Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 114
Location: Las Vegas
Posted:
Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:31 am
Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:
Socratic coaster did a good job with this one. It seems virtually impossible for a theist to even comprehend the idea that 'start' is a made up word. What if the particle was always vibrating? Why is that not possible?
I've asked romans on AF the very same questions and he just ignores em. For some reason he thinks there HAS to be a prior mover.
Regarding 'motion': since uniform motion is purely relative, according to special relativity, there is no distinction between uniform motion and rest. All such motion has to be relative to something else.
If two particles suddenly popped into existence, they would start moving toward each other under the influence of gravity, nothing else required.
Quantum uncertainty means we have not detected any particle truly at rest, and such may not be possible.
Since matter and energy are two aspects of the same thing, once a quantity of matter and energy existed, there would be motion, as a manifestation of the energy component.
In other words, if we assume energy also exists as fundamentally as matter, then there is your source of motion. It is as fundamental as matter itself.
Regarding infinite regress, this is only a problem for Theism, which assumes something greater than the Universe must have been responsible for creating it, which implies that something even greater must have been responsible for the creator, and so on.
Whereas since we observe that events can be initiated by lesser events, things can be 'created' from simpler things, like a formless cloud of gas forming into a star and ultimately a solar system, even an infinite regress of such sequences need not require any actual infinities. Just as the sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16
to infinity
= 2.
So there is no logical reason why the ultimate cause need be anything more than a quantum twitch.
Also note that the Big Bang singularity contained zero 'information', or if you like the primeval Universe was completely formless, a tiny universe of pure intense energy. It could not contain any plans or instructions as to what sort of universe to form. So there is nowhere for any creator to insert such information.
A being that somehow just controlled matter and energy by an act of will. without actual physical intervention, is pure naive magical thinking.
Last edited by BobSpence1 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:51 am; edited 1 time in total
MockingGods Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 4039
Location: USA
Posted:
Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:45 am
Hey Bob... nice to see you posting here
Quote:
In other words, if we assume energy also exists as fundamentally as matter, then there is your source of motion. It is as fundamental as matter itself.
In your opinion, do you think matter or energy has always existed, in one state or the other?
In other words, if we assume energy also exists as fundamentally as matter, then there is your source of motion. It is as fundamental as matter itself.
Thanks
Quote:
.
In your opinion, do you think matter or energy has always existed, in one state or the other?
Not sure. starts to involve either non-linear time, or multiverse/brane theory.
In one case existence 'before' the BB may not be a meaningful question, like what lies north of the north pole. IOW time itself may be finite, like the surface of the earth is finite but has no edges.
In multiverse theory. our complement of matter/energy may have been induced into existence by a collision of higher order 'm-branes', or just a manifestation of existing higher-order stuff that has poked into our space-time. Infinities and eternities make me uncomfortable.
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:40 pm
[quote="BobSpence1"]
Quote:
Infinities and eternities make me uncomfortable.
Quote:
So there is no logical reason why the ultimate cause need be anything more than a quantum twitch.
But this would not be the ultimate cause of things. Because it (thing) twitched (moved) You can not have an infinite regress and have an ultimate cause of things.
Also infinite regress is still an infinite it just implies motion. I know eternities and infinites make atheist uncomfortable because they are just one step shy of a arguably valid definition of God.
Step they are shy of is intelligence. I agree that the main problem with the prime mover argument is gravity. However, You have to have two objects magically popping ex nihilo since the primary object would most certainly be at rest since there is nothing else to be relative with
_________________ Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
So there is no logical reason why the ultimate cause need be anything more than a quantum twitch.
But this would not be the ultimate cause of things. Because it (thing) twitched (moved) You can not have an infinite regress and have an ultimate cause of things.
You
can
have an infinite regress and an infinitesimal cause, except for Quantum effects, Quantum events have no 'cause', they are essentially purely random in theory and to our most careful measurement. So we don't necessarily need an ultimate cause, especially with a next-to-infinite regress.
Even if there is some 'hidden variable' as proposed by some theorists, there is no suggestion that is not just some other field of energy, randomly twitching.
Quote:
Also infinite regress is still an infinite it just implies motion.
An infinite regress does not necessarily require an infinite time.
Not sure what you mean by 'implies motion'. Don't see how that follows. Don't really see its relevance.
