Where Did Matter Come From, If Anywhere?
Steve Novak #3000 x2110
I hate to divert everyone from the screechy christians, but I thought
it'd be fun to start some new threads (gently let me know if this group
has gone over some of this stuff already. I just started reading here
lately when James Keegan mentioned alt.atheism's existence to me).
Given that there is no god, no supernatural entity responsible for
"creating" what we perceive as the physical universe, I'd get a kick
out of hearing theories from alt.atheism folks regarding how this
physical universe came into being - or, if it's considered to have always
been around, is there any conclusions we can come to/guess at regarding this
always-existed matter? The wildest theories won't be laughed at (by
me, at least :) as long as they're _possible_.
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak | |Man created God in his own image and likeness.|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
ste...@uswat.USWest.Com
Mark Peters
>Given that there is no god, no supernatural entity responsible for
>"creating" what we perceive as the physical universe, I'd get a kick
>out of hearing theories from alt.atheism folks regarding how this
>physical universe came into being - or, if it's considered to have always
>been around, is there any conclusions we can come to/guess at regarding this
>always-existed matter? The wildest theories won't be laughed at (by
>me, at least :) as long as they're _possible_.
If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
an eternal universe. To do otherwise is contradictory, since a
universe with a beginning requires the existence of a creator as
its cause.
This isn't the same, however, as claiming that matter has always existed,
i.e., the big-bang isn't necessarily incompatible with atheism. A big-bang
theory which supposes that there was literally nothing before the big-bang
*is* incompatible, because a supernatural cause is required to explain
the creation of something from nothing.
--
Mark A. Peters ****** ======================
Control Data Corporation ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
Internet: m...@svl.cdc.com ****** == "What an idea!!" ==
Ivan the TERRIBLE
>In <1991Nov7.1...@cherokee.uswest.com> ste...@helena.uswest.com ( Steve Novak #3000 x2110 ) writes:
>
>>Given that there is no god, no supernatural entity responsible for
>>"creating" what we perceive as the physical universe, I'd get a kick
>>out of hearing theories from alt.atheism folks regarding how this
>>physical universe came into being - or, if it's considered to have always
>>been around, is there any conclusions we can come to/guess at regarding this
>>always-existed matter? The wildest theories won't be laughed at (by
>>me, at least :) as long as they're _possible_.
>
>If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
>an eternal universe. To do otherwise is contradictory, since a
>universe with a beginning requires the existence of a creator as
>its cause.
>
>This isn't the same, however, as claiming that matter has always existed,
>i.e., the big-bang isn't necessarily incompatible with atheism. A big-bang
>theory which supposes that there was literally nothing before the big-bang
>*is* incompatible, because a supernatural cause is required to explain
>the creation of something from nothing.
not true. Just that the total sum of energy must = 0. I suggest you
read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
>--
>Mark A. Peters ****** ======================
>Control Data Corporation ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
>Internet: m...@svl.cdc.com ****** == "What an idea!!" ==
Annal Natrach, Usthvah Spethed, ca...@ecr.mu.oz.au
Dochoel Dienve Chem Eng, uni of Melbourne
Merlin, where are you? Call your dragon, to weave a mist...
Graham Matthews
>>Given that there is no god, no supernatural entity responsible for
>>"creating" what we perceive as the physical universe, I'd get a kick
>>out of hearing theories from alt.atheism folks regarding how this
>>physical universe came into being - or, if it's considered to have always
>>been around, is there any conclusions we can come to/guess at regarding this
>>always-existed matter? The wildest theories won't be laughed at (by
>>me, at least :) as long as they're _possible_.
Mark Peters:
>If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
>an eternal universe. To do otherwise is contradictory, since a
>universe with a beginning requires the existence of a creator as
>its cause.
>
>This isn't the same, however, as claiming that matter has always existed,
>i.e., the big-bang isn't necessarily incompatible with atheism. A big-bang
>theory which supposes that there was literally nothing before the big-bang
>*is* incompatible, because a supernatural cause is required to explain
>the creation of something from nothing.
Well I would disagree with you here Mark.
I would suggest that the universe was indeed created from nothing.
We live in a universe with a finite bound on its beginning (note: this does
not mean that there was necessarily one single time zero, as in some
theories of the big bang there is a smearing of space and time inside the
Planck Time).
I fail to see how a universe that was created from nothing is 'incompatible'.
This is because I do not agree with the sentence, "because a supernatural cause
is required to explain the creation of something from nothing". I fail to
see why this is necessarily so Mark - indeed many modern physics theories
allow matter being created from nothing (eg: Hawking radiation, semi-conductor
theory, etc).
Cheers
graham
--
Graham Matthews Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz If that is granted all else follows.
gra...@maths.su.oz.au
JONES, PAUL DAVID
>Given that there is no god, no supernatural entity responsible for
>"creating" what we perceive as the physical universe, I'd get a kick
>out of hearing theories from alt.atheism folks regarding how this
>physical universe came into being - or, if it's considered to have always
>been around, is there any conclusions we can come to/guess at regarding this
>always-existed matter? The wildest theories won't be laughed at (by
>me, at least :) as long as they're _possible_.
I see the universe as a sort of bubble with nothing outside of it. There is
no outside. No boundary one might get past in some way, just no existence of
any sort outside of it. Closed in all space dimensions and in the time
dimension. If you look at time as a dimension (I know it's a cliche, but
_think_ about it) then the question of a "beginning" doesn't mean anything.
The universe didn't begin and won't end. It doesn't exist eternally, that's
a time-bounded idea. It just _is_ (that it is... heheheh).
This, as you may realize, implies a closed or critically-massed universe.
I admit that I have no objective reason to think it more likely than an open
universe, and I don't. I suppose it's no real trouble to think of an unbounded
universe as as valid a concept as a bounded one. I'm just guessing.
______
\ /___ Illithid (Paul D. Jones) Texas A&M, especially the Corps
\ / / of Cadets, stands staunchly behind
\/\ / PDJ...@venus.tamu.edu each and every one of my opinions.
