13.7 billion years ago, a flash of light filled the entire universe. It was not difficult, since the whole universe was then the size of one point, dimensionless
For the first episode in the series: Does evolution disprove the existence of God
In early 2011, Pope Benedict XVI stood on the Vatican's porch, watched tens of thousands of believers come to hear him speak, and announced to a committee that he accepted the Big Bang theory. Not only that, but it also supports the doctrine of Christian creation - and hence the existence of God.
He was not the first to try to match science and religion. Before him came Pope John Paul II in 1996, who accepted the theory of evolution, with a small correction according to which God assimilated spirit and soul at a certain stage of human evolution from the ape. Even the centuries before the last two popes are replete with attempts to turn any new scientific discovery into evidence for the existence of God, often by the scientists themselves.
Does the Big Bang theory really indicate the existence of God? In this article we will briefly review the theory and try to understand together why Pope Benedict concluded that it obliges a supreme Creator - and why he is wrong.
the big Bang
13.7 billion years ago, a flash of light filled the entire universe. It was not difficult, since the whole universe was then the size of one point, dimensionless. He was smaller than an ant. More than a human cell. More than an atom. All the mass and energy of billions of exploding suns were trapped at that tiny spot that collapsed under its own weight. The physical forces went crazy at that point, also known as the singularity point because in simple words - we have no idea what the physical laws were within it. All we know is that following processes that are not clear to us to this day - it has begun to expand.
The initial expansion was rapid. Very fast. There is no intention to expand in space, since all existing space, including the timeline itself, were included at the same point that began to expand. The universe stretched, like a giant elastic rubber sheet. It was the big bang.
The stretching sheet contained the space we know so well: the three dimensions of height, width and depth, and the additional dimension of time. And what existed outside of that canvas? We do not know that. We only know that the canvas continues to expand to this day, in part from the power of the original initial explosion released in the Big Bang. We can know this because the distances between galaxies are getting longer all the time. Not because they move in space (even though they do move) but because space itself stretches between them, and the distances that separate galaxy from galaxy increase.
The particles of the big bang formed the elementary particles. We got the electrons, protons and neutrons - the basic components of every atom. Physical forces acting on those elementary particles caused them to connect with each other and form the first atoms — hydrogen, helium, and lithium — that were assembled in huge thin gas clouds throughout the entire universe. When a large enough portion of the gas was concentrated in one dense place, the first suns were obtained, consisting (similar to our good yellow sun) mainly of hydrogen and helium. In some suns the simple atoms fused into each other to form heavier atoms, such as iron.
We will move the hands of the clock forward, far forward. Ten billion years or so, and we will get the gradual formation of the solar system, and with it our mud ball, and the beginning of the evolutionary process that the Pope has already received. All this - from one big bang that led to the dispersal of all matter in the world.
So how does all this prove the existence of God?
Who blew up my point?
We humans like to trace primary causes, almost obsessively. Because of this, it is no wonder that in every mythology there is a description of the creation of the world. The Norse believed that the world was shaped from the endless licks of a giant cow. The Japanese believed that the world was formed from an oil slick on the water. Science has proven, within the limits of time and the tools at its disposal, that the world was created from a single singular point. A cosmic egg, if you will, from which the whole universe hatched.
But who created the egg? What was the primary cause of the singular point itself?
This question is illustrated in a parable, and perhaps a true story, in which the philosopher William James argues with an old and ignorant woman, who claims in his ears that the earth stands on the back of a giant turtle.
"But my dear lady," James asks politely, "what is that turtle standing on?"
"He's standing on the back of a second turtle." She says.
"And what is the second turtle standing for?" James tries to trap her.
The woman does not despair. She realizes where he is heading, and immediately replies, "It's all turtles, Professor, all the way!"
God as a base for turtles
The parable of the turtles provides a clear analogy to the problem of the primary cause. We know that the earth was created by gradual and natural processes, not by the licking of a huge cow. We understand that the gas from which the solar system was formed, dispersed during the Big Bang. But who created the big bang itself? Do the natural processes continue all the way, until the creation of matter from nothing and from scratch - a natural process that has never been discovered?
The first approach to solving the parable was presented in recent days in Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham's mishna, who argued that the series of turtles cannot be infinite, and must end somewhere. There must be firm ground for the lowest turtle to place its feet on. There must be a basis, even if we do not understand its nature. And how can we understand? After all, all we know are the turtles! Because of this, the basis must be incomprehensible and beyond the laws of nature accepted by us, and that is God.
This is one solution to the problem of the primary cause, but it has two major failures, which rely on the fact that during the solution we 'cheat the laws' and add external factors that we do not know and are not sure exist.
Turtles so far
The first failure is expressed in the failure of the original turtle parable. This parable, like many others, is meant to convey a particular point to readers. The author of the parable grins at the attempt to attribute the primary cause to natural processes we have known for a long time. He treats that primary cause as a necessity, and implies that it must be based on some external factors, other than 'turtles' or physical laws familiar to us.
But what if there is no primary reason?
This question seems to contradict the intuition familiar to us from the world around us. And yet, many proven scientific theories contradict the way of thinking we have formulated for ourselves. Seemingly random processes of evolution create order and logic. Quantum-sized objects (and recently evidence is beginning to be received that even larger objects) can be present at two points in space at the same time. The world, it turns out, is more complex and wondrous than anything we think.
So why should he not also be eternal?
This is cheating, of course. We give an answer for example that deviates from the original rules. But it is no different from the previous solution by which we 'proved' the existence of God. To assume the existence of God as the creator of something out of nothing, we are forced to invent physical circumstances and forces that we do not know and do not understand. There is nothing wrong with that - the science of physics has been discovering such new forces almost every decade for the last century, and we are learning to understand them and exploit them to our advantage. But if we allow ourselves to 'deceive the parable' and solve it by adding a factor that bypasses all the forces of nature, then logically we can equally accept another 'breaking the symmetry' explanation that the universe is eternal. After all, if we only know turtles upon turtles, how can we know that they really have an end or a beginning?
This answer is supported by some physicists. A new model for the Big Bang has recently been proposed, according to which there is a huge - perhaps infinite - number of universes, each of which expands over tens of billions of years, then begins to shrink with agonizing slowness - until it reaches a singular point, a cosmic egg containing all the energy and mass of the universe whole. Sound familiar? This point will re-expand in a huge explosion and create the universe in which we live, fight and love. Our universe is also expanding, but when the day comes, it will reach a point where the elastic sheet will stretch to the limit - and then it will begin to shrink back, to a new singular point that will also explode in the Torah. A world without end, without beginning.
You can relax: our universe will not begin to shrink until several tens of billions of years have passed. A huge period of time in size, when all the suns will go out and the entropy will dominate the black space. Humans will become extinct long before that.
It is, then, the ever-expanding and shrinking universe. But here one may ask again: Who created this universe? This question, as we have already explained, is irrelevant because the very wording implies that there is a creator, and there is no reason to assume it. In fact, if we decide that logically there may be a creator, then we must decide that according to the same logic it is possible that the universe is eternal, and not created by anyone.
God of gaps
The second failure is expressed in our reliance on ignorance - lack of knowledge - to determine the existence and identity of God. Even if there must be a basis for turtles (and this is a claim that still requires proof), there is still no proof that the same basis is the almighty god, or even a half-omnipotent or a quarter-omnipotent. The people of logic give name to this kind of logical failures, in which we take the unknown and call it 'God'. This is the God of Gaps.
This term was coined in the 19th century by the evangelical Christian lecturer Henry Drummond, who rebuked believers who took advantage of every point of uncertainty and ignorance in the scientific explanation of the world to claim that God was present there. Not sure how the world came to be? God created him. We are not sure why one person is sick and the other stays healthy? God did it. Drummond called on Christians to accept all of nature as one great God, "… The God of evolution, who is infinitely greater than the ancient theological God, who makes hasty miracles."
Even if we choose to accept the existence of some God based on the ignorance we have, the idea of God as the basis for all turtles and physical laws does not answer the constant question about the image of God. Just as Christian, Muslim, and Jewish clerics choose to establish that the basis for turtles, the same primary cause for all primary causes, is the good and benevolent God known to us from the Bible, so can any entrenched fool announce that Satan created the entire world (as the Yazidi clerics do). ), A cosmic cow that licked the universe to its present form (as the Norse believe) or that behind the big bang stands the flying spaghetti monster that created the world in its eternal senses (as the Pastafrians believe). Of course everyone is wrong: Flip-El is the one who created the world. Still, it's easy to see how the logical argument for the existence of Flap-El is taken here out of context and logic.
Find God
From all this we learn that there is no good reason to attribute the big bang to a divine initiative. Moreover, as the German priest Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, it is better not to do so. Bonhoeffer, who lived and worked in the middle of the twentieth century, identified in Hitler as one of the major centers of evil in the world. During World War II he was involved in an assassination attempt on the Fuhrer's life. The attempt, unfortunately, failed, and Bonhoefer was thrown into a dungeon for two years and executed shortly before the end of the war. While in prison, Bonhoeffer formulated for himself an extraordinary worldview on religion and God, and came to the insights he described in his writings.
“How wrong it is to use God as a substitute for the imperfections of our knowledge. If indeed the boundaries of knowledge are pushed forward all the time (and this indeed happens), then God is pushed back together with them, and therefore is in constant retreat. We must find God in what we know, not in what we do not know."
When it comes to the creation of the universe - if it ever happened - we must humbly admit that we cannot know if it has a creator. There is no shame in that. Scientists daily admit their ignorance, and continue to explore the universe in hopes of filling the gaps with knowledge. To this end, they conduct meticulous and rigorous experiments, out of a desire to understand and decipher the laws that operate the cosmos - and perhaps find in them, one day, God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYqlYW7PrxA
The most stupid answer of Mechabat about the age of the world (the original NUBEMET - beware of imitations)
227 תגובות
A new exact science - the science of physical creation
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.
And so on many forms were created.
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.
This is how a surprising physical creation of passive time began, filling 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 space.
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 forbid that the cheerful quantitative energy does change its appearances, while taking care to preserve the changing amount.
And God said, the thing is very good.
After these things, God commanded the passive time and energy to create the material that appears in many physical forms, such as gold, iron, carbon, hydrogen, and more.
And passive time and energy will fill the word of God.
A quantity of passive time was combined with a quantity of joyful energy, and from a certain 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 a new combination of quantities created a physical form of carbon.
And so the passive time and the cheerful energy created many and varied physical forms, and many and surprising types of matter appeared in the geometric space,
These many types of matter were created from passive time and energy existing in infinite space. This is how the geometric space became a physical space, creating stars that stand still and do not move.
And God commanded the stars to move, only in a spiral-shaped orbit, which has 3 figures.
The diameter of the screw track, advance angle, and speed.
And the stars began to move and never stopped moving.
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 orbital shape turned all the stars in the world into one dynamic disc-shaped unit.
And God commanded this discus to move forever in a straight line in infinite space full of passive time and energy,
Within this disk that moves in a straight line, the stars move in helical orbits. This discus, in which all the stars of the world are located, was named... Universe,
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 moving planet, and therefore cannot distinguish absolute speed.
All the stars of the universe are always moving, and Noah's star does not exist.
The number of stars in the universe is finite but not fixed.
The universe moves in an infinite space full of passive time and energy, from which the stars of the universe were created.
During the absolute movement of the universe, stars in the universe also disintegrate, and they give their energy, and their passive time, to the infinite space.
The infinite space full of passive time and energy is the place where stars are formed, and it is also the place where they break up and give away their passive time and their energy.
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 received natural knowledge from the Creator.
With this natural knowledge man invented a language of words,
But man did not know that the language of words is based on actions that lead to natural knowledge.
And since the person did not know the secret of the words, the words brought the Tower of Babel, which confused the person.
The words also brought the active time that exists only in man's imagination, and does not exist in physical space.
The active tense always presents the word trap that confuses man, and reminds him of the Tower of Babel.
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 that is in eternal motion, is trapped in the trap of words, and has never been 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 heaven.
The trap of words always works, and 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 as to whether everything written in this article will be understood and agreed upon.
A. Asbar
Yechiel
"When you don't have an answer, you suddenly propose a new physics. The easiest. But to call it by another name. Like a creator god."
I will spare many words but if you allow me to refer to this point only.
Why is a new physics called a creator? How will that help? What will this help?
According to your logic, why don't we actually call one of or all the fields of classical physics, or the fields of modern physics a creator? After all, once upon a time all these were under the assumption of a new physics, we could just save ourselves all the effort and call it a creator, couldn't we?
God does not exist, please stop arguing.
I have no fear, my friend. If there is a creator, then there is, and if there is not, then there is not. It is not up to us. I was expecting a more objective answer. I just want to learn more and certainly not get into an argument. around us. Because it's terribly interesting. Have a good day, my friend
Yechiel
I didn't think you could answer my question.
You claimed that no one is trying to show whether or not there is a creator, but you are afraid of the meaning of the question.
A point to think about for you…
Dear Nissim. This debate has been going on for thousands of years as to whether or not a creator exists. Neither you nor I are currently able to perform such an experiment. This is not the time. I was talking about the investment that is invested in all research and rightly trying to verify it. Every research whether it is to find dark matter Or a certain theory. Or explain how the hell two particles can be in two places together. The brain is not even capable of curving. Miracles right? It's hard. It's incomprehensible... Ah, but when you don't have an answer you suddenly propose new physics. The easiest. But To call her by another name. Like a creator. You wouldn't dare to say that... So how can I propose an experiment when you who rule don't fund me. You invest everything in trying to prove everything. But when you get to the creator. To God. You always always try to prove that he is not There is.... It's strange to me. Because it's precisely you who understands things in depth that is locked. Locked in denying it. That maybe maybe maybe. There is a creator……. Leave a small crack of faith as if on the side. Because maybe maybe maybe. There is dark matter. And maybe yes it is possible To pass the speed of light. And maybe God does play dice....and by the way you won't believe it and maybe you will laugh but in order to perform an experiment like you suggested to me then you probably have to do the unbelievable and not be alive because that's the only way we'll probably find an answer. And it's like the discussion of how long it will take to arrive To Andromeda. Or to Proxima Centauri... hahahahaha we built it my friend and don't tell anyone... we will never get there anyway and you know it. Even if we fly a million kilometers per second.... then let's focus on getting along together and without quarrels about God and without wisdom... Because we will stay here forever, my friend... someone up there has blocked everything so that we will not reach anything, at any speed. Really gold
Yechiel
Would you be willing to propose an experiment that shows whether God exists or not?
ב
The big bang is a prediction of the theory of relativity. Beyond that, relativity cannot explain what happens at this point.
This point does not produce a preferred axis system. The reason is that all space is contained in this point. It is not a point within the space, but the whole space.
Think that you and I are standing on two planets in space, with the distance between us being billions of light years. We both see the same thing: the expansion of the universe in every direction.
Now - let's reverse the direction of time. We both seem like the universe is contracting, with each of us seeing ourselves as the center of the contraction!
I will see you approaching me, and you will see me approaching you.
So who is really at the center?
To my dear father Blizovsky, you can happily block me. There is no lack of websites to express an opinion. But to threaten to block people because of an opinion. In my opinion, it is not nice. Always when someone talks about God, all the lamps here light up....Dear people. There are many phenomena in the universe that Incomprehensibility. For example, dark matter. But they invest a huge fortune in finding proof of its existence. Even new devices do not succeed....I have not seen anyone invest in proofs of the existence of a creator and call him whatever you want. It really does not matter. There are no answers to many phenomena, therefore, presence cannot be ruled out Creator. You said that something that is not scientifically proven does not exist. Dark matter is also not scientifically proven, so from now on anyone who talks about it or floats on the subject will block him. And by the way, my friend, there are many like me who are astronomy enthusiasts who just want to enjoy here and learn. Good day, dear sir.
Isn't there a contradiction between the theory of relativity and the big bang claim?
Does the existence of a special point in the universe from which everything began not contradict the fact that there is no preference for a certain measurement system over other measurement systems?
By the way, you can call him whatever you want: teapot, teddy bear, I don't care, it doesn't really change the fact that he exists.
I didn't quite understand your contradictions. After all, we know that the universe is not eternal, since it was created since the big bang, it has an age of 13.7 billion years, so how can it be eternal. Another thing, the big bang is an action, not an entity {the fact that it doesn't exist}, it's an action like kicking a ball, if I see a ball in the air it's a sign that someone has performed a certain action on it. Who triggered the action. And since since the big bang, 4 dimensions of energy, matter, time, space have been created. They were created, were not there before. It means that their creator did not jump to them, the only thing I know that is not mixed with mass, space, time, and energy. It's God.
Something that cannot be scientifically proven simply does not exist, the existence of the flying spaghetti monster cannot be proven either. This time I approved the comments for you, but know that such flooding will cost you in the end in your blocking.
The reality of God is not proven through scientific investigations because God is not measurable. He is not subject to any law that he created nor to any theory that he created. The reality of God is proven by the very existence of the universe and the laws of science. That's why articles of this style in which through scientific theory discuss whether God exists have no place. Maybe you would also like to test its reality empirically?
Happily Yuval,
Spencer will be 90 in April 2013
If the theme of the unity of mathematics
And as a result a union of science burns in your bones
Why not take a train from London
And will you drive two hours south like me to meet him?
It will cost less money
Building a particle accelerator 🙂
The price of the book by the way
is 30 pounds
Moses
Thank you Moshe,
I read and was even impressed. I was happy to see that he came to mathematics late, because I am quite old myself.
I am currently studying at one of Scotland's oldest universities. We are almost neighbors.
Hello Yuval,
I'm glad you woke up from the dream
The challenge now is to stay awake and wake others up 🙂
I think it will be a little difficult for you to get your hands on the book
For example, he became known to me by chance
If you need help I will be happy to help
In the meantime, you are welcome to read
About my impression of the meeting with Spencer
on the attached website dedicated to the book
http://www.lawsofform.org
Best regards
Moses
Thank you Moshe,
I will try to get my hands on the book before I can seriously comment.
If we think the same, then he was 14 years ahead of me. In 1983, being a philosophy student, I was looking for a simple solution to the question of "the source of the sources", what in pre-Socratic philosophy is called "archae", and the solution landed on me in a dream in the middle of the night. A loud party was held at the neighbor's house, which caused me to wake up. If it weren't for that party, the dream would have been forgotten...
Hello Yuval,
The simple and important thing you are looking for, from which mathematics and physics derives, was already discovered by the English mathematician George Spencer Brown and published in his book Laws of Form. The basic idea of his theory is called differentiation. It is essentially the simple act of distinguishing a single entity in the world and separating it from the rest. He built a whole and very rich world around the seemingly trivial action. You should read the book. I met him in England about a month ago. You will find more details on Gan Adam's website
Moses
ravine,
I very much hope that my opposite series of articles will be published on Lama-Net soon.
To Roy Cezana:
The articles published these days in YNET by Dr. Michael Avraham are simply outrageous, and even more outrageous than that is the stage the Lord is given.
I believe that it is appropriate to give an appropriate response on this website and if possible also on the YNET website.
Golan,
Do you think every belief (or belief system) that exists around you is equal?
If not, how do you estimate its weight? And does this appreciation of the variety of beliefs have any practical meaning in your life? (In other words, is the open discussion of the various beliefs just an intellectual game for you or does it have a real impact in your life due to changes in your set of beliefs, the derivatives of which have an impact on the course of your thoughts and actions?)
Ok Golan. I got
I have already made the distinction between creator of the world and buyer of the world. One is real and the other is a figment of imagination. The monotheists combine the two and I find no connection. I don't think further expansion is necessary
jubilee
"Why would a person who works completely from the head be happy to give respectable weight to assumptions that, from a logical point of view, the probability that they are true tends to zero?"
I answered this question above
For this question:
"Does an agnostic (in this case, you) give great weight to ideas despite—or because—he knows they're questionable?"
This question is not about whether you are agnostic or not…… but about who you are as a person.
"Despite" "or because" it really doesn't matter, simply this idea surrounds me as an Israeli Slash Jew.
If I haven't answered yet, rephrase your question
You managed to interest me with your approach, please make a distinction between the creator of the world in your view and the buyer of the world in your view.
Golan
the knowledge system
Please accept my sincere apologies
Thanks Golan,
When a stranger asks me if I believe in God (now I said a word that automatically puts my response on the waiting list) I answer "Give me a definition of God and I'll tell you if I believe in it". There are those who are offended just by the fact that I call him "it".
