Dr. Maya Lincoln and Dr. Avi Wasser harness the field of information systems in a new study in order to explain the most intriguing cosmological phenomenon - the creation of the universe from nothing
Is it possible to create a world out of nothing? What was before the big bang that created the universe? An innovative theory presented by Dr. Maya Lincoln and Dr. Avi Wasser from the University of Haifa, provides a comprehensive answer regarding one of the most important and oldest questions of science. The theory, "Creatio ex Nihilo", published in the journal "Physics of the Dark Universe" is based on research principles from the world of information systems - the field of expertise of the two researchers, and explains how the universe was created from "nothing".
The question "what existed before the universe was created" has fascinated the human race since time immemorial and has stimulated intensive research on the subject. The currently accepted theory regarding the formation of the universe is the "big bang" theory, which holds that the universe began at a single point - where all existing matter and energy were concentrated. Following the bang, the universe we know today was created, as well as the physical dimensions of time and space. However, the bang theory cannot be considered complete, since it assumes preconditions before formation, and therefore does not explain creation from nothing - or actually from nothing. In an attempt to solve this problem, various theories have already proposed that the universe was created from "nothing", when this nothingness changed from proposal to proposal - but in any case it was not really completely free of content.
But now, and precisely from a field that seems very distant from the field of cosmology and theoretical physics, comes a new theory that explains how material reality was created out of nothing. And the rather surprising field is information systems research. "There are theories that refer to the current universe as an independent information system, operated by software that feeds itself. That is, it is possible to simulate the existence of a 'source code' according to which the laws of physics operate", Dr. Lincoln explains how she and Dr. Wasser came to think about the formation of the universe in the first place.
More on the same topic on the science website:
- "Hawking's discussion of black holes drew attention to the need to unify the basic teachings in science
- Hawking did not claim that black holes do not exist, but that black holes do not have an event horizon
According to the researchers, in terms of information systems, "nothing" can be presented as equivalent to a system that includes infinite information and infinite counter-information, which exist simultaneously and therefore actually cancel each other out. Such a "nothing system" includes an infinity of these two types of information, with the result of the system as a whole being the absence of matter, the absence of energy and in fact the physical existence of nothing in terms of information. According to the new theory, before the creation of the world, this system was found in symmetry - when the infinity of information elements and the opposite information elements neutralize each other. However, a well-known phenomenon from the field of physics is that "spontaneous breaks" of symmetry occur in systems of this type, when a bit of information does not connect with an opposite bit of information that cancels it. This kind of breaking produces information and subsequently energy, and in fact turns the information system from a "nothing system" to a material system. At this point the theory connects to the big bang theory and the accepted theories for the formation of the universe, basically from the stage where the universe becomes material.
"Even today there are physical phenomena in the universe - which demonstrate the formation of 'something from nothing', which further strengthens our theory regarding the spontaneous breaking of the symmetry between the information components and the 'anti-information' components. According to our theory, the universe is a self-excited machine, which produces information and knows how to read the 'code of nature' and thus continues to create more and more changes, and more and more new information," said Dr. Lincoln.
The innovative theory explains well other phenomena from the field of theoretical physics - some of which were considered intractable until today - such as the very existence of the second law of thermodynamics, the phenomenon from the field of quantum physics regarding the formation of virtual particles in a vacuum, the phenomenon of "matter" and "antimatter" ” and other phenomena which the researchers intend to explain in follow-up studies.
164 תגובות
I'll make it simple for you:
Proof of the existence of a designer/creator, from the world of physics:
The material expansion coefficient of steel and concrete in heat is exactly the same (1,2×10-5 L/0C)
This miraculous and "accidental" fact is the one that allows the combination of steel within the concrete to create reinforced concrete, which is a sophisticated form of construction that allows the concrete to be stable and strong even for tensile forces (unreinforced concrete, i.e. without steel, is very strong for compression but lacks flexibility and therefore cracks and breaks easily stretched, and it is not possible to build in it at all in height and width except for small buildings).
Thanks to reinforced concrete, it is now possible to build high-rise residential and office buildings, large bridges, interchanges, dams, etc.
If it weren't for the aforementioned amazing physical fact, humanity would not have been able to survive the rate of population growth (ie without tall buildings) and the need for mass transportation on highways without traffic lights (ie without interchanges) etc. Strong and stable structural developments that can only be made with reinforced concrete.
Of course, the avowed secularist will come and claim that this is also completely coincidental. With a statistical probability of 1 in a million that any two particular materials will have the same expansion coefficient. Okay, let's say. So just two random substances, with a 1 in a million chance of having the same coefficient.
But what will the aforementioned avowed secularist say about this, that *precisely* the promoter of the spread of the material of the two materials from which reinforced concrete is made, which is a necessary and critical condition for the continued existence of the human race, is the same? There is no longer a probabilistic excuse here, not even for the most secular and burying-his-head-in-the-sand statistician out there.
Conclusion: someone designed a world for us that is accurate for us.
Parashat Beresheit of physics and geometry
In the beginning, God created
the infinite geometric emptiness.
Geometric emptiness had an infinite amount of length.
Geometric emptiness had an infinite amount of space.
Geometric emptiness had an infinite amount of volume.
The imagination filled the geometric emptiness with geometric shapes such as a circle, triangle, square, etc.
The shape of the circle is created from a certain amount of closed length, containing a certain amount of area.
The shape of the triangle was created from a certain amount of closed length, containing a certain amount of area.
The square shape is created from a certain amount of closed length, containing a certain amount of area.
Quantity is the name of important natural knowledge.
Length is a completely different quantitative thing than surface, and adding quantities of "two other things" creates a shape.
And so many geometric shapes were created, by the method of
Combinations of quantities where a certain amount of closed length contained a certain amount of area.
And God will see that the infinite geometric emptiness contains only geometric shapes, and will fill the emptiness with a passive time that does not move from its place, and is completely at rest.
Absolute resting passive time already presents a physical creation, which joins the geometric creation.
The passive time, occupied an infinite geometric volume.
And God will turn passive time into absolute cold, and this is how the limit of cold in the world is determined.
And the passive time was absolute rest and absolute cold, and it occupied an infinite geometric volume.
And God said - the deed we have done is good.
And God saw the lonely and sad state of the passive time that is on the border of the cold, and added to it the joyful, multi-faceted quantitative energy.
And God will drown in the cheerful quantum energy a physical law that says:
Many appearances will the cheerful quantum energy have, but the ever-changing quantity will be preserved.
And God saw that the joyful quantitative energy does change its appearances, while being careful to preserve the changing quantity - and said that this is good until very much..
After these things, God commanded the passive time and energy to create together the substance that appears in many physical forms, such as gold, iron, carbon, hydrogen, and more.
And the passive time and energy did as God commanded.
A quantity of passive time was combined with a quantity of joyful energy, and from this particular combination of quantities, a physical form of gold was created.
And once again, a quantity of passive time was combined with a quantity of joyful energy, and from this new combination of quantities, a physical form of iron was created.
And once again, a quantity of passive time was combined with a quantity of joyful energy, and from this new combination of quantities, a physical form of carbon was created.
And so the passive time and the joyful energy created many and varied physical forms, and many types of matter filled the geometric space.
From these types of materials, the stars were formed.
This is how the geometric space, full of passive time and energy, became the place of creation of stars that stand still and do not move.
Then God commanded the stars to move, only in a screw-shaped orbit, which has 3 data.
speed
The diameter of the screw track,
Advancement angle of the track.
And the stars began to move as expected.
They did not move in an open straight line path, nor in a closed circular path.
Each planet moves in a Borgi orbit that has three data unique only to it - a unique diameter, a unique advancement angle, and a unique speed in a Borgi orbit...
This form of orbit connected all the stars in the world
For a wonderful movement unit in the shape of a discus.
And God commanded this wonderful unit of movement, in which all the stars of the world are located - to move in a straight line.
This wondrous movement unit was named a universe.
The universe moves forever in a straight line, in an infinite space full of passive time and energy, when the stars in it move in spiral orbits -
The speed of the universe in a straight line is absolute, and only an observer at absolute rest can notice it. (C12 estimated value)
Man is always moving, because he lives on the surface of a planet.
All the stars of the universe are always moving, and Noah's star does not exist.
Therefore, man will never be in a state of absolute rest, and is unable to discern the absolute speed of the universe,
which takes place in an infinite geometric space, full of passive time and energy.
This infinite space is the place where stars are formed, and it is also the place where they disintegrate.
When a star disintegrates, it gives up its passive time and its energy to the infinite space.
The number of stars in the universe is finite but not fixed.
Stars are always being formed, and they are always being destroyed.
And man has not yet been created.
The active time has not yet been created either,
Only the passive time and the joyful energy were created, and they create the material of the stars..
Light was also created, as waves of passive time,
Waves of passive time move in the absolute rest and absolute cold of passive time, filling infinite space.
Sunlight is waves of passive time, moving in an infinite space full of passive time, which is completely still and completely cold.
There is no void in the world, and it is full of passive time and energy.
And man had not yet been created, and had not yet spoken,
When man was created, he knew that he knew.
Man received natural knowledge from the Creator.
With this natural knowledge man invented language.
When an ancient man approached a campfire, a natural knowledge miraculously reached him, and he gave it a name.
The name chosen by the ancient man was completely arbitrary and consists of the combination of the letters חמ
This is the secret of human language - which is the language of names.
After an act that brings a person natural knowledge, a combination of letters is chosen to be the name of this natural knowledge.
An act in which a person slides his palm on a stone, brings a person clear knowledge. Any combination of letters can be a name for this clear knowledge, including the combination of the letters HLK
Only an act that brings a person natural knowledge, is the one that makes it possible to give a name to this natural knowledge, and this is how the language of names of natural knowledge begins to appear.
The said act can be repeated by many people,
that they have a natural knowledge, and thus they will learn a language.
This is the secret of human language, which is the language of names.
The ancient man knew this secret when he did an act and approached a fire, and then a natural knowledge came to him, which was given the name ... heat.
And since all the humans who came after the primitive man did not know the secret of human language, they were caught in the trap of words, which turns every word into noise.
The noise of words does not convey to a person any natural knowledge,
And so he remains in a state of ignorance.
Man is caught in the trap of words, and has never been able to free himself from it. The word trap is clearly shown with the help of the combination of the letters time.
It is impossible to answer the question, what is the combination of the letters time, with the help of other combinations of letters.