\/
Svein Olav Nyberg
> Given that there is no god, no supernatural entity responsible for
> "creating" what we perceive as the physical universe, I'd get a kick
> out of hearing theories from alt.atheism folks regarding how this
> physical universe came into being - or, if it's considered to have always
> been around, is there any conclusions we can come to/guess at regarding this
> always-existed matter? The wildest theories won't be laughed at (by
> me, at least :) as long as they're _possible_.
You are making a very big assumption here, Steve; and that is that time
equals the set of real numbers. It is not improbable that time is circular, joined at the ends by the Big Bang and the gnaB giB.
What we have for sure, are chains of causality, and possibly also some
primae causae. Time is a (sometimes) measurable property _within_ these
chains of causality.
Solan : Opinions stated above are my own
(Svein Olav Nyberg
Dept. of Mathematics
University of Oslo
Norway)
Steve Novak #3000 x2110
>If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
>an eternal universe. To do otherwise is contradictory, since a
>universe with a beginning requires the existence of a creator as
>its cause.
Is this necessarily true? Alluding to discussions while on your favorite
mind-altering substance from 1970, it could be possible that what we
perceive as our physical universe was somehow concocted by other, _not_
supernatural, entities or forces. Yes?
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak | |"Nothing to do to save his life..."|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
ste...@uswat.USWest.Com
Mark Peters
>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com> m...@svl.cdc.com writes:
>>If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
>>an eternal universe. To do otherwise is contradictory, since a
>>universe with a beginning requires the existence of a creator as
>>its cause.
>>
>>This isn't the same, however, as claiming that matter has always existed,
>>i.e., the big-bang isn't necessarily incompatible with atheism. A big-bang
>>theory which supposes that there was literally nothing before the big-bang
>>*is* incompatible, because a supernatural cause is required to explain
>>the creation of something from nothing.
>not true. Just that the total sum of energy must = 0. I suggest you
>read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
>make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Existence cannot arise
from non-existence. There must have been *something* before the
big-bang, because if there was nothing, then nothing existed to cause
the big bang - leaving as the only possible explanation a supernatural
creator.
Precisely *what* it was that existed before the big bang is a scientific
question, one whose answer can't contradict the fact that whatever the
*what* was, it did exist.
Kent Sandvik
> I hate to divert everyone from the screechy christians, but I thought
> it'd be fun to start some new threads (gently let me know if this group
> has gone over some of this stuff already. I just started reading here
> lately when James Keegan mentioned alt.atheism's existence to me).
> Given that there is no god, no supernatural entity responsible for
> "creating" what we perceive as the physical universe, I'd get a kick
> out of hearing theories from alt.atheism folks regarding how this
> physical universe came into being - or, if it's considered to have always
> been around, is there any conclusions we can come to/guess at regarding this
> always-existed matter? The wildest theories won't be laughed at (by
> me, at least :) as long as they're _possible_.
Doesn't this happen all the time around us, i.e. quantum physics? Is
there are miracle behind every photon?
reg,
Kent
Mark Peters
>> Mark Peters writes:
>>If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
>>an eternal universe. To do otherwise is contradictory, since a
>>universe with a beginning requires the existence of a creator as
>>its cause.
>Is this necessarily true? Alluding to discussions while on your favorite
>mind-altering substance from 1970, it could be possible that what we
>perceive as our physical universe was somehow concocted by other, _not_
>supernatural, entities or forces. Yes?
A claim of "possible" requires that there be at least *some* evidence
in support of the claim. In this case there isn't *any* evidence,
so what you suggest is not possible - it's just an arbitrary claim
with no cognitive significance.
Be that as it may, I think you misread my post. I made a distinction
between "matter" and "universe," i.e., between "physical universe"
and existence as such. If some natural entity or force that we are
currently unaware of *did* create the physical universe, it *existed*
at the time, i.e., it was part of existence even if it wasn't part
of the physical universe it created.
It is existence as such that is (and must be) eternal, not the physical
universe. The big-bang is an explanation for the existence of the
physical universe, not an explanation for existence as such.
Jarek Dabrowski
-Mark Peters:
>>A big-bang theory which supposes that there was literally nothing
>>before the big-bang *is* incompatible [with atheism], because a
>>supernatural cause is required to explain the creation of something
>>from nothing.
-Graham:
> Well I would disagree with you here Mark.
> I would suggest that the universe was indeed created from nothing.
> We live in a universe with a finite bound on its beginning (note: this does
> not mean that there was necessarily one single time zero, as in some
> theories of the big bang there is a smearing of space and time inside the
> Planck Time).
>
And I see no important difference between a universe which has a
begining and a universe which is eternal. Why do you think that time
is so essential?
> [...] indeed many modern physics theories allow matter being created
> from nothing (eg: Hawking radiation, ...
>
Not from "nothing", because the structure (the universe with its laws)
is already there. The question is WHY is there a structure. Why is there
Something rather than Nothing? And the answer may be given by another
question: Does it make any sense to ask WHY?
> ... semi-conductor theory, ...
>
Do you mean Dirac? Anyway, it is always the same: the structure is there.
Best wishes,
Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
.-----. dabr...@fhi-berlin.mpg.dbp.de
`-> <-' (Jarek Dabrowski)
Ken Arromdee
>Existence cannot arise
>from non-existence.
Says who, you?
--
"Halvah? What kind of fish is that?" --grocer, to my grandfather, many
years ago....
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@cs.jhu.edu)
Graham Matthews
>>>A big-bang theory which supposes that there was literally nothing
>>>before the big-bang *is* incompatible [with atheism], because a
>>>supernatural cause is required to explain the creation of something
>>>from nothing.
Me:
>> Well I would disagree with you here Mark.
>> I would suggest that the universe was indeed created from nothing.
>> We live in a universe with a finite bound on its beginning (note: this does
>> not mean that there was necessarily one single time zero, as in some
>> theories of the big bang there is a smearing of space and time inside the
>> Planck Time).
Jarek:
>And I see no important difference between a universe which has a
>begining and a universe which is eternal. Why do you think that time
>is so essential?