When the questioner is close, I don't go round and round but answer immediately "No".
I define myself as a nihilist. Currently, you will not find this term in any dictionary. This means, in short, that the world was created out of nothing without intelligent intervention of any kind. I don't like to pretend to be an atheist, because then I block myself from discussing the question of the creation of the world. I try to make it clear to those who are willing to listen to me that the creator of the world is a real being but primitive in the purpose of primitiveness, while the buyer of the world is a highly sophisticated creation of imagination that is perfected from generation to generation and from moment to moment. I don't believe in the buyer of the world and I don't find any emotional or intellectual need to worship the creator of the world. If you ask me how it happened that so many people in the world believe and even worship the same creation of imagination, I answer using Darwinist tools and fail to convince. On the other hand, since the existing religions contain good moral laws, I feel quite safe in the company of religious people.
I'm not sure you answered the "conflicting" question, but please don't feel obligated.
Yuval is the opposite, I am open to any discussion as long as it is not violent 🙂
The reason at all that I think about the Jewish religion "and give it a respectable weight..." is because it is around and I talk to all people including ultra-Orthodox, religious nationals, traditionalists, secularists and atheists at eye level, and I find it beautiful that each person interprets the world in a different way, and very I am intrigued by how they use the trust function.
Just out of curiosity, how do you define your worldview?
Golan,
Thank you for investing your time.
With your permission, I won't write as much as you and I'll just ask a question that will look like I'm bashing you:
You said "I am a person who works completely from the head" and you also said "from a logical point of view the probability [that everything written in your book is true word for word] is very low, even aiming for zero, but it is still possible that everything they say is true, and no scientific tool can rule it out to zero, and I I would love to argue about it."
And I ask: why would a person who works completely from the head be happy to give respectable weight to assumptions that, from a logical point of view, the probability that they are true tends to zero?
It's true that it looks like I'm taking you at your word just to bash you. But I'm still interested in the definition of the term "agnostic". Does an agnostic (in this case, you) give great weight to ideas despite – or because – he knows they're questionable?
jubilee
I would be happy to elaborate,
The main motif in my thought essence is "non-negativeness", that is, I do not rule out the Jewish religion or the Indian religion or the early Germanic religion or the Shitano religion which is great for all Rabdihin.
Of course there is the test of plausibility, i.e. what is the probability that everything written in your book word for word is true?? Logically the probability is very low even aiming for zero, but it is still possible that everything they say is true and no scientific tool can rule it out to zero, and I would love to argue about it.
In terms of belief, I think this is a function that exists in every person, my use of it also strives for zero. I am a person who works completely from the head.
I believe that an atheist uses this function like a religious person, he simply believes that there is no god and that for me is not a religion at all, in the plausibility test I divide the atheists into these two groups who do not believe in anything beyond physics, and those who say there is something but he is not one of the gods of Religion is something else.
And each of the atheist theories has a probability of less than twenty percent for me.
I'm not fooling them either.
And there are a few more ideas floating around in my head, each with its own plausibility of why the hell this space will exist.
The question I start with and the one that bothers me the most is what (if anything) creates the infinite space within which our universe exists?!? And what brings me back, for example, to swallowing the alligators I mentioned above.
To my dismay, any answer is extra-systemic and has already crossed the border into the realm of the philosophy of existence beyond our existence, I hope that after death there is a continuation and maybe we will get answers.
Michael
I will try to be more clear in the future...
Dear Golan,
I'm sorry for the hard feelings that arose in your heart following things I wrote.
I too got burned here by harsh reactions when I used the controversial word and internalized the lesson.
In one of your responses you testified that you are agnostic. I know several definitions for this term. Are you ready to expand? The reason for my request is that I don't want to tell you to bring things that will hurt you.
six
Golan:
Already from your first response I understood that this is the type of "God" you are referring to and I made it clear that in my opinion the use of the word "God" to indicate this thing is misleading and harmful.
Words are meant to convey our thoughts to others and therefore their quality is measured by their ability to do so reliably.
If you choose to use the word "God" to describe the unknown part of nature and if you also add that you should actually strive to reduce it, you are simply causing the innocent among your readers to not understand your intent and the evil ones to take your words out of context in order to use them for their needs contrary to your intent.
Jubilee!
You make me feel that the very fact that I quoted something from the Bible I hurt you! The Tanach is a wonderful book if you are not afraid to read it, even if it was written by certain people, I am really not an "innocent soul" and all the people who tried to convert me never succeeded. I'm simply settled in my mind enough to bring a quote that I saw relevant from the book and it is relevant in relation to what is being talked about in this article.
Yuval I repeat that I have a great affinity for my roots, the Hathan is intriguing as a book and it has a lot of things beyond religion.
By the way, many of their "sinister stories" have non-biblical sources that confirm them...
You went too far with the term "soul hunters"...
Even if the text is not reliable, someone wrote it, and that someone on a conceptual level expressed the argument I mentioned, so if it was Aaron in Pharaoh's house or some disturbed priest 600 BC who snapped a finger, it does not detract from the idea.
Michael
I think the unknown god is meant to be known by scientific research !!
There is no other way than science to explore the physical world…. The rest can be left to the philosophers...
Golan!
For some of the commenters here - and I am among them - this text is suspected to be a fabric story that was sucked from beginning to end by the fingers of priests who sought to hunt innocent souls like you for their religion through their perverted stories.
You, on the other hand, treat this text as reliable, pore over it and tinker with it to extract from it hints and hints of hints which in the end, directly or indirectly, strengthen the hands of those who wrote it. If you're not trying to work for the soul hunters, I'm not sure what exactly you're asking for.
I said why it suppresses thought.
It is not customary to look for answers to a question that you know the answer to, and if the accepted answer to a certain question is "God", then those who believe in this do not look for another answer.
If you want them to keep looking - it's better to say they don't know the answer instead of saying it's God or the Spaghetti Monster or a shoebox.
Besides - there is no reason to use the word God because anyone who tries to preach religion will take things out of context to sell their lies. Do you know how many stupid and unnecessary debates the sentence that Einstein randomly said ("God doesn't play dice") created?
Do you know how many times the pantheists quoted him to prove that Einstein believed in God (and in the hope that people wouldn't understand that he was talking about something completely different from what they call God)?
Michael
The God in the Torah is a God with many characters and figures. speaks and expresses his will through various prophets. Works miracles and magic. I'm not talking about this god.
God, like all gods, is an idea invented by people who did not understand how nature works, people observed phenomena in nature such as the sunrise and assumed that there is someone who raises it to the center of the sky, the Canaanites called this god Shahar for example.
In any case, what the debate in Pharaoh's court came to say is this: unite all your lack of understanding under one roof into one that contains all your lack of knowledge, which also includes the god of the sun, the moon, fertility, the sea and war, and surely other such and such gods.
I'm talking about the pristine monotheistic concept.
And the reason I even wrote what I wrote is the question above in one of the comments, "On what basis does the first turtle stand", reminded me of this discussion that took place in ancient Egypt more than three thousand years before me.
Regarding your response: "The God of the Gaps" mentions the pristine monotheistic concept.
But my question is why do you think this concept suppresses scientific research?
Golan:
The god you describe is called God of the gaps.
It is the kind of God that we are careful not to define and every time science discovers something that was attributed to him in the past it simply frees itself to deal with more important things.
This is a nonsensical and pointless definition and certainly not such a god was the Torah referring to when it recounted exactly the exploits of the fabricated god in it.
The only thing such a "god" can achieve is to suppress research because if a certain problem is within God's area of responsibility - scientists have no reason to address it.
Speaking of the experience of connecting religion and science 🙂
I will testify about myself first of all that I am not an atheist and I do not believe in any religion, I am an agnostic but nevertheless I have a great affinity for the Bible.
But for a book that was written more than two thousand years before me, the creation story in Genesis XNUMX is beautiful and magical.
And assuming you have faith (for example I don't) he can reconcile with science in a beautiful way. I did not come to talk about the story of creation, these three verses that, in my view, describe a charged philosophical discussion in the ancient Middle East in the book of Exodus, chapter XNUMX, from verses XNUMX to XNUMX.
And Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, and they did so, as Jehovah had commanded; And Aaron threw down his staff, in front of Pharaoh and in front of his servants - and it became a crocodile. XNUMX And Pharaoh also called for wise men and sorcerers; And they also made the proboscis of Egypt, by tilting them. XNUMX And they threw a man down, and they became their crocodiles; And he swallowed Aaron's staff, their staff.
And let me give you my interpretation of the discussion:
In the world of the pagan Ancient Near East, the term "crocodile" was a synonym for the various gods and a plurality of gods was the dominant idea, when Aaron throws his staff it is an analogy for talking about the only god, Pharaoh is not at all moved by him as he says to him "what are you here to teach me about gods" I have two hundred gods 🙂 Summons the wise men and sorcerers and they talk about their gods.
At the end of the discussion, we come to the conclusion that the one god swallows and "contains" the multitude of gods as if he created them.
The God of Aaron and Moses and perhaps it is better to describe Tanin Aharon more as an idea than a god, he is the abstract God without any form and face, it is impossible to really grasp him in the mind and in my opinion Tanin Aharon is the conceptual basis for all scientific research.
That is, the abstract God or in other words the "unknown" is actually what scientific research comes to discover, as science progresses and makes discoveries, the territory of the "unknown" God will get smaller and smaller, but in my humble opinion even when science reaches the full extent of its ability to discover it will still be God. The unknown" will remain standing.
Golan
Ghosts:
Perhaps the simplest way to explain it is that the minus of a number X is a number Y such that if you add X to Y you get zero.
You have to add X to minus X to get zero, so the minus of minus X is X
Machel
I apologize in advance for the question that is asked in the fourth grade 🙂
Why is minus times minus equal to plus?
Thanks.
expansion:
After all, it is clear that a logical operator is not a hard rule - isn't it?
Does it even need to be explained?
jubilee:
This is not an example of what I asked.
It is a logical operator that is defined using the existing logic.
It's not relevant at all.
Thanks Guy
After all, this is some progress. Not sure that NAND is the basic building block I'm aiming for, but this is exactly a nice example of what Michael asked
jubilee:
I don't know if that's what you meant, but there is a Boolean operator called NAND (in Hebrew - not and also) from which only any Boolean function can be represented.
In the practical aspect, Prof. Noam Nissan took this motif and built a course whose motif is creating a complete computer from NAND gates as the building blocks
thanks Michael
I learned a lot
In this I see the discussion as closed for me
A final greeting to Camila
jubilee:
Here you demonstrated exactly (with the algebra example) the confusion I was talking about - between logic and mathematical structures.
Mathematics studies just about every mathematical structure you can ever think of and they are all nothing but models.
The correctness of the claims in them derives only from the existence of the definitions at their base - definitions that do not have to be realized somewhere in reality.
I ask again - how do you expect logic to "stem" from something without logical difficulties?
Are you looking for a single logical law from which the other logical laws will flow?
There is such a law!
If the laws are A, B, and C, then the only law "A and B and C" is a single law from which they all derive.
Do you want the law to be simple?
So you want!
You are welcome to search and not come to others with claims before you find.
Yes, Michael
The logic is there. There is no dispute about that.
But the logic we use on a daily basis is not a single thing, it is a collection of difficult ones. I am looking for a single simple sentence from which all these difficulties arise.
I have an example precisely from algebra: for example, we define the simple operation of connection (binding, exchange, division, grouping, etc.). Among other things, we require that every number has an opposite number (and also define it so that their sum is the neutral term) and through this we define the subtraction operation. Now, if instead of living in the world of addition we migrate to the world of subtraction, it seems that we can live in exactly the same degree of well-being but use a smaller number of definitions.
By the way, Yuval, try for a moment to pour content into the term "something simple from which all mathematics derives".
How is it supposed to arise?
By the logical difficulties?
If so - you must assume that the logic exists by itself and in this case you do not need anything else because the rest of the mathematics already follows from the logic.
jubilee:
This is not a dogmatic claim but exactly the opposite: an original claim of mine that I have never heard from anyone because there was no one who noticed this inherent flaw in the considerations of people who try to talk about "before there was logic" using nothing else than logic itself.
I clarified that our knowledge comes from our sensory experiences and logical inferences arising from them and I called (and I repeat and call) anyone who finds another way to reach the knowledge to publish it publicly.
You haven't found another way and you complain that others don't use a way that no one has found (and that I don't think they will find either because there isn't one).
Michael!
This is exactly an exemplary claim of the type I am talking about:
"There is no way to reach solutions if you don't assume the validity of logic while discussing".
The logic we know, and mathematics in general, is a collection of theorems that are necessary for certain fields. If we assume that they are all pre-existing and valid, we are guilty of the exact same sin of making too many assumptions.
I'm looking for something simple from which all mathematics derives (and as mentioned, physics derives from mathematics or both derive from the same place).
And of course, as mentioned - there is no way to reach solutions if the validity of the logic is not assumed at the time of discussion.
jubilee:
The questions are indeed fascinating and everyone asks them.
I only pointed out the difference between seriously dealing with the questions and getting carried away after a self-interested propaganda project.
There is no way to reach correct solutions without knowing how to distinguish between things.
Michael Camila
We are wading in the waters of Ephesus.
You know very well how to argue.
But I didn't come here to argue at all. little
The question is very simple: are we curious to know the source of the "yes" or does it not interest us at all?
And if so, are we ready to be satisfied with an example answer of the type "God created the world" or "There has always been", or are we looking for a simple creation mechanism of "there is" out of "nothing".
I thought this could provide material for a fascinating discussion, but for now I seem to be the only one fascinated.
Since I do not depart from the above exemplary assumption points but look for my own original examples, I proposed to look for a mechanism that is "nothing" and precisely thanks to this feature it produces "yes" from itself.
"Nothing", "empty", "nothing", "nothing", "gornish", "zero" and more are names with negative connotations. That's why I called it "the negation". The "negation" is not something passive but active. She rejects everything that comes in contact with her, including herself. When the negation negates itself it creates a positive. I brought as a parable two languages, the language of "no" and the language of "yes", and I showed that the "yes" was created from the "no" and not the other way around.
Intuitively, it seems to me that there is something to explore here. If you don't share my feeling, let's part as friends.
On the other hand, if you have another idea, which is not tainted by religious idealism or something similar to it, and you would like to discuss it here, I would be happy to share it with you.
jubilee,
What I find problematic about your ideas (and I think it's also something MR thinks is problematic) is that, contrary to the expansion they made for Newtonian physics, the logical/mathematical infrastructure (as well as the infrastructure of the scientific method) was the same infrastructure. When you propose what you propose, as one fundamental proposition from which all those (independent) propositions derive, I have a feeling that in doing so you will be obliged to allow a great deal of nonsense to enter, so much that it will be just as bad as religion in this respect, which can be said about Anything you want to be true or true, even a word and its opposite. You may also be willing to give up what is real and what is true (as far as we know, we will never reach objective certainty) but I assume you are clear where the willingness to give that up leads. In general, I do think that the philosophical discussion is also appropriate here, I think that there are quite a few people here who can think and give good arguments for and against also on a theoretical and philosophical level.
jubilee:
There is a huge difference between the claim that space (which we see every day) has always existed and the claim that God (whom we have never seen) has always existed and created space.
The question "Who created God" is just another question among the multitude of questions raised by the invention of God and this question is presented as a defiance only because of the fact that the fabricators of God try to present it as a solution to the problem of the beginning when it really does not solve anything but only moves the question (which it supposedly solves and perhaps does not exist at all Le foundation) to another place.
Now you come and make the creator!
All the blurring of differences planted (as it turns out, with great success) by the religious is only intended to sow sand in the eyes of the public.
In fact - if the big bang theory had not been created, no one would have imagined that space or time had never existed and in fact no one accepts this claim for granted.
In a meeting I had about 25 years ago with Yakir Aharonov, I asked him the question you raise, but with a different connotation.
I asked him, "If you claim that the Big Bang is a product of quantum fluctuation, when fluctuation is a change on the timeline, how can you claim that time was created in the Big Bang?"
His answer confirmed what I thought when I asked the question. He said that according to his perception, time really existed before but we have no access to what happened before.
Meanwhile, Hawking added to the picture the possibility that the geometry of the universe is such that the question of what was before time began has the same meaning as the question of what is north of the North Pole.
These two explanations are infinitely more understandable and intuitive than mixing God into the image and it is clear that this mixing is not done to explain reality and its entire function is to justify the religious laws.
You described mathematics and logic as far from reality as the distance between east and west.
In these areas, everything is connected with everything!
There are no isolated islands of the kind you describe.
You may be confusing the fact that there are different models that mathematics investigates with the claim you made, but all models are investigated according to the same logic and they only differ in basic assumptions about the structure of the model - assumptions that are not assumptions about mathematics but rather potential and non-binding assumptions about what may be revealed in the world and that mathematics investigates the implied of them.
I say again - and this is a completely technical matter that you cannot avoid:
You cannot draw any logical conclusion about a time when logic was not valid.
I don't understand what in the spirit of the Tesseract words you liked when it is clear that the words did not come from a source of curiosity and honest wonder but with the intention of fraud, but that is already a matter of taste and smell.
And another clarification
I enjoyed the title "Be busy with science reporting, not philosophy on a dime" which on the face of it seemed to attack me precisely, because the attempt to introduce a philosophical discussion here is my own.
After also reading the response, I found myself enjoying the spirit of things even though I completely disagree with most of the claims. There is much to argue about claims and facts, but I prefer to leave this task to Michael and Kamila who are more successful in arguments than I am.
Michael
The response you brought me back to I have already read and internalized and even replied to you about it. In any case, here is my response to your words again in short:
You wrote "Regarding the formation of nothing - it happens all the time. The vacuum is swarming with particles that are constantly forming and combining....” And I have already answered this, and now I will add: the vacuum you are talking about, like the particles that are constantly being created and combined in it, are physical entities that have been confirmed and quantified by observations and measurements and they are not the "nothing" that I am talking about.
In general, there is no difference between the claim "God created the world" and the claim "the universe has always been". This is just a diversion of the problem, because as much as we ask/defy, and rightly so, "who created God" we can ask who created the eternal being. My problem with those who make this claim is that instead of looking for a simple answer, they succumb to religious defeatism and look for the coin under the lamp.
Math/Logic: We have a closed list of elementary sentences, which are independent of each other, suitable for our daily life. I am looking for one basic sentence from which all those sentences derive. My assumption is that because all these fundamental theorems fit the world of "there is", I must look for my fundamental theorem in the world of "nothing". I proposed to see the world of "nothing" as an extension of the world of "being" (or the world of "being" as a special case of the world of "nothing") similar to the extension of scientific models and brought as an analogy the extension of Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics. In other words, I'm trying to check if the real world is the world of "nothing" and not the world of "being" and that only out of convenience and laziness of thought we prefer to relate precisely to the world of "being" and miss some things.
You made the connection between my nonsense and Tesseract's. I hope I still have the strength to create independent nonsense.
The field of this discussion is physics and the place where it is is obviously a seat of philosophers. I don't think that "Hidan" is the right stage. In any case, I didn't find much enthusiasm on the subject here either and I'm not sure that it would be particularly wise of me to spoil words for virgin ears.
R. H. (August 5, 2011 at 0:09 am)
I missed this comment earlier.
The thickness of the balloon sheet as representing the energy density at any point in the universe is a good analogy because at any moment the total integral is constant (according to the law of conservation of energy). When a new space is created it comes at the expense of more energetically dense areas. Assume that space is formed as a regular part of the nuclear processes in active stars. This will be expressed in a balloon envelope where there is a thick area (the star area) which is getting thinner (in the solar wind area) and thinner (in the interstellar space) and thinner (in the intergalactic space). All additions of a "spatial" balloon sheet come at the expense of a corresponding loss of mass or radiation (or any other state of "dense" energy). In the balloon analogy, the dots represent the stars that have a much higher energy density than that which exists in empty space.
