6 ms·

I've always thought these "universe from nothing" statements are more than a bit deceptive if they mean "averaged out, zero energy". If there is some backgroun

I've always thought these "universe from nothing" statements are more than a bit deceptive if they mean "averaged out, zero energy". If there is some background with a set of laws that produce fluctuations, it's hard for me to see how that is nothing. But I'm no physicist. :)

cristianpascu 14y ago
I'm a Physicist, and it's not 'nothing'. :) Lawrence is engaged in a metaphysics program. He wants to show that atheism is intellectually justified as to the origin of the Universe, as they feel it is with the darwinian theory of origin of species.
- derleth 14y ago
  > atheism is intellectually justified It is, and will be, until the people who believe in the supernatural provide solid evidence for their specific claims.
  - cheald 14y ago
    It's worth noting that the meaning of the very word "supernatural" precludes the possibility of solid evidence.
    - cristianpascu 14y ago
      I agree. People often mistake the two domains of reality. Just because the physical reality is given and closer to us, we can't rule out other forms of existence. And say that, somehow, a percentage of humans had some sort of experience of the supernatural. Then they pass on that information. Some believe them, some don't. It's a matter of confidence. Some of the ones that just believed in the first place, eventually get to also have those spiritual experiences. One could also make conjectures about the nature of those spiritual experiences: that they were illusions, hallucinations, or real experiences. But it can not be objectively verified. And there will always be a percentage of people what will not believe. Taking the exigence of objective, material verification of experiments in Physics to a field of subjective, psychological/spiritual experiences, seems to me to be a mistake.
      - derleth 14y ago
        > Just because the physical reality is given and closer to us, we can't rule out other forms of existence. We can to the same extent I can rule out the existence of one million dollars in my bank account right now. > And say that, somehow, a percentage of humans had some sort of experience of the supernatural. If this is distinguishable from schizophrenia, they should be studied in earnest and learned from. > But it can not be objectively verified. Yes, it can. > Taking the exigence of objective, material verification of experiments in Physics to a field of subjective, psychological/spiritual experiences, seems to me to be a mistake. No. All reality is founded on the same laws. If there was something special about consciousness, it would have repercussions on every other facet of existence, and it would need to be studied on those terms.
        cristianpascu 14y ago
        If there is not a million of dollars in your account, can you infer that there is not a million dollars in my account?
        derleth 14y ago
        > If there is not a million of dollars in your account, can you infer that there is not a million dollars in my account? I can infer that it's highly unlikely and notice that you've so far done nothing to demonstrate the existence of the million dollars.
        slurgfest 14y ago
        There is at least one obvious kind of existence which isn't physical, which is the sort of existence which the things studied in math have got. That isn't particularly controversial because the 'existence' of even numbers is logically a very different thing from the 'existence' of dodo birds, or 500-foot-tall Schwinn bicycles, or Inspector Gadget. The question of whether mathematicians are schizophrenic or mathematics represents some massive failing of science just doesn't arise because it is already well understood what is being talked about. Often the problem with theology is that we don't understand and even refuse to get clear on what it is we mean to be talking about; maybe we are just so hot to reach emotional and political conclusions...
  - cristianpascu 14y ago
    Making the positive statement that the 'Universe is uncreated', is just as intellectually justified as saying 'The Universe is created'. Not very justified, if you ask me, but just as much in both sides. One can only get subjective if saying that their hypothesis is more justified, although unverified.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > Making the positive statement that the 'Universe is uncreated', is just as intellectually justified as saying 'The Universe is created'. No, because the statement "The Universe is created" demands that the person stating it demonstrate the existence of the creator in a way that rules out the likelihood of that creator not existing.
      - cristianpascu 14y ago
        And the statement 'The Univers is uncreated' demands a proof that there is no creator. And it's generally accepted fact that you can not prove the inexistence of something.
        slurgfest 14y ago
        Of course you can prove the non-existence of something. For example, when the existence of a thing entails certain other things being true, and they are shown not to be true, then it is also shown that the thing of that description does not exist. For another example, you can show that a certain description is self-contradictory and cannot have any referent. Though it may sound trite, you aren't going to get anywhere on this argument until you figure out what you mean by 'universe' and 'created'.
        cristianpascu 14y ago
        Very good point. But I'm afraid I don't have the time to go now into all the subtleties of the theological and philosophical definitions of created/uncreated, ontological dependence, being, person and so on. There's a rich literature on this. As point, you have to make supplementary assumption as to what the existence of a being entails. And that follows from the definition for that thing. But when it comes to the created/uncreated distinction, I can not 'a priori' make any other assumption than the fact that God has the power to create things different from Himself. That's it. Some find it, for instance, contradictory that a loving God allows suffering in the world. It's not my intention to go into that argument now because there's a lot to say, and has been said by many, about love, suffering, evil, freedom etc. At each point, and with each added concept, chances are that people will find contradiction just because they don't agree on the same definition. Hence it's difficult sometimes to rule out the existence of an object on the basis of an apparent contradiction.