I don't think time is essential - I am simply interested in 'what really
happened'.
Me:
>> [...] indeed many modern physics theories allow matter being created
>> from nothing (eg: Hawking radiation, ...
Jarek:
>Not from "nothing", because the structure (the universe with its laws)
>is already there. The question is WHY is there a structure. Why is there
>Something rather than Nothing? And the answer may be given by another
>question: Does it make any sense to ask WHY?
No, there is no structure for these virtual particles to obey. In fact
it is silly to say that these virtual particles obey the structure
of this universe as how can a particle obey laws when it does not
exist!
Me:
>> ... semi-conductor theory, ...
Jarek;
>Do you mean Dirac? Anyway, it is always the same: the structure is there.
Nope I mean go find out how electrons move in semi-conductors.
Graham Matthews
>>>If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
>>>an eternal universe. To do otherwise is contradictory, since a
>>>universe with a beginning requires the existence of a creator as
>>>its cause.
>>>
>>>This isn't the same, however, as claiming that matter has always existed,
>>>i.e., the big-bang isn't necessarily incompatible with atheism. A big-bang
>>>theory which supposes that there was literally nothing before the big-bang
>>>*is* incompatible, because a supernatural cause is required to explain
>>>the creation of something from nothing.
Ivan the Terrible:
>>not true. Just that the total sum of energy must = 0. I suggest you
>>read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
>>make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
Mark Peters again:
>I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
>philosophical issue, not a scientific one.
A lot of scientists would disagree with you!
> Existence cannot arise
>from non-existence.
Once again a lot of scientists would disagree with you.
>There must have been *something* before the
>big-bang, because if there was nothing, then nothing existed to cause
>the big bang - leaving as the only possible explanation a supernatural
>creator.
And here we have the crux of the issue. You think that matter cannot
come from nothing while others of us think it can. So before this
thread degenerates into a giant slugfest how about the people on both
sides of this issue just agree to disagree!
Or am I asking too much ? :-)
Ivan the TERRIBLE
>In <913121...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> ca...@ecr.mu.oz.au (Ivan the TERRIBLE) writes:
>
>>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com> m...@svl.cdc.com writes:
>>>If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
>>>an eternal universe. To do otherwise is contradictory, since a
>>>universe with a beginning requires the existence of a creator as
>>>its cause.
>>>
>>>This isn't the same, however, as claiming that matter has always existed,
>>>i.e., the big-bang isn't necessarily incompatible with atheism. A big-bang
>>>theory which supposes that there was literally nothing before the big-bang
>>>*is* incompatible, because a supernatural cause is required to explain
>>>the creation of something from nothing.
>
>>not true. Just that the total sum of energy must = 0. I suggest you
>>read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
>>make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
>
>I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
>philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Existence cannot arise
>from non-existence. There must have been *something* before the
>big-bang, because if there was nothing, then nothing existed to cause
>the big bang - leaving as the only possible explanation a supernatural
>creator.
philosophy is just an excuse. Read it again. It contends that time may
be circular. Philosophy has nothing to do with the origins of the cosmos,
if there was one(an origin). You can sit around a coffee table talking
'till you're blue in the face, but science is the tool you need to
approach a solution. Where did I come from, star-stuff...
What was before the beginning? Well, what if there was
No beginning? Certain solutions of the General Relativity suggest this...
and are pointed out in BHOT.
>
>Precisely *what* it was that existed before the big bang is a scientific
>question, one whose answer can't contradict the fact that whatever the
>*what* was, it did exist.
um, you *did* read brief history of time, didn't you....
Perhaps a re-read is in order....
>--
>Mark A. Peters ****** ======================
>Control Data Corporation ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
>Internet: m...@svl.cdc.com ****** == "What an idea!!" ==
Richard Caley
mp> If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
mp> an eternal universe. To do otherwise is contradictory, since a
mp> universe with a beginning requires the existence of a creator as
mp> its cause.
No, this is self refuting. If there was a creator then the `beginning'
was not the beginning, since something (the creator) existed before.
mp> This isn't the same, however, as claiming that matter has always existed,
mp> i.e., the big-bang isn't necessarily incompatible with atheism. A big-bang
mp> theory which supposes that there was literally nothing before the big-bang
mp> *is* incompatible, because a supernatural cause is required to explain
mp> the creation of something from nothing.
a) Prove that something can not come from nothing. Use both sides of
the paper :-). You seem to be assuming absolute conservation
of `something' (matter, energy etc). There is no reason to
assume this. Current physics in fact does not.
b) You assume that `before the big bang' is meaningful. This may well
be false. Time is not so simple. See Hawking for a good
discussion of finite but boundless space-time structures.
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Tom Bruno
The supernatural need not be invoked to explain 'something from nothing.'
There is a phenomenon known as vacuum fluctuation, in which an electron-
positron pair can spontaneously appear (out of nothing, mind you), and
annihilate each other, leaving no trace of their existence. Some physicists
contend that our entire universe is a macroscopic 'vacuum fluctuation'
in transit to eventual annihiliation.
And on that happy note...
Tom Bruno
tcb...@athena.mit.edu
Jarek Dabrowski
> Mark Peters:
>>>>A big-bang theory which supposes that there was literally nothing
>>>>before the big-bang *is* incompatible [with atheism], because a
>>>>supernatural cause is required to explain the creation of something
>>>>from nothing.
> Me:
>>> Well I would disagree with you here Mark.
>>> I would suggest that the universe was indeed created from nothing.
>>> We live in a universe with a finite bound on its beginning (note: this does
>>> not mean that there was necessarily one single time zero, as in some
>>> theories of the big bang there is a smearing of space and time inside the
>>> Planck Time).
> Jarek:
>>And I see no important difference between a universe which has a
>>begining and a universe which is eternal.
> Me:
>>> [...] indeed many modern physics theories allow matter being created
>>> from nothing (eg: Hawking radiation, ...