It is possible to measure the rate of creation of the void by knowing the rate of expansion of the universe. If indeed the stars (or perhaps the centers of the galaxies) are the centers of space production, then it is also possible to estimate the average space production rate per galaxy. As I wrote before, it is unlikely that you will notice objects moving away following the formation of space and I explained this using the analogy of the melting ice cube and the beads. Since I have no idea what the mechanism that actually produces space is, I don't know if it is something that can be obtained in an accelerator as you suggested. The reason I believe that such a mechanism exists is that I don't like free meals and in the big bang model we clearly have something of physical reality (space) added to us without anyone paying a price and this is very inelegant in my eyes.
jubilee:
The linked article - see it's a miracle - describes in detail what I was talking about in this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/between-god-and-science-2807117/#comment-300390
I wrote "Regarding the formation of nothing - it happens all the time.
The vacuum is swarming with particles that are constantly being formed and ionized....”
I knew it was one of the accepted explanations (not the only one) for the origin of the universe.
I don't know how you relate it to your stuff.
In one of your comments you wrote "While I am looking for a very simple point that not only does not have physics, but even mathematics does not exist in it. "
It also links to the nonsense Tesseract wrote.
Although I explained to him the things in relation to God (and he refused to understand), but the consideration is true for any field:
You will never be able to infer anything about a period before mathematics. forever!
Why?
Because our only way to draw conclusions from the facts revealed to us through the senses is through logic.
The logic allows you to draw conclusions only about periods in which the logic was valid because before the logic was valid, the conclusions obtained through it were also not valid.
This is also why the Tesseract nonsense is not only baseless nonsense but logic-defying nonsense.
Refai.M
I am not the appropriate address for questions in the field of physics, there are others here who are much more suitable for this than me. In my humble amateur opinion, the void itself is an equivalent of energy. It is not just an "envelope" for what is happening inside it, but it is really equal (and this is expressed in a mathematical formula just as there are similar formulas regarding the equivalence of energy and mass as well as energy and photons). It seems to me that from the theory of general relativity it follows that the same energy content of the void actually expresses the curvature of space, when in areas where there is also mass the curvature of space increases, which ultimately creates an effect identical to gravity. In the model I proposed the whole universe is one energy field where the energy density at each and every point changes and is the lowest for the void. In such a model it is possible to explain various phenomena such as gravitational lensing because a light beam is expected to bend due to the passage through areas of varying density just as happens in normal optics (where the light beam passes through a medium with a different refractive index).
It sounds like you are talking about the "coordinates" within which all other things exist, when the coordinates were always there (or at least before the big bang) and thus the universe expands within that medium. So no, this is not the prevailing conception in cosmology, the meaning is that the coordinates themselves are created during the expansion of the universe when there is no outer shell and no additional dimension as exists in the inflating balloon analogy. Our imagination is quite limited so it is difficult for you to visualize it for yourself but when you look at the mathematical expression then there is no problem. It is difficult for us as humans to imagine the face of a balloon (which is a two-dimensional creature) without also imagining its existence in a three-dimensional world, but for a mathematical description of the balloon envelope there is no obligation to describe it as we imagine it. I will try to give a simpler example. The circle can be defined as the collection of points whose distance (the radius) from a certain point (the center of the circle) is constant. It is not important at the moment if it is a collection of points on a plane (then you can draw it as a circle) or in a three-dimensional space (then you can draw it as a sphere shell) or even an N-dimensional space for which there is no adequate graphical representation for us. In each of these cases, the mathematical description of the circuit itself (and not of the graphic representation that we are trying to imagine!) is a completely complete description. I'm not sure I helped you understand that.
Regarding the similarity you find between the structure of the atom and the structure of the universe, it does sound creative to me, but I do not find any meaning in it. Honestly, I don't know how to relate to this and the analogy seems very vague to me. If there is anything in what you suggest I would expect to find fractal patterns in the structure of the universe, do the physicists here have anything to say on the matter or does this whole direction sound completely nonsense to you?
withering
Hello, I wrote a response to RA on August 4, 2011 at 22:33 p.m. and I did not receive a response, but I would appreciate it if you would consider that or this response of mine (the same idea only in a different wording).
In addition, the link to the clip (brought here by one of the commenters who probably suffers from no simple problems at all 🙂 🙁 )
which explains - in a popular scientific way - about the universe with a little help from the quantum mechanics.
In the clip it is explained that even in a vacuum there is a tiny amount of energy, and precisely because of it there is the ability for energy to become mass within the void (ie the envelope of that tiny amount of energy is the void itself).
This is also what Michael Rothschild explained.
What I don't understand is: if the void itself - there is energy in it, how is it empty?
What I assume is that this vacuum (in which there is a small amount of energy) is inside the real void - one that does not constitute anything at all that can be defined in a mathematical or physical way, but contains within it something that can be explained as: 'a void with a tiny amount of energy' or something similarly
The -real void- think of it as if it were 'the shell of the void within which exists a tiny energy'.
If you look at the 'big picture' of the universe, you can see that the universe is mostly composed (96 percent say so)
of dark energy and dark matter, and only about 4 percent is baryonic matter. Compared to the size of the space of the universe - even if the material scattered in it is uniform - the material itself compared to all the energy that exists in the universe indicates that the universe is mostly an energetic and non-material area. If you 'look' at the atom you will be able to recognize a similar pattern, the atom is mostly energetic (most of the atom appears in scientific instruments as an electric field) and only a tiny part of it is the substance itself (the nucleus or nuclear in the case of the atom).
If we make an assumption that the atom is found as something that 'behaves' within some kind of 'pattern' (like in Bushka) - and the universe is similar in these properties to the atom, then why wouldn't the universe also 'behave' like that?
In this case you can say something like: the quarks are unfreak, so the universe is not a freak like the quarks.
But even these particles are composed of something more basic that we do not know. This means that the universe can also be inside some envelope that cannot be explained by any word (no word exists to explain this envelope).
As soon as we define the void as a void in which there exists a void with a tiny amount of energy - it will become the definition of itself, that is, it will become itself a void in which there is a tiny amount of energy. 🙂
That is, the envelope itself - of the 'vacuum with energy' - cannot be explained in any way. It - the envelope - cancels itself as soon as you consider it. But the very existence of the shell allows easier access to solutions that can be brought in connection with the definition of the universe itself.
If you understood the idea - what do you think about such a shell, can it exist or not? (I would be happy if you point out logical failures if they exist 🙂 )
Be concerned with science reporting, not with philosophy in the dime (August 4, 2011 at 13:37)
The wise saying that fits here is: the wrongdoer is wrong.
You wrote: "You have done quite a bit of hiding information here - inserting information to present the theory in a way that fits your point. Also, you presented such an argument only in such a way that it would fit your point."
I don't know who you are, and what this stupid generalization is that you made and why you attacked all the commenters here who did not refer to a cyclical universe model of the type you were talking about. It is also not clear how you know that such a model is not possible (did God reveal himself to you and tell you?). There is a very simple way to "prove" to physicists that such a model cannot exist and that is to publish proof of this in a respected scientific journal, when you do this I can take you seriously. As long as you didn't do it, it would be good if you provided a reference to an article that does. If there is no such article, then everything you have done up to this point is like your name - philosophy in a dime, and therefore the saying fits you: Hafosel, in Momo Fosel, and this is a pretty poor start. Later it gets worse (and more stupid)..
You wrote: "In a thought experiment it is very easy to base yourself on the big bang and show that it leads to a really non-atheistic conclusion"
So easy that no one has yet been able to do it in physics, including religious scientists who would be happy to prove it. interesting. Maybe you really are such a lifter and can prove it and only we (and the scientists who deal with these fields) are incompetent fools. Will you be up to the challenge and publish this easy proof in a real scientific journal? Do this and there will be something to talk about, until then, as you say, everything you do is philosophy in a dime (even though I actually agree with M.R. that there is not even one dime in it). So let's see what you wrote:
You wrote: "1. The universe began. what was before We don't know... but we can roughly generalize what was not. Could it be that there was nothing before (consult the dictionary, instead of resorting to stupid answers like we don't know what nothing is)? The answer to any honest person (not appealing to emotion, emphasizing a fact) who is familiar with the concept behind the word, will be, of course not."
It's an amusing demagogic attempt to present the answer you are uncomfortable with as clearly irrelevant. The truth is that you should have been content with not knowing... for the simple reason that we really don't know what happened before. Since we have no ability to attach any attribute to what was before already shows that the possibility that there was nothing there (no matter how illogical it sounds to us) is valid. It is true that there are religious people whose lack of knowledge instinctively prompts them to pull out filler material, usually of a very specific type. It really doesn't impress me. Your argument and the "conclusion" that follows from it fall already here, but we will continue.
You wrote: "2. Something that has always existed, did not start, and hence there is no reason for it to stop, if nothing created it (there is no need for our thought experiment on primary causes) there is no reason for anything to stop it. (Any attempt to turn this into some chain of events, and not as something that has always been, is the introduction of a new assumption, which has no basis, into the argument, it was not committed in any way by any of the points, and there is no reason to force it into the equation in a convincing and logical way... Therefore, there is no need here for "turtle on turtle" X infinity.)"
Error. Whether something that always exists is discrete or continuous, there is no reason to prefer one over the other. A simple analogy for this could be, for example, a continuous straight line versus a dashed line. The first takes place continuously while the second is a qualitatively alternating series of events. Both options are equal in terms of being an infinite thing that has no beginning and no end. Regarding the correct description of the universe, there is certainly no reason to prefer in advance an infinite continuous existence over an infinite non-continuous existence, but in light of the Big Bang model an infinite non-continuous existence is indeed the preferred option because we already see that at least two qualitatively different situations exist. In one, where we are today, there is an existence that includes the laws of physics, and various objects, while in the state that preceded the current universe there is something that we do not know how to say anything about except the fact that it is fundamentally different from what we know in our universe for all the years of its existence. To assume that existence was infinite and continuous, we need to add assumptions that explain why it seems to us that existence is not of this type.
You wrote: "3. Something that has always been cannot be limited in any way, because this something has always been, there is no necessity or necessity that something else was with it, since it is committed, as an alternative to nothing, but something else that has always been, is not implied at any point in the argument, since where did he come from After all, there was nothing anymore, the alternative was there, there is no need for another thing that was always there, and it is impossible to introduce such into the argument in a convincing or logical way."
Error. Something that has always existed does not entail the property that that something is not limited. With the same degree of (wrong) logic, I can claim that something that has always existed is necessarily limited in all its properties except for its duration. Prove no.
You wrote: "4. A thing that is not limited by anything, is de facto omnipotent. Because if there is nothing to limit it (there was nothing but it, "always"), it is de facto above all limits and laws, space, time, etc. "
This is the most interesting point in everything you wrote. Since the same thing you are talking about is necessarily (necessarily!) not limited then it can be anything, including a thing and its opposite, and also including not existing at all. If you don't allow him to become nothing, then you are attributing to him a disability that there is no justified reason for attributing to him. If, in addition, you treat the same thing with awareness as you must do if in the end you want to talk about God in the sense of religion, then there is no problem that the same thing chooses not to use whatever it is possible for it to be (like for example a word and its opposite, or like creating humans and choosing a people for example) but it is clear that there is no stopping him from being the devil incarnate, or that at some point he will turn into a dwarf carrot. What emerges from this section alone is that in fact you (or any religious person who already believes in the same thing) have no possibility, and certainly no justification, to limit the same thing and attribute to it qualities such as being good and benevolent, telling the truth, preferring Jews/Christians/Muslims/Bahá'ís, etc. . It could just as well be anything else.
You wrote: "Therefore, there is no problem in saying that he was "always", for the purpose of the thought experiment, because even though this is the only way we can discuss the subject, it requires only our mind, not him, just as a fourth dimension, if it exists, does not have to be represented Through a third dimension in a world of two dimensions, this is simply the only way we can wonder about its existence, by referring to only two dimensions, and a third dimension, as one we know and can try to understand how it is expressed in a world whose imaginary inhabitants only know two dimensions, as an example of a fourth dimension , in our world, where there are only three dimensions that we know, etc., many examples can be given)"
What on earth are you talking about here?
If so, by basing ourselves on one fact for which we have evidence, the big bang since its expansion, which also served as a chronological anchor, we reached, by asking simple questions, the following wrong conclusions: nothing could have existed before, so as an alternative we have: "something ", which has always been, will always be (infinite). Unique of its kind [ [meaning you also limit him in his ability to reproduce? Interesting, after all, he is not limited and is omnipotent...]], unlimited, and omnipotent."
And now comes the most impressive part:
You wrote: "Now, it is clear that this would not oblige an atheist who receives the results of the experiment to go offer incense. But unlike Japanese Nordics, etc... for Judaism the results are quite interesting, since this is exactly [[exactly!]] their definition of the God of Israel."
Amazing ! ! !
What is the definition agreed upon by all Jews of what the God of Israel is? And let's assume there is one definition agreed upon by everyone on this issue, who authorized those Jews to define (and thus also limit) the same thing? Wait a minute, let me guess… it was God himself? Or is it just the Jewish mind that invents patents for us?
So after you made eights in the air, while presenting a logic that we will not know of troubles with the seasoning of cheap demagoguery in the style of: we have two options but every moron must come to the conclusion that there is actually only one option. Why? digestion.
And another demonstration of your wonderful ability to draw conclusions was given in your response from August 4, 2011 at 23:30 where you managed to get to the stupid idea that I'm in it for women (?) and I especially liked your statement in the same response "that tolerance is not your strong point" after you chose a nickname as you chose and after You attacked all of the commenters and also tried to slander atheists (the one who rejects a momo rejects, did we already say?)
Regarding the other "pearls" you presented in your other comments, I think I will give up at this point to do a little more important things and let the other readers decide for themselves. It seems to me, Yuval, that you managed to confuse a little, but I believe that the other readers will be able to see (most of them certainly without having to be convinced by me) what is the level of your arguments and your ability to draw conclusions. The truth is that your original response already brought me to the state of Argumentum ad nauseam
Because I've already gotten tired of dealing with nonsense arguments of this kind.
Of course, the challenge of publishing your easy "proof" in a scientific journal is always open to you, I'm sure that this way you will achieve a much more serious impact than just a comment on the science website. Good luck!
homoceradidosaminos
Assuming that the nickname you chose reflects a true description, I'm guessing that you're in a difficult predicament and I'd be happy to help you out of it, if I can.
The clip you referred us to "triggered my fuse" because the speaker sounded exactly like me for a moment. Well, I went to the article it links to (you may need to register to read it)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128221.100-existence-why-is-there-a-universe.html
And I saw, to my joy, that I am aiming for great knowledge. Although they have not yet come up with my solution, which, as mentioned, is very simple, and are still entangled in the definitions from the field of "there is", it is likely that they will soon reach it in light of the fact that there is unanimity among us in the understanding that "there is" is a form of "nothing".
And for that I give you my sincere thanks
Homochoridosaminos:
I'm sorry to add something after finishing but I have to correct another mistake I made.
The troll told me that I misunderstood the identification of the email he wrote (I didn't notice the letter H that appeared in it) and that the correct interpretation of the email is "Trash is the law".
Of course he wrote it in a much less nice way but the true content of his words is this.
A sympathetic ending to this long thread?
New clip from New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/07/how-the-universe-appeared-from-nothing.html
correction:
In some comments the troll actually left an email that I didn't believe was really his email address.
In retrospect, after I "got" to know him better, I think that maybe this is his address after all.
I will not mention here the address he gave in order not to reveal details whose ethics he did not approve of their publication, but the address he provided is a sentence that means "the judicial system is garbage"
Michael 🙂
I enjoyed seeing that the system is well prepared for dealing with pests. Obviously, there is no need to reply in a private email if the hostile party can see a comment (highlighted is good, but preferably also in a prominent color) in the body of his response that is blocked from other readers and visible only to his eyes.
My father gave a definition, several comments ago, and I believe that it is possible to establish some kind of standard wording to which those who need such a reference can be referred.
Thanks
In this case - email correspondence was not relevant because he did not leave an email address.
It was also clear, from his form of address, that he could not be educated.
jubilee:
I actually suggested that my father consider keeping his comment blocked.
In the end we decided to release it to point out its failings.
As you can see - nothing helps.
The wonders of the system 🙂
If he is the one who starts the violence, then he deserves to be blocked outright.
TesseractMachine
I don't have the strength for trolls and I don't see the need to go back and explain what I already explained and which you (in so many words) ignore.
Continuation of golden dreams
Michael!
He may be a liar and a troll, I'm not the judge.
And yet there are other ways to handle his reactions without using the words of a market.
For example, if he is found worthy of being blocked, you can explain to him in a private email what he did wrong and ask him to rephrase his words. If the hassle is too much, you can prepare a standard message that defines rules for the discussion.
And if he passed the blocks despite his trolling, it is also permissible to delete his response retrospectively and activate the above procedure.
When I see statements in harsh language, it takes away from me the desire to write here.
But you're complaining to the wrong people!
The one who introduced the harsh language is him!
Why do you find it appropriate to attack the one who used harsh language in response to his harsh language?!
A soft response to violent language is never helpful - just as surrendering to terrorism is not helpful.
Michael - it was deleted. I patiently waited for approval, despite the resentment that my messages had to go through approval. When I saw that she suddenly didn't appear anymore, and that it didn't change for a few minutes, I assumed she had been deleted. that's it.
"After all, the claim that something that has ever existed is necessarily omnipotent is a fundamentally false claim that no one can know (because fundamentally false things cannot be known)."
True, something that never existed does not automatically become omnipotent. And that was certainly not my claim, you are making a logical fallacy again, scarecrow in this case. You bring up all the clauses in the middle that lead to the conclusion that he is omnipotent.
What is violent about asking the site to deal with what it claims to do instead of dealing with the poor article above?
The mocking/prediction was proven by observation. 🙂
"Why do you quote things I wrote to ghosts as if I wrote them to you?"
You are amazing, because you are the one who pointed there by saying "The example of mathematics was brought up in previous responses, but it was not even necessary to look for it there because I also repeated it in the response you are referring to." Therefore, I did not quote as a fact, but as a question, if this is what we are talking about? It was the only thing in that message that matched the description.
By the way, in the same message you also say "By the way, of course the mathematics I mentioned in my response to you can be used as a good example of the mental error of "get busy with the report" because according to him mathematics is all-powerful and unstoppable." Which definitely leads to the conclusion that you were talking about when you mentioned the math example.
"If mathematics had not existed at some time, none of us would have been able to base ourselves on any logical arguments or even think and draw conclusions about that time."
Haha no one claims she doesn't exist now, so it's a classic irrelevancy fallacy
"The mere fact that you cannot prove that mathematics did not always exist is enough to invalidate points 3 and 4 of your fallacious argument."
Okay, as I said, I'm ready to flow with you for the purpose of the discussion:
How could mathematics be expressed in a world where there are no separate objects? This is similar to the claim that the laws of physics have always been... ok, maybe, but without "physical", how are they expressed?
If they have no ability to manifest without the universe, how did they exist before it?
If they cannot be expressed without the universe, which there is no doubt that began... then de facto... they would not always exist, (unless... if the "something" contained them, not as its own, that is, it is not mathematics)
Now for the very introduction of math into the equation:
Either way, from the very fact that you have no ability to prove that mathematics has always existed, to impose it as a tub on acquired facts on the basis of a proven thing, in order to cancel the acquired facts... is ridiculous.
Because... "something" was always there. Otherwise there would be nothing. It's a fact. So if mathematics does not correspond to the series of things that something that always existed should correspond to them, according to the above logic... it has a very simple meaning, it is not the "something". She is, at best, contained by something. Or it exists because he made its existence possible and is late to him, just like the universe.
Ehud and Yuval:
A troll has several characteristics, one of which is not paying attention to what is said to him - something that this name-caller (another characteristic of trolls) often does.
You can't argue with such a person.
A liar also has several characteristics, one of which is not telling the truth.
Not telling the truth in this case is manifested in several things:
1. His comment was blocked and he received a message that it was awaiting approval but he bothered to report to the world with drums and cymbals that it had been deleted.
2. He confidently says things he does not know. After all, the claim that something that has ever existed is necessarily omnipotent is a fundamentally falsified claim that no one can know (because things that are fundamentally falsified cannot be known). He simply says it in order to lead the reader into denial.
The first reaction of the subject of your protection is this:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/between-god-and-science-2807117/#comment-300669
This comment is not just any comment.
is a violent reaction.
She opens with an accusation and preaching of morality: "Get involved in science reporting and not philosophy for a dime"
She continues with the accusation of "hiding information" (which is no different from the accusation of lying - which is of course another lie).