It is possible to answer this question, with the help of an act that brings natural knowledge to the doer.
Time is the name of a natural knowledge that comes to man when he listens to his heartbeat.
The person listening to his heartbeat detects the amount of "something" between every two beats, and for this something an arbitrary name is chosen consisting of the letters Z
There are two types of time, the passive time that actually exists in physical reality, and there is the active time that man invented, and it only exists in his imagination.
Active time disappears as soon as you think about it.
The man who was created on a planet is the one who invented the active time. Has the words past, present, future.
Past and future are in man's imagination, when
In physical reality there is only the present.
Man, who was created on a planet in eternal motion, was caught in the trap of words, and was never able to free himself from it.
Man loves the trap of words because it contains love and hope, anger and jealousy, and the escape hatches to the lie, to the truth, and to free imagination.
With the trap of words man entered heaven, and the trap of words expelled him from there.
Since then man has been looking for a new good language, and he has not yet found it. And since a new language has not yet been found, there is doubt whether everything written in this article will be understood.
A. Asbar
Something cannot be created from nothing
You all do not belong to the homospine species.
elbentzo
Why do you take him seriously? The only way to discuss with him is to get down to his level - and there he will tear you apart, because he has a lot of experience.
In the previous response (which has not yet been published) I wrote that I did not find any scientific articles by Yael Petar, so I will just clarify that I only searched in sources of high energy physics. That is, it is possible that she is indeed an active scientist but not in the field we are talking about, therefore everything I wrote in response is valid.
hahahahaha Where to begin…
1. So eventually we reached the point where you finally bring a source... and this source says "the void... is full of pairs of particles that are created and immediately disappear". Wow, the claim sounds familiar to me. Maybe because I've been saying it for like 20 comments. But you are caught by the obviously unscientific statement, "the void is not really empty". That is - there is no scientific basis for your claims, they are just a collection of words that someone said. Bottom line, even in the source you provided (by the way, it's not really a source, but more on that later) it is explicitly said that particles are created and disappear from nothing.
2. Why should I tell Yael Petar that she is closed? I didn't even say to you that you are closed-minded and you showed much less knowledge and much more stubbornness about your ignorance than her.
3. I don't know Yael Petar, but a web search did not find any scientific articles she wrote and did not find a doctorate award. Therefore, I conclude (but qualify because I may have simply missed it) that she is not a doctor of physics in the relevant fields. Meaning, as usual, you turn to an authority, only this time you increased and turned to an authority that is clearly not relevant to the subject in question, and less than my authority - a doctor of physics in this exact field.
4. You accused me of "diarrhea from my mouth", even though at no point did I dry my mouth. The worst thing I've done is to accuse you of talking about things you don't understand, and it's not an insult or rudeness - it's the truth. You *really* don't understand the subject, do you? So when exactly did I "drool"? You, on the other hand, said pearls like "diarrhea from the mouth", "opinions detached from reality", "distorted character", "Malachchi Pancha", "lose your pulse"... what can I tell you - there is no trace of hypocrisy in your claim that I "diarrhea from the mouth". not even a little.
5. The "source" you brought is not a source because it is not scientifically based. It's just a quote. Words have no value in science. I directed you to mathematical models and documented experimental results. When I asked for a source that supports your assertions, I meant of course a scientific source and not the name of someone who once said those words. If that's what you call a source, then here is a source for the fact that KDA is flat - a quote from Charles Johnson -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Flat_Earth_Society
You are welcome to tell him that he is closed.
6. I bring benefit to humanity. You see, the reason I allow myself to talk about these things is because I really understand them. I studied them, I researched them, and I publish about them. I'm part of the scientific community and although I won't claim to be the next Einstein, I contribute my part, do research, get citations and follow-ups on my ideas, etc. What are you doing - pretending to have a faint grasp of physics and trying to convince people that circular reasoning is the new black. And when things don't go your way, you lose your temper and start, if I may quote, "diarrhea from the mouth".
7. You keep saying that my statements are incomplete. Why don't you take my advice and do a survey? Do a round of universities and see who faithfully represents modern physical knowledge and who is the owner of the information.
Professor Khaltura
I haven't read trash like your comment in a long time. I'm sure mom is proud of you.
Albanzo
I really don't have the time to spoil you (or your pincha malachki). My time is too expensive.
In a quick and short search I found a few more sources, here is one of them:
"The vacuum is one of the most challenging ideas in physics. When you look at it at the quantum level, the void (vacuum) is not really empty, but is filled with pairs of particles that are created and immediately disappear"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/speed-of-light-may-not-be-fixed-100413/comment-page-1/#comments
You are welcome to tell (on your own behalf) to Yael Petar that she is obtuse and that she also has no knowledge of physics.
I will do as other sages and withdraw from this discussion (which will stink from the moment you started drooling from your mouth like Shmulik).
You are invited to smell until you lose your pulse with 3 people who support opinions that are out of touch with reality and a twisted character like yours.
Good luck in life and we all hope that you will be able to bring some benefit to humanity.
Shmulik
Don't stoop to his level...
Professor Khaltura
It's time for you to undergo stoma surgery.
Haltorist,
I didn't start the farting, you did.
In any case, let it be clear that the onus of proof for the existence of God/a supreme being/intelligent planner is only on the party who claims that one exists and no matter how much of a haltorist he is
Professor Khaltura
What do you think about all this? Do you have your own opinion?
Saying again and again that I justify your words will not make it true... we are saying completely opposite things. You can continue to claim, with 0 knowledge on the subject, that there is no such thing as a vacuum. Good.
I myself am a doctor of physics, as I said, and as such I am somewhere on the scale of doctors of physics: there are some who I am smarter than, and some who are less. You keep spouting the words "Academia says I'm right", but you refuse to provide evidence for it and you're afraid to put it to the test. I can claim tomorrow that all the biologists in the world told me that an iguana is a type of bacteria, so what?
I don't need to reveal my identity because I brought evidence and arguments for all the things I said. Therefore it doesn't matter at all who I am, and the only reason I mentioned my education and profession is because you seem to have an obsession with degrees and that you think that if someone with a degree said something then it is automatically the truth and he doesn't need to back it up with evidence. You, on the other hand, have not brought any evidence for anything - except for the claim that "quantum physics professors" agree with you.
Don't you have a little voice in your head that says, "Wait, I don't understand the subject at all, maybe it's better not to talk about it"? Do you really feel comfortable debating the nature of the vacuum in quantum mechanics when it is clear that you have never learned about the subject at all, and your so-called "education" stems from a claim that you once saw someone on YouTube who said you were right? I feel comfortable debating the subject because I know it inside out and I have been researching it for years. As evidence, I am able to back up all my claims with evidence - both theoretical and the laboratory measurements that verify them.
Wait, let me guess what your response is going to be... "Albanzo, you justify my words. There are quantum physics professors who say I'm right and you're wrong and they're smarter than you."
Albanzo
You just justify my words.
As I said: on a physical level there is no such thing as a vacuum because the vacuum is not a real vacuum.
At the conceptual level there is such a thing as a vacuum - but this is only a description and not something physical.
And what's really funny is that you think you're smarter than quantum physics professors.
As you said: unknown. And I wonder if Albenzo is your first name or your last name 🙂
Shmolon
Do you have some obsession with rectomies that you keep trying to push into the discussion? You seem to really insist on having someone take care of your hemorrhoids. There is a special place just for creatures like you and you are welcome to stink there, not here.
Professor Khaltura
I don't understand where you are going. On the one hand, you say that there is no exit from nowhere. On the other hand, you say that there is no such thing as "no".
What do you think there is?
And although I have already clarified this, I will explain again for the benefit of those who did not understand (for example, a Haltorist) - the reason why his claims are the requested assumption is because he claims that there is no creation from nothing. When we put before him the fact that we know that the state of a vacuum undergoes fluctuations - that is, there is a spontaneous creation and destruction of particles - which exactly means that one moment there is nothing and immediately after that there can be an arbitrary number of particles and a moment after that nothing again - then he says, " Ah! It is not the creation of something out of nothing because in a vacuum there are fluctuations and therefore it is not nothing. That is, if you show me the creation of something from nothing, then it means that in the first place there was nothing." This is circular reasoning - to reject the idea that the creation of spontaneous particles in a vacuum is the creation of something from nothing by stating that the vacuum is not really nothing. How do you determine this? By saying that if it really were nothing then particles would not be created in it, because there is no creation of something from nothing...
chelatorsite,
As usual, the desired assumption. What you call "fluctuations in a vacuum" is exactly what I'm talking about - in a vacuum, particles are created and disappear spontaneously. How is this not created from nothing? Moreover, if you stop ignoring the evidence for a moment, you might even agree to address the fact that these particles are actually being measured in laboratories. That is, it is not a mathematical formalism and nothing else.
That I understand, I am a lonely horse because you claim, without any evidence or proof, that you once heard someone on YouTube who you claim is a "quantum physics professor" said something in a lecture to laymen, which you very likely did not understand because you have already demonstrated that you have no knowledge of the subject, that there is no vacuum in quantum mechanics?
What if I tell you that I'm a PhD in quantum physics, and that right now I'm showing your reaction to my classmates and they're all laughing? Leave, don't believe. Let's do an experiment: tomorrow morning you will get up and go to the university closest to your home. Approach the department of high energies, or the group of quantum foundations if there is one at the university you choose, knock on the office doors and do a survey. Let's see if I'm a lone horseman, or maybe they'll laugh at you in the face.
Haltorist,
Since when does the onus of proof that there is no rectally active supreme being (probably your favorite activity) fall on the other side? what nonsense
You think there is a bigger jerk than you, prove it.
Meanwhile you are the king
It will be hot here... and smelly... oh it's just Shmulik.
Shmulik
Not true. The duty of refuting the rectomies is on you.
Albanzo
I've already explained to you several times that the vacuum you're talking about is all about making the idea of "nothing" accessible. Like the number 0 that comes to describe nothing.
In practice there is no such thing.
And quantum physics shows that even in a vacuum there are oscillations. That is, even in nothing there is something and as such it is not a real nothing.
But as far as I'm concerned, you can continue to be the lone freak in quantum physics who thinks otherwise. Successfully.