> Jarek:
>>Not from "nothing", because the structure (the universe with its laws)
>>is already there. The question is WHY is there a structure. Why is there
>>Something rather than Nothing? And the answer may be given by another
>>question: Does it make any sense to ask WHY?
-Graham:
> No, there is no structure for these virtual particles to obey. In fact
> it is silly to say that these virtual particles obey the structure
> of this universe as how can a particle obey laws when it does not
> exist!
>
Graham! "Silly" again? PLEASE be more cautious with your emotions :-).
A virtual particle is a formal object within certain formalism. This
object corresponds to a possible (doesn't mean observable) state of
the system which has (in this formalism) to be included to obtain a
full description of the behavior of this system. Virtual particles DO
obey laws, even though they do not "exist" (are not observable). These
laws not only allow us to the language of virtual particles in field
theories, but they also make it possible that the virtual particles
appear as observable particles when certain conditions are fulfilled.
For example, when sufficient energy is supplied (in the case of Hawking
radiation, this energy is supplied by the black hole itself; that's how
small black holes "evaporate") and other appropriate conservation rules
are obeyed...
Simply stated: The void is "alive". It has an underlying structure
which gives sense to our formalisms. Thus the void is Something. The
question is: WHY isn't it rather Nothing?
> Me:
>>> ... semi-conductor theory, ...
>
> Jarek;
>>Do you mean Dirac? Anyway, it is always the same: the structure is there.
>
> Nope I mean go find out how electrons move in semi-conductors.
>
I don't see your point. What has the motion of electrons in semiconductors
to do with coming to being out of NOTHING? If you refer to electron-hole
excitations, then it is usually regarded as a visualization of the Dirac
solution (electron-positron excitations of the vacuum). And this analogy
points to the opposite to what you want to show: Even though in the ground
state of a perfect semiconductor there are no conducting particles, you
need the SEMICONDUCTOR and the ENERGY to create any. Simply stated, you
need the structure...
Jarek Dabrowski
> there are miracle behind every photon?
>
by the laws of this world. The important question is how to understand
(if possible) the fact that there is a structure (to generalize "laws")
which allows for such processes.
FOR FUN: maybe a future war will send the universe backward in time so
that it exploded exactly at the Point Zero (when it is unstable because
of its own properties it acquired after the explosion)?
CONCLUSION: Let's create our universe before it disappears as illegal!
Graham Matthews
>> No, there is no structure for these virtual particles to obey. In fact
>> it is silly to say that these virtual particles obey the structure
>> of this universe as how can a particle obey laws when it does not
>> exist!
Jarek Dabrowski writes:
>Graham! "Silly" again? PLEASE be more cautious with your emotions :-).
Cut the condascening stuff Jarek! 'Silly' is perfectly reasonable in the
above context.
Jarek:
>A virtual particle is a formal object within certain formalism. This
>object corresponds to a possible (doesn't mean observable) state of
>the system which has (in this formalism) to be included to obtain a
>full description of the behavior of this system. Virtual particles DO
>obey laws, even though they do not "exist" (are not observable).
Nope non-existence and observability have nothing to do with each other.
Virtual particles do not exist, it is NOT that they are not observable.
>Simply stated: The void is "alive". It has an underlying structure
>which gives sense to our formalisms. Thus the void is Something. The
>question is: WHY isn't it rather Nothing?
My previous comment answers this rather nicely.
BURKE, MORGAN
>>not true. Just that the total sum of energy must = 0. I suggest you
>>read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
>>make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
>
>I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
>philosophical issue, not a scientific one.
Get an education. Time, matter, and energy are in the domain of physics,
which is about as scientific as you can get.
>Existence cannot arise from non-existence.
Wrong again. So long as the laws of conservation (of energy, charge, etc)
are obeyed, creation can occur without cause. Study up on virtual pair
creation if you'd like to know more.
>There must have been *something* before the
>big-bang, because if there was nothing, then nothing existed to cause
>the big bang - leaving as the only possible explanation a supernatural
>creator.
Bzzzt! Strike three! Nothing could have existed "before" the Big Bang,
since time itself began with the Big Bang. The whole notion of "before"
the Big Bang is completely nonsensical.
Fact is, the idea that the universe is nothing more than some kind of
vacuum fluctuation with a total energy of zero is completely consistent
with observational evidence and physical theory. Such a universe does
require a creator, nor even a prior cause, and yet it has a well-defined
beginning.
Morgan Burke (mor...@reg.triumf.ca)
"Common sense is just that layer of prejudices laid down before the
age of eighteen." -- Albert Einstein
Jarek Dabrowski
> Me:
>>> No, there is no structure for these virtual particles to obey. In fact
>>> it is silly to say that these virtual particles obey the structure
>>> of this universe as how can a particle obey laws when it does not
>>> exist!
>
> Jarek Dabrowski writes:
>>Graham! "Silly" again? PLEASE be more cautious with your emotions :-).
>
> Cut the condascening stuff Jarek! 'Silly' is perfectly reasonable in the
> above context.
>
a bit too fast. OK, let's leave it.
> Jarek:
>>A virtual particle is a formal object within certain formalism. This
>>object corresponds to a possible (doesn't mean observable) state of
>>the system which has (in this formalism) to be included to obtain a
>>full description of the behavior of this system. Virtual particles DO
>>obey laws, even though they do not "exist" (are not observable).
>
> Nope non-existence and observability have nothing to do with each other.
> Virtual particles do not exist, it is NOT that they are not observable.
>
philosophical question. We are talking about a certain physical model
of the world. This model involves virtual particles. They exist in
this model, because they are integral parts of it. I wrote several
lines of explanations why and how do these particles obey laws.
>>Simply stated: The void is "alive". It has an underlying structure
>>which gives sense to our formalisms. Thus the void is Something. The
>>question is: WHY isn't it rather Nothing?
>
> My previous comment answers this rather nicely.
>
Which comment? The answer to mine? I said cleary: as far as I know physics,
your comment was simply wrong. Wrong for both models: for the Hawking
radiation and for the inter-band excitations in semiconductors. And I told
you why it was wrong. So please show faults in my reply, and name your
comment "nice" only afterwards.
mathew
> In <913121...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> ca...@ecr.mu.oz.au (Ivan the TERRIBLE) wr
> >read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
> >make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
>
> I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
> philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Existence cannot arise
> from non-existence.