It continues with a lecture on philosophy on a dime (after accusing the author of the article and perhaps also the commenters of engaging in philosophy on a dime).
It ends with ridicule and pre-accusation in the sentence "I have no doubt that atheists here are going to make eights in the air (if the post will be published at all) to avoid the argument"
In other words - whoever brought violence into this discussion is the subject of your protection.
You are welcome to argue matter-of-factly and gently with any liar and aggressor you want, but don't demand it from me.
I don't intend to apologize to him, but you are welcome to apologize to me.
Tesseract:
You are truly amazing!
Why do you quote things I wrote to ghosts as if I wrote them to you?
Read again where you took the text you are scrolling from.
My knowledge that mathematics has always existed is indeed unprovable - just as I cannot even prove that I am sitting and writing the response and not hallucinating.
I only know one thing:
If mathematics did not exist at some time, none of us would be able to base ourselves on any logical arguments or even think and draw conclusions about that time.
What you insist on not understanding is that there is no need for me to prove that mathematics has always existed in order to demonstrate the lie of your claim.
The mere fact that you can't prove that the math didn't exist is always enough to invalidate points 3 and 4 of your fallacious argument.
Avi Blizovsky - If you look above, I warned that a discussion of the subject would lead to ad nauseum... which is exactly that, but as you know, there are exceptions to every rule. There is no reason for me to withdraw my hand from a good and well-founded argument just because some guys decided that clauses 3-4 are not well-founded, even though I easily substantiate them for them.
Now, the fact that you decided I'm wrong is all well and good, but it doesn't become right just because you, he, and he agree with each other. If you can disprove it, GO AHEAD. If not, I will definitely continue to defend it. If you think you have refuted any of my arguments, you are really living in severe delusions. The only thing they did in their arguments is logical failures that appear in the simplest textbook on the subject.
My motives are not scientific? Am I here to bash science?.... In your eyes, you are science and there is no other? Let me inform you that you are wrong.
A creationist argument? The only thing you can call creationist is the comparison I made at the end, which is not part of the argument between the results and the definition of Judaism and God. But I did not claim at any point in the argument that it was God, but admitted that I did not know what it was about beyond the general details that I was able to extract (and this is different from Michael who decided that "mathematics" always existed, and different from R.H. who decided that it was matter/energy, even though none of them have any ability to know the It).
sympathetic
Let me strengthen your hands.
Obviously, blunt language contributes positively to the ratings (how do you say in the past tense? rated?) but keeps good minds away.
I think that TesseractMachine's fault
Because he is a liar is basically unfounded and it is necessary to apologize
in front of her. Many times new responders are exposed
to the automatic filtering system and do not understand what happened
for their response. TesseractMachine does not
No need to lie especially that he repeated the same reaction
at a later stage.
TesseractMachine's accusation that he
Troll is also absurd. I personally do not find
His words matter, but he has permission to assert them
and discuss them with whoever wishes to discuss them with him. Additionally
TesseractMachine is not as insulting
that there are commenters who do this on the site and not
Cursing as some commenters tend to do
this. The fact that he repeats his words is not
What makes it unique is that there are commenters on the site
who repeat their words more than once
and do not receive hostile treatment.
In my opinion you can argue with TesseractMachine
Be careful and don't try to insult him or shut his mouth.
By the way, I am not personally interested in this kind of philosophical debate
Because I find no interest in it.
In order not to degenerate into trollism, I have asked the system to release my response from over an hour ago. Thanks in advance
Michael Rothschild Your comment from August 4, 2011 at 22:32 pm #
I am because you called me
It is not the details of his response that are important to me, but the spirit of his words. Before he appeared, I hesitated whether to intervene in the discussion and voted with my feet. I wanted to say that if for the purpose of understanding a phenomenon you give up simple explanations and prefer over them a multitude of assumptions about objects whose existence has not been proven, such as parallel universes, wormholes and white holes, you can in the same breath also add angels, demons and monsters. It frustrates me to see how the debaters here prefer the complicated explanations over the simple ones, but it frustrates me more to see you doing exactly what the people you are against are doing.
According to many good people, there is no creator for the world. In my opinion, the creator of the world is "nothing". To the untrained ear it sounds like a silly pun. In vain I searched here for those with refined hearing.
TesseractMachine
A troll is someone who tries to insert his explanation a million times (and I saw Shar.H. and Michael have already explained it to you several times) even though he has been proven wrong, and that his motives are not scientific but to bash science.
Use new arguments, please if you repeat like a broken record the new argument of the creationists you represent, you will be blocked.
It is allowed to make a mistake, but you must not take advantage of the platform you have been given here to preach.
By the way, I've used this weapon before when people insisted on speaking out against vaccines, even though it was proven to be a plain wrong argument that caused babies to die.
RH- "The jump between your argument 3 and 4 is neither trivial nor required"
- If there was nothing else besides this "always" something, how could there be anything that limited it?
- How is something that is unlimited not omnipotent?
". For example, there may be something that has always existed, matter and energy that alternate between them. "
False dichotomy, you can't determine what it was, you have no idea. The only thing you can know is that it's not "nothing", the present means "something", and it always had to be, otherwise at some point before it there was nothing, and we wouldn't be having this pleasant conversation into the wee hours of the night
And on this occasion I will wish you a good night, we will probably continue next week, assuming that I will not be blocked.
How do you know you know more about the big bang than I do?
Is this my claim? Did you read the message at the speed of light? under a microscope? How is it possible that this is the only thing you read in my post?
It :
"We have no evidence that our universe has a shell and the math works out well even without such a shell.
Ockham's razor is used by me at this stage to invalidate the assumption of the envelope - after all, if we start inventing entities that are not needed, we will not find time to deal with those that we know exist."
?
How does this contradict my argument? Where did I mention a shell? And how does a shell or lack of a shell rule out the beginning of the universe? And Occam's razor served me well, in a series of arguments, to be honest.
How do you know that the laws of mathematics have always been there?
The laws, the human formulation, were certainly not always there. But as a concept, I'm ready to flow with you. Prove that mathematics has always existed.
Unlike your bypass attempt, I substantiated my main claim, which was, there is something that has always been. Throwing the term "mathematics" at something is baseless, and falls into the category of a false dichotomy.
As above your claim, that mathematics has always been there, regardless of the argument. What do you base this on? "feeling"? where are you from
The only argument in which you can try to prove that mathematics has always been, will very quickly turn into a circular argument of the type "mathematics has always been, because its values do not have to point to something tangible, therefore mathematics has always been"
How does that prove she always was?
You are more than welcome to try to prove otherwise... 🙂
my father
Thanks.
R.H
I wrote you a comment two hours ago.
TesseractMachine
The argument is completely unfounded. The jump between your argument 3 and 4 is neither trivial nor called for. You say "something that is not limited by anything, is de facto omnipotent". really? What is the connection between always existing without limit and omnipotent? You are climbing the stairs here without any real foundation. For example, there may be something that has always existed, matter and energy that alternate between them. Do the matter and energy in the universe that have always been constant according to the laws of conservation automatically become "unlimited" and especially "all-powerful"?
TesseractMachine
You insist on not understanding.
I know about the big bang more than you but what you don't understand is logic.
I brought the example of the stone because your claim is not based on the fact that matter was created in the big bang.
Your claim is simply, and I quote, "something that has always been impossible that is limited in some way".
You would probably make this kind of claim even if we didn't know anything about the Big Bang and the example of the stone comes to illustrate the folly of the claim.
The math example was brought up in previous responses, but it wasn't even necessary to look for it there because I also repeated it in the response you refer to.
The laws of mathematics do not depend on the existence of anything.
They always have been and always will be.
According to you they are God and they are also not limited (and can decide that one plus one will be three).
Ehud thanks,
Camila 22:43,
It seems to me that the thickness of the balloon sheet is not the appropriate analogy. The balloon sheet is fixed elastic and inflates and I don't see anything analogous to that. After all, according to your model, a new space is created and the existing space is not stretched. In other words, according to my understanding, in your model it is about the creation of new balloon sheets between the points drawn on it. I would expect that if the model is correct we will see the creation of a new void as a result of the investment of energy between two points. That is, as matter was created from the energy of the void, a vacuum of matter/energy may be created. Not that I understand what "empty creator" means and how it can be measured. Maybe in the distancing of two elements from each other? In any case, perhaps such a thing could only be measured on a very small scale, between particles in a laboratory or accelerator while investing appropriate energy levels, or rather in astronomical observations.
Of course, the liar's response - not only was not deleted, but received a response even though it did not deserve a response.
The answer appears in the response before the deletion lie.
My father - I still have a page open that shows that it did not appear when I wrote the message above, I could not assume otherwise than that it was deleted.
What does troll mean?
Michael –
I understand that you just don't understand why "rock" couldn't have been before the big bang. The only thing I can recommend you is to go and get a card from Akdamon and start going to astronomy lectures.
"The example of mathematics is good, of course, even better because it really existed."
Where did you give the math example? Not familiar with the details, quote the relevant sections.
Avi:
You forgot to mention that no comment was deleted for him.
The liars lie because that's what they know how to do.
If you post again under a different name you will be properly blocked as a troll. Wait patiently, sometimes responses are delayed because of a keyword mentioned in them.
Not only did it suddenly appear that my messages need to be confirmed, I currently have a response to Michael deleted, so that's fine, I'll post again under a different name and that's probably the response I'll conclude this discussion with because you're probably too enlightened to hear different opinions:
Content of the deleted message:
"Father - I told you they would make eights 🙂
Michael - ignore the argument and concentrate only on the grievance you brought up, and for the purpose of discussing this specific point we need all the data up to (and including) that this something is the alternative to nothing.
How could something that was always limited be limited? We have an alternative, so that nothing could be, there is no need for anything beyond the alternative (something that has always been) so that there would be nothing, so why would there be anything else besides the alternative? Where did something else come from, where is there an obligation to speak? Where is there a need to speak?
And if you gnashed your teeth and agreed that there was nothing else but it, how could the alternative be limited in any way?
Good luck, it will be fun.
PS: It was not a "stone", a stone is made up of atoms, the atoms were created only after the big bang, they have no functional need in the argument. How did you put it in my mouth, as if it could be a stone/anything else that was created after the universe came into being? A scarecrow failure and a hasty generalist, please use your logic for the next one."
-----
Another response to Kamila - the only thing I saw in your message was ranting, contempt for religious people, and apparently women as well. Unlike Michael, you are not a challenge at all, not even entertaining enough for me to bother debating with him (assuming they would also let me, which apparently this site does not plan to do, tolerance is not your strong suit, from what came out SO FAR from the short discussion.)
TesseractMachine
The one who starts with nonsense is told to finish and I wish for a moment that you too will finish with these harassments.
Deliberately ignoring what you are being told puts you safely on the road to being declared a troll.
The stone pattern is excellent.
The fact that there is no such stone is irrelevant - after all, there is no flying spaghetti monster or - in your language - "God".
The example of mathematics is, of course, even better because it really existed.
In order to conjure up your nonsense, there is no need for eights in the air - all that is needed is not to turn off the mind.
TesseractMachine
Only battered women reach the level of misery displayed by religious fanatics who believe that their father is all-powerful, good and benevolent and still allows so much suffering to occur (without discrimination, followers or "enemies"). Only religious fanatics do sexism in the air to justify the sadism that characterizes the same creation of imagination in which they believe and for that they will not want to use logic of any kind (like for example the one in the night of nonsense in section 3 of the response you wrote). There is a proven way that separates those whose common sense works and those who ramble on without realizing it. Science and technology, the vast majority of which derive from it, confirm on a daily basis the correctness of the way of thinking of the people who worked in those fields. When I see a religious fanatic who knows how to produce or say something real about our reality, one that can be tested or even that the logic behind it meets the criteria of basic logic in making arguments and drawing conclusions, then maybe I can start taking seriously what that person says.
My father - I told you they would make eights 🙂
Michael - ignore the argument and concentrate only on the grievance you brought up, and for the purpose of discussing this specific point we need all the data up to (and including) that this something is the alternative to nothing. How could something that was always limited be limited? We have an alternative, so that nothing could be, there is no need for anything beyond the alternative (something that has always been) so that there would be nothing, so why would there be anything else besides the alternative? Where did something else come from, where is there an obligation to speak? Where is there a need to speak?
And if you gnashed your teeth and agreed that there was nothing else but it, how could the alternative be limited in any way?
Good luck, it will be fun.
PS: It was not a "stone", a stone is made up of atoms, the atoms were created only after the big bang, they have no functional need in the argument. How did you put it in my mouth, as if it could be a stone/anything else that was created after the universe came into being? A scarecrow failure and a hasty generalist, please use your common sense next.
R. H. (August 4, 2011 at 15:13 am)
As far as I understand, it is possible to estimate how much energy is needed to produce space (assuming that the process is indeed possible) because there are estimates regarding the energy content of the vacuum (Vacuum energy). However, there is no knowledge that I know about the mechanism that can generate space, so it will not be possible to try to implement this in an accelerator. If we return to the balloon analogy, the creation of space (whose energy density is low in relation to the source, whatever it may be) will be expressed in the reduction of the thickness of the balloon sheet. Note that the forces of gravity still work despite the expansion of the universe (ie creating space), so I'm not sure we can feel effects in that direction. For example, if every star is a focus that also produces space on an ongoing basis (I don't know how, in the past there were neutrinos of a certain type missing in the solar wind and I suspected them as a possible source, but this lack has already been explained) we will not notice the effect of the addition of space on the position of the planets because the local expansion and The pull will be in equilibrium. If you look at gravity as an expression of space-time (the theory of general relativity) then even here, despite the constant changes, the energy density profile will remain similar throughout the region for a small time window. Perhaps such a system can be likened to a melting ice cube with several beads that are found around it and inside the growing puddle tied to the ice cube by strings. The addition of water does indeed push the beads away from the cube, but the threads leave the beads in their place/track and there is an equilibrium between the water spreading from the area of the cube and the tension in the threads that are tied to the beads.
I will try to think if there is anything else that might reveal the same space addition.
R.H.
If I understood correctly, the model you propose is of an infinite, empty universe where at a certain point all the matter is found and starts to move in all directions, while the earth happens to stay at that point or not. Your model assumes that there is no coupling between space and mass, which means that the galaxies are moving away from us and not the space that is stretching. Such a model stands in contrast to the theory of general relativity which tells us that mass distorts space. General relativity is a well-founded scientific theory based on many observations, and I see no point in abandoning it.
The big bang theory is based on the solution of the equations of general relativity and the observation that galaxies are receding from us in such a way that the speed of their receding is proportional to their distance. If there was only an explosion of matter and space was static, this would not be a solution to Einstein's equations and would even be contrary to the understanding that underlies them. Therefore it is not necessary to go far to other galaxies and measure to invalidate alternative cosmological theories enough to be based on observations from Earth.
I even know secular people who would write God's name in this way. Traditional and national religious matters.
R.H
I'm guessing that your last comment is also addressed to me... (you wrote R.H. so I assume you were referring to me).
I don't understand why you talk about God? What does God have to do with it?
I asked Machal about 'Meffat'.
I discussed with him some time ago the question of whether there is a shell for the universe.
What I could not understand from his words is whether he thinks that the universe is the vision of everything, or that this vision is not everything and there are other 'visions' that the sum of all of them is the vision of everything.
What do you think?
Do you think the universe is everything and everything happens within the universe?
Or do you think that if everything happens within the universe, then 'within what/where is the universe itself'?
What is a universe? Is it mass, energy? According to what I understand, the universe is all the mass and energy that exists in space.
That is, everything that exists - the shell of it is the universe.
What I can't understand is how all of this, the universe, is not inside something. I can understand that everything is within the universe. But how can you understand that the universe is not inside something? It can be assumed that the universe has always existed and therefore there is no need for there to be something that existed before the universe. But in such a case, how would you explain that the universe is in accelerated expansion if it always existed (that is, if the universe always existed, why would it expand in space and accelerate instead of being in a balanced state, why does movement exist in it)? In addition to that, he also had a beginning - but does he have no end? The universe teaches us that everything is inside the universe, so why shouldn't the universe also be inside something?
After all, it is simpler to explain the universe if there are other universes than to try to explain the universe as the only and all-powerful thing of everything, isn't it?
Deal with reporting:
What nonsense?!
Yuval: Did you really like it?
Sections 3 and 4 are nonsense - literally!
"Something that was always impossible is limited in some way".
of course! It is not limited by the laws of logic, it is not limited by the fact that it is not puffed air, it is not led in any way.
Even if he is a stone that has always been, he is not limited by anything.
It goes without saying! Logic embodied in the pan!
Ghosts:
I did not avoid giving an answer.
To avoid it I can just not answer.
I answered (in my opinion well!) what I understood from your request and even after re-reading I don't see in it even a hint of the Bushka you are talking about now.
There is no point in expressing an opinion on this question.
We have no evidence that our universe has a shell and the math works out fine even without such a shell.
Ockham's razor is used by me at this stage to invalidate the mantle assumption - after all, if we start inventing entities that are not needed, we will not find time to deal with the ones we know exist.
By the way, of course the mathematics I mentioned in my response to you can be used as a good example of the mental error of "get busy with reporting" because according to him mathematics is all-powerful and unstoppable.
Avi:
Indeed, the phrase "God of Israel" betrays his orthodoxy clearly, but the other nonsense also does it well.
Any indication?
What do you think about "God of Israel"?
I "deal with reporting, etc."
RH: "Where does your conclusion come from?" If you look carefully at what I said, you will understand exactly where it comes from. The defect does not exist, the argument is well founded. Don't want, don't accept. 🙂
Avi Blizovsky: Any person who disagrees with you automatically becomes an ultra-Orthodox (in this case you are right by the way, but there was no indication that could have given you this piece of information)?
Why would I demand that atheism be outlawed? This is not Beirut here.
Atheists will not make eights in the air because of all the twists and turns of ultra-Orthodox.
It's good that you don't demand that atheism be outlawed. In the meantime, the scientific explanation, without God, is the only one that really explains something without depending on an external factor.
R.H.
I think your proposal is problematic because it is not even clear to me where that "explosion" center is located. It is certainly not the earth and certainly not our sun. Is this the Milky Way galaxy? Wouldn't you expect the center of the explosion to exhibit completely different phenomena than the rest of the place, such as what happens in a supernova?
I don't know how to calculate how the radiation is expected to look in relation to the center of an explosion event, although intuition says that isotropy (but not homogeneity) should exist. The important question is, does your thought bring in your opinion some clear advantage that does not exist in the isotropic and homogeneous expanding universe model? If there is no such thing then there is no reason to go in that direction which has shortcomings and lack of elegance (such as the lack of homogeneity).
In any case, on this specific topic I am a layman, and what I write should be treated with limited liability unless it is a claim based on common sense.
R. H.,
Get busy reporting...,
There is a fundamental flaw in your chain of arguments. I agree with you that we can trace (maybe) what was up to the big bang. What was or was not from his second "past" we have no idea. But here you make a leap that since nothing is possible there must have been something, always. And from that you also tap into the attributes of this something that is omnipotent. However, this jump is not required at all. Maybe there is nothing permanent and eternal? If there really is a cycle or there is a change (which neither I nor anyone else has the essence of) that is always unfolding, for example a location creates a universe or other universes. Where does your conclusion come from that it is clear that there is something eternal, fixed, unlimited and above all omnipotent as you say? Unless you're referring to matter/energy, but it seems to me that you don't mean that God (who you're so careful to name) isn't just matter/energy fixed by the laws of conservation, right? Because if so, would you define matter/energy as possible?
Machel
Hello. I did not understand your answer. (It looks like you're trying to avoid giving an answer)
It is true that we have already discussed this once, but I will ask you again in a different wording of things:
Do you think the universe is inside some kind of 'envelope'? Or do you think the universe is the (single) shell of all mass and energy?
withering,
Regarding your model that energy becomes space. I'm really not good at calculations and maybe Ehud or Zvi can help here. However, it is certainly possible to calculate according to the speed of the expansion of space what level of energy is necessary for the process and then perhaps produce it in an accelerator (if it has not already been produced). It is also not clear to me, if the model is correct, what the results of such an experiment would be, what a space whose spread is increased in a local area would look like. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?