cristianpascu 14y ago

I'm a Physicist, and it's not 'nothing'. :) Lawrence is engaged in a metaphysics program. He wants to show that atheism is intellectually justified as to the origin of the Universe, as they feel it is with the darwinian theory of origin of species.

derleth 14y ago
> atheism is intellectually justified It is, and will be, until the people who believe in the supernatural provide solid evidence for their specific claims.
- cheald 14y ago
  It's worth noting that the meaning of the very word "supernatural" precludes the possibility of solid evidence.
  - cristianpascu 14y ago
    I agree. People often mistake the two domains of reality. Just because the physical reality is given and closer to us, we can't rule out other forms of existence. And say that, somehow, a percentage of humans had some sort of experience of the supernatural. Then they pass on that information. Some believe them, some don't. It's a matter of confidence. Some of the ones that just believed in the first place, eventually get to also have those spiritual experiences. One could also make conjectures about the nature of those spiritual experiences: that they were illusions, hallucinations, or real experiences. But it can not be objectively verified. And there will always be a percentage of people what will not believe. Taking the exigence of objective, material verification of experiments in Physics to a field of subjective, psychological/spiritual experiences, seems to me to be a mistake.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > Just because the physical reality is given and closer to us, we can't rule out other forms of existence. We can to the same extent I can rule out the existence of one million dollars in my bank account right now. > And say that, somehow, a percentage of humans had some sort of experience of the supernatural. If this is distinguishable from schizophrenia, they should be studied in earnest and learned from. > But it can not be objectively verified. Yes, it can. > Taking the exigence of objective, material verification of experiments in Physics to a field of subjective, psychological/spiritual experiences, seems to me to be a mistake. No. All reality is founded on the same laws. If there was something special about consciousness, it would have repercussions on every other facet of existence, and it would need to be studied on those terms.
      - cristianpascu 14y ago
        If there is not a million of dollars in your account, can you infer that there is not a million dollars in my account?
        derleth 14y ago
        > If there is not a million of dollars in your account, can you infer that there is not a million dollars in my account? I can infer that it's highly unlikely and notice that you've so far done nothing to demonstrate the existence of the million dollars.
      - slurgfest 14y ago
        There is at least one obvious kind of existence which isn't physical, which is the sort of existence which the things studied in math have got. That isn't particularly controversial because the 'existence' of even numbers is logically a very different thing from the 'existence' of dodo birds, or 500-foot-tall Schwinn bicycles, or Inspector Gadget. The question of whether mathematicians are schizophrenic or mathematics represents some massive failing of science just doesn't arise because it is already well understood what is being talked about. Often the problem with theology is that we don't understand and even refuse to get clear on what it is we mean to be talking about; maybe we are just so hot to reach emotional and political conclusions...
- cristianpascu 14y ago
  Making the positive statement that the 'Universe is uncreated', is just as intellectually justified as saying 'The Universe is created'. Not very justified, if you ask me, but just as much in both sides. One can only get subjective if saying that their hypothesis is more justified, although unverified.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > Making the positive statement that the 'Universe is uncreated', is just as intellectually justified as saying 'The Universe is created'. No, because the statement "The Universe is created" demands that the person stating it demonstrate the existence of the creator in a way that rules out the likelihood of that creator not existing.
    - cristianpascu 14y ago
      And the statement 'The Univers is uncreated' demands a proof that there is no creator. And it's generally accepted fact that you can not prove the inexistence of something.
      - slurgfest 14y ago
        Of course you can prove the non-existence of something. For example, when the existence of a thing entails certain other things being true, and they are shown not to be true, then it is also shown that the thing of that description does not exist. For another example, you can show that a certain description is self-contradictory and cannot have any referent. Though it may sound trite, you aren't going to get anywhere on this argument until you figure out what you mean by 'universe' and 'created'.
        cristianpascu 14y ago
        Very good point. But I'm afraid I don't have the time to go now into all the subtleties of the theological and philosophical definitions of created/uncreated, ontological dependence, being, person and so on. There's a rich literature on this. As point, you have to make supplementary assumption as to what the existence of a being entails. And that follows from the definition for that thing. But when it comes to the created/uncreated distinction, I can not 'a priori' make any other assumption than the fact that God has the power to create things different from Himself. That's it. Some find it, for instance, contradictory that a loving God allows suffering in the world. It's not my intention to go into that argument now because there's a lot to say, and has been said by many, about love, suffering, evil, freedom etc. At each point, and with each added concept, chances are that people will find contradiction just because they don't agree on the same definition. Hence it's difficult sometimes to rule out the existence of an object on the basis of an apparent contradiction.