OK.
So when photons just pop out of nowhere, where are they coming from?
JHVH-1's Discount Photon Shop?
mathew
--
Another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices.
Mark Peters
>m...@u02.svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:
>> In <913121...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> ca...@ecr.mu.oz.au (Ivan the TERRIBLE) wr
>> >not true. Just that the total sum of energy must = 0. I suggest you
>> >read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
>> >make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
>>
>> I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
>> philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Existence cannot arise
>> from non-existence.
>OK.
>So when photons just pop out of nowhere, where are they coming from?
>JHVH-1's Discount Photon Shop?
I just have to challenge the premise behind this question - that photons
do, in reality, pop out of nowhere, i.e., come into existence from
nothing.
I've discussed this subject before (in this very newsgroup) without
success, so I'll keep this brief.
There are two subjects being mixed together improperly in the claims
that quantum mechanics "proves" that existence can arise from
non-existence, namely, metaphysics and epistemology. Metaphysics
studies the basic nature of reality as a whole, while epistemology
studies the proper methods for obtaining and validating truth, i.e.,
the methods for gaining knowledge of reality. Metaphysics pertains
to existence, while epistemology pertains to consciousness.
Quantum mechanics is first and foremost a *methodology* for grasping
the nature of the sub-atomic world, and performing the calculations
necessary to make practical use of this nature. This methodology
is *not* identical with the reality - it is the means of grasping
it.
To say that *in reality* particles come into existence from
non-existence because *the methodology* won't work if it doesn't
assume this, is to equate method with reality, epistemology with
metaphysics, consciousness with existence. But consciousness
and existence are independent, and the whole scientific method
relies on that fact.
If it were true that QM proves that existence can arise from non-
existence, then that proof would invalidate QM (and every other
science) in the process - because they were all built on the premise
of the independence of consciousness and existence.
Eric Rescorla
>>So when photons just pop out of nowhere, where are they coming from?
>>JHVH-1's Discount Photon Shop?
>
>I just have to challenge the premise behind this question - that photons
>do, in reality, pop out of nowhere, i.e., come into existence from
>nothing.
Things like this DO happen.
>I've discussed this subject before (in this very newsgroup) without
>success, so I'll keep this brief.
And you showed you didn't understand QM last time. You got any better
since?
>If it were true that QM proves that existence can arise from non-
>existence, then that proof would invalidate QM (and every other
>science) in the process - because they were all built on the premise
>of the independence of consciousness and existence.
Why?
Why does existence arising from nonexistence invalidate QM?
1) A lot of people don't believe in the independence of consciousness
and existence. cf the Copenhagen interpretation.
2) QM provides definite rules for the creation of particles.
How does this invalidate QM?
-Ekr
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider resc...@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry resc...@psun.chem.yale.edu
"No his mind is not for rent--to any God or government." Peart/Dubois
Jarek Dabrowski
(BURKE, MORGAN) writes:
> Fact is, the idea that the universe is nothing more than some kind of
> vacuum fluctuation with a total energy of zero is completely consistent
> with observational evidence and physical theory. Such a universe does
> require a creator, nor even a prior cause, and yet it has a well-defined
> beginning.
>
You meant DOESN'T require a creator, I guess? So my malicious question is:
Where the vacuum come from?
Kent Sandvik
>
> -Kent Sandvik on the "coming to being out of nothing":
> > Doesn't this happen all the time around us, i.e. quantum physics? Is
> > there are miracle behind every photon?
> >
> No, it doesn't. It always happens WITHIN our world and can be described
> by the laws of this world. The important question is how to understand
> (if possible) the fact that there is a structure (to generalize "laws")
> which allows for such processes.
But it still appears from nowhere, i.e. the times of miracles are not
gone by! Everyone could experience miracles, just open your eyes :-).
reg,
Kent
Graham Matthews
>> Fact is, the idea that the universe is nothing more than some kind of
>> vacuum fluctuation with a total energy of zero is completely consistent
>> with observational evidence and physical theory. Such a universe does
>> require a creator, nor even a prior cause, and yet it has a well-defined
>> beginning.
Jarek:
>You meant DOESN'T require a creator, I guess? So my malicious question is:
>Where the vacuum come from?
The vacuum does not come from anything - it is not an object, it is nothing.
Mikel Evins
>Mark Peters writes:
>>>>If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
>>>>an eternal universe. To do otherwise is contradictory, since a
>>>>universe with a beginning requires the existence of a creator as
>>>>its cause.
>
>come from nothing while others of us think it can. So before this
>thread degenerates into a giant slugfest how about the people on both
>sides of this issue just agree to disagree!
I have another quibble or two with Mark because I think
he's using the words 'eternal' and 'existence' in funny ways.
For example, in order to accept his argument I must
either assume that time is not part of the universe, or
that 'eternal' has some meaning not related to time
(and hence different from the one I normally understand
it to have, i.e. 'for all time'). If I do not make some
such assumption then Mark's claim becomes incoherent, as
there can be no 'before' the Big Bang without time, hence
no existence 'before' the Big Bang, hence no eternity
'before' the Big Bang.
Jarek Dabrowski
> So when photons just pop out of nowhere, where are they coming from?
> JHVH-1's Discount Photon Shop?
>
From vacuum. It is not an absolute "nowhere". It has a structure which
allows it to give birth to observable particles when certain conditions
are fulfilled.
dEaD Jim
>
>>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com> m...@svl.cdc.com writes:
>>>If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
>>>an eternal universe.