Engage in science reporting, not philosophy for a precious penny
You refreshed my soul. Although your final conclusion is not my final conclusion, but along the way you hit us all with a winning blow.
can we keep in touch
ivrit.yuval00@gmail.com
withering,
It's not that I'm proposing a model here, but only as a thought exercise. What if we are right in the center of the explosion? Won't the radiation be uniform from all directions? Like being in the North Pole, and everything around is South? And let's ignore the aesthetic reasons that there doesn't seem to be anything special here compared to the rest of the universe or how likely it is that we are in this place.
A possible answer to this would be if there is a way to measure the cosmic radiation in other galaxies. If it is the same as here, the whole argument of the "explosion" falls apart. Is there such a way?
You've done quite a bit of hide-and-seek here to present the theory in a way that fits your point. Also, you presented such an argument only in such a way that it would fit your point.
The universe does not have to be cyclical of the big bang-big collapse type, if it were, first of all we would have to find enough matter in the universe whose influence could over time bring the matter back into the universe by forgetting that gravity would overcome the rate of expansion of the universe. Not only did we not find it (and I remember more than once that you published the results of these studies in Science) but we also found that the universe is accelerating. And if so, the prevailing opinion today in astrophysics is that the universe will simply continue to expand and cool forever until it is cold, dark and devoid of any galactic activity (or if we go further and accept a theory that is a bit on the fringes in this field, the BIG RIP is also going to eliminate the electronic atoms and any other existing mass scale ).
Also, the very assumption that it is a singular point, has not yet provided evidence, all we know is that the universe began with a density that can be claimed to have been a singular point, and it is also possible that it was not. Also to assume that a singular point has always existed, can easily be hidden by black holes, that there is a mathematical theorem that proves that a singular point exists in them, and not only do we know how black holes start (AKA they weren't always) we also know about certain situations in which they can evaporate.
Yet:
It is possible in a very easy thought experiment to base it on the big bang and show that it leads to a really non-atheistic conclusion, without any need for primary reasons, by basing it on a fact that has enough evidence (the moving away of galaxies, cosmic background radiation, etc. for those who are not familiar with the details) which will also be used in the thought experiment as a chronological anchor (I will go ahead and say to those who claim that it is impossible to talk about time outside of time space, that in philosophy it is certainly possible and desirable to use an example from a well-known speaker to reach conclusions by way of analogy, just as we can, for the purpose of a thought experiment, ignore the third dimension and discuss about A world of two dimensions - to try to wonder about a fourth dimension, for which we have no example, just as we have no example of time outside space-time)
1. The universe began.
what was before We don't know...but we can roughly generalize what wasn't
Could it be that there was nothing before (consult the dictionary, instead of resorting to stupid answers like we don't know what nothing is)? The answer to any honest person (not appealing to emotion, emphasizing a fact) who is familiar with the concept behind the word, will be, of course not.
The alternative is therefore only one. That something was, and always was (because if not always, then there was nothing before, then it must always have been, to allow the very creation of the universe at some stage)
2. Something that was always, did not start, and hence there is no reason for it to stop, if nothing created it (there is no need for our thought experiment on primary causes) there is no reason for anything to stop it. (Any attempt to turn this into some chain of events, and not as something that has always been, is the introduction of a new assumption, which has no basis, into the argument, it was not committed in any way by any of the points, and there is no reason to force it into the equation in a convincing and logical way... Therefore, there is no need for "turtle on turtle" X infinity.)
3. Something that has always been cannot be limited in any way, because this something has always been, there is no necessity or necessity that something else was with it, since it is committed, as an alternative to nothing, but something else that has always been, is not implied by any point in the argument, since where did it come from ? After all, there was nothing anymore, the alternative did exist, there is no need for another thing that was always there, and it is impossible to introduce such into the argument in a convincing or logical way.
4. Something that is not limited by anything, is de facto omnipotent. Because if there is nothing to limit it (there was nothing but it, "always"), it is de facto above all limits and laws, space, time, etc. (Therefore, there is no problem in saying that he was "always", for the purpose of the thought experiment, because even though this is the only way we can discuss the subject, it requires only our mind, not him, just as a fourth dimension, if it exists, does not have to be represented through a dimension A third in a world of two dimensions, this is simply the only way we can wonder about its existence, by referring to only two dimensions, and a third dimension, as one we know and can try to understand how it is expressed in a world whose imaginary inhabitants only know two dimensions, as an example of a fourth dimension, in the world ours, where there are only three dimensions that we know, etc., many examples can be given)
So, by basing ourselves on the one fact for which we have evidence, the Big Bang since its expansion, which also served as a chronological anchor, we arrived at this rough "information" by asking simple questions
Nothing could have been before, so as an alternative we have:
"Something", which has always been, will always be (infinite). One of a kind, unlimited, and omnipotent.
Now, obviously this would not require an atheist who receives the results of the experiment to go and offer incense. But unlike Japanese Nordics, etc... for Judaism the results are quite interesting, since this is exactly their definition of the God of Israel.
NB: I have no doubt that atheists here are going to do some sleight of hand (if the post will be published at all) to avoid the argument, and that's fine. My only tendency was to show that there are other arguments, ones that are really unmoved and unpleasant by the pathetic rant you presented against the use of the Big Bang to reach conclusions These, not to create a mega-discussion that will certainly border on the part of some participants in Argumentum ad nauseam
R.H.
The cosmic background radiation temperature that fits the Big Bang model is one of the strongest pieces of evidence on the subject. In the scenario you describe, the radiation was supposed to come from a certain direction (the "explosion" area), but contrary to that, the radiation is spread quite uniformly, which is consistent with an expanding universe (as illustrated by the balloon analogy).
Ehud and Zvi,
thanks for the answers. But with your permission I think the question is still valid. It is clear to me, as you said, that all the evidence is that the universe was centered. However, this would also be the case if there was a ball of matter that exploded and created all the galaxies that now move in a vacuum. My question is, apart from the observation that all galaxies are moving away from us equally, is there any other evidence that space itself is expanding and then there really is no center like Babylon? Is it possible to disprove the possibility that the galaxies are progressing within an existing void?
By analogy, how would microscopic creatures living on fragments of an exploded grenade see the world? In parts flying into the void or as a spreading space?
R. H. and Ehud
There is evidence that the expansion of the universe is not uniform in every direction. Please take a look at the MAZB link (which I already brought before)
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-universe-is-not-expanding-uniformly-1310085/
Zvi, Ehud,
Thanks for treatment. I am aware of the fact that the "model" I am proposing is more similar to the Cantor group, meaning that it has more holes than content...
My fondness for the direction of thought that I proposed (besides the fact that I came up with it about 15 years ago without knowing similar lines of thought existed) stems from the fact that, unlike the rather vague terms that exist in the field today, here there is at least a sense of understandable physical meaning. Of course, this in itself is worth nothing if the numbers and equations do not add up and if there are no concrete proposals for mechanisms (such as for example a mechanism that produces space, etc.).
I would love to hear more ideas and I will try to bring here some additional ideas of mine that may be a step towards solving the problems some of which you also pointed out.
In the meantime, thanks.
R.H.
I think Ehud's answer is quite good
All these are evidence that the universe was concentrated in one point.
Beyond that, it must be understood that the assumption that the Big Bang had a center is a wrong assumption that disconnects space from the material that makes it up - and that is wrong to do. To understand what this means there is the balloon analogy, although it is only an analogy but it makes the point quite well.
withering,
I thought more about the model you proposed and how it fits with other things.
First to his very central problem - currently he does not explain why the universe is expanding, and certainly not why its expansion is accelerating, on the face of it the conversion of mass/radiation energy into space energy could also exist in the opposite direction and certainly you cannot say anything about the rates, without these, precisely the significant prediction Most of the cosmological constant is missing.
The second question that I am not sure about, is whether it is not a literal formulation of something that is actually already known.
I will briefly review what I know about the matter of the cosmological constant.
The cosmological constant was added to Einstein's field equations to allow for a stable universe (with very precise calibration), a slightly different cosmological constant would give a universe whose expansion is accelerated in the advanced stages of its life and apparently we live in such a universe.
For the Einstein equation _see the first equation in the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations) two sides:
The first side (ignore for a second the term that includes lambda), the one that includes two terms that include R describes the metric, the way in which space-time is curved and with it the trajectories of the various bodies.
The other side, the one that includes the T tensor - energy momentum tensor and is the side that describes the material.
The equality between the two wings means that the pressure varies depending on the material.
So far everything is fine,
We solve the equations and find that for the universe to expand we need another term, the term of the cosmological constant represented by lambda - what is this term actually.
At this stage we do not know what the dark energy is, we only know that it exists and therefore it can be entered on both sides of the equation - where the determination of the side on which it is entered is to a certain extent an interpretation given to it.
Inserting it on the side of the matrix means that the matrix in advance has a tendency to spread, while inserting it on the other side means that there is an additional component of energy, the energy of the vacuum which is added to the normal energy expressed in the momentum tensor energy T.
So how does this relate to Camila's claim?
Writing the term of the cosmological constant on the right side of the equation (the side of the tensor T) actually means that indeed, the cosmological constant is a type of energy, and as such it can also evolve given certain conservation laws which for now, in the absence of an understanding of the nature of this energy, we will not be able to know whether or not indeed saved or not.
In conclusion,
Camilla, I think that in the absence of a practical proposal, how come space is a form of energy, your proposal still leaves the problem open. Furthermore, for now your model does not have a convincing explanation why the expansion of the universe is the way it is and to a certain extent it even contradicts barriers that are currently being put in place and which I don't know how absolute they are according to which w=1 which means a cosmological constant like in the theory of relativity - one that will lead to an infinitely accelerated expansion (in fact when the rate of acceleration is also increasing in contradiction to what your model allows).
What's more, your model is nice in that it illustrates what it means to assume that the cosmological constant is on the energy side of Einstein's equation and not on the mass side (which is certainly possible as long as we don't know what it is).
Ghosts:
I don't think our problem is that the universe is undefined.
A definition can be given to words and their role is to regulate the communication between us and instill order in our thoughts.
It is impossible to give a definition to reality in nature because it does not ask us what to be and how to behave.
I think we all have an intuitive sense of what is meant when we say "universe"
When dealing with philosophy or - in the most refined form - mathematics there is room for definitions that have no grip on physical reality because in these pursuits (in mathematics always and in philosophy only when it deserves its name) one tries to build possible models of reality with the hope that one day it will be possible to verify the compatibility of part of reality with part of the models .
The orderly construction of the models is what I described at the beginning of the response as the "order" imposed on our thoughts and as the ordering of the communication between us.
Regarding the "yes" and "no" I do not agree.
I mean that there are "applicables" that don't have to come from anything.
In my opinion, mathematics is a good example of such a "there is".
This is the source of the elegance of the theories that base physics on mathematics (not only as a model but as a creative mechanism)
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ground-problem-of-metaphysics-part-2-0704103/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegmark
R.H.
I am not an expert in astrophysics or cosmology, however I will try to answer, of course Zvi is the correct address.
First, as you mentioned philosophically, the model of we are in a special place is the opposite of the Copernican revolution. We would not like to think that the earth is special in such a way that it leads back to the certain religious thought that the world was created for man. This is of course not a scientific reasoning, just an aesthetic claim.
Second every point is in the center of the explosion as you call it if the universe was all concentrated in one point every point in the universe is covered from the center of the explosion.
The evidence for a big bang is many: first of all the cosmic background radiation that reaches us from all directions is evidence of the big bang. If everything was only moving away from us, it is not clear to me how the uniform radiation and its temperature could be explained. Another evidence of the Big Bang is the composition of the matter in the universe, the amount of hydrogen, helium and lithium in particular, which indicate that all matter was concentrated in one point.
Zvi Ehud or anyone who can answer,
For reading the learned discussion here, a question occurred to me. I understand that the evidence that space itself is expanding and not that the galaxies are moving in a vacuum is that there is the same receding in all directions. However, we can think of another explanation, and that is that we see that the galaxies are moving away equally because we are right in the center of the "explosion". There is a trivial test for this claim, which is that if we can ever move to another galaxy, then we can check whether there is an equal distance in all directions from there as well (the balloon effect). My question is, beyond the trivial explanation that it is unlikely that we are in a special place in the universe, is there any other evidence that can negate this claim? And beyond the receding of the galaxies are there other evidences of the expansion of space itself?
The last Camilla
First about your model. I lack the formal education in cosmology to find the flaws in it, so I will only mention the first fundamental flaw that comes to mind. I assume that additional flaws can be thought of. Zvi will surely be better than me at describing cosmological flaws.
Mass does not just disappear and become radiation. Mass is a classical concept, today we know that mass consists of particles with certain properties for example: spin, parity and charge.
Particles are ionized in the sense of becoming radiation only in pairs of particle antiparticle and in the same way photons can be the opposite of energy. The energy in a nuclear reaction is not matter that turns into energy, but bond energy that is released. In order for matter to turn into empty energy, it is necessary to analyze pairs and we know today that the universe consists of matter and not antimatter. Therefore, it is unlikely that there were or are enough pairs of matter and antimatter to turn mass into energy as your model requires. Just a passing note, the reverse process of creating mass from photons is not possible in a vacuum, the presence of lead matter is required to maintain conservation of momentum and energy.
Beyond that, a model should include numerical estimates as well as a mechanism that explains the probability of the transition from material to space
And what makes the analogy of an ice cube good when we have a temperature, I'm not clear what the analogy for temperature is in your model.
It is necessary to distinguish between the way we perceive the universe (with our senses through colors, sounds, smells, etc., or with laboratory instruments through quantitative measurements) and what the universe itself is (no one has any idea what the universe itself is).
It seems to me that you are mixing gender with non-gender
No person accepts a formal definition of anything as a way to understand, perceive and imagine it. I cannot even begin to grasp a formal definition of the universe that would have any perceptual or sensory meaning.
The universe can be described as a large collection of suns grouped together as galaxies. In a drawing or picture at several levels of detail and the like.
Equally if we define the universe in this way we will have no sense of what preceded the universe and how it was created.
We can only repeat this or that scientific theory, or a fairy tale of this or that religion.
The chatter about what you may or may not think about only shows that you have read and tried to understand a book
One philosophy too many. Being and not having cause and effect are all the chatter of non-philosophers
able to find their way around the neighborhood.
Ephraim
withering,
I'll start by saying that I don't have the proper scientific education since I've never dealt with topics related to general relativity in a professional way (beyond the only course taught on this topic at the university which is of course really elementary).
Right now I don't find anything unreasonable in your model on first reading and the truth is that it sounds really nice to me, but from my experience with this kind of matters - it will be difficult to think of something reasonable that hasn't been thought of yet, so I'm quite pessimistic. In any case, it would be correct to check this with someone whose understanding is better than mine, for my part, I will think about it and if I have any mistakes I will tell you.
The big problem with intuition about a cosmological constant is that for W<0,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)
The meaning of a positive W is that as the energy density increases, the pressure also increases - makes sense
The meaning of a negative W is therefore that the pressure is also negative (or if you wanted the energy to be negative) and this is really not intuitive anymore (hence negative energy suddenly sounds reasonable, sort of like negative pressure).
In any case, from a mathematical point of view at least the assumption of negative energy for the universe actually goes quite well with conservation of energy. Look at the Friedman equation (the first equation in the Solutions section of the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann-Lema%C3%AEtre-Robertson-Walker )
Multiply both sides of the equation by a^2 then by rho a^3 and finally move everything to one side.
Remember that a is something like the size of the universe and so the equation actually has three members:
- The first term is the mass term of the universe times the characteristic velocity squared - this is the kinetic energy term
- The second term is a term that includes the mass of the universe squared and divided by the characteristic size of the universe, note that it is a term with a negative sign that actually constitutes the potential energy.
- The third term includes the cosmological constant and goes like a^5 rho, but since rho goes like a^{-2} for a cosmological constant (see the first link) then in total we get an addition to the total energy at a rate proportional to lambda a ^3 and sign negative - this is really a spatial energy density with a negative sign.
(lambda is positive for acceleration).
I know you said in advance that this is a solution that you don't like, and yet, it seems that, at least mathematically, it makes sense and creates such an acceleration as described. I don't think anyone is happy with the state of our understanding of dark energy, but that seems to be what the physicists working on the subject have to offer us at this point.
I will think about your offer.
Michael,
I have attached my email and would love to hear what you have to say,
But as I told Camila, I'm really not sure I can help.
Machel
The problem in my opinion is the very fact that there is no formal definition for the universe, that is, there are only possibilities.
I can understand that this is due to technological limitations, but the intellect and thoughts and philosophy are not technologically limited. Therefore, in my opinion, it is possible to at least philosophize on such questions, as some have done here.
For example: once the universe is defined, you will have to assume that the universe is: X, or, let's say in other words: "is". Or "exists" and all... and as soon as you make such an assumption, your brain will not be able to understand that this "is".
stems from "no". All your mind will be able to understand is that there must be some "is" that preceded that "is" which is a definition of the universe. Even if you mathematically conclude that the universe arises from "nothing", your brain will not be able to understand this, your mind will have to assume that the universe arises from something. No matter how you look at the universe once you give it a definition you have no possibility of thinking that the universe was not created out of something. Do you agree with me on this point/assumption?
jubilee:
In the article brought by Raaim the description is more complex.
It is not a bubble inside a black hole, which is an ill-defined concept because the mass of the black hole is not spread over its envelope (its event horizon) but is concentrated in its singularity (therefore it is not clear where the bubble is supposed to be) but in the connection between a black hole and a white hole
Mr.
You are right, all rights are reserved to you in this case 🙂
Sorry, glitch.
By the way, at the time I also tried to consult with experts (among them Yakir Aharonov for example about ten years ago) and despite showing a certain interest I was also sent to do homework which I admit I have not been able to do in full until today.
Despite the immaturity of the model I proposed, I would be happy if you also express your opinion regarding the problematic points you identify (and of course also what things you think are justified and good).
Jimmy
Apparently the big bang model is expected to explode 🙂
Michael
You are right in your conclusion "If we all fell towards a black hole, all the bodies that are close to the plane that is perpendicular to the direction of the fall and passes through us - would come closer to us and not move away from us".
But that's only true if it's a pointy black guy. If we continue in the direction of the article brought by Rafaim, which talks about a universe that is a bubble inside a black hole, it may solve part of the problem, but give rise to a new problem. If the universe were a symmetrical bubble inside a perfect black hole, then the gravitational forces from all directions would balance each other and there would be no movement of galaxies at all. It is therefore possible to think of a compromise between the two models, for example an asymmetric bubble or a number of giant black holes randomly located in different areas around the bubble of the universe or some combination of both.
withering:
Just a small detail about "quote rights".
Read here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/between-god-and-science-2807117/#comment-300163
jubilee:
I too once thought about the model of falling into a black hole and I came to the conclusion that in its simple form - the one you meant - it is wrong.
If we all fell towards a black hole, all the bodies that are close to the plane that is perpendicular to the direction of the fall and passes through us - would come closer to us and not further away from us.
That's why I also tried to complicate the model in a similar way to the one suggested in the article linked by ghost and I really thought about the connection between a black hole and a white hole but I didn't have enough background to really develop it.
In relation to the model that Camila brought up (and also to the response that Yuval referred to) - there is a similarity between these models and a model that I have been walking around with for years but I have not found anyone to seriously discuss it with.
I did talk to some of the leaders in the field of cosmology in Tel Aviv, but it doesn't seem like they are free enough to look into the matter and they imposed "homework" on me that I couldn't find time for myself.
Due to the "immature" state of the model, I do not find it appropriate to publish it before discussing it in depth with a professional in the field.
Zvi may remember that I once left a comment of his commenting on some glitch on the website that was blocked and I commented to him in it that I suggest he devote his time to contributing to the management of the website.
I will admit and I will not be ashamed, that one of my goals in that comment was to establish a direct relationship with him that would allow me to wrestle with him or with another expert that he would propose, in the model I was thinking of.
Therefore, Zvi, if you are reading this response, I would appreciate it if you would send your contact information to the editor of the site so that he could pass it on to me - just for the purpose of the conversation about the model I hallucinated.