Shmulik,
Yes and no. In principle, there is no difference between the mechanism that allows an electron in an atom to emit a photon that did not exist before and pay an energetic price, and the mechanism that allows particles to form in a vacuum or near a black hole. But there is still a difference in my opinion. In the case of the emission of a photon in an atom, all we see is a form transition of energy. It can be argued that part of the electron's energy changed its form and became a photon (for example, in string theory it is easy to see that this is only equivalent to the fact that a string vibrating at a certain frequency changed its vibration frequency a little). In a vacuum, the situation is a bit more complex, so in my opinion it is a better example of creating something from nothing. In a vacuum there is no available energy in the form of a single particle that can be converted into a photon or an electron-positron pair. The vacuum is, by its definition, the state in which measuring the number of particles of each type will give 0 (for those interested in slightly more technical language - the basic state of fock space in which activation of any field annihilation operator gives 0). Still, the mathematical models showed us already in the middle of the last century that even in this vacuum - in which any measurement of particles will give 0 - particles can be formed for a short time and disappear. These virtual particles not only theoretically explain a huge variety of phenomena (starting from the Casimir effect that I have already talked about several times and ending with all the interactions of all the forces in nature), but also correspond to experimental phenomena. In addition, there are special conditions in which such a virtual particle can actually become a real particle (by "real" we mean that it lives for a very short time and disappears, but actually becomes something that we can hold in our hands). An example of this is near the horizon of a black hole, and these days there are claims that these particles were explicitly measured in an analog black hole (an article was published on this website a few weeks ago).
Wouldn't you rather listen to the evidence than listen to some quote from someone you found on YouTube that you clearly don't understand at all? That the only reason you listen to him is because he tells you what you want to hear?
This quote, by the anonymous "Professor of Quantum Physics" - if he really exists - is nothing more than an intuitive explanation for laymen. The vacuum as I described it exists exactly and is actually one of the most studied topics in modern physics. But why read about the subject when you can make a logical fallacy of appealing to authority..
Haltorist,
Can you bring a reference to those experts you are hiding behind? Do they also have an active rectum?
Haltorist,
In any case, the onus of proving a superior being with a developed rectum is on you.
albentezo,
Photons are emitted from electrons during a drop in level, and they were not stored in the electron in any storage.
This is also an example of the creation of a photon there is "from nowhere". You agree?
Albanzo
The vacuum you speak of does not exist. And no matter how you twist it.
And partners in my opinion are also professors and doctors of quantum physics.
Personally, I would rather listen to a professor of quantum physics who claims that there is no vacuum as you describe, than to listen to "Albanzo".
gig,
I realised. I have already provided you with evidence for three comments and directed you to documented, measured and explained cases of the creation of particles from nothing and then you say "first of all prove that particles are created from nothing." So there are three possibilities: either you don't read what you're being told at all, and then this discussion is pointless. Or you read and deliberately ignore because it doesn't fit your a priori conclusion, then the discussion is pointless. Or you read and don't understand, but for some reason are not willing to admit that you don't understand - then this discussion is pointless.
And please - don't tell me what I'm saying. I say the opposite of you. You specifically wrote, and I quote - "after all, not even mathematics is able to prove the creation of something from nothing". I directed you to experimental results that show the creation of particles out of thin air and you said, again, I quote - "I'm sure you know that there is no such thing as "spontaneous creation of particles in a vacuum". I claim that there is. The difference between us - I understand what I'm talking about (and with you, I'm sorry and with no intention of offending, but let's not forget that along the way you also tried to claim that there is no vacuum because the Higgs is everywhere, which is enough to show that you don't understand the subject), and I also have evidence to back up my words. What I am saying - in physics there is a creation out of nothing, such as the creation of particles in a vacuum or the creation of particles on the horizon of a black hole, and these are documented phenomena. If you are so insistent on saying that we are actually saying the same thing, then I am glad to hear that you agree that there is in nature a creation out of nothing that is happening all around us all the time.
At the beginning you said that there is no such thing as a creation from nothing, after that you said that there is no vacuum because of the Higgs field, then you said that because particles are created in it then it is not a vacuum (which is an extreme case of the requested assumption: you say "there is no creation from nothing", and then when you are shown a case That's how you say "Ah! There was created, it means that in the beginning there was no there!"), and in the end you just ran away to say again and again "we say the same thing".
Maybe face the evidence? There are physical measurements that show that in a vacuum, a state devoid of any particles, particles are spontaneously formed. Can you disprove this evidence? Let's focus on the particular case of the Casimir effect.
Shmulik
You are confused as always. The duty is not mine. The burden of proof is on you.
First of all prove that particles are created out of nothing.
Then wipe your mouth.
Haltorist,
What is the connection?
First you will accept the fact that particles are created out of nothing.
Later you will remember that the burden of proof for the claim that some entity activates its rectum to produce particles is on you, the person making the claim.
Albanzo
It's interesting or funny (depending on how you look at it), but you're actually saying what I'm saying, but you're doing it to refute my words.
Can you prove this vacuum?
I will show you another way:
Can you disprove an illogical entity/phenomenon - it is the one that farts these particles?
gig,
Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away. There is indirect and direct evidence for spontaneous particle generation in vacuum. Saying, "So it's not a vacuum" is not a solution. Where a moment ago there was nothing - now there are particles. Nothing will help you, it is documented, it is measured, it is explained theoretically. In the context of the article, this is also very relevant because there are models in which our universe is a fluctuation of the vacuum - just as in the quantum vacuum, particles appear and disappear spontaneously, one can think of a cosmological vacuum in which there can be fluctuations. If the phenomenon is known, explained and documented at the particle level, how do you determine that it is impossible in a cosmological context?
Regarding Hawking radiation - we really don't have tools with which we can argue anymore.
So as I said to Nisim (and I hope you are not offended because this is just an expression): Spring will show...
Albanzo
You tried to justify your words, which deny or refute my words, by justifying my words. It seems like a strange and illogical rebuttal attempt.
He is what I said - in classical physics there is such a thing as a vacuum.
But when you examine things closely and thoroughly - i.e. quantum mechanics - you discover that there is no such thing as a vacuum.
And this claim was made by a professor of quantum physics. You can even find this claim from him on YouTube.
If you have trouble finding it, tell me and I'll make sure to provide you with the link. (I'm writing from a cell phone, so it's a bit of a problem for me right now to provide you with the link).
The reference in the previous response is of course to the Hawking radiation of an analogous black hole with a sonic horizon and not a gravitational one.
gig,
I'm sorry, you're just wrong. You seem to misunderstand the Higgs boson and think it is everywhere at all times or something. The boson is a particle like any other particle, like an electron or a photon or a neutrino (I mean, of course there are differences between all these particles but not in the sense of who is where and when). There is definitely such a thing as a vacuum. You may be confused by hearing that a vacuum in quantum mechanics is fundamentally different from a vacuum in classical physics, and that's true - the difference is exactly what I'm talking about. In classical mechanics, a vacuum is nothing. blank. Whatever you imagine - is not there. In quantum mechanics it can be shown that if you take such a situation, you will see that particles constantly appear and disappear in it, which are called virtual particles because they live for a very short time (and as a result also have other properties than ordinary particles, but I will not go into that).
In any case, there are also documented phenomena of particles that are not virtual, but actual particles that are created out of thin air in a vacuum, such as Hawking radiation that they claim was measured right here in Israel not long ago (to the best of my knowledge, the experiment has not been reproduced and I am not sure how much external criticism it has undergone, so at the moment we have to be careful ). There is more indirect evidence for the existence of particles that are formed spontaneously in a vacuum and they are tested and documented to a very high level of accuracy. Like I said, I recommend looking at the Casimir effect example if you want to read about it.
Professor Khaltura
I'm not surprised you don't understand what I'm saying. I don't think you understand what you're saying either...
Albanzo
I'm sure you know that there is no such thing as "spontaneous creation of particles in a vacuum" - because there is no such thing as a vacuum.
You know that in a vacuum there are Higgs particles arising from the Higgs field.
That is, there is no such thing as "no".
The "no" as it means exists only in literature and mathematics to make some idea accessible.
On the physical level nothing is also some thing just as 0 is some thing that represents something. And not something that doesn't exist.
withering
I would be happy if you could prove (or at least convince) that existence was created from nothing. And why does it make more sense?
Miracles
I couldn't understand what you are talking about, but, as they say in Russia: spring will show who and where they screwed up.
Professor Khaltura,
What about spontaneous creation of particles in a vacuum? Does this fall into the definition of creating something from nothing in your eyes? Note, this is a documented phenomenon both indirectly (for example, in the Casimir effect, there are more examples) and apparently these days also directly, in sonic analogues of black holes.
withering
I think a little differently.
You wrote "We believe in the correctness of axioms\postulates\basic assumptions" - I think it should be said that we assume that these things are true, and we are absolutely ready to re-examine them, depending on the findings, or if there is a good theory that does not need these assumptions.
You wrote "We believe that the device measures what we intended to measure (and we take quite a lot of trouble to be as sure of that as possible)" - that is, we don't believe, we check again and again and again.... See a neutrino value faster than the speed of light.
It is clear to me that we generally agree. We really have all kinds of little beliefs that we don't check every once in a while. And also not so small beliefs, like conservation principles of sorts.
The important point is that we think that every faith can be examined, and is not the assumption of this or that rabbi. In my opinion, you will never hear a sentence from a religious person that is not a recycling of a statement by some religious leader.
The last Camilla
I missed you. May God in heaven bless you with all good things and make all your dreams come true, God bless you.
Miracles,
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water... I'm sure you'll agree with me and I think I understand what "type" of faith you mean (correct me if I'm wrong).
It is clear that faith also plays a role in science (and of course with scientists as well). We believe in the correctness of axioms/postulates/basic assumptions. We believe the device measures what we set out to measure (and we go to great lengths to be as sure of that as possible). At the end of the day we believe in something (ie we don't know it for sure but we accept it as a given truth). The small but very big difference is that our beliefs are small and relatively easily replaceable. Small, because usually their effect is small and if we made a mistake the changes we will have to make are local. Only rarely will a change in such a fundamental belief cause a significant (and important) change, as for example in the case of a change in paradigm, and for this very reason they are also replaceable, because the degree of difficulty involved in the change is not that great, sometimes it is really negligible. A religious person, on the other hand, his faith (in God, for example) has a profound effect on almost every layer of his life, and even a relatively minor change in his faith may manifest in the upheaval of his world (social, cultural, identity). It is not surprising that religious conversion is a relatively rare event just as it is not surprising that "conversion" of belief in a scientific paradigm can occur in a relatively short period of time by thousands and tens of thousands of scientists even when they are forced to admit that their very basic belief is probably wrong (as happened for example in the quantum revolution, It is not at all easy to give up the principle of locality, for example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality).