>>>
>>read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
>>make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
>
>I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
>philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Existence cannot arise
>from non-existence. There must have been *something* before the
>--
>Mark A. Peters
asking what existed "before" the big bang, is like asking who lived in
this house before it was built.
explanation: according to relativistic theory, as somthing(mass) approaches
lightspeed, it's mass approaches infinity, and it's perception of time slows
to approach zero. Consider the 'point' of matter from which the big bang
(supposedly) occured, a mass so small, and so dense, that it's mass is so
'close' to infinity as to render the matter academic. At this mass, there
would be _no_ time... in the 'mili-seconds' after the big bang, the density
decreased as the 'speed' of time increased, the rate of change slowing as
the 'universe' expanded.
This, of course, doesn't explain how that 'point' came to exist, but it's
not any less reasonable to ask how this "super-natural" being came to
exist.
}----------------------------------------------------------------------->
}-IvArch-> }-Brett G. Lemoine---------------->
}-Texas A&M University CSC - Remote Micro Facilities--->
}-Internet: bgl...@zeus.tamu.edu Bitnet: bgl6000@tamzeus->
}-Compu$erve: 72531,3241 America Online: IvArch---------->
}----------------------------------------------------------------------->
}----"Don't tell me how to think, and I won't tell you how to think."--->
}----------------------------------------------------------------------->
Kent Sandvik
>
> In article <10NOV199...@reg.triumf.ca>, mor...@reg.triumf.ca
> (BURKE, MORGAN) writes:
>
> > Fact is, the idea that the universe is nothing more than some kind of
> > vacuum fluctuation with a total energy of zero is completely consistent
> > with observational evidence and physical theory. Such a universe does
> > require a creator, nor even a prior cause, and yet it has a well-defined
> > beginning.
> >
> You meant DOESN'T require a creator, I guess? So my malicious question is:
> Where the vacuum come from?
Does everything always *need* to origin from something else? Even in theology
when we discuss if God created the concept of god and evil, the theists
say that these concepts have *always* existed.
This could be the same of vacuum, it has always existed and will always exist.
Simple.
reg,
Kent
..private opinions..
Kent Sandvik
> vacuum fluctuation with a total energy of zero is completely consistent
> with observational evidence and physical theory. Such a universe does
> require a creator, nor even a prior cause, and yet it has a well-defined
> beginning.
I'm personally interested in the concept that the particles switch states
back and forth, and the sudden appearance of a particle is related to
another event that happened far away from the original particle.
I.e. it seems like the whole quantum world is like a state machine, where
the time between states can't be defined. It all sounds like a gigantic
digital switch from one state to another, which leads to even wilder speculations...
reg,
Kent
..private stuff...
William B. Knight
|> I just have to challenge the premise behind this question - that photons
|> do, in reality, pop out of nowhere, i.e., come into existence from
|> nothing.
|>
|> I've discussed this subject before (in this very newsgroup) without
|> success, so I'll keep this brief.
|>
|> There are two subjects being mixed together improperly in the claims
|> that quantum mechanics "proves" that existence can arise from
|> non-existence, namely, metaphysics and epistemology. Metaphysics
|> studies the basic nature of reality as a whole, while epistemology
|> studies the proper methods for obtaining and validating truth, i.e.,
|> the methods for gaining knowledge of reality. Metaphysics pertains
|> to existence, while epistemology pertains to consciousness.
|>
|> Quantum mechanics is first and foremost a *methodology* for grasping
|> the nature of the sub-atomic world, and performing the calculations
|> necessary to make practical use of this nature. This methodology
|> is *not* identical with the reality - it is the means of grasping
|> it.
|>
|> To say that *in reality* particles come into existence from
|> non-existence because *the methodology* won't work if it doesn't
|> assume this, is to equate method with reality, epistemology with
|> metaphysics, consciousness with existence. But consciousness
|> and existence are independent, and the whole scientific method
|> relies on that fact.
I followed this up to here. Would you mind explaining this stuff about
the scientific method for me? Also, how do we know that conciousness
and existence are independent?
|> If it were true that QM proves that existence can arise from non-
|> existence, then that proof would invalidate QM (and every other
|> science) in the process - because they were all built on the premise
|> of the independence of consciousness and existence.
Why?
Regards,
Brad
--
Brad Knight
Intergraph Corp.
Huntsville, AL
kni...@abulafia.b21.ingr.com
Mark Peters
>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com>, m...@svl.cdc.com writes...
>>In <913121...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> ca...@ecr.mu.oz.au (Ivan the TERRIBLE) writes:
>>
>>>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com> m...@svl.cdc.com writes:
>>>>If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
>>>>an eternal universe.
>>>>
>>>not true. Just that the total sum of energy must = 0. I suggest you
>>>read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
>>>make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
>>
>>I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
>>philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Existence cannot arise
>>from non-existence. There must have been *something* before the
>>big-bang,...
>>--
>>Mark A. Peters
>asking what existed "before" the big bang, is like asking who lived in
>this house before it was built.
>[Theory about how the physical world arose from a dense point of matter]
>[and/or energy deleted for space.]
>This, of course, doesn't explain how that 'point' came to exist, but it's
>not any less reasonable to ask how this "super-natural" being came to
>exist.
Then we are in complete agreement about the point of my article -
something existed which caused the big bang, i.e., the physical world did
not come into existence out of nothing. The particular scientific theory
as to exactly what it was that caused the big bang is not relevant - all
that is relevant is that it was *something*, not nothing.
As I said in my first posting in this thread, the universe is NOT
identical with what the big-bang created. I agree completely with
Brian Evans that the universe consists of *everything* that exists,
your "point" of dense matter/energy included.
In reference to the theory that the physical world arose out of a
"vacuum," I also agree with Jarek that whatever a "vacuum" is, it
isn't nothing. Nothing is not a kind of thing, it is the absence
of a thing - which is why a thing cannot arise from it, i.e., why
existence cannot arise from non-existence.
Ivan the TERRIBLE
no, go back to your books, and read them again. Before the
big bang(if there was one), there was no time. It is nonsensical to
think of 'before' the cosmos, because there is no before....
>
>As I said in my first posting in this thread, the universe is NOT
>identical with what the big-bang created. I agree completely with
>Brian Evans that the universe consists of *everything* that exists,
>your "point" of dense matter/energy included.
true, the big bang ';created' a quark soup(acording to the theory I
have read), which is not the same as today's universe. However, today's
universe has (probably) evolved from that quark soup...
