luck.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:06 am

There's simply no upside in denying that Gods und Dieties exist and risk on the downside.

Are you familiar with Roku's Basilisk argument? It proposes an AI so intelligent that it can simulate you, and can threaten to torture (stimulated) you unless you do everything in your power to help create the Basilisk, and release it into the wild (in some AI discussions the AI is isolated from the rest of the world to prevent it taking over).

Now you might be the real you, or you might be the simulation, but why risk eternal torment? Oh and the AI can simulate 100 million copies of you, so chances are you're a simulation.

Now that you know about the idea of the Basilisk, you should clearly give up all this God worship rubbish and deal with the real (hypothetical) threat of infinite torture.

At least, based on the same logic...

And yet it apparently can't simulate a version of me that believes I just happen to really want to create the Basilisk because Basilisks are cool? Seems a tad unlikely...

What’s more interesting is your Freudian slip that suggests you associate torture with stimulation