So we believe, but really there is nothing to compare and I think that is what Nissim meant.
Professor Khaltura
I started to write Yaakov a response and in the process I realized that there are two reasonable interpretations of what he wrote which differ in their meaning. That's why I ask him for an explanation. Perhaps faith is not such a successful method to understand the reality around us after all (you wrote that you believe that I did understand his words when in fact this is not true, or at least I am not sure which of the two legitimate interpretations he meant).
Don't you think your definition is a bit problematic?
"I assume that Jacob is talking about something that is not matter and is not energy. But something (phenomenon, process or something similar) absurd or abstract or transcendent that created creation."
Especially since within this "definition" you already generalize what is requested (the existence of a primary creator who created creation)? Honestly, don't you see that such a definition is somewhat problematic? And it does not sound or look scientific (because it is simply not what is accepted in science), and no, it really does not make more sense in any way that I can think of, especially when we compare "it" to what the researchers did, where at least things are based on an orderly mathematical model And not on a night of vague words. A mathematical model, by the way, that contrary to your opinion, I am guessing the unlearned, according to the nickname you chose for you, it is indeed possible to prove at least the existence of the possibility of a kind of creation from nothing.
This is indeed a central question for me. If he puts forward an argument here that has a serious logical fallacy, and worse, if he bases his belief on a wrong conclusion that follows this fallacy, there is nothing important (at least for him) because that person may be living a complete lie, even if he "chose" to believe in this lie. By the way, I do not believe that we choose our beliefs, we believe because we feel within us that this is true, and as long as we do not feel this feeling, we cannot believe. I can decide for the rest of my life that I believe in the tooth fairy, but if I don't really feel it, I'll know I'm fooling myself. I will try not to generalize, and I will only refer to myself at the moment, I have never believed in anything that I did not feel inside that it was true. To me it seems absurd to claim that faith can exist without that inner feeling (which does not necessarily have any grip on the reality around us that can be examined in a controlled way and sometimes it even collides head-on with it). Could you demonstrate to me for example, even for a moment, how to do this? For example, do you believe in the correctness of the theory of evolution? If not, could you, just for the sake of demonstration for an hour, choose to truly believe in it so that you feel inside that it does indeed represent reality in the correct and accurate way? Not from the language to the outside but to really believe in its correctness? (If you recognize the correctness of evolution, you are welcome to choose anything else that you currently consider to be nonsense and continue from there). If you feel this is not possible, could you try to explain to me why?
And speaking of Professor Khaltoura, this reminds me of the article: Thanks to Khaltoura in connection with the fascinating research of Professor Dan Toufik:
http://stwww.weizmann.ac.il/G-JUNIOR/weizmann-paper/38/6.html
And here:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.759669
Professor Khaltura
Mathematics talks about mathematics and not about metaphysics. "Existence" is a concept in the field of metaphysics.
The creation of nothing "makes sense" just like the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient creator. Both are very improbable, which is why they are not "logical".
In science, the concept of faith has no meaning. If you think something is true - you check. Religious people think differently - something is true if an authority tells you it is true. There is no room for inspection….
Hey miracles,
I usually don't care that much if the person on the other side is convinced or not (except for a few examples that I insisted on so that there would be measurable evidence of the extent of the stupidity of certain commenters. I usually mostly feel that I have a responsibility:
A. to point out (factual or logical) failures in arguments. Admits that I don't do this in every comment (after all, I have a life...)
B. To give an opportunity to commenters who disparage/discredit fields of science and scientists to change their words for the sake of a more fruitful discussion (especially for them) and if they choose not to do so, then I try to put a mirror in front of them, considering an attitude that leads to an attitude. Whoever enters here and allows himself to use one of the most inferior discussion culture that exists deserves all condemnation, and beautiful language alone does not necessarily mean an adequate discussion culture, of course when it is accompanied by an insistence on the emission of gross errors based on ignorance, the use of logic, and all this is seasoned with condescension and slander. A form of discussion that includes these (especially on a site about science) simply represents trash thinking and poor morality. There will always be such fools and there will always be too many of them, and it is no wonder, it is much easier to be a fool, and yet it is important to present the fallacies, especially for the sake of those who are not so familiar with the facts or are not yet accustomed to proper logical thinking. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no problem with opinions different from mine, provided that they are at least based on legal arguments and preferably also backed by something objective.
Beyond that, I am very happy to answer questions and pass on the little scientific knowledge I have to anyone who wishes it (that is, asking in good faith, without condescending and dismissive additions).
withering
Although you asked for clarification on Yaakov's words, I believe you did understand his intention. Like the other commenters.
I assume that Jacob is talking about something that is not matter and is not energy. Rather, an absurd or abstract or transcendent thing (phenomenon, process or something similar) that created creation.
Even though it doesn't sound scientific (and doesn't look scientific) - it makes more sense than claiming that out of nothing something is created, when the 'nothing' itself is in a certain sense 'there'. After all, even mathematics is not able to prove the creation of something out of nothing.
The main question here is not whether he is right or you are right. The question is: do you choose to believe it?
withering
Good luck... from my experience the logic doesn't work...
Jacob Shaked,
I am sorry that this is your opinion about the science of astrophysics. This is a particularly fascinating field that explains many phenomena in the nature around us, from the origin of the formation of the elements of which we are composed to the amazing structures that exist throughout space and which we see mainly as the sun, moon and stars.
In the framework of scientific research, the empirical side is always accompanied by a theoretical side that tries to provide an explanation that fits well with the set of facts collected (with great effort). This side exists in every scientific field and is just as important as the empirical side, and some would say maybe even more. It is difficult to imagine significant progress in science without the existence of the theoretical side, which often leads to strange models that go against all our simple logic and intuition - humans, but what can we do that they best explain the (huge) collection of objective findings, and are the ones that enable significant leaps In our understanding of the world around us and also enable amazing technological developments that everyone benefits from, religious and secular alike. In my opinion, it is shameful behavior to spit at the well from which one drinks.
1820
The video beautifully demonstrates the concept of cherry picking
cherry picking
Thus it provides light entertainment for a few minutes, but it had many glitches that spoiled the enjoyment, for example:
In the calculations of gematria there, the name of the letter T is sometimes calculated as "the" and sometimes as "theo", do you have an explanation for the apparently arbitrary use of the various spelling forms except for the obvious reason of choosing the "correct" spelling, that is, the one that will produce the desired result - 1820 ? I mean, it's true that overall it's a tiny difference of one A = 1, but I can understand that 1819 or 1821 just doesn't look good. Is there another reason for this?
In the same way, it bothered me a little that in the consideration of the verse from Isaiah, 1820:XNUMX, the last word was omitted for some reason. Do you know the reason for this (apart from the obvious reason that considering this word will impair the desired result XNUMX?
I thought I would respond to the body of the article which brings up a completely nonsense theory, which claims that the universe was created from an infinity of watermelons and anti-watermelons, which is equivalent to the claim that when there was nothing, there was an infinity of non-nothings that did not exist, and that in front of it "was" also an infinity of anti-nothings neither was he. and that from a sporadic breaking of compatibility to nothing here and anti-nothing there the universe was created. One should be ashamed to even imagine such a childish theory, but the field of astrophysics is more like voodoo and exoticism than science, and any fool is allowed to bring any nonsense, under two conditions: 1. that the names of the fools are preceded by a doctor's degree, no matter what, 2. that their rambling "article" also contains some drawings. This is what I thought I would address and develop the proof of stupidity in it, until I read the comments and stood up to them. It is not clear to me what a religious-primitive is doing here (all religious is primitive), and what is a person doing here who writes hahaha like one of the Chachachs. It is possible that both of them are the non-nothing that was and the anti-nothing that was, which the foolish quacks who wrote the "learned" article are talking about. And by the way, throughout the article the writer uses the word "nothing" in the opposite way to its true meaning: 'nothing' is a thing, something. He meant 'nothing' but laziness is a hard and chronic blow.
Jacob, although a little late, I have a question about something you wrote during the discussion and I'm not sure I understand. You wrote:
"Every thing (not material - thing) that exists in the world, if it did not create itself, that means it was created by itself. Go back to the first creation and find out who created it? The Creator…”
What do you mean by "thing"? You wrote in parentheses: "not material" but it is not clear if by the word "thing" you mean things that are explicitly not material or if you meant that "thing" includes a wider field of things, i.e. everything including matter.
If you meant the latter, meaning anything including matter, then I am not clear about the concept of creation in this context, which seems to be a key concept in your argument, for example an egg laid by a hen, if it is said that this egg did not create itself, did the hen create this egg?
If so, then you want to say that the process of creation can also be a natural developmental process that we know how it occurs?
If not, where exactly did creation occur in this swamp context? After all, she wasn't before.
1820
Idolatry is against Judaism. So that a "rabbi" deals with idolatry I think is garbage. So your rants to another site.
What kind of Jew are you?
Garbage you don't deserve a response https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DClJVGBMCs0
See Secret 1820
Do you really believe this rubbish?
And you will understand that there are no coincidences in anything
See the information on the attached website
Meir
You called me stupid, so you expected a smart response?
"Now you know how much you also know how much" lol The small hours of the night have an effect.
Now you know how much you also know how much "IQ" I have.... A disgusting narcissist.... How old are you?
A secular scientist
Where did I write that I don't like it?
Meir
You already have Sela's IQ....
70-80 years!? ...in this garbage can called "the universe" is disgusting....I prefer to finish around 40-50....a stinking world with no purpose, it would have been better to be a rock...
Well... miracles... now the state is not functioning either... yes...
Why don't you move to live underwater? Or kill yourself, if you are so bad in this world?
Why are you trying to drag everyone else down with you into the abyss of your hysteria and panic?
Meir
If you live well in your faith then great. I'll say it again - if I thought I was a tool in God's hands to do with me as he wished, then I wouldn't have children.
I don't want to believe that something as evil as God exists. Is it conceivable to think that a being who murders babies after terrible suffering loves us?
You got 70-80 years to live from your parents. You want to spend them believing that you are a slave of another entity - enjoy. I choose to believe that I am in charge of my life, and I choose what to do with it.
You can call me a fool... God must be proud of you. Your parents too.