A comment regarding section 5 in my last comment here where I presented my cosmological "model". It should have read:
Radiation or even mass can be created/received by "densification" of empty space.
jubilee,
Since I am at best an amateur physicist, I do not think that the ideas I have presented here (even partially) are coherent enough and sufficiently consider the existing knowledge. If there will be anything in these ideas to bring a real physicist to try to develop something more serious, Deini. Well, almost legal, because I do expect to be listed on an article on the subject if it is created if it is indeed based on these ideas 🙂
At the moment what interests me more is to find the main problems of this line of thought and try to see if an elegant solution can be found for them. As I wrote earlier, the fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate is not currently explained by the model I am proposing, but there may be an incredibly simple solution to this that I am missing. Of course there are several other "problems" with this model.
R.H.: To your response from August 2, 2011 at 17:25 PM #
Precisely what you wrote in parentheses is the important "(I agree here with Camila that) it contradicts itself and poses a logical contradiction".
correct! You are absolutely right. This is a logical contradiction.
Therefore, before I continue, it seems to me that it is necessary to clarify something important. Mathematics, in this case logic, is a collection of laws formulated from what we found in the "existing" world, because this is the world we relate to. It is necessary to expand mathematics so that it continues to be valid in the world of "what is" but also fits in the world of "what is not".
This, by the way, is not my invention. This happens a lot in the evolution of scientific models. For example, Newtonian physics is valid for a certain range of energies, but in other ranges one must add to it the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity which actually do not contradict Newton but manage to explain phenomena that were not known at all in Newton's time.
From Einstein's expansion we learn that Newtonian physics is a special case of physics in general. Since I am proposing such an extension to the world of "nothing", one can already guess with quite a lot of certainty that I intend to try to show that the world of "existence" is a special case of the world of "nothing".
jubilee
Sorry, the article is from 2010
Here is the link https://delorian64.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9A-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A1-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%AA/
From what I remember when I searched the subject on the internet a few months ago, I found all kinds of references to the idea as far back as 2006, I guess this idea was known even before that. And even long before. And I'm also guessing it wasn't you who told the idea.
jubilee
I'm not happy to be the one to bring you back to reality, but the same all kinds of things you hypothesize - also have all kinds of mathematical 'proofs' since 2005 if I remember correctly. But, I say 'proofs' because these are supposed to be proofs - nothing has really been proven yet. So you can treat all these kinds of things as mere conjectures for now, and you'd better learn these conjectures from those who came up with them. You can search for them on the Internet, they are all scientists and I think they are all physicists as well (you can even search for an article by Gali Weinstein that deals with this topic since 2007).
Zvi and the other readers
In the meantime I discovered that the universe does not expand uniformly, which strengthens my hypothesis that the source of dark energy is a massive black hole into which we all fall in free fall.
The article in Science: The universe does not expand uniformly by Universe Today | October 13, 2008
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-universe-is-not-expanding-uniformly-1310085/
Please give your opinion
The one and only Camila, and unfortunately - the last
Your model is beautiful. I think you should hurry up and publish it before someone else steals it from under your nose.
For example, the changing densities have already been coined by one of the commenters here in the article: Thought experiments in science by Galileo | September 10, 2010
https://www.hayadan.org.il/sotght-experimenets-1009101/
In a response from September 13, 2010 at 21:12 pm #
And let me quote selected lines from it:
"Instead of stating that mass causes two different phenomena that are seemingly unrelated to each other, perhaps it is better to assume that there is something else that is distributed in the space of the universe in an inhomogeneous manner and whose different densities create different phenomena. The degree of curvature of the light's path is a function of the degree of density of this something; A density above a certain threshold creates subatomic particles and a greater density creates larger structures up to black holes."
Keep going. Successfully
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed - inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the very least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE
UNDERLYING THEORY.
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
deer,
What is not clear to me is who pays for this energy (physics does not like free meals and while the programming of the big bang can be excused because of the fundamental change in the laws of physics that happened at this moment, the continuation of this imbalance even after the founding event is not just a free meal but a meal of corruption in my view persistent that the mind does not suffer). After all, if space contains energy and the universe expands (and even at an accelerated rate), that is, more space is added, then an absurd situation is created in which energy is constantly created from nothing. If we accept that the universe is a closed system and that the total energy is a constant quantity (the first law of thermodynamics) then we will have to conclude that there are only a few possibilities that can explain the apparent problem:
1) For every positive energy addition, a negative addition of the same size is also created. The truth is that I do not understand the physical meaning of negative energy and intuitively this idea seems the least elegant to me (requires more assumptions, lacks physical reality).
2) The energy density decreases as the universe expands at a rate that keeps the energy constant. In Mario Livio's article (given in Aryeh's response above) this direction is reflected in the "fifth" field.
Since I like the second option more, I will try to extract a mechanistic explanation in this direction. Of course, this is an off-the-cuff proposal that would certainly be very easy for a professional physicist to refute, and yet I will try to offer it as food for thought.
The relationship between the curvature of space and the energy content in it is known. Such a relationship would in principle allow the conservation of total energy through the gradual flattening of the universe from a state of high curvature (high energy density) to a state of less curvature (low energy density). A high curvature of space is found in a region where there is mass. Although the accepted description is that the presence of mass causes the curvature of space, but I would like to offer a different interpretation (without changing the quantitative description. For this purpose, I propose to add an assumption. Energy can appear in different density states such as mass or radiation (photon for example) or space, when the mass is The densest form of energy and the empty space has the lowest possible energy density, and in addition the energy can pass between different density states (a reasonable analogy for this issue can be the transitions in gas-solid aggregation states). Since the energy content of the space is very low, it is clear that the volume of the space that is energetically equivalent to a mass particle is quite large (can be easily calculated given the equations of the energy content of mass and of space). One of the most familiar transitions is an atomic explosion in which mass becomes radiation and kinetic energy. The assumption I would like to add is that the universe is one large energy field at every point where the energy has a certain density (for example in the "accumulation" state of a photon) when there are natural processes in which the same transitions "instance" of the energy density occur. So, for example, in our sun, as in every star, mass is normally transformed into radiation and kinetic energy.
What I am proposing here is that there is also a transition from mass to space (and perhaps from radiation to space). If such a process does exist, it is easy to see how the expansion of the universe is easily explained due to a transition from dense energy (eg mass) to space whose energy density is low. Imagine an ice cube that has melted into a puddle of water. The puddle spreads due to the transition of the water from a state of high density to a state of low density. Now remember Arthur Eddington's inflatable balloon model
(http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html)
And imagine that each point drawn on the balloon is a star (or galaxy) which, in addition to radiation, also produces space (in this analogy, the space is the sheet of the balloon). The result is that the balloon inflates (the universe expands) and the galaxies are observed moving away from each other. My addition to the balloon analogy is that the thickness of the sheet represents the density of the energy at that point (if you will the degree of curvature in that piece of balloon) with empty space being the state with the least possible density (but still positive greater than zero). It should be noted that I do not know how to give a good explanation at the moment why the spread is accelerating as observed.
I think what's nice about this stupid model is:
1) There are no free meals and the total energy in the universe is kept constant.
2) It predicts the expansion of the universe.
3) It gives a physical meaning to the closed terms of the cosmological constant and dark energy without needing to change their values.
4) It fits nicely with other existing models and processes such as the inflatable balloon analogy and well-known energy transformations such as the conversion of mass into radiation.
5) He predicts interesting and innovative predictions such as the future of the universe (there is a calculable upper limit to the size of the universe and it is if all the energy will be rolled into the "aggregate" state of space. Another interesting prediction (from symmetry considerations) is that just as a particle of mass can be produced from photons, i.e. In my terms going from a less dense state to a more dense state gives radiation or even mass to the energy density of empty space.
There are several other aspects that emerge from this model, but I think I'll be satisfied with this for now.
I would love to hear from you Zvi or from anyone with a suitable physical education comments on the subject. I would especially appreciate it if it could be shown that this model is particularly silly and necessarily wrong so that I can spend my time on other, more productive things.
deer
I would not rush to dismiss this hypothesis (a massive black hole that we are all free falling into) before I would carefully check the accelerations from all directions. I am not sure that a careful examination will reveal that the expansion of the universe is uniform in every direction.
jubilee,
I have not heard of this model you propose (a massive black hole into which all galaxies fall),
In fact, it doesn't sound that likely to me because it contradicts the cosmological principle (yes, yes, I know, it's just a hypothesis - but it's quite successful and if I give it up, you can invent whatever you want)
Where is he from?
What is the source of dark energy?
We learn about dark energy from the observed acceleration in what appears to be the expansion of the universe.
Due to the lack of observations to the contrary, we assume that the speed of expansion of the universe is uniform in all directions.
This can be seen as if there is a repulsive force between any two given galaxies.
The only force known to us that acts between bodies at distances of this order of magnitude is gravity. However, we do not know gravitation as a force of repulsion but only as a force of attraction.
We also know the phenomenon of acceleration from free fall. Let's take, for example, two bodies that fall simultaneously to the surface of the earth, and for the sake of abstraction let's assume that they both move along the same axis. One is at a given moment a kilometer away from the surface of the earth and the other is 100 kilometers away (the distances are arbitrary). The acceleration of the fall, G, will not be the same. An observer who is on one of the bodies sees the other body moving away from him with an acceleration that results from the differences in the accelerations of the two bodies. Now let's assume the existence of a third body located on the same axis somehow between the other two bodies. An observer located on it will see the other two bodies moving away from it.
It is possible that there is a very massive black hole that attracts all the galaxies to it. Each galaxy falls to it with a unique acceleration resulting from the distance between it and it. All the galaxies on one axis participating in this free fall are moving away from each other, and we can calculate the acceleration differences.
This model of free fall could explain the origin of dark energy. Therefore, the expansion of the universe as observed from here is uniform in every direction, while according to this model it should be faster in one direction than in the opposite direction.
Zvi - Thank you very much, but
Also refer to Mario Livio's article that M.R. Natan in response to my question.
http://odyssey.org.il/209073
Aryeh Kamila and Ehud.
It seems to me that in this case Arya is right and the dark energy does predict the continued accelerated expansion of the universe forever. The relationship between the flatness of the universe and its future is not unambiguous given the existence of a cosmological constant.
I will explain from the beginning,
When we look for a matrix that will maintain homogeneity and isotropy (the cosmological principle) we find that there are three such matrices (Friedman Robertson Walker matrices for k=0,1,-1).
Two describe a curved universe (convex or concave) while the third, k=0, describes a flat universe.
The next step is to write the Einstein field equations for the metric and that's how we get the "equations of motion of the universe". In the case of such simple and symmetrical matrices, these equations of motion can be written simply and this is actually the Friedmann equation - see the second and third equations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations.
However, Einstein's field equations contain a degree of freedom - the cosmological constant and it naturally enters the solution (marked by lambda)
If we assume that the cosmological constant is zeroed out, as has been thought for many years - then the Friedman equation can be described by a classical analogy to the equation of motion of escaping matter with a certain initial momentum. In this situation k actually describes the sign of the general energy in the system up to minus. That is, the convex systems represent a bound universe (collapse), the concave system an unbound universe and the system with k=0 represents the limit universe where the velocity of the galaxies will be zeroed in infinite time.
However, all three models without the cosmological constant predict a slowed expansion (you can understand this from the classical analogue) - accelerated expansion, as was discovered in 1998, requires the existence of a cosmological constant, or of something else that is not contained within the framework of general relativity - since we do not know with certainty that the cause of the expansion is The exact cosmological constant, it has earned the mysterious name "dark energy".
Since the discovery of the expansion of the galaxies, the barriers indicate that the dark energy behaves like the cosmological constant made possible by the theory of relativity and hence the expansion of the universe will indeed accelerate forever as Aryeh pointed out. You can see this from the second equation in the link at the limit where a goes to infinity and the density goes to 0, in this situation a representing the size of the universe grows exponentially.
jubilee,
OK, let's say there is such a point that has nothing including nothing not even mathematical zero or any other definition just nothing (I agree here with Camilla that it contradicts itself and poses a logical contradiction because we defined it but we will leave it for now). Continue from here, what is the continuation of the argument?
Very true Camila
Whichever way you look at it with a scientific or realistic eye, you can't see it.
At this discouraging stage, it is very easy to get caught up in dogmas such as "God" or "There has always been", and to find the continuation of the discussion pointless or boring.
I am now quoting myself: "When in the course of a philosophical discussion some kind of final conclusion is reached, then the discussion goes beyond philosophy and receives a definite disciplinary definition". In this particular discussion, if we discover a logical rule that we did not know before, then from then on it will become a mathematical discussion.
Since I don't get much feedback here, I'm afraid I'm just boring the readers.
jubilee,
I'm sorry for you, don't you see that every idea that comes up in your mind (or in another mind, including mine) regarding the one you're looking for, necessarily doesn't meet the criteria you defined? After all, as soon as you conceive it, it will "exist" in your limited thought. You will never be able to express what you wish to express without seriously damaging it. There is nothing to hang great hopes on 0 either, not even in the right direction, because all its properties stem from a convention or a state of lack of definition (as in the result of division by it) it has no meaning and you can decide on any other definition you want with any number and with any person and build A consistent logical set of rules. And yet as soon as you do, as soon as you seem to capture what you are looking for, at that very moment you will lose it. It sounds to me that what you are talking about is necessarily beyond our ability to define and understand, so I don't see much point in trying to discuss it. I apologize if I disable the joy (of course I may be wrong...)
Thank you Avi.
How is it possible to understand the thunderous silence that prevailed here?
It is not because everyone is in a tent or with a cart in front of the Knesset.
So, instead of continuing, I will dwell a little on the number zero.
This number is considered "nothing" in some sense, as it is used as a neutral number for the operation of addition (and subtraction). But in another sense of it, it is considered a destructive number as it is offset (and thus becomes "nothing") any number multiplied by it. And in his other sense he is considered to have the ability to create with infinite power, when he is used as a divider. In this aspect of him, as a divider, we stand before him powerless and treat him with real holiness and we can only act with him through approximations. When the zero appears at the same time as both destructive and creative with infinite power, in that it both multiplies and divides in the same expression, it is possible to create any number with it.
However, to my disappointment, the zero is not the desired "nothing" but only a metaphor for "nothing", because, being a number, it exists and it "is". In addition, he does not come to his many expressions out of himself alone, but using invoicing operations that are not exclusive to him. However, he gives me some hope that I am on the right path because he is an example of something that has both complete simplicity and infinite power at the same time, and I look for these in the initial "nothingness".
Avi!
Please hurry to release my comment.
Camila August 2, 2011 at 0:40 am #
Your developments are beautiful and absolutely spot on. You can add to them the addition and multiplication modulo 2 as well as the addition and multiplication of the parity property and much more.
It is also true that the use of free language is an unfailing source of logical errors, and that is precisely why I have friends here 🙂
To Kamila, R.H., Guy and especially to Michael
You are right when you say that mathematics has an existence independent of physics. Furthermore, if he helps me later, I will show how, in my opinion, physics derives from mathematics and not the other way around.
But in the meantime, I'm asking for a point of departure that has nothing to do with it - free even from mathematics.
withering! The question of the comparison between the possible claim you made, according to which the "yes" always existed, and the claim I brought forward, according to which the "yes" came out of the "nothing", still remains open. This could provide material for a fascinating discussion, which I don't care if it is valued here and I may even participate in it, but I would like not to decide between the two claims now. Instead I will try to show that they are equivalent and that both arise from a simpler situation.
Michael: "The vacuum is swarming with particles that are constantly being formed and ionized." This is true and even confirmed and quantified by observations and calculations. However, both the vacuum and the particles are part of the world of physics, which is large and wide and very comprehensive, while I am looking for a very simple point that not only has no physics, but even no mathematics. Furthermore, I am looking for a starting point that is both an absolute void ("there is no") and an infinite "there is", which will at the same time provide an answer to the two claims flying here at the moment.
jubilee,
Following on from my previous response, the formalism (or model?) that may be appropriate for "no" and "yes" is 0 and the natural numbers, under the addition operator and I don't know how to bridge the two groups. In any case, it seems to me that your claims should be formulated carefully in mathematical/logical language and see what we can possibly get out of it. Meanwhile you presented the ideas in free language, and free language is a very rich source of logical errors. Hope I gave a point for thought.
jubilee:
In my opinion, mathematics does not depend on physics at all.
There are also people who go even further and claim that the opposite is true - meaning that physics derives from mathematics.
See, for example, here.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ground-problem-of-metaphysics-part-2-0704103/
And here too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegmark
I don't tend to agree with you either, but I am convinced that mathematics has its own existence (and the fact is that many branches of mathematics were discovered and studied long before any physical application was discovered for them and yet mathematicians could agree on them).
Regarding the creation from nothing - it happens all the time.
The vacuum is teeming with particles that are constantly being formed and ionized, but we really don't have to assume that everything started at some point.
The idea of universes that are constantly being created and destroyed is certainly alive and kicking and it does not suffer from the question of the starting point.
In general, you should read the chapter Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory in the description of the Big Bang in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
jubilee,
Nicely said, I liked the thing with the lack of symmetry between the pedestal and the pedestal (I'm not sure if it has some kind of implication, but it's nice). My comment is about the previous message in which you argue for the existence of a world without mathematics. I can understand a world without physics, but I think that mathematics does not depend on any world or physical system and it stands on its own. It can also be used to describe bodies, systems or perhaps even universes that do not exist.
jubilee,
There is an error in your answer to Guy, in my opinion: the fact that mathematics reflects physical reality does not necessarily mean that mathematics does not exist/valid when the laws of physics do not apply (such as in the situation at the beginning of the Big Bang (or close to it), there is generally a problem in talking about what happened before the Big Bang if Time seemingly came into being in this event.) I find it hard to believe that you could present a simple mechanism that could not be expressed in mathematical formalism and that would still have some meaning.
Regarding your answer to me, the correct mathematical formalism for the language you propose is the sets {1} and {1-} respectively, under the multiplication operation. In such a situation the first group is closed under multiplication (which is a unary operator in this case) while the second group does not exhibit such behavior (and indeed produces both the value 1- and the value 1). My intuition says that 1 and (1-) are symmetric (and so are "yes" and "no"), I have a feeling, which I can't explain at the moment why, that "yes" and "no" do not maintain the exact same relationship And in that case your example is not relevant. Need to think about it more. Mr. Do you have anything to say about it?
jubilee
Do not take into account the second language either.
I think it is actually shorter than your idea.
withering
I intended to answer in detail, but my time is pressing right now. Therefore I will use a parable.
Suppose there is a language, let's call it "no language", which contains only one word - no. We can build from it sentences such as no, no-no, no-no-no and so on. The sentence no-no is the opposite of no, which in normal languages we call "yes".
Now let's assume the existence of another language, we will call it the "yes language", which contains only one word - yes. Any combination of yes-yes will give us only yes.
From this arises (albeit only at the level of language) a lack of symmetry: from the no it is possible to make yes but from the yes it is not possible to make no. And by extension: "No" by itself is both "no" and "yes", but yes by itself is only "yes".
ravine
exactly! You are exactly on point. The things I am talking about are truly "beyond the reach of science". This is not physics but metaphysics, and the discussion about it is not scientific but philosophical. The laws of conservation that we know from physics are not relevant to such a discussion, because they are part of physics - but it has not yet been born. Mathematics does not exist either, since it reflects physical reality. What we are looking for is a mechanism as simple as possible that creates physics out of nothing. If we assume that mathematics and conservation laws exist in it, then we are in physics - and this is not the subject of our discussion.
withering
I will answer you in detail shortly
jubilee,
I think you missed a fundamental point here, and that is that your "complaint" that we didn't solve anything if we assume that the yes began with another is is only justified if you initially adopted a different assumption (in your case that the is began from nothing). Obviously, if you're looking for an end/limit/beginning then an infinite state won't be able to satisfy you, but that's only because you expect to find an end/limit/beginning in the first place. It is similar if you asked in the distant past where the edge of the world you live on is (assuming the world is flat). If they told you that there is an alternative and equally justified assumption (if only because of a decisive lack of knowledge on the subject) that there is no end to the world, you would answer that this is an assumption that does not help anything because it is clear that after every piece of land there is another piece of land, and after that there will be another piece of land and thus we have not solved anything. The reason you would feel we haven't solved anything is because you still hold to your original assumption that there is an end to the world. In this case, the fact that the earth is spherical clarifies why the world has no end, while the assumption that it has an end is wrong, irrelevant and even misleading as long as it continues to be held. Back to our topic, the possible "solution" regarding a universe that always exists is complete and legitimate, it is the solution itself and the uselessness of this solution is only in relation to the other assumption. One assumption cannot be used as a touchstone for the correctness or usefulness of another assumption that differs from it, and that is what you did and thus erred.