>
>In reference to the theory that the physical world arose out of a
>"vacuum," I also agree with Jarek that whatever a "vacuum" is, it
>isn't nothing. Nothing is not a kind of thing, it is the absence
>of a thing - which is why a thing cannot arise from it, i.e., why
>existence cannot arise from non-existence.
but there was no time 'before'. Go back, read Hawkins again...
>
>--
>Mark A. Peters ****** ======================
>Control Data Corporation ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
>Internet: m...@svl.cdc.com ****** == "What an idea!!" ==
Graham Matthews
>> Fact is, the idea that the universe is nothing more than some kind of
>> vacuum fluctuation with a total energy of zero is completely consistent
>> with observational evidence and physical theory. Such a universe does
>> require a creator, nor even a prior cause, and yet it has a well-defined
>> beginning.
Kent Sandvik in reply:
>I'm personally interested in the concept that the particles switch states
>back and forth, and the sudden appearance of a particle is related to
>another event that happened far away from the original particle.
>I.e. it seems like the whole quantum world is like a state machine, where
>the time between states can't be defined. It all sounds like a gigantic
>digital switch from one state to another, which leads to even wilder speculations...
Kent if you want wild ideas check out the parallel universes (I think its called
that) interpretation of QM - other than the Copenhagen interpretation this seems
to me to be the only coherent interpretation I have seen.
As I say it is coherent, but it is also wild!
BURKE, MORGAN
>In <12NOV199...@zeus.tamu.edu> bgl...@zeus.tamu.edu (dEaD Jim) writes:
>>This, of course, doesn't explain how that 'point' came to exist, but it's
>>not any less reasonable to ask how this "super-natural" being came to
>>exist.
>
>Then we are in complete agreement about the point of my article -
>something existed which caused the big bang, i.e., the physical world did
>not come into existence out of nothing.
Whoops! Pardon me for jumping on you again, but that's what happens when
you're a victim of sloppy thinking. ;-) ( <-- I forgot to include the
emotional subtitles last time I flamed you.)
The existence of a "point" or "vacuum" from which the big bang sprung DOES
NOT imply that the point or vacuum "caused" (your words) the big bang.
Your apparent inference that the "cause" of the big bang and the environment
that allowed the big bang are one and the same is fallacious.
I believe that it has been conclusively demonstrated that "cause" as it
pertains to creation is little more that a macroscopic prejudice that we
like to entertain, and that it has little to do with the fundamental structure
of the universe. According to everything we know, we do not need to postulate
a CAUSE to explain the existence of matter, energy, or the universe. They
are capable arising without reason. Despite your latest protestations, that
is the subject of this thread (read the subject line again: Where did matter
come from? )
You now appear to want to change the subject from "Where did matter come from"
to "Did existence come out of nothing?" I needn't point out that these are
two very seperate questions. The creation of matter is a very simple issue
which has been amply adressed in this thread, and by quantum theory in general.
If you've now decided you want to debate existence instead, then fine, but
you might want to start a new thread, or a more appropriate conference (eg.
philosophy or cosmology).
-- Morgan Burke (mor...@reg.triumf.ca)
Graham Matthews
>> So when photons just pop out of nowhere, where are they coming from?
>> JHVH-1's Discount Photon Shop?
Jarek Dabrowski in reply:
>From vacuum. It is not an absolute "nowhere". It has a structure which
>allows it to give birth to observable particles when certain conditions
>are fulfilled.
Well this is certainly one view of things, positing some physical entity outside
this universe.
However in the context of this discussion I cannot see why this statement is
any better than just saying 'the particles do not exist and then they just
pop into existence' ie: they don't come from anywhere. On moment they are not
and the next they are.
Tim Abbott
>Given that there is no god, no supernatural entity responsible for
>"creating" what we perceive as the physical universe, I'd get a kick
>out of hearing theories from alt.atheism folks regarding how this
^^^
>physical universe came into being
Wouldn't you be better off in sci.astro or sci.physics?
The question better asked within the context of alt.atheism might be
*why* rather than *how*, although I suspect that'd be a short
discussion. Why's are better asked in talk.origins or a
religious-oriented group, but then you disconnected that by
the "given". Oh, well.
>- or, if it's considered to have always
>been around, is there any conclusions we can come to/guess at regarding this
>always-existed matter? The wildest theories won't be laughed at (by
>me, at least :) as long as they're _possible_.
Isn't the conclusion "always" existed the end point of any such argument?
Here we go with ^N to find out...
--
Tim Abbott | "out there in the darkness, out there in the night
Astronomy, UTexas Austin | out there in the starlight, one soul burns
tm...@astro.as.utexas.edu | brighter than a thousand suns." - Simple Minds
Jarek Dabrowski
> The vacuum does not come from anything - it is not an object, it is nothing.
>
In a series of comments (to your posts, Graham) to this thread I have
pointed out a pretty trivial fact that vacuum IS NOT nothing because it
has a STRUCTURE. Now, where are your replies, Graham? Only this sentence
above? First show that my arguments are wrong. I found errors in yours.
mathew
> There are two subjects being mixed together improperly in the claims
> that quantum mechanics "proves" that existence can arise from
> non-existence, namely, metaphysics and epistemology. Metaphysics
> studies the basic nature of reality as a whole, while epistemology
> studies the proper methods for obtaining and validating truth, i.e.,
> the methods for gaining knowledge of reality. Metaphysics pertains
> to existence, while epistemology pertains to consciousness.
>
> Quantum mechanics is first and foremost a *methodology* for grasping
> the nature of the sub-atomic world, and performing the calculations
> necessary to make practical use of this nature. This methodology
> is *not* identical with the reality - it is the means of grasping
> it.
This statement is predicated on the existence of an etic reality which is
somehow different from the emic reality I perceive. I don't accept the
existence of such an external reality, so I disagree with the statement.
As far as I'm concerned, reality *is* what is measured, and so if QM
explains the nature of measurements then it explains the nature of reality.