Shmulik
Another nail in the coffin of the State of Israel. The best way to destroy Israel is to continue the current trend in the education system. Really, kudos to our Minister of Education, he will never be forgotten. It's good that we have a genius prime minister who takes care of all the burning problems... 🙂
Miracles you are innocent and stupid... that's all I have to say... In an atheistic world..there is no purpose or reason to live no matter how much you shout "I am good in life and others are good with me"....you live in denial that everything is fine and we are not here by mistake instead of entering into an existential crisis...and that includes all atheists.
What's more, Jacob and his ilk are winning big. The children will learn evolution without mentioning the monkey and Judaism, it will have another subject (except Torah) in kindergartens and schools:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/education/.premium-1.2484100
good night
(-:
Jacob
How do you know anything about me? I am always amazed by your vast knowledge. You know for sure that the amount of matter is finite, that there is a God, that this God is the one described in the Torah, and that I am not well in life.
Think about it Jacob - that everything you can do in life, I can do more. I can eat more things, spend more days, learn more and also contribute more. I know more about the world, and I'm hungry to learn more and more.
And Jacob - you didn't do well in life, so you ran away to a world of rituals, a materialistic and empty world. Do not delude yourself that you have "found" the real thing. If you were born to Muslim parents then you would be an extreme Muslim today. Please don't dump your problems on me.
You think you have a soul - here's another thing you've been lied to. You will learn a little beyond the Torah book, and you will understand what nonsense you believe. And these are really nonsense - things without any real foundation. As I said - whoever made you believe these things is a criminal.
Miracles
I didn't say you're not open, I said your heart is closed
I wrote to you that for half of my life I thought, felt and lived a life without the Creator and that the rabbis tell stories, so what is the novelty in this?
That's how it works, as long as you haven't gained faith, everything looks "black", "narrow", "limiting", "primitive", etc. Then it just makes you laugh
My dear brother, I don't want to convince you or anything like that, but if you present yourself as someone who "can't live a lie", at least don't tell me stories about how good your life is - it's obviously not true,
When you find out that your soul (I wonder what kind of explosion it was created from) shouts that it doesn't feel good like that... then just start searching for the truth, until then the lie is big (but it can be repressed for now)
Doesn't seem serious to me.
Jacob
"Obviously you see things that way, even though the truth is completely the opposite" - I don't understand where your assurance comes from, Jacob. You think I'm not open, but you're locked into the fact that the truth is with you and not with me. I am ready to put my beliefs to the test - but you are not. You won't say to yourself, "Wait, maybe there really isn't a God? Maybe the rabbis tell stories?"
Understand - I see a lot of bad in your world, a world that is not based on curiosity. And I don't see what's wrong with my world. Come to think of it, your world kind of shocks me. The God you believe in is an evil being. The Torah is full of horror stories about that God.
Don't get hurt - but your God, the one you worship and kneel before, is a cold-blooded killer. I say this from reading the same book you believe so much.
Everything that happens to me is for my good? You are welcome to tell that to a premature baby who died in agony at 30 weeks. If you see any good in that, then you are a terrible person. If I thought that there really is a God and this is how he works - I would never have children. Unequivocal.
"Just why do you think this is better than believing in the Creator of the world and living with great joy?" - Good question. I can't live a lie. I am happy in my life, and as long as I am happy, and it is good for others that I live, I will be happy to continue living - I will be happy because I enjoy many things in life.
You think your world is wide and mine is narrow - the funny thing is that I see your world as a tiny part of my world: there are lots and lots of different and strange beliefs, all kinds of things that have no evidential basis. Your faith is a tiny part of these beliefs. For every Jew there are 100 Christians. And within Judaism there are many sects. Atheist world - there is only one. And it is a world that contains everything that is in your world, and much, much more. I'm sorry you left this world because you were lied to.... And Jacob, you were indeed lied to.
Miracles
Obviously you see things that way, even though the truth is completely the opposite. That's why I emphasized that I was also like you and maybe even more anti, you may "know" about religions but your heart is closed so everything is the same with you.
Know that in the end you will discover that not only were you not alone, but that everything that happened to you was for your victorious benefit, but you probably need to get to a point where you are tired of secular life and the race after lust, so that you are ready to open your heart.
In your approach you are right, the world was created by an explosion and therefore really no one cares about you, and it doesn't really matter what you do because after 70 years you will be food for worms that are just changing by some kind of natural selection or something else.
Just why do you think this is better than believing in the Creator of the world and living with great joy?
The fact that you have a lot of "information" in your brain does not make you more knowledgeable in life, tomorrow they will find other proofs that contradict all the previous theories and refute them completely, and what will be left of all this "wisdom" then? After all, this is the race for honor
Believe me, God willing, I got married, I have 5 children, I have my own house, I study Torah, I work, I have good relations with my family who are not religious, with my wife with the children and I assure you that if I had not repented, I would not have All this and what I had was hundreds of meters less, not that now everything is perfect of course, but you can't compare in any way.
I'm really not drugged or delusional, I'm very down to earth, I'm simply sharing with another dear Jew the good I've discovered, but it's only when you open your heart, and it's a process of neither a day nor two days, with many questions and many answers (yes yes, you are allowed to ask) and you need proper guidance Etc. etc'
Trust me, just give the Creator a sign that you are really ready to test and you will see what miracles will happen to you
Smile, it's all for the best (-:
Congratulations and good luck
Jacob
You sound like someone on drugs to me, man. I see no good reason to think that anyone cares about me. On the contrary, I see a world in which I must fight to survive. I see a world that could become extinct due to a random comet crashing into us. It happened in the past and it will happen in the future.
The big difference between us is that I don't lie to myself, and I don't let others lie to me. Believing in God, to me, is living a lie. The conversation with you only strengthens my opinion. I see in front of me a person who does not understand basic things about the world we live in, and who is confident in his logic, even though it is completely wrong.
You describe a God that is a figment of the imagination of people who do not know about the world. They assume that their belief is correct - and from that they prove what they believe in.
I know you are happy in your faith. The thing is, to me, I see that you believe the lies you've been told. You were taught not to ask questions. You will be surprised, but I know much more about religions than you. You know details about Judaism, but you don't know what religion is, except for Judaism. And so, I can feel much more confident in my faith. Understand - for me, Judaism is equivalent to Christianity, Hinduism and the religions of the tribes in Africa and Australia. The only difference is in the details.
Miracles
Too bad it was getting interesting
I'm not afraid of thinking, you're probably not yet ready to ask the important questions in life, but I'm sure that you and Shmulik will discover that there is a creator for the world (and this should not contradict your preoccupation with science) and you will see how the one who created it also gave the "operating instructions" (the Torah) So that you and Shmulik will know exactly what to do and what to avoid so that you will have a full, happy life, a successful relationship, fulfillment and inner wealth, a way of life, good children, etc., etc., so that you will know that the Creator is the perfect good, and despite his infinity, he cares about "little miracles" and he Waiting patiently (because he is above time) for you to want to find him and even though you write bad things about him and his teachings, he will receive you with great love.
blessing and success
Jacob
There is no point in talking to you. You are afraid to think.
A secular scientist
Reading comprehension is not your forte...
I did not write that it can be refuted, and I even explained why it cannot be refuted.
Read again, then maybe you can respond wisely…
Miracles my dear
You said that science claims that time has a beginning? If so time is also created
You have no ability to prove that the universe is infinite or finite, it's all a theory
The Creator is truly infinite and is above time and place (again me and my unfounded determinations 🙂
Know, my dear brother, that the Creator loves and cares for all His creatures,
When you have a child you will be able to feel a little of this love and then you will no longer have a question about it
(Of course, many difficulties will arise now, so how is it that it is like this and how is it that it was like this, etc., etc., but all this is not on one foot)
By the way - have you ever asked yourself, maybe the Creator created the universe in such a way that you cannot understand it, its movements, and that science will not be able to overcome the path of the creation of the world?
After all, if there is a creator who created this entire universe, it is clear to you that the intelligence of all the scientists and sages in the world does not reach a comma of his intelligence, therefore it is clear that there will be things that we can understand and things that we cannot understand
(And a little deeper, if there is a creator and everything is understood, then he also put the insights of the scientists in their heads.... All the inventions and innovations were invented and renewed because he decided that at this moment they needed to be renewed and invented...etc, etc... So what is said now? How will you prove Scientifically what you say is more correct
From what I say? )
Miracles
It is not clear what you are talking about.
Do you think you can disprove its existence? If so, then that's your problem. You don't have to throw it at others. You have to deal with it yourself.
Besides, it is unscientific to say that there is no problem in refuting it when you have no clue what you are talking about.
You haven't studied the subject but for some reason you think you already have a solid opinion on the subject. This is a childish attitude and I don't think you are really infantile.
I also did not understand why you are offended that you as a secular learn a thing or two from a religious person?
A secular scientist
It is not clear to me why you say that the existence of a creator is not subject to scientific testing. I agree with you that it is difficult to disprove a concept that you are unwilling to define, but it is easy to look for evidence for its existence, just as it is easy to look for evidence for the existence of a soul.
I don't understand why there is this terrible fear of hurting the feelings of religious people. What exactly is the matter?
Jacob
Although you speak with reason, God is a concept that cannot be tested with scientific tools.
And just as the scientists cannot disprove its existence, so the believers cannot confirm its existence either. It's all a matter of worldview.
Personally, I am happy that people like you put the secularists in their place and discover a way of the land and a higher level of morality than the average secularist.
Jacob
A child's logic says that the universe is infinite. It doesn't make sense for me to get into my spaceship and fly in a straight line - and eventually the universe will end, right? It also doesn't make sense that time is not infinite - could time have a beginning? Or the end?
Science says, today, that time does have a beginning, even though it contradicts logic (at least mine). There are countless other cases where science has taught me that my logic is not something.... That's why I learned not to trust the logic that I check if a claim is true or not.
I remember as a child being told that the earth is spherical. What nonsense 🙂 How do you not fall on the other side? And once, 2500 years ago, they really thought so. For evidence - in your book it is written in several places that the earth is flat and stands on foundations.
Jacob - with a hand on his heart - if there really is a creator, what makes you think that he wants the good of man?
Dear Nissim
I understand what is being said, and I really did not come to argue, I did not imagine that there was a claim to infinite material
How can science prove that there is infinite matter, meaning that it always was and always will be? It doesn't make any sense (in my humble opinion).