Regarding that ability to create required from nothing. Don't you think that this breaking of symmetry is more strange and problematic than a position that has simply always existed? It is easier for me to accept something that has always existed for the reason that we can point to such situations in our reality (although not in time, but in space and also theoretically, for example, in the number line). On the other hand, we do not know of a situation where symmetry breaking has occurred in something symmetric without features. The breaking of symmetry is always possible (to the best of my knowledge) due to a change of a certain property, rotation speed, temperature, etc., but that absolute void should not have any property that can change, so it is really, really illogical for a symmetry breaking to occur (in this case, the formation of some kind of property).
Either way, there is no doubt that both options are very difficult to digest, and yet I always really enjoy raising the bar on the subject.
jubilee:
Regarding the nothingness and the existence, it seems to me that these are somewhat vague concepts.
First, regarding the formation of something from nothing - does this not contradict the law of conservation of energy?
Regarding the definitions of the terms yes and no, is the "law of conservation of energy" a "yes"? Are physical laws a type of "is" or only the objects to which they apply? My feeling is that this is the kind of question that is beyond the reach of science, which works by generalizing from observations. The arguments that can be raised regarding these types of questions are at most at the level of logical arguments, but to conclude from them regarding reality (for example regarding the question of what really existed before the creation of the universe) will always remain at the level of speculation (in the sense that evidential support is lacking here).
Don't physical theories about the formation of the universe tell us the story in a more reliable way - relying on measurements from the universe as we see it today - and if they are somewhat limited, then this is a limitation that cannot be waived.
And as for what you didn't understand:
I said "what we are looking for is simple and empty but also powerful". By the word "power" I meant the ability to create.
withering
Before I respond to your words, I want to make sure I understood you correctly.
Against my claim, that the is began from the non-existence, you raise a possible alternative claim according to which the is has always been.
You say that I am saying, in other words (and rightly so), that if the universe has always existed then there is no use in questions such as how it all began. I am not sure that this is what I said, and if this is the impression that my words made, I would like to correct and emphasize that I said the following: if we assume that the yes begins with another yes, we only copy the problem from one yes to another ("first ") and we didn't solve anything.
In my opinion, we must examine the two alternative claims against each other and decide which one is better, accept it and reject the other. This is because we believe that there is only one truth.
You said "the only thing science knows how to say is that somewhere in the past the universe was in a very specific state". This particular situation seems to us to be very undiverse compared to what we know in our universe today, and for that reason I tend to see the current reality as a product of development from the simple to the complex. That is, the initial yes - whether it started with nothing or whether it always existed - is something simple and primitive.
The word "always" indicates time, but there is a minefield in this term, since time is part of the eternal reality; If we assume that time has always been then we add another essential assumption to our set of assumptions.
I said earlier that we must accept one claim and reject the other, but there is also the possibility that both claims are true and both stem from a different situation.
I would love to hear more opinions before I continue.
jubilee,
I think you are wrong, there is no principled reason to assume that the universe was created out of nothing because of a creation that has always existed, without a starting point is an equally reasonable option. It may be more difficult intuitively, but infinite situations are situations that we know very well, such as the fact that there is no beginning for the number axis (the 0 is an arbitrary choice but is not a real beginning) nor will you be able to find the beginning (or the end) of a spherical shell. There is no reason for you to rule out right now the possibility that the universe has always existed. The only thing that science knows how to say is that somewhere in the past the universe was in a very specific state but it is not known what was before this state (if there is not or there will be a universe in a different state that is currently unknown but maybe you will find a way in the future for us to know something). Although you didn't put it that way, you are right that if the universe has always existed then there is no use in questions such as how it all began.
The main problem with the creation of the universe from absolute nothingness is precisely the mechanistic problem. In is a very symmetric situation (perhaps the most symmetric that can be, what do you say MR?) It is very difficult to explain how symmetry breaking happens when all you have is perfect symmetry. Even if this symmetry is an unstable state, in the absence of anything else that might disturb it, there is no reason for a change to occur. This problem, in my opinion, is much more acute than the "problem" of an infinite universe in its existence.
I did not understand the last sentence you wrote at all: "What we are looking for is simple and empty but also powerful". I didn't understand the meaning of the power here.
before the bang
We are looking for the mechanism of the creation of the world, we want to know how it all started. We must make some assumptions that will optimize the search. First, we assume that creation began from nothing. This is because if we assume the opposite, that creation did not begin from nothing but from some existence, we are only copying the problem from one existence to another and we have not raised anything.
From nothing arises the existence, and we must assume the emanation of the existence from nothing itself alone. This is because if we assume the existence of a creation mechanism that exists outside of nothing then we create another existence that we have to explain. Therefore, the mechanism that creates the is from the nothing has its beginning in some kind of nothing. Here we must be careful not to define different types of nothing, because in such definitions we again make unnecessary existential assumptions. Therefore, the nothingness from which existence arises and the nothingness from which the mechanism that produces existence out of nothingness is created is the same nothingness. That is, simply, we are looking for a way in which existence is built from nothingness alone without the intervention of another factor. What we are looking for is simple and empty but also powerful.
Peace
You need to change your name to goodbye - and fly away from here. 🙂
From personal experience I can tell you that there is nothing in these things that is outside the mind.
It's all in the head. You need to check your wits maybe he is out…
incidentally:
Of course, the claim that Kevin Nelson's book is wrong and misleading is wrong and misleading itself.
I really hope you read the twists and turns in the link brought by Shalom to see for yourself.
Every sane person will judge for himself.
Hint: According to Shalom, most scientists are wrong in their judgment and Shalom is wiser than them.
The out-of-body experience and HDI are real experiences beyond the mind.
In addition, you will read why the recommended book (by Dr. Kevin Nelson) is wrong and misleading:
http://www.skeptiko.com/94-jeffrey-long-near-death-experience-research/
wondering:
Regarding an external view of your body, you can get a partial answer here:
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/127/2/243?ijkey=bfb16d2ce99fa61febf8b5997c5d62f59e9f5af1
wondering:
Most NDE reporters are not lying.
They believe they experienced what they say.
The point is that their experience has reasons that originate in the functioning of the brain and not in external reality.
If you are really interested in the subject I recommend you read the book The God Impulse And second priority you Paranormality: Why we see what isn't there.
Camila - thank you. Michael - Thank you. Thanks to the link you gave above, to Mario Livio's article, I finally understand the dilemma about the fate of the universe (will it expand forever or not), even when we know there is dark energy.
So all the thousands of videos from the world of people reporting or testifying that they are judged for all their good and bad deeds after death (nde) then they are just psychopaths and delusional? Or lying at worst?
How to treat it? It's hard for me to ignore the studies on the matter, and the reports of people who went through the experience and saw their bodies from the outside!
The researcher (July 31, 2011 at 0:49)
There was someone here not long ago who claimed that everything should be taught. Even when they tried to show him the futility of the matter, even from the technical considerations, he still insisted. So I can say about myself, and only about myself, that you probably won't see me going to get lessons from the rabbi as well as it's unlikely that you'll see me going to learn astrology or a reading in a cafe for the simple reason that even then I don't have time for the things that are important to me (the vast majority of them revolve around science) . The lack of time forces me to give up some pursuits and interests, but even if I were to suddenly get a few more hours in the day, I would not seriously study any of the topics I mentioned before, because from the totality of the interactions I had with these topics (from reading about these topics and from self-study) and with people who believe in them Over the years, I have formed the opinion that these topics may have an anthropological interest, but they have nothing to do with reality (the kind that science deals with or can even theoretically deal with). It may be simply because I never felt anything that I could interpret as faith in God and this despite the fact that I went through crises and periods full of wonder like many other human beings. Maybe if I go through a near-death experience or an accident or a stroke I will feel such a need or such feelings and then maybe my mind will change and I will start looking at horoscopes for example (not that it will change anything in terms of the scientific validity of those subjects). As of this moment, I have not found any form of thought (and I have encountered several such in my life) that even comes close to the capabilities of science in explaining the reality we experience during our lives, but as mentioned this is my personal opinion, I have a neighbor who does nothing important in her life without consulting the reader in her coffee And she believes in it wholeheartedly and for her part, the reader in the coffee makes clear to her everything that needs clarification and if that's enough for her, who am I to take it away from her?
I disagree with you that my lack of interest in the fields I mentioned shows a lack of real research openness because I do believe that the scientific method (the set of rules on which scientific research is based) is the only way that allows us to get to the closest thing to the truth and this belief relies on life experience which every time demonstrates its usefulness and usefulness as well as the aesthetic feeling that arises in me in the face of this way of thinking, both on a theoretical level and on a practical level when it works during the research.
I wish you will find interest in the things you will read here and in other similar places.
lion,
The "" was proposed as a much more successful substitute in my opinion (because it is short and elegant) for what Amadeus calls God (which is very different from what most religious people attribute to this word) and for every practical need that takes into account all reality itself.
Regarding Spock's response, he wrote:
"Look for quantum entanglement and realize you don't have to accelerate futons
They can just be duplicated across space”
And since it is evident from his words that Spock found a way to duplicate futon couches (I didn't delve into the way he does it so don't take me at my word because he might be a crook and these are youth couches after all) I wrote what I wrote. If you saw when the comment was written (my and his) I hope we will not be petty about pen emissions of all kinds.
Camila - not everyone can get to the bottom of your mind and it's not fair to keep us in suspense. After all, not everyone can get to the bottom of your mind. So even if it's a little ridiculous to explain jokes or witticisms, still explain to us the “.” or the " ". above and the subject of furniture sales in "time travel is not possible".
Amadeus,
You wrote: "God "predicts" the Big Bang in the sense that if God exists, then the universe had to have a beginning, and this is exactly what cosmologists say today: about 14 billion years ago, an event occurred that created space, time and all the matter in the universe."
Why do you limit God? If God is omnipotent then obviously the universe can be finite or infinite, started at a certain point in time or always existed in a fixed state or cyclically or in any way you can think of. After all, it is easy to think about the possibility (which Sh.R. usually gives) that God created the universe at this moment in a way that includes all your memories that you have about the "past". Such a beginning of the universe is very different from what cosmologists say about the creation of the universe, do you really not recognize a difference between the two forms?
In addition, the "God" you describe is reality itself since anything less than it necessarily limits it. The meaning of omniscient, omnipotent, etc. is that he is also omnipresent. He is not just observing reality (because then you limit him and it is contrary to the definition) he is reality itself (which includes the big bang and what happened and was before it if you can express it that way). But in that "God" is just an empty word because it is a one-to-one mapping of reality. There is no reason to use any other word than reality. Where do the problems start? When all kinds of people begin to damage this mapping and thus limit "God", there are those who force him to be good and benevolent, there are those who dictate to him what he said and what he meant, where he is, who he loves and who he hates and countless other restrictions Miscellany. What you showed in your words is that the God of the various religions is necessarily a lie (not perfect as required), while the thing you described is a one-to-one mapping of reality and therefore completely unnecessary to call it God (there is nothing really wrong with that, it is simply unnecessary, exactly as I decide to call the object " chair" also called "crisis"). Moreover, there is also no reason to call the same thing you described in the name of God precisely because the holy Omicron is just as appropriate. If you prefer the epithet God over the holy Omicron because of the length of the name then I offer another streamlining: “.” Or maybe even better " ". In fact, the last option I suggested seems particularly suitable to me.
the researcher
Neither you nor I live forever on earth. In my opinion, after death there is an end. According to your opinion, maybe there is an afterlife, because you do not rely only on the written Torah (and not even on the entire Bible) where it is not written anywhere that there is life after death.
However, the question of life after death is not important, because even those who believe in the existence of this phenomenon do not know for sure (at least not from personal experience) about the possibility of communication between the living and the dead.
What seems important to me is the collection of lofty goals that a person chooses for himself. In my opinion, and you are welcome to correct me if I am wrong, your important goal is to keep the Torah (especially the oral one) alive, and for that you study it and pass it on to your children and your children's children as much as you can.
And I have a question for you, which I believe you will answer me honestly. Is belief in God essential for keeping the Torah alive?
Due to the late hour, I only had time to go through the first link. With God's help I will pass the others tomorrow.
First, thank you for the interesting article.
Second: with all due respect to the scientist's achievements in the field he is researching, he did not provide any evidence for the insights he brought in the end, regarding God.
But the dialogue that takes place there, only illustrates what bothers me, there was no in-depth discussion or presentation of arguments and counter-arguments, but an agreement between two representatives of one side... but you are already sure from what you heard there, that you understood everything.
And actually the "amazing" question that London presents. The contradiction between human choice, and the divine knowledge of the future. The question is so old and has been discussed many times. (If you were a religious person, you could study on Shabbat the Mishnah in the tractate Avot "Everything is predictable - and permission is given" as is the Ashkenazi custom, and discuss this question at the Shabbat table with your family).
So I won't go into it, but I'll just ask, have you ever carefully studied the answers to this question? Do you think that this question, which already appears in Maimonides' book, for example, remained without an excellent answer?! After all, if not, then Maimonides and the philosophers of his generation, would have already reached London's scholarly "conclusion" on their own.
All I'm saying is: let's carefully study the other side (as I try to do) and not just find his justifications for my belief. (And yes, even those who deny God, are forced to admit some belief. For example: an eternal universe. Ask the shepherds Tsunza and Amadeus....)
Of course it won't hurt you to read these links as well:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Researcher:
In my opinion, Amadeus' words are empty of content, but if you are ready to face reality, I invite you to watchLink this.
To Amadeus and Roy.
I really enjoyed reading your comment. It's a shame that there aren't enough websites with in-depth discussions, and not shallow/yellow ones.
I may be biased, since I am ultra-Orthodox, but Amadeus' words sound much more grounded.
I do not (unfortunately) have enough knowledge to support or deny one of the two opinions.
But I have one comment:
I know many religious people, (and a few ultra-Orthodox) who study and study seriously and openly, all of them!! the parties. Are the respondents here (as representatives of the non-believing side) also willing to study and investigate the opposing side?
And no, I do not consider Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak's "sermons" as a serious source to examine things.
If not, then it's a shame, it also doesn't show real research openness.
And if I'm wrong, yes. So I apologize in advance. happily.
The absurdity is the main thing:
Can there be two Gods?
Actually - why not?
Does this mean that the second God had a beginning?
And maybe actually for the first one?
There is no limit to the hallucinations that can be hallucinated
lion:
http://odyssey.org.il/209073
Ehud, someone
still not clear. Even before the discovery of dark energy we did not know if the universe was open or closed. Suppose that without dark energy the universe is closed. If the dark energy is too small, it is not enough to open the universe, but if as we calculate today - the dark energy causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, this means that the universe is open and it will expand forever. Unless we have reason to assume that dark energy will decrease, zero, or reverse direction. Do we have such a reason? So I still ask - why is it still unclear whether the universe is open or closed?
Go out and check how complex the products of the Big Bang are and how much intelligence was required to create them.
Powers: four
Particles: six
These too were not all born at the moment of the bang, but are late products (in a few fractions of a second) of a smaller number of previous forces and particles.
Currently, the Big Bang model is not completely free of a certain degree of sophistication. However, even if we accept it in its current version as unquestionably true, it does not require an intelligent God of the kind who speaks to us through prophets (and even directly to some of us).
In my opinion (and there are those who will accuse me of stealing intellectual property from William Ockham): if something is not necessary for an explanation, there is no need to assume its existence.
Amadeus
You should have actually used the symbols of a musical note such as D, Re, Sol for example instead of the ugly letters X and G. That way it would have turned out much nicer! And more logical!
Hope I helped.
to camila-
God "predicts" the big bang in the sense that if God exists, then the universe had to have a beginning, and this is exactly what cosmologists say today: about 14 billion years ago an event occurred that created space, time and all the matter in the universe.
The best strategy I think, to demonstrate why God is necessary and not contingent, is to rely on the principle of individuation. Material objects, for example, can always be "doubled". Any material object you can think of, you can also think of a perfect copy of it that will be identical to it in every feature, but will occupy a different place in space. Therefore, there is no unique object in the world whose predicates will always and necessarily point to only one and only one object. A painting by Rembrandt for example, even if in practice it is something that only exists in one copy, in principle there can be two paintings by Rembrandt that are identical in every possible predicate.
On the other hand, God is a type of entity so that if there is an entity whose predicates are that it is omnipotent, omniscient, unlimited, unchanging, etc., then this entity will necessarily be God and not something else, and likewise there will not be another such entity. God is not a piece of matter, and he is not in space, so the only thing that makes him what he is is his unique predicates, which, unlike the predicates of Rembrandt's painting, are maximal.
More formally:
If X exists, such that X has the predicates that it is maximally omnipotent, omniscient, unlimited, etc. (called G predicates),
So it follows that if (X(G) and (Z(G) exist then it is necessarily true that (Z(G) is the same as (X(G
The reason for this seems to me, that the concept of perfection or unlimitedness rules out the possibility of having two things that are perfect and unlimited. A thing X can only be maximally perfect if everything else that can be thought of is Y, then X will always be more perfect than Y. If in addition to X you also have Y so that Y is infinitely perfect as well, then you already have something that X is no longer perfect from him (and the same for Y). So it logically follows from this that if you have X who is God, and Y who is God, then it is impossible for X not to be the same as Y. On the other hand, when you have a predicate like "being a Subaru car", then of course there is no logical problem that both X and Y, when X is not the same as Y, will fulfill the predicate of "being a Subaru car".
The same goes for the Spaghetti Monster. It is contingent like any other physical object because its predicates are contingent (at least in the sense that it consists of spaghetti and meatballs...), while God does not contain any predicate that can have contingent values, because every predicate of God is a maximal and infinite predicate.
And it seems to me that God, defined in this way, is the best candidate to be the necessary object on which all other things depend contingently, because it is impossible to attribute God's predicates to either the universe or the laws of physics, or gods of all kinds of other cultures (such as Zeus or Vishnu, and even the Trinity the saint).
This argument more formally:
If X exists such that X is a metaphysically necessary object (every kind of existence depends on its existence),
Then it follows that X must have all the maximal predicates of completeness, power, unlimitedness, etc. (G)
That is, there can be no metaphysically necessary X without it being G.
lion
Correcting some of my mistakes:
I accidentally swapped the meanings of omega_zero greater or less than one.
Omega_zero greater than one means a closed universe that will eventually collapse.
Omega_zero less than one means an open universe (expanding forever).
Sorry for the confusion. In addition, it turns out that the fate of the universe has not yet been determined, it is not clear what kind of universe we are
Haim. The fate of the universe is determined by the density of the "matter" it contains and in this context also dark energy
is considered a "material" and by the equations of state of the various "materials", that is, the ratio between the pressure and the density of the material. The physics of dark energy is still not clear, so it is currently difficult to determine what the fate of the universe is.
Amadeus (July 29, 2011 at 20:20 pm)
Apart from what M.R. You wrote and rightly so (how did you even logically arrive at this sentence: "The existence of a creator predicts that there was something like the big bang" and in general how far from the scientific description of the big bang are you willing to accept?) God is also contingent... after all, it could be that what created the universe is the spaghetti monster Or the holy Omicron, which is known to be formless, unconscious and yet is the thing in itself. Since each of these options are contingent, each choice you make must be explained and justified. Only in this matter did you fail twice: 1) in regard to the particular definition of that primary cause. 2) The justification for your choice among all the other options.
You don't care what is described in the Torah and I didn't think you did.
I brought this up as an example of how various people who believed in God (deism) built a mythology around him that is inconsistent with what you claim follows from his existence.
In other words - they - like me - did not think that God's existence came from something like a big bang.
I was not talking about theism, but about deism, so I don't care what is described in the Torah.
Amadeus:
Not only does the existence of a creator not predict something like the big bang, but the creator described in the Torah is described as one who did not make a big bang (and all the lies like "there will be light" is a big bang are really not interesting).
All the creators in other mythologies are also not described as creating a big bang.
It doesn't belong and this is where the example you tried to put on me really fits: you would say with the same degree of (lack of) justification that the existence of a creator predicts that there will be a static universe.
I truly maintain that scientific evidence cannot support or disprove the existence of an indeterminate God or anything else indeterminate.
