tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post8097022679870172093..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: Universes for NothingTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-71558262619929658472012-04-02T09:11:06.694-04:002012-04-02T09:11:06.694-04:00mralles,
If nothing exists (I agree that construc...mralles,<br /><br />If nothing exists (I agree that construction does sound odd, I had not noticed before), than in particular, the requirement to have a potential preceding an actuality does not exist. You are making the same error as Krauss, in that your depiction of nothing still contains some of the rules and properties that govern our universe.<br /><br />Having a prior state of being or prior event is not the same thing as cause, in particular when we are discussing different events with basically identical prior states of being. If an identical state can result in two different, exclusive events randomly, than it can have the potential for either event, but it is not the cause of either event.<br /><br />Finally, since logic is a construct of men, created so we can have an easier time understadning our world, I don't feel complelled to say that one must stay in the realm of logic when discussing our reality. Reality should determine our picture of reality, logic is a tool we bring in when it is useful and disregard when it is not. So when the reality describes something we call a logical impossibility, the onus is on us to improve our logic to match reality, not to insist that reality must conform to our logic.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-4932137122480664312012-04-01T11:26:49.280-04:002012-04-01T11:26:49.280-04:00One Brow:
First of all, you seemed to have refute...One Brow:<br /><br />First of all, you seemed to have refuted yourself. As you have admitted, an absolute understanding of the word nothing implies even the absence of potential. And, in your own words, you have said,<br /><br /> "Nothing cannot be a cause, mover, or generator". <br /><br />However, earlier you say, <br /><br />"If nothing exists, then there is nothing to cause something to come into existence, but also nothing to prevent something from coming into existence...". <br /><br />If, "nothing cannot be a cause", then I think you have answered your own question regarding what there is to "prevent something from coming into existence". If nothing exists (which is an odd thing to say in my opinion, because nothing cannot BE--it is the absence of all things, including potential), if all there is is nothing, and nothing can't cause something, then, logically, there can never be SOMETHING. In other words, given only nothing, which in your own words cannot itself cause something, there can be no something. <br /><br />Second, to say that there is an "uncaused event" is a logically impossibility. As a scientist myself, it is meaningless to suggest that something arrives without a prior cause. The whole project of science is to connect a chain of events. Every event implies a prior event or state of being. Our job is discover these events, and describe them. To suggest an event with no prior event or state, is equivalent to stating that X and not-X are the same. If you are ready to accept that there are uncaused events, then you have already left the realm of science and logic entirely.mralleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10497454643408804160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-52988048693819733742012-04-01T09:13:23.095-04:002012-04-01T09:13:23.095-04:00So in the latter case, you would believe in an &qu...<i>So in the latter case, you would believe in an "uncaused cause" (or an "unmoved mover" or an "ungenerated generator"). But this belief has certain fall-out consequences in logic. You are well on your way.</i><br /><br />Actually, it would be an uncaused event, motion without a mover, and generation from no generator. Nothing can not be a cause, mover, or generator.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-41100086816114923272012-03-29T13:48:01.388-04:002012-03-29T13:48:01.388-04:00It was a well-written article. Thank you for the ...It was a well-written article. Thank you for the link.<br /><br />You did not give any indication of your purpose for linking to it (I could see almost any combination of agreeing/disagreeing with Gyan, agreeing/disagreeing with me, just for the sheer joy of sharing it, and possibly other reasons), so I'll just say that 1) you and Gyan deserved better than the level of attention I gave to the typing of my previous comment (I apologize, and will try to be more careful), and 2) I didn't see anything in the article that would disagree with the notion of a camera or other device collapsing a wave-function, or supporting the notion that quantum theory requires a consciousness.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-71586640383701878912012-03-29T12:11:10.794-04:002012-03-29T12:11:10.794-04:00http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/02/faith-a...http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/02/faith-and-quantum-theory-17TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-46587637092834333672012-03-29T09:41:21.593-04:002012-03-29T09:41:21.593-04:00I beloieve all that is needed to collapse a wave f...I beloieve all that is needed to collapse a wave function is an observation. If the observation is cuducted by a camera for later viewing, for example, the collapse still occurs. Since anything that could be affected by the outcome of the wavefunction collapse is an observation, consciousness is not required.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-78101191194024187002012-03-29T09:19:58.494-04:002012-03-29T09:19:58.494-04:00While I don't want to get bogged down in detai...While I don't want to get bogged down in details, generally speaking proof of non-existence is not of the same character as proof of exiswtence, so I find your comprison unapt.<br /><br />I do agree that the happier husband is the one who believes in his wife's fidelity without such proof (would go further than that, even). I would disagree that the happier husband is the one who believes his wife exists when he has never met her, and has never met anyone who has met her.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-61582743642391097272012-03-29T01:28:18.399-04:002012-03-29T01:28:18.399-04:00A quantum field is particularly unsuited to be ...A quantum field is particularly unsuited to be 'eternally extant' first cause. Quantum fields are field of amplitudes that when squared yield probability for a particle to be on that space-time location.