Shmulik
Exactly by the same right that you think you are right and you understand and you know... who are you anyway to decide that others have no right, that others are arrogant because they don't think like you, and that you are wiser than the Creator of the world. Lower your pride a little and you will be much happier...learn to hold a conversation
There may be questions and difficulties about the name and the mitzvot and the halacha, but those who are really interested have (almost) answers to everything
By the way, don't try to tell me that you care about women, for proof if you have a girlfriend or a wife, is it true that you keep looking at other women? On the street in movies etc... what do you think you are not hurting her? (Even if she is used to this, there is no woman who does not want her husband to think and look only at her) So if the one who is supposedly the closest to you, gives birth to and raises your child, your partner in life, etc., you do not care about her feelings, then do not play her "disgusting" for us
And it's enough to be wise with an allusion
Jacob
You twist things, as befits a religious person 🙂
You expressed a number of claims and conclusions that stem from the claims. Your claims about the world are from the world of science, and the conclusions are from the world of logic.
You claimed that the amount of matter is finite - this is a claim from the field of science and not from the field of religion. In science - claims need to be substantiated. We asked you for substantiation, and you did not give.
You claimed that everything has a creator. And then you claimed - that is not true. That is - you claim that the basic logic is wrong.
If your opinions cannot be changed - then there is no point in our discussion. I'm not coming to ask you back - I do want you to understand that the "factual" basis for your belief is simply wrong. Effert: There is no scientific basis for your statement that the amount of matter is finite. And there is no scientific basis for the fact that everything that exists has a creator.
And certainly there is no reason to assume that a creator, if he exists, wants the good of man. There is not even a shred of reason…..
Jacob,
If you don't know the peppers, by what right have you decided that you understand how matter is formed?
How do you know how much knowledge I have about your world? I have enough to appreciate the wonderful language, the ability to dig into every word of the Torah of the rabbis and still not agree with the foundation on which the religion rests and sometimes even get mad.
I have a question: do you live in peace with the fact that a woman is ineligible to testify?
Dear Nissim
I was secular and repented and studied Torah, so I know your world and you don't know mine.
That's why you can't tell me to "open up the poor" and I, on the other hand, can tell you, according to your words it is evident that the Torah world is only known to you from anti-religious sources because everything you said about religion and the Torah really has nothing to do with our wonderful Torah (again from experience)
I really don't come to answer anyone, but the person should be true to himself, as I wrote before that I am not familiar with your quibbles, and this was not disrespectful but on the contrary, I meant to say that I do not know the scientific umbrella at all (quibble is a positive concept with us) and therefore I can't say anything about it and then I continued to say my opinion, so if you haven't really studied Torah and you don't really know the religious world, why talk about it? It's like me saying that the doctors of the aforementioned article are just talking, if I say that then it's just a statement because I have no knowledge on the subject, but if in a month two other doctors completely refute the article and say it's bullshit, that's already something else.
Jacob
you are great But, the one who converted you is a criminal. Not only did he lie to you, he violated your basic logic and judgment. You are like a horse whose eyes are blindfolded by the coachman so that he can only look forward even if he is frightened by what is on the sides.
I want to tell you, although I'm sure you won't agree, that your "logic" is fundamentally wrong. You keep assuming what you want to prove.
If you would like to open your eyes then please, we will be happy to explain to you where your mistakes are. If not, then go delve into the religion you believe in. You will leave the knowledge of the world to those who want to know.
The first sin in the Torah is the sin of curiosity. Beware of this, otherwise you will commit the second sin - the sin of knowledge.
Jacob,
Come on, there was no personal insult.
I wrote that it appears from your words that you underestimate science and that everything you wrote is meaningless hashing. If you are offended by this, check with yourself why.
I explained to you that your conclusions are not bound by reality and all you did was repeat the conclusion thinking that if you ramble again maybe this time it will catch on. so no.
The most ridiculous thing is that you are the one who handcuffs the one you believe to be omnipotent and it is a walking joke.
Shmuel
It may be that I am writing nonsense and it may be that you are the one who wrote nonsense, what is certain is that yours has no way and since you have switched to personal insults and "definitions and grades" I refrain from responding to you.
Even if you don't agree and even if things are charged, you can do it in a civilized and beautiful way and without looking down on each other,
For everyone else who wants to hear
There is actually such a reality that the one who wants the proof will be revealed to him, as it is written "God is close to all His readers, to all who will truly call Him", meaning that the one who is truly searching for the Creator (even if he does not believe at all but is ready for the possibility that there may still be a possibility that He exists) and reads If he really does, the Creator will reveal himself to him.
The "scientific" experiment is simple - whoever takes 5 minutes a day, when he is alone, and talks to the Creator and asks Him to reveal to him if He exists, and persists in this for about two weeks, if his heart is sincere in his request (because he is really looking for the truth) he is guaranteed that the Name will be revealed to him.
Successfully
By the way, everything I say is simply from experience, I was strictly "secular" from the strictest and I was sure that there is no such thing and there can be no such thing, but my search for the truth was real and in the end I discovered what I discovered,
I wish you success in your discoveries
Jacob,
You write on a computer thanks to our scientific fluff that you so despise and with all due respect to what is obvious to you, proof does not wait for someone who is ready for it. The computer you wrote on works even if you don't get the proof.
Beyond that, everything you wrote is a jumble of meaningless nonsense. You didn't explain why everything created is limited and miracles and I already asked you by what right do you limit the Creator? gall. And if the Creator wants to create an infinite amount of material? Will you tell him no? You are not a true believer.
Dear Nissim and Shmuel
I'm really not well versed in your scientific nonsense, but it's clear to me as the sun at noon that if I see any order it definitely indicates the order, and the more complex you see it indicates a more "sophisticated" order. I too, like you, once thought that there was no reality of a creator for the world, but after I discovered that I understood a simple thing, to prove that there is a creator is absolutely possible (for those who are willing to be proven to him), to prove that it is not impossible, from the XNUMXth - to a person who sits in a sealed room and wants to prove that there is no sun .
To clarify what I wrote earlier - every thing (not material - thing) that exists in the world if it did not create itself, it means that it was created by itself, go back to the first creation and find out who created it? The Creator, and who created the Creator? No one because otherwise he would be a creature, therefore there must be a creator who is not a creature.
Second thing - everything that exists is limited, who limited it? The Creator who created him, and who limited the Creator? No one, conclusion - the Creator is the unlimited who limited all the limited.
Shmulik
It seems to me that he went to ask the Rebbe again...
Miracles,
He was impressed by the Pope who said that God is not a magician. Look where we have come, science forced the Pope to say that God is not a magician when for thousands of years we have learned that he is a magician.
God is turning over in his grave
Jacob
Again - where do these determinations come from? It's strange to me that you put limitations on the Creator.
Understand, you establish two things: A, and A leads to B, and then you conclude that B is true. The problem is that both of these things need to be shown to be true, and I can't figure out how you know that.
Jacob,
Why did you decide that matter was created? If something was created, why were there only the laws of quantum mechanics that claim that a vacuum is unstable and that's where it all started?
I suggest you watch the lecture of Prof. Lawrence Krauss: A Universe out of nothing as well as the "discussion" between Sheen Carroll and Craig regarding God and cosmology.
What to do, physics It's worth hearing, from time to time, also from expert physicists in the field.
Additionally,
I didn't understand why you decided that created matter requires it to be finite. Why is your charge committed? According to which law?
Miracles
Since matter is created it must be finite. (Therefore there must have been something other than matter that existed before the first creation, which is the Creator)
Jacob
How do you know that the material is final? And where is the understanding of the source of the material?
The H
You probably misunderstood...
Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz intended to explain that before matter was created, there was only the Creator who is infinite, and in order to create matter which is finite, the Creator had to hide himself as it were (hereafter "reduction"), so that there would be "room" to create the world. Of course, this is all only at the "so-called" level, because the infinite cannot suddenly become finite. The simple understanding of this is that the Creator is really everywhere, only we creatures do not see Him.
Is it like saying there is a magician so good that he can create himself out of nothing???
And he is such a good magician that he doesn't even have to make an effort, on the contrary, it happens to him spontaneously every time precisely when he stops making an effort. And all according to the laws of physics he invented exactly the second he stopped trying.
Did I understand the article correctly???
A note for those who wonder, about the opening sentence of the Tanakh, it is about someone who is also involved in returning time, and arranges the good things at the top, and there is a connection between creation and evil, and again the arrangement of the good things at the top also from the "beginning"
Respectfully blowing water
walking dead
So you are saying that secular people understand the rabbi better than religious people? Why am I not surprised?
Miracles
It seems to me that the rabbi meant meaningless gibberish that would sound good to people who like meaningless gibberish that makes them feel like they are part of a hidden secret and that it makes them somehow important.
N.M
Can you please explain, in simple language, what the rabbi meant?
I suggest to the readers to compare the writing in the book 'Thirteen Petals of the Shoshana' by Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz which was published in Hebrew in 1998 and is based on Kabbalah literature, on page 58 and here is a quote: "In order for the existence of a world to exist, at any level, it is necessary that it be preceded by the secret of reduction." The secret of reduction is when the divine being, which is infinite, hides itself by the divine nothingness, which is also infinite. Out of the infinite concealment, out of the interior concealment of the divine essence, can emerge the first basis for the existence of a reality with limits, a reality that eventually comes to be a world." And you should see more there on this topic and others.
The question that needs to be asked is from what was the existence created that created the existence?
Wondering
What a jumble of words with no logical connection between them
It has already been said "in the beginning God created", so God is the whole of creation. There is a beginning and there is a state before the beginning, nothingness, is a world that does not belong to time or space, but to infinite information.
To Avi Cohen
As far as I understand, the symmetry existed before the spontaneous break. The spontaneous break caused the symmetry breaking. It is clear that the microscopic mechanism of the process is unknown, after all these are theories that are in research.
Your claim that the theory only "displaces the main one" is indeed correct. This is the logical fallacy of any theory.
It is always possible to ask what caused the initial state. For example with reference to the religious "theory" the question is who created God. (the "forbidden" question).
A.B.N
Thanks for the links, it looks fascinating, I will read carefully.
from first glance:
The first link refers to elementary skaters and not to information
The second link: can you refer to a specific article? There are a lot of references there.
Thanks
small question,
If indeed the universe was created from symmetry breaking, we must assume that there were an equal number of information (particles) and anti-information (antiparticles), before the universe was created. In addition, we have to assume that all the information (particles) that exist today in the universe originate from the same ancient pool of information (particles), and it is possible that there is more information remaining in that "pool".