Quote:
I know eternities and infinites make atheist uncomfortable because they are just one step shy of an arguably valid definition of God.
No, makes me uncomfortable because infinities don't fit generally fit easily into ANY
logical
argument. Somewhat like the omni- concepts: omnipotence, omniscience, etc are plagued with logical difficulties.
The tightly- defined idea of infinite series in maths does work, though, its when infinites are applied to less well-nailed down contexts that they can become troublesome. The Greek philosophers didn't know how to handle infinity, as in Xeno's 'paradox'.
Quote:
Step they are shy of is intelligence. I agree that the main problem with the prime mover argument is gravity. However, You have to have two objects magically popping ex nihilo since the primary object would most certainly be at rest since there is nothing else to be relative with
No the primer mover argument is basically empty because it doesn't acknowledge the idea that matter and energy are intimately connected, so if matter can just exist or come into existence, so can energy, which DOES imply movement, so it is virtually impossible to have matter without movement. QT implies that we cannot have matter without movement.
MockingGods Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 4039
Location: USA
Posted:
Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:38 am
BobSpence1 wrote:
Infinities and eternities make me uncomfortable.
I'm actually very attracted (for lack of a better word) to the flat space hypothesis, where the universe and its constituents are infinite. This seems more logical to me then believing our observable universe encompasses all of existance.
Quote:
In one case existence 'before' the BB may not be a meaningful question, like what lies north of the north pole.
Do you find it possible the "big bang" was a localized event?
Quote:
IOW time itself may be finite, like the surface of the earth is finite but has no edges.
Time to me is simply our way of conceptualizing change or movement. So when you say time may be finite, you're saying there was a point where there was no change or movement. I find this only possible on a local level, as in localized phenomena (pre-big bang event(s), perhaps the matter in a black hole, etc).
I'm actually very attracted (for lack of a better word) to the flat space hypothesis, where the universe and its constituents are infinite. This seems more logical to me then believing our observable universe encompasses all of existance.
Strictly speaking, our 'observable' universe extends only to the distance where the apparent velocity due to expansion reaches the velocity of light, so anything further away than this is forever beyond our knowledge, as far as we now understand.
Quote:
Quote:
In one case existence 'before' the BB may not be a meaningful question, like what lies north of the north pole.
Do you find it possible the "big bang" was a localized event?
Quote:
IOW time itself may be finite, like the surface of the earth is finite but has no edges.
Time to me is simply our way of conceptualizing change or movement. So when you say time may be finite, you're saying there was a point where there was no change or movement. I find this only possible on a local level, as in localized phenomena (pre-big bang event(s), perhaps the matter in a black hole, etc).
These speculations about time assume that time may have a complex dimensionality, so it is not simply linear. Steven Hawking made some speculations in this area, I don't really quite get it.
The Big Bang as an event within some larger context, or 'metaverse', seems a possibility.
Unbeliever Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 1641
Location: The exact center of my observable universe
Posted:
Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:39 pm
It may be that the universe contains zero total energy, since the positive and negative energies cancel. Matter is just "frozen" energy, so it needn't be considered as having to "come from" somewhere, though it can, and does, appear from "nothing" in the form of virtual particles all the time.
And if this "intelligent" God designed the universe to house his beloved humans, then he didn't do a very good job of it, considering how tiny is the portion of it that we can exist in.
kmisho Grand Poster
Joined: Dec 06, 2005
Posts: 1678
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted:
Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:08 am
Unbeliever wrote:
It may be that the universe contains zero total energy, since the positive and negative energies cancel. Matter is just "frozen" energy, so it needn't be considered as having to "come from" somewhere, though it can, and does, appear from "nothing" in the form of virtual particles all the time.
I like your quadratic trilobite fractal by the way.
Quite so. But even back when there was "nothing" there still had to be something going on in order for "nothing" to ever do anything.
Raskolnikov The Learned
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 114
Location: Las Vegas
Posted:
Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:48 am
kmisho wrote:
Unbeliever wrote:
It may be that the universe contains zero total energy, since the positive and negative energies cancel. Matter is just "frozen" energy, so it needn't be considered as having to "come from" somewhere, though it can, and does, appear from "nothing" in the form of virtual particles all the time.
I like your quadratic trilobite fractal by the way.
Quite so. But even back when there was "nothing" there still had to be something going on in order for "nothing" to ever do anything.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file