<br />To go from probability amplitude to probability requires a measurement. And that implies an apparatus to detect particles. This is mathematically represented by wavefunction collapse. <br /><br /><br />Careful formulation of quantum theory require (1) either a consciousness to collapse a wavefunction (Copenhagen interpretation) <br />(2) An eternally bifurcating wavefunction that bifurcates at the moment of measurement (the Many-Worlds interpretation). This is what modern cosmologists prefer since it avoids the role of consciousness. But note that it still requires interaction with a measuring apparatusGyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-62168154864983276032012-03-28T18:16:48.680-04:002012-03-28T18:16:48.680-04:00Actually, it means much less when one uses it to s...Actually, it means much less when one uses it to signify "to think that something is factually true," as some people do. <br /><br />A good comparison to Thomas would be if a man were to demand from his wife some sort of tangible proof that she had not been fooling around on her "girls' night out." It would show a lack of faith [trust], even though it would be more scientific to demand evidence. But happier the husband who believes without such proof.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-16839900333406926312012-03-28T18:04:02.987-04:002012-03-28T18:04:02.987-04:00Your description does not really address the issue...Your description does not really address the issue of the very broad categorization to which you would apply faith. By this categorization, the apostle Thomas showed faith when he believed after physically touching Jesus post-resurrection.<br /><br />The rot meaning of faith may be trust, but in common usage, we usually mean more than such a broad term.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-53072510062507979902012-03-28T16:47:48.643-04:002012-03-28T16:47:48.643-04:00It was Krauss who claimed that he was demonstratin...It was Krauss who claimed that he was demonstrating "creatio ex nihilo" and that this somehow demolished philosophical arguments. But it is surely basic that you cannot demolish an argument based on X unless you actually address X. Making up something else and calling it "X" doesn't hack it. Consider creationist arguments demolishing evolution by natural selection by defining evolution in ways that biologists do not.<br /><br />One good reason not to make such a proposition is that it a proposition in physics that has not yet been established in physics. Citing Barr once more:<br />Right up front, it must be noted that this idea [of quantum fluctuations] is extremely speculative, has not yet been formulated in a mathematically rigorous way, and is unable at this point to make any testable predictions. Indeed, it is very hard to imagine how it could ever be tested. It would be more accurate to call these “scenarios” than theories.<br /><br />Besides which, Aquinas famously made his first cause argument under the assumption of an eternally-existent universe. So the idea of an eternally extant quantum state is no more unsettling per se than Hawking's idea of an eternally extant multiverse manifold.<br />+ + +<br />If nothing exists, then there is nothing to cause something to come into existence, but also nothing to prevent something from coming into existence, and nothing to say that the former clause would dominate the latter clause.<br /><br />So in the latter case, you would believe in an "uncaused cause" (or an "unmoved mover" or an "ungenerated generator"). But this belief has certain fall-out consequences in logic. You are well on your way.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-57601423486545006792012-03-28T16:46:51.984-04:002012-03-28T16:46:51.984-04:00The root meaning of faith is "trust," as...The root meaning of faith is "trust," as when husband and wife pledge to be faithful to one another. The driver is placing trust in the functionality of his starter; Krauss on the consistency of physical law. (Actually, he is placing his faith in the factual nature of certain scenarios in quantum theory that have not yet been established.)TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-38467640863219579062012-03-28T16:42:22.982-04:002012-03-28T16:42:22.982-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-890930491136651412012-03-28T16:41:11.609-04:002012-03-28T16:41:11.609-04:00Theodore Seeber,
In the sense that assuming a car...Theodore Seeber,<br /><br />In the sense that assuming a car will start is an act of faith, certainly Krauss is based in faith (namely, the faith that there has been no changes in the way the universe works). That seems to be an awfully broad notion of faith, though. When you make a category that large, it loses descriptive power.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-73608034871636634742012-03-28T14:59:30.520-04:002012-03-28T14:59:30.520-04:00What it points to, One Brow, is that Kraus is as b...What it points to, One Brow, is that Kraus is as based in faith as the most primitive Astralopithicus throwing flowers on his mother's grave. Without assumption, without an assumption as to a first cause, and without the utterly illogical faith that his first cause is correct, he has less than nothing.<br /><br />ALL cosmology comes down to faith- because there isn't anybody yet who has room in their laboratory to create a universe.Theodore M. Seeberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315945417122366201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-40528260613992258312012-03-28T13:51:39.375-04:002012-03-28T13:51:39.375-04:00It's fair enough that Krauss is proposing an e...It's fair enough that Krauss is proposing an eternally extant quantum state as the first cause, and there is no good reason to not make such a proposition. Arguing that this is not really nothing seems to be little more than quibbling.<br /><br />Of course, existence from absolutely nothing is not an issue for atheists, either. If nothing exists, then there is nothing to cause something to come into existence, but also nothing to prevent something from coming into existence, and nothing to say that the former clause would dominate the latter clause.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-31461834868357118442012-03-28T03:11:52.312-04:002012-03-28T03:11:52.312-04:00Also, quantum mechanics was formulated to describe...Also, quantum mechanics was formulated to describe the interaction of a microscopic system with a measuring device. So I have doubts regarding the justification of postulating the quantum field of the whole universe. What is going to collapse that wave function?Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.com