Where is this cache? Is he in another dimension? What phenomena created this accumulation? It seems to me that this theory does not explain the "prime", but moves the "prime" to an even more distant point, which we have no possibility of investigating, since it is outside our universe... a rather convenient solution...
to Orit
There are some articles and articles on the Internet
For example:
http://webarchiv.fz-juelich.de/nic/Publikationen/Broschuere/elementarteilchenphysik-e.html
and also :
http://www.lattice2013.uni-mainz.de/static/VSC.html
have a fun read
Hesi, who are trying to block him...
Newton also wrestled with this problem, stating that God maintains the stability of the orbits.
but …. The routes are far from stable!!! Mathematically, the orbits are generally chaotic, which means that they are not predictable, and we really do not know how to predict the position of the planets beyond the (relatively) short term.
Look at the orbit of the earth, even the day long gazelle. The earth slows down its rotation, at the end of the dinosaur era a day was 23 hours. Look at the seasons - today July is the middle of summer, it used to not be like that, and in the future it won't be like that.
After all - the routes are complex and far from being stable.
incidentally,
This stability is even more amazing,
When talking about "binary stars",
which are mentioned here in a corresponding article...
Eylon,
I want to calm you down,
Mankind will never, never know
Who created them...
It's too big for humanity...
I would love to receive a "smaller" answer in the meantime
For the problem that bothers me:
How are the orbits of the planets determined,
revolving around suns,
so stable?
Back in high school, they teach that it's because of "equilibrium"
between the centrifugal force and the centripetal force.
That sounds nice.
Which doesn't sound nice,
How is it that equilibrium is so stable?
What is the cause of the incredible stability of the tracks?
Yes but…
The article hypothesizes about how matter was created from nothing and anti-nothing.
OK, maybe, but then the question arises what are these nothings and anti-nothings and who created them and why.
In other words - we haven't made much progress here...
A.B.N
Thanks for the detailed response. Could you send a reference to the article claiming that particles and antiparticles appeared from the void as a result of a spontaneous breaking of symmetry? It's really fascinating!
Regarding elementary particles and bits: In my opinion, the researchers claim that everything that exists is only information - and physical terms such as matter and energy (including elementary particles) are complex levels of information.
to Orit
As far as I understand, there is no new research idea here, but a "translation" of the idea from the language of physics
to the language of information systems. What you call "bits" in the language of information systems, wins
For elementary particles in the language of physics. What physics calls, for example, electron and positron, it calls bit and anti-bit. The names are different, the interview remains the same.
Mama? Scientists (supposedly) need articles. So in the absence of actual studies we are satisfied
In "translations" and simulated studies.
D.A. You mistakenly used the term "symmetrical break". It should be said "breaking the symmetry".
There is no assurance that the symmetry breaking is indeed symmetrical. For example, there is an opinion that the breaking of symmetry in the big bang was asymmetrical, in such a way that the amount of matter created was (slightly) greater than the amount of antimatter. There is probably observational evidence for this.
Another example: this morning I cracked an egg in two halves, trying to cook an omelet from the egg. Much to my surprise
The egg was divided into two unequal parts. This was an example of asymmetrical symmetry breaking.
A possible conclusion from the two examples below: in large systems that include a large number of (what physics calls) elementary particles or (what in the language of information systems is called) bits, any breaking of the symmetry is asymmetric. It is true that in small systems symmetric breaking is possible, but it is not certain that such systems are realistic in physical terms.
A. Ben Ner - Your question makes sense.
The "blank" you mention has no meaning in terms of information. The meaning of this research is actually deciphering the most basic components of the "is" - and these are the "bits" in binary terms of creation. It is not enough to say that "there is a void" - the genome of that void must be explained - or its smallest components. There are no smaller components than bits of information - and the original explanation of bit- and anti-bit (which create a single through the concept of infinity) is one of the innovations of this theory.
Symmetric breaking has indeed been mentioned before as you point out.
The idea expressed in the article (and in the article by Dr. Lincoln and Dr. Wasser) seems to me to be a copy of the idea of the energy of the vacuum taken from quantum theory. An idea about 60-50 years old, according to which the void is the result of an interaction (inhalation) between matter and antimatter that neutralizes both. However, the process is reversible and there is some probability, greater than zero, that two particles of matter and antimatter will spontaneously be created from the void.
The process has been observed and measured and it is not a hypothesis but a confirmed theory.
The "theory" presented in the above article changed the terms as follows: the void was called nothing, and matter and antimatter were called information and counter-information.
The weakness of the new "theory", that it explains what has already been explained anyway.
Physics explains the formation of matter by spontaneous breaking of the vacuum.
What did the honorable authors of the article do?
They explain the formation of matter by the spontaneous breaking of "nothing".
Where is the new idea here? Call Rick nothing?
In what are they wise in their regulation? It seems that nothing (literally)
The fundamental question remains. What preceded and what created this essence that made possible the formation of matter,
The energy and other physical essences in the universe.
Religion's answer is...God.
But who created God?
jubilee
In classical physics, information is the position and momentum of a particle. Everything else follows from that. If you know the position and momentum of every particle in the system then you basically know everything about the system.
In the context of the article - I am not clear on the meaning, because either there is knowledge or there is not. "Negative knowledge" ... it's hard for me to imagine what it is. If you mean wrong knowledge, and I know it's wrong knowledge, then actually it's knowledge for everything....
What does information mean? Does every substance in the world contain information, and if so, what is the information in it?
gf
So how do you define the concept of mystical?
Miracles, I didn't know that mystical means "an idea that cannot be investigated scientifically". I would appreciate a reference to the matter
The fact that the origin of the word is hidden does not mean that it cannot be proven...
gf
When we talk about science, we talk about a certain method. A mystical idea is, in my understanding, an idea that cannot be investigated scientifically. The origin of the word mystical is Greek and the original meaning is hidden.
If I'm wrong, then it means I don't understand what science is and/or don't understand what mysticism is and/or don't understand what a contradiction is. I would love to learn...
Miracles,
The one who claims a contradiction should prove it (not give a private example but a general proof).
I would love to hear/read such proof
"But I am open to ideas, including mystical ideas
Provided that they pass the test of scientific investigation"
Two contradictory things….
This symmetry was broken "spontaneously"
Is this the smoking gun, finger of God???
I'm not really a religious person,
But I am open to ideas, including mystical ideas
Provided that they pass the test of scientific investigation
You outdid yourself this week
It already sounds more plausible than stories of creation by a higher power in seven days
The minimum diameter of the universe at the time of creation is 27.6 billion light years and apparently much more and not zero as in all the big bang theories today the diameter of that segment is more than double
Just face the sky
The Holy One, blessed be He, must be pleased. This is scientific proof of the "Book of Creation". According to the Book of Creation, the universe was created from "ma'amrat" (small words). And that is exactly what the theory proves. Kudos to the Jews!
The infidels will fart nonsense only if they are allowed to fart
Theories in the air without any scientific basis
And what was before and before and why did all this start,
No shame in saying we'll never know
Eddy - Nothing is also a type of information and there are parallel forms to present nothing in terms of information
Hi,
Before jumping into theories about the nature of creation and other superstitions, one must first understand the nature of matter about which we know nothing!
M. Shafer,
Information is also an object.
Both matter and energy are forms of information/object.
Michael Shafer,
Information is also an object.
Both matter and energy are forms of information/object.
Ori,
Following on from his words, and referring to your words, thoughts about your thoughts:
L-1: It is not certain that the realization is two-way. On the other hand, the realization can be in an infinity of universes (infinity is a certain kind of tsal. It is such a tsal that can be logically proven, otherwise the discourse is not rational).
L-2: The 'laws of the system' are the universe itself. The universe/'laws of the system' are derived from essential properties of that infinite reality, as a function of the concept of that kind of infinity. Accordingly, it is possible that the universe created in a realization event is singular, it is possible that a finite number of universes/'systems of laws' are created, and it is possible that the number of universes/'systems of laws' is infinite; Although there is a logical connection between them, in the last two options. In any case, a lot depends on the concept of the 'infinity' that we imagine, and the possibility of logically proving its actual existence.
L-3: Logical grandfathering is an old patent. It already appears in Aristotle, in various incarnations of Aristotelianism and Neo-Platonism, in secret teachings with philosophical components (for example - many currents in Jewish Kabbalah) in Indian philosophy and more. The question of relevance or divine 'preoccupation' is a separate question.
You are all dealing with matter and energy here - but the researchers claim that there is only information created from nothing and everything else is our illusion. We are simply part of an information system - and that's all there is.
Nothing = for something and anti something and when the rest of the symmetry is broken information is created. that's it.
interesting
Where is the Holy One, blessed be He?
The article is quite simple to understand, the researchers claim that there was a situation of the same amount of matter and antimatter which actually resulted in a situation where there is nothing because the antimatter cancels out the matter. At some point this symmetry broke spontaneously as we know happens in systems with this type of symmetry and then the big bang happened.
Three thoughts on the idea:
1) If due to some distortion a 'positive universe' is created, a 'negative universe' should be created at the same time, for example of antimatter
2) The theory came to explain how the universe came out of nothing, and still leaves unsolved the question of 'how the laws of the system were created, here - the immediate system.
3) A theory that defines that before everything was in some logical order of 'positive' and 'negative' is an (interesting) type of theology. What is this if not a type of God, just not one who deals with man-made nonsense like 'I gave to you and not to them'?
Three thoughts on the idea
1) If due to some distortion a 'positive universe' is created, a 'negative universe' should be created at the same time, for example of antimatter
2) The theory came to explain how the universe came out of nothing, and still leaves unsolved the question of 'how the laws of the system were created, here - the immediate system.
3) A theory that defines that before everything was in some logical order of 'positive' and 'negative' is an (interesting) type of theology. What is this if not a type of God, just not one who deals with man-made nonsense like 'I gave to you and not to them'?
point,
I completely agree with you that there are problems with this theory of the two researchers, among other things regarding the point of 'nothing'. When it comes to infinite reality, there is and cannot be 'nothing', but an absolutely complete positive reality. It is possible that the 'no' is present only in relation to our ability to grasp and perceive such a reality, which is certainly limited.