More than that: scientific evidence cannot confirm or disprove the existence of a definite God who created everything from everything before you read this sentence while also making sure to plant in your memory the experience of reading the sentence up to this point.
Why doesn't it belong? It is like saying that the expansion of the universe does not belong to the big bang. The existence of a creator predicts that there was something like the Big Bang, so how does it not belong? You have a hypothesis that requires some confirmation.
Or are you arguing that scientific evidence cannot by its very definition support or disprove the existence of God? (That's Dawkins's assumption at least, which I thought you and a few other people accept).
Amadeus:
If you had read my words with the aim of understanding them and not with the aim of arguing, you would have realized that your answer is not relevant at all.
I didn't say that the big bang proves that the universe was not created by God but that's what you wanted me to write and that's why you answered it.
I wrote that it just doesn't belong and that's also what I would say about the stable universe.
Both belong to the question of God's existence like lemon juice (or carrot juice, if that convinces you more).
Using pharmacy words does not make your words any more correct.
There is nothing in the Big Bang that I have defined that is more contingent (in essence!) than the definition of some God and certainly not the definition of an indeterminate God.
R.H. Rafai.M
I already explained-
An eternal universe is contingent, it requires an explanation that will be metaphysically necessary. God is the only entity that can be thought of that can necessarily exist so that all other contingent things depend on him, because he is not physical, and he is not defined by contingent parameters that require explanation (like the laws of physics).
It is much easier to argue that an entity like God must be metaphysically necessary than something like a physical universe.
Amadeus
So why can't this reason be: an "eternal universe" (or an "expanding-contracting" universe)?
Why, in your opinion, must the answer be: "God"?
R.H. Rafai.M
Because everything contingent (everything that could not exist) requires an explanation that is necessary and sufficient.
It's a metaphysical principle that I think is hard not to accept. We rely on it every day - for example when a murder occurs, we will never say that the murder has no reason. Science is also built on this principle - we always assume that behind every phenomenon, every pattern, and every observed anomaly there is some kind of law or principle that is responsible for this state of affairs.
And without relying on the principle of sufficient taste, we would not be able to claim, for example, that the Big Bang occurred. That is why it is very strange to believe on the one hand that the big bang happened, but also to say that there may not have been a reason - because all our thinking that led us to this belief assumed that everything has a (necessary and sufficient) reason.
Amadeus
Why must there be a reason?
"Let's define the big bang, for example with a new definition that will be composed as follows: so and so [the previous definition we used] with the addition of the sentence "that happened for no reason"
Something contingent in its essence cannot occur without a necessary and sufficient reason (which happens to be the principle according to which they deduced the occurrence of the Big Bang in the first place...)
Michael,
If you were alive in the 19th century, you would surely be happy to say that the latest scientific theory, and therefore necessarily correct, of the steady state proves that the universe was not created by God. Now that the scientific picture has flipped 180 degrees, it doesn't seem to have changed anything in your opinion of the argument for God's existence (because it's still like lemon juice). But what's funny is that as someone who claims that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God (at least that's what I remember from your other things I've read here, and please correct me if I'm wrong), you are not willing to accept the scientific evidence when there is such, because it doesn't matter if X is true or On the contrary, it will always be by definition as relevant to God as lemon juice.
I am always amused by "factual" arguments that are supposed to derive from definitions (especially when no one has provided a definition!)
Let's define the Big Bang, for example with a new definition that will be composed as follows: so and so [the previous definition we used] with the addition of the sentence "that happened for no reason"
After all, you have a big bang which by definition does not require a reason.
I think this whole discussion is unnecessary.
The Big Bang no more confirms the existence of God than lemon juice.
There is simply no connection between the things and it's a shame to even argue about it.
It is a shame that the article itself did not have the same care as the previous article in the series, which was intended to make it clear that the article does not discuss the God of the evasives who refuse to define his attributes in a way that allows reference and that his whole role is to deal with some defined God (like, for example, that of the monotheistic religions).
Regarding this God, he obviously failed other questions in a much more distinct way and it is not necessary to go back more than 13 billion years to prove that a God who created the world less than 6000 years ago was disabled is impossible.
The previous comment is of course mine.
Roy,
I wasn't talking about logical validity. I argued that a deistic explanation for the origin of the universe is more plausible than a naturalistic explanation, for example because of ontological economy (Ockham's razor), or because a naturalistic explanation cannot provide a transcendent and necessary reason for the origin of the universe, unlike the deistic explanation.
By the way, why do you say "eternal universe", when you get the big bang? It is clear that if the universe began with the big bang then it is not eternal (unlike "will continue to exist forever" which is a weaker definition than "eternal"). But suppose the universe was eternal in the sense that it had no beginning in time, this still does not mean that it has no reason, because we can still ask the question - why is there an eternal universe instead of nothing?
The argument of Dr. Michael Avraham that you tried to deal with is called the cosmological argument - the argument that the existence of the universe, or from the fact that it had a starting point, it can be concluded that it was created by a transcendent being. It's simply the name of the argument and it's what you've been talking about throughout the article. I tried to show that your answer is insufficient because you ignored philosophical-metaphysical considerations, and tried to solve the problem as if it were another scientific problem (which is clearly not the case).
Shabbat Shalom.
Amadeus,
The explanations I offered are logically valid no more and no less than the explanation known in short as 'God'. Once you take God out of the laws of physics by definition, there is no reason not to include other possibilities, such as an eternal universe. You are free to disagree with me, of course, but the logic is valid.
And now about dealing with the cosmological arguments. You claim that I failed to deal with them seriously. But as I wrote in the previous response, I did not try to deal with them at all in the current article, nor did I mention them at all. I leave that for the next article.
So please - before you claim that I failed or didn't understand, bother to read my comments as well.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
To Roy - you didn't understand.
Never mind the laws of physics, they are contingent, and they will never teach us anything about their own cause, or the origin of being in general. You cannot say that God contradicts the laws of physics, because he is by definition outside them and is not affected by them. The laws of physics are not all-knowing, and their applicability is limited. You forget that in addition to the laws of physics there are the laws of logic, mathematics and metaphysics that do not depend on the laws of physics but are "above" them. When it comes to answering cosmological questions, there is no point in talking about the laws of physics, because that is the domain of metaphysics, not science.
What I wanted to argue is that the existence of God can be seen as a much more successful explanation for the origin of the universe and existence than the pseudo-scientific explanations you tried to offer. You failed to seriously deal with the cosmological arguments for the existence of God, and therefore you failed to answer the central question of the article ("Why does the Big Bang not require the existence of God?")
"I pray that God will remove all evil and wickedness from your heart."
Until now, the ones who took the evil out of his heart are the same terrorists and Muslims who rule terror over our world.
It's so absurd to think that because of "Mohammed the Prophet" that you don't even know who he is and what the story behind him is, there are 2 billion primitives like you whose women still wear masks on their faces, and the men waste their time 8 times a day praying to their evil god.
I read a lot of material about the Islamic religion, unfortunately I got depressed after a few minutes of reading.
If you were a "woman of science" you would have realized a long time ago that all this nonsense called the religion of Islam is a figment of the imagination of wicked people.
I, for example, do not know if there is a God or not because it cannot be proven, but this does not mean that I will now believe in the laws of Islam or any other similar religion that will later cause wars and ignorance in the world.
And my father - if the whole world is as patient as you expect me to be regarding Dalal's ignorance and people who think like her, we will end up in a very unpleasant place.
As Einstein himself said, "The world will not be destroyed because of the bad people, it will be destroyed because of the good and wise people who look on from the sidelines and do nothing."
And Dalal, if I had time to prove to you how much nonsense I can find in the Koran I would gladly do so.
To my father, and to all the people who think that they should let the Muslims and the other primitives understand the reality "gently".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAf8-oq37yg
Understand where the world is going in the coming years.
It is important to note that one should not say "all Muslims" because there are many enlightened ones who do not belong to the degraded ignorance of most of them.
sympathetic
As far as I know, even before dark energy and accelerated expansion, it was widely believed that the universe was around a flat universe or close to it in one direction or the other. My question is whether this estimate has changed due to dark energy and accelerated expansion, and if not - then why hasn't it changed, because apparently an accelerating universe will continue to expand forever.
I accidentally forgot to write the value that the astronomical pointers point to, so I built the tension...
The value is omega_zero equals 1 flat geometry.
lion
The parameter that determines whether the universe will expand forever (open) or collapse (closed universe) is called omega_zero in cosmology
When omega_zero is greater than one it means an open universe (expanding forever) omega_zero is less than one the closed universe will collapse and the value omega_zero equals 1 corresponds to a flat geometry the universe will not collapse on itself but its global geometry is flat. Today the consensus among cosmologists is that his universe corresponds to the value omega_zero, i.e. he does not
will collapse on itself.
Roy - I have no information about that. To Tommy, I thought that if the expansion of the universe is accelerated it will continue to expand forever, but as you can understand from the links you mentioned and Camila's response to me above - things are not that simple. Perhaps one of the great minds of the site (of which you are one), such as Camila or our friend whose system inhibits comments containing his name, will be able to enlighten our eyes.
Roy
There is merit to the flaw in bringing half-baked ideas of physicists and calling them a scientific theory.
Weird claims by physicists "Recently a new model for the Big Bang was proposed, according to which there is a huge - perhaps infinite - number of universes, each of which is expanding...". This is clearly not science! If claims were not tested experimentally, they would not have observational confirmation and in particular there is no way to test them, so it seems ridiculous to me to use them to refute the claims of religious people. Not every claim made by a scientist is scientific!
By the way, although the big bang happened billions of years ago, there is experimental evidence that supports the model, in particular the cosmic background radiation, the discovery of which earned Penzias Wilson a Nobel Prize.
It is important in a discussion about science to distinguish between established scientific theories and hallucinations...
Amadeus,
The claim of God is no more or less illogical than the claim of an infinite universe. Both contradict the laws of physics known to us today. This is the main point of the article.
As for the legality of the universe, this is already another issue, and I hope to touch on it in the next chapter.
point,
As I already explained in the previous chapter, these issues seem clear to me, and a lot of ink has already been spilled on them to make it clear that... well, we don't know. However, on Ynet, a series of articles by Dr. Rabbi Michael Avraham was launched that tries to claim that logically there is an end to the series of turtles and the end is God. This, in my opinion, is misleading the readers - and therefore I respond with my own articles that will explain the point.
lion,
I relied on the articles I linked to R.H.. I may also have mixed up the idea of the infinite expanding-contracting universe. Please tell me - has the idea of an expanding-contracting universe been debunked? Do you have a link where I can read more about the subject? Thanks in advance!
Imagine a one-dimensional world, meaning one line with only one dimension, length. This world cannot be created when you are inside it, it can be created from a world with another dimension (at least one), now imagine a two-dimensional world, it can also be created from a higher dimension, that is, a three-dimensional world, now imagine a three-dimensional world...
Aryeh (July 28, 2011 at 12:55 pm)
Since space itself has an energy content that is greater than zero (even if you remove every trace of matter and radiation from it) and on the other hand it seems that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, therefore the question arises where does that energy come from that keeps on adding more and more and how is it possible that under such conditions the universe will continue to expand forever?
Dalal, as you can see, the problem is with the term sacred. Why should something be holy, just because people wrote it 1,500 years ago in the case of the Koran or 2,500 in the case of the Tanakh? What reason do we have to think that they were smarter than us, after all, we can see from the scientific knowledge mentioned in the Tanach that it corresponds to what was known at the time (read, for example, the medical instructions in the case of the leper, alas if some doctor works according to them today - I am talking about the Tanach because I know him better, But I believe that the Koran also suffers from the same problem).
It is true that in the Middle Ages people thought that all wisdom was written in the past and that those generations had nothing to add, and fortunately for us, at least in some Islamic countries - Iraq, Muslim Spain, they preserved the ancient Greek writings and thus they survived the thousand years of the Middle Ages. Today no religion is progressing. It is possible to debate who pulls us more backward, but in any case, the science that is honored in ancient holy books, but it cannot guide us today.
To the poor commenter who didn't mention his name, I pity you! And I pray that God will remove from your heart all the evil and malice towards the other who is different.
Regarding my father, I am not coming to say that the Koran is a scientific book, God forbid (it is above all the science books in the world). They were a very small mass that was blown up by God (the prophets, verse 30), is one of the proofs that it is worth treating holy books with the utmost seriousness and with less disdain. I am a woman of science, but nevertheless, the belief within me that God does exist is only growing as I advance in my degrees and see that as we advance in science, we know how much we do not know in this world. In any case, as they say, taste and smell should not be debated, the same can be said about faith, faith should not be debated.
You were indeed sharp, what needs to be explained to Dalal, as well as to the Jewish rabbis, is that interpretation in retrospect is worth nothing. If the Torah/New Testament/Quran/Buddhists discovered everything, how is it that the scientists have to rediscover and only with hindsight interpretation suddenly discover it in the Holy Scriptures? This alone detracts from the value of the things in the Holy Scriptures.
Dalal, you can take this Quran, look at it from behind, forward, from the side, from the angle, even look a little inside it, it doesn't matter that it is a lie and a lie, the vanity of the vanity, the reason why our world is evil.
I'm sorry that I'm a racist and I'm not nice, but the Muslim religion is one of the heavy responsibilities for the world deteriorating moment by moment, you cling to lies.
Now that you have looked at the book of the Koran, you can look at it a little more, and finally put it deep into the ***.
After you put it in there, take it back out, and realize how much it stinks, it's likely that it would have smelled long before all the lies written in it.
I was ready to die so that religion would disappear and the whole world could finally not suffer from the extremists.
Was I too harsh? Well that's my opinion, and that's the truth.
The Big Bang theory was written about more than 1400 years ago in the Koran. For those interested in the subject, please enter the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bNKBm69W2o
Oh Roy, how prejudiced you are. You go to great lengths to try to "prove" the incorrectness of what you yourself clearly know to be true.
You have written so much to create the illusion that you are saying something that someone does not know. When you actually know what everyone else knows and don't know what everyone else doesn't.
God is defined (in the philosophical sense) as the cause of causes. the primary reason. Then the question is simple:
"Is the universe the cause of itself, or not", if the universe is the cause of itself then the universe is God, and if the universe is not the cause of itself then the universe is not God.
Then, if the universe is the cause of itself, they ask: why would there be such a universe at all (in terms of common sense and science, things don't just appear to them out of nowhere).
And if the universe is not the cause of itself, then they ask if it has a cause, and common sense (and science too) will say that there is a cause, because things are not results without causes just like that.
In short, wherever you go, you will always see that there is another turtle and another turtle, until that turtle where everything we know cannot help us think about it, and there is no point in talking and writing endless articles to talk about what cannot be talked about.
Dear Roy presents the history of the Big Bang in a great way, but in presenting the essential questions and their theological context, he behaves in a goal-oriented manner and not in a systematic way. The 'starting point' of the known existence is essentially the same for the creationists as it is for you. That is, a 'singular point' that actually has no dimension and infinite mass where, as you define it, 'the physical forces went crazy at that point... we have no idea of the laws that worked' is just like saying something/someone out of reality Whether you call the person responsible for this phenomenon or distinguish it from madness or nature, it is widely agreed that reality is systematic and astounding in all the dimensions we know, but it starts from a point that is not only unknown to us, but is fundamentally outside the game/field to which we belong.
All the arguments that Roi provokes are only relevant to what is inside the reality after the big bang. That is, is it possible to assume that there is a willing person responsible for the reality in which we live? Does the same desire / trend continue to influence the development of life? Is it possible to contact him? Has anyone been able to contact him? What techniques can be used to contact? Do those who claim to link and present a message have a reliable message? Is it possible and necessary to check the same message?
In short, I hereby declare that I did not create the world, but I am willing to swear that neither did Roy and I am willing to bet that Roy also knows this. I also know that the world operates under a systematic and intriguing framework of rules that is worth and pleasant to explore. But I am also intrigued to find a systematic envelope for my moral intuition and improve it.
Does morality have laws or a starting point that allow us to commit to them and improve? I'd like to think so and I'm sure that the findings and expertise on the subject is not found in Pakuta for Physics.
Good luck and hopefully we will improve and be better
I want to correct something small, and add a comment.
I got a little confused with the nomenclature. I didn't mean to say that God is "logically necessary" in the sense that its negation is an internal contradiction. I meant that it is metaphysically necessary, meaning that the existence of the universe and everything that exists is logically dependent on it.
The metaphysical necessity of God can for example be shown in the following argument:
There are things that are necessary like the truths of logic or mathematics, in the sense that their truth does not depend on the existence of a material world or human beings, etc. On the other hand, the universe is contingent because it is composed of matter, it is limited in time (and possibly also in space), and the universe could have been different than it is, and its existence depends on certain laws (which are themselves contingent). The same can be said about the multiverse or any physical law you want, which will always have certain contingent values that could have been others.
On the other hand, if God exists, then by definition he is not contingent, because he is not limited in time or space, he is perfect in every respect, and the existence of everything else depends on his will.
Therefore, if we seek to explain the contingent reality that we know from experience (the existence of the universe), then the explanation must be something such as God that will necessarily exist like mathematics or logic, and not some physical reality that cannot by its very definition be necessary. I think it is a legitimate question to ask why the universe exists (or why there is something instead of nothing at all), and therefore a metaphysical necessity is to have an explanation such as God, who is the only thing that can in principle explain the existence of reality at all.
To Roy, some comments:
An endless series of turtles or universes or whatever is not really an explanation. If we take the turtles as a parable, when you say that there are an infinite number of turtles, you are making a contingent claim that itself requires an explanation - why are there actually an infinite number of turtles and not camels or cats..? On the same parable, if you say that there is an eternal multiverse within which there are an infinite number of universes, when our universe is only one of them, you are still making a contingent claim, since one can always ask the question, why is there something at all (like a multiverse) instead of nothing at all?
In order to explain the most basic characteristic of reality - existence, it must be explained with the help of something that is logically necessary, a given that explains everything, but itself does not require an explanation, that is, necessarily exists. You can't say that a turtle series or a multiverse necessarily exist logically.
Secondly, you contradict yourself a bit when you say about God that this is a solution that "deceives" and that adds things that we do not know and are not sure of their existence, but on the other hand you suggest the existence of infinite universes as a logical alternative to God, when in fact we have exactly zero evidence for the existence of anything such a.
In both cases we are trying to give an explanation for the very fact that a universe exists with the help of the existence of something else that is external to it, and is supposed to explain its existence. But the solution to assume the existence of infinite universes, just to explain the existence of only one universe, seems very crude and implausible. On the other hand, God is one and only entity, which can be considered as "simple", in the sense that it is a pure spirit, not composed of parts, and its existence is logically necessary. For example, you can use Occam's Razor and show that God is the simplest and most elegant solution to the existence of the universe, because we assume the existence of only one "simple" universe versus the assumption of infinite universes or things of that kind. In addition to this, an intelligent God with free will and intentions can explain the problem of the fine tuning of the universe - why the laws of physics are the way they are, and how an unconscious process (like a big bang) managed to create a universe that could sustain something improbable like life and intelligence.
her for your reference.
Kamila - Is it true that in the past we did not know whether the universe would continue to expand forever or collapse (or exactly in the middle between the two situations)? Is it true that if the expansion of the universe is accelerating, then it will continue to expand forever? No, I don't believe that energy is created out of nothing; And illuminate our eyes how this relates to the above questions.
I don't understand why we are talking about only one god when in the world as everyone knows there are thousands of gods. The Jews alone have at least 72 gods, not to mention the Indians or the Greeks.
All these gods exist without a doubt, their existence has been proven as the article says beyond all doubt with the big bang. Only the big bang is not connected to some ridiculous singular point.
It was when monkeys invented words and started babbling about them and since then everything they say remains proven beyond any doubt.
R.H.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/big-bounce-theory-220408/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/before-the-universe-1212071/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/physicist-explores-what-happened-before-the-big-bang-0707076/
have a nice weekend,
Roy.
Roy Cezana
Peace.
You wrote: "Recently a new model was proposed for the Big Bang..." - where can you read about it?
Thanks.
lion,
Do you believe that energy is created out of nothing?
"Universes, each of which expands for tens of billions of years, then begins to contract excruciatingly slowly - until reaching the state of a singular point... This point will re-expand in an explosion of enormous dimensions and create the universe..."
I believe that dark energy and the accelerated expansion of the universe cause our universe to expand forever.