That's why I hinted in my previous words to you that in my opinion this is a crude conception of a more refined and complete idea. I spoke of a 'whole object', and as such its infinity must be applied in one and include all the opposite potentialities, but only as potentialities. This could include potencies of the kind the two researchers are talking about. The balance in the potential charge is broken and receives a defined direction only in the event of realization, and the result is a concrete reality, which is necessarily limited, partial and finite, and contingent objects, as opposed to a being with absolute reality and an object with necessary existence.
My Hananel
I listened to some of the lectures there and he speaks very well. But - there are still serious disputes between science and the Torah, and in fact every religious belief. Here are a few points that popped into my head:
One point is the concept of soul. In science there is no such thing, and man is no more than an animal that has language. Language is a very fundamental difference, and what made the development of civilization possible, because without language there is no transfer of knowledge, and therefore no progress.
A second point is that life has no purpose, not even human life. That is, we see no evidence of such a purpose. (I don't mean one's purpose in life, that's something else entirely.)
A third point is that the concept of religion (in science) is much broader than in Judaism. Even very ancient and very primitive peoples have religious beliefs. This includes topics such as creation stories, rituals, superstitions, food laws, dress and behavior. It turns out that religious behavior can also be seen in animals, even in pigeons.
The last point (which I want to point out right now…) is that the presuppositions of science are very different than those of religion. Science does not say "there is no God and let's prove it". Science says "Here is what we see in the world. Let's make hypotheses and test them." And in science, today, you don't see any signs of something external, something that cannot be investigated.
A little more detailed explanation of my objection.
My objection is about misleading the readers.
If we have infinite information, and infinite anti-information. And we also have a mechanism that cancels them, so surely and surely the last thing that can be said is that we have nothing here.
Those who do not understand this simple matter not only do not have philosophical thinking, but their basic intuition is very sick.
Aviad,
Forward is not necessarily on the timeline whose direction is familiar to us. In principle, forward can be on a timeline whose direction is opposite to what we are familiar with. Such a time is not necessarily 'another time', extra-universal. It may be part of the universe, but it expresses a different directionality. Speculations about this are not irrational, and are worth discussion, especially from smart people. In practice, there are discussions about this, of various kinds.
In general, Kadima does not have to be on a timeline - it may only be logical. Even speculation about this is not irrational, and it is worth a discussion, especially on the part of smart people. In practice, there are discussions about this, of various kinds.
In any case, it is not necessary to assume the existence of universal time as you think of it, in order to think about forward.
By the way, a supplier like you can also be expected to question the absolute logical validity of Ockham's razor. The history of science seems to be evidence that too often precisely the improbable explanation stood the test of scientific truth. Thus, Ockham's razor is a kind of veil of vigilance on the face of those who choose in advance, self-interestedly, to shape reality according to what arises from their rather limited common sense, instead of being willing to be open to making an effort and revealing it in all its complexity. This is a comfortable belief, but not always justified.
"The essence of faith is the greatness of infinite perfection."
I suggest that everyone enter this website, and understand what the word 'God' means at all according to Rabbi Kook ztzel.
I think that the definitions given here to God as a kind of 'super being' who sees everything also misses the mark.
It is recommended to listen to the lessons and wait and understand the world of concepts in a much deeper way.
By the way, many may be surprised, but Rabbi Kook also has an explanation that quite fits the bang theory in certain things.
For those who do not know and have not heard of the new meteor in the Jewish world, Rabbi Uri Sharki gives very satisfactory answers on the website:
http://ravsherki.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=featured&Itemid=1864
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ground-problem-of-metaphysics-part-1-0204103/
I thought about this theory a long time ago, in the bath. But then I countered it with a counter theory that precisely neutralized it. And after we joked, then seriously: this is a perfect non-theory and completely devoid of content.
I think it is a mistake to ask what was before the big bang.
Because it comes from the premise that the dimension of time known to us is "supercosmic" or beyond our universe.
This is actually a hidden assumption, an assumption that hides behind another assumption which is the question "What was there before the big bang?"
A fool who contemptuously asks "what was before the big bang, it doesn't make sense"
Basically saying "I know for sure that time exists beyond our universe, so I don't understand how our time frame and space was created outside of the time frame"
That fool is unaware of the most important principle in science and logic, Occam's Razor who believes that the most likely explanation is the most correct, scientific research allows us to investigate probabilities and probabilities and understand that stupid ideas like
God, alternative medicine, superpowers, all kinds of wizards, Bigfoots, aliens who abduct people, crazy conspiracies
According to history and research, they are in the spectrum of incorrect pieces of information in the environment much higher than they are in the spectrum of "things that happened in reality"
Therefore, any hidden assumption that is anti-reasonable is often "stupid", that stupidity is a type of contamination of information that is not relevant or reasonable. Only a fool would go for homeopathic treatment, only a fool would believe in God, and only a fool would ask what was before the big bang before he even asks what time is, or is time a property that also exists outside the universe?
Therefore the question "What was before?" ” is information pollution of the hidden assumption “time is a universal property”
A human being who is not contaminated by such assumptions will understand that time does not necessarily exist, and that to a certain extent there is a high probability that time is not universal outside the universe, since the big bang represents a convergence of time and space and not just space into one point, and because we live in a 4-dimensional world, convergence into one point represents A situation where it is impossible to get out of that area.
For example, the earth converges to form a three-dimensional sphere, therefore an attempt to delimit the earth's area in the past by "fools" was accompanied by the claim that "there is always a forward and a backward" so that there is an "end and a beginning to the earth" and this is how the legends about monsters and waterfalls were created Monsters that dwell at the end of the spilled ocean
Humans polluted their minds with hidden assumptions and did not notice that they are wrong to ask what is at the beginning/end of the earth. Because it is a meeting point.
In the same way, people today are mistaken in wondering what was there at the beginning of the universe.
Because it is possible and if the hidden assumption that time is universal is not true, just like the assumption that there is always somewhere to sail forward when forward represents "other" that in the same way going back in time will be a point of convergence that may converge with the big collapse in billions of years if gravity overcomes intergalactic repulsion .
In any case, pay attention to the hidden assumption in the question, and don't believe fools.
Aviad the skeptic
Infinity appears in mathematics in many different fields - and here there is an application of information systems through paired bits. The novelty is that this method, which was applied in computer science, solved a problem in the field of theoretical physics
point,
I've been following your comments for years now, which I find meaningful even in cases I don't agree with. This time, in my opinion, you sinned. It is possible that you do not (yet...) have sufficient mathematical and philosophical background to evaluate the theories about infinity (of its types). But to rush and crown with unbearable recklessness the ideas of the aforementioned researchers as 'one of the most retarded ideas'? Why? After all, I have not heard you express yourself that way about theories that are oil on their face (for example - on the question of the origin of life) that were also published on this site...
Pay attention to the commenter Meir's response. I think there's something about her, don't you? In any case, it is enough to be interested in the subject in depth. Consider, for example, an analogical rationale like that of Hawking radiation...
As a first step to a slightly more informed understanding of the issue, it is worthwhile to read the article in its original form, and try to stick to the underlying discipline. It's also worth perusing some philosophical literature (- don't be afraid, it doesn't bite, and don't mock either - human wisdom goes far beyond positivist thought in its simplistic and narrow versions) on relevant topics, mainly around the theory of the whole object and the concept of infinity (Aristotle, Nicomachean philosophy; Rambam in Mora Nabukim Part I, chapters XNUMX-XNUMX; Anselm, and Descartes in the matter of the ontological argument and recently also in the modal proof of the philosopher Adams on the issue, and also in the studies of the mathematician Cantor and others on the issue of infinity). It is even possible that such a study will lead to much deeper insights than those in the article. And it is possible that the ideas in the article will be perceived as a possible version, albeit somewhat crude, of such insights. Successfully.
someone
You don't have the soul of a scientist... And probably not a philosopher's either. It is not at all correct to say "based on the current conception of time" - because that is exactly the point: we know that time is affected by a gravitational field, and I guess there was a lot of it in the Big Bang...
What is this philosophy?
Instead of trying to come up with any kind of theory, it's better for us to admit that we simply have no idea what was before the "beginning", because you can always ask what happened before the beginning, and then ask what happened before that. Any attempt to explain these things based on our current perception of time is completely philosophical, and at the moment every possible solution defies logic in some way.
In my opinion, my theory is no less good!!
http://kadmon1.com/%D7%93%D7%A3-1-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%9F
%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%98/
I agree with Meir - the example he gave clarified the idea for me. It should also be remembered that at the starting point there was no time and space so that the existence of "something" and "anti-something" at the same time is really a state of nothingness. In my opinion it is beautiful to relate the something and the anti-something to bits in information systems.
An explanation for nothing as an addition of information,
For example, information such as
Witness A - the accused was at the event at the time of the murder
Witness B - the accused was at place X (which is the scene of the crime) at the time of the murder
It adds nothing to the knowledge we have about who the killer is
Therefore a situation where I have infinite information on the one hand, such as the location of each particle and its quantum states
Compared to other information that contradicts this information (different values of position and quantum states)
This information is worthless and cannot describe any physical reality
But when there is an asymmetry in the information, that is, some of the underlying knowledge disappears in some way,
So, there is true knowledge that can describe the reality of something
This state can somehow be converted into a corresponding physical reality
There is a problem with the link to the article - the corrected link
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X
It was poor and childish humor on my part...
The people
"Black horse" is "not a yellow chick" - what exactly is canceled?
Point, if you really didn't understand I can try to explain.
Imagine that there are endless "yellow chicks" and there are endless "non-yellow chicks", they cancel each other out (as everyone knows).
Now, the "infinite yellow chicks" are making "infinite chicken excrement" (or in professional terms Chicken Shit),
The "there are no yellow chicks" as well (because you can't assume "there are no chicken droppings", it's ridiculous).
At that moment matter is created and energy is created in the universe,
Because "there is no end to chicken excrement" + "there is no end to chicken excrement" = material out of nowhere (and fine fertilizer!).
Hope I helped you in the intricacies of the galaxy.
point
have to agree with you…
Point, I'm glad you were able to understand what infinite information is... I got stuck there. Not to mention counter information that I have no idea what it is. Not to mention endless information against me.
After they explain all these new concepts, maybe it will be possible to start talking about what is the combination of 1 piece of information together with 1 counter piece of information and then also infinity...
Then we can agree whether the idea is retarded or not...
One of the most retarded ideas I've heard.
Since when is infinite information and infinite information against me nothing?