> To say that *in reality* particles come into existence from
> non-existence because *the methodology* won't work if it doesn't
> assume this, is to equate method with reality, epistemology with
> metaphysics, consciousness with existence. But consciousness
> and existence are independent, and the whole scientific method
> relies on that fact.
I do equate consciousness with existence, yes. Because I have no
evidence whatsoever for any sort of existence which is not bound up
with my consciousness and perceptions, and so I refuse to believe on faith
that consciousness and existence are independent.
The whole scientific method does NOT rely on their independence; the fact
that the observer alters the results of a QM experiment doesn't usually
matter because most scientific experiments are not conducted on that scale.
On a macro scale, observer and experiment are independent.
[ As an aside: Does anyone have any more information about this supposed
experiment where a mechanical device acted as a QM observer? ]
> If it were true that QM proves that existence can arise from non-
> existence, then that proof would invalidate QM (and every other
> science) in the process - because they were all built on the premise
> of the independence of consciousness and existence.
I really don't think that this is the case.
mathew
> In article <u039aB...@mantis.co.uk>, mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> > So when photons just pop out of nowhere, where are they coming from?
> > JHVH-1's Discount Photon Shop?
>
> From vacuum. It is not an absolute "nowhere". It has a structure which
> allows it to give birth to observable particles when certain conditions
> are fulfilled.
So what *is* the structure of nothing?
Mark Peters
>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com>, m...@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:
>|> [Lots deleted for space]
>|> To say that *in reality* particles come into existence from
>|> non-existence because *the methodology* won't work if it doesn't
>|> assume this, is to equate method with reality, epistemology with
>|> metaphysics, consciousness with existence. But consciousness
>|> and existence are independent, and the whole scientific method
>|> relies on that fact.
> Would you mind explaining this stuff about
>the scientific method for me? Also, how do we know that conciousness
>and existence are independent?
>|> If it were true that QM proves that existence can arise from non-
>|> existence, then that proof would invalidate QM (and every other
>|> science) in the process - because they were all built on the premise
>|> of the independence of consciousness and existence.
>Why?
Well, historically, Aristotle is widely recognized as the "father" of
science, because it was with him (and other Greeks of the time) that
the study of nature became systematic. Aristotle's basic metaphysical
principle was that of the independence of existence and consciousness,
i.e., that knowing reality required conformance of the mind to facts,
not the other way around.
You can see the truth of this for yourself by observation. Observe
that with an act of consciousness alone, you cannot alter reality.
If you drop a pen, you can't stop it from falling by wishing, or hoping,
or by any other act of consciousness. If you let go of a helium filled
balloon, you can't stop it from rising by beaming thoughts at it. How
a particular entity behaves under a given set of circumstances depends
strictly on the nature of the entity, and the nature of the circumstances -
your hopes, wishes, etc. are utterly irrelevant.
Now try to imagine the opposite state of affairs. Suppose that existence
and consciousness were not independent - what would happen? How could
you know what was going to happen to an entity under any circumstances?
You might wish a balloon to fall, but somebody else might want it to go
sideways, and yet another person might want it to turn into a pumpkin.
And what if the ruling consciousness isn't human? Suppose the consciousness
on which existence depends is supernatural? In that case, the law of
gravitation might hold on Tuesday, but not on Thursday, or the speed of
light might be 286,000 mph one moment, but only 10 mph the next - all
depending on the whim of this supernatural consciousness. What would
happen to science under such conditions? The answer is that it couldn't
progress, it couldn't tell us what would happen in even the simplest
situations, much less complex ones like landing a man on the moon.
In short, if existence and consciousness were not independent, then
knowledge of any kind would be impossible. In particular, none of
the conclusions of science could be regarded as valid. The premise
of the independence of existence and consciousness is implicit in the
scientific method, it is one pillar of the foundation on which all
science builds - remove that pillar, and the whole thing collapses.
Eric Rescorla
>Well, historically, Aristotle is widely recognized as the "father" of
>science, because it was with him (and other Greeks of the time) that
>the study of nature became systematic. Aristotle's basic metaphysical
>principle was that of the independence of existence and consciousness,
>i.e., that knowing reality required conformance of the mind to facts,
>not the other way around.
Just as Darwin is the father of modern biology, but his word is
not taken as perfect revealed truth. Similar things apply to Aristotle.
>You can see the truth of this for yourself by observation. Observe
>that with an act of consciousness alone, you cannot alter reality.
>If you drop a pen, you can't stop it from falling by wishing, or hoping,
>or by any other act of consciousness. If you let go of a helium filled
>balloon, you can't stop it from rising by beaming thoughts at it. How
>a particular entity behaves under a given set of circumstances depends
>strictly on the nature of the entity, and the nature of the circumstances -
>your hopes, wishes, etc. are utterly irrelevant.
Attempts to extrapolate from the macroscale to the microscale are
in general doomed to failure.
Imagine what the world would be like if we saw energy quantization at
the macroscale...
BURKE, MORGAN
>There are two subjects being mixed together improperly in the claims
>that quantum mechanics "proves" that existence can arise from
>non-existence, namely, metaphysics and epistemology.
Well, QM really says that existence can arise without prior cause. As I've
already pointed out, I think you may be confusing this debate by flipping
between the issues of the creation of existence and the creation of matter
(or the universe). Using principles derived from QM, we can conclude
that matter, energy, time, and space can all pop into existence without
cause. So far every time someone has challenged you on this point, you
have riposted with "but existence cannot arise from non-existence", as if
that is relevant to issues of prior cause. It is not.
>Quantum mechanics is first and foremost a *methodology* for grasping
>the nature of the sub-atomic world, and performing the calculations
>necessary to make practical use of this nature. This methodology
>is *not* identical with the reality - it is the means of grasping it.
That is a personal philosophy, rather than a hard truth. There are other,
equally valid epistemologies that claim that methodology is all there is.
After all, human perception and reason is nothing more than a methodology.
Why do _you_ assume that human perception and reality are equivalent (if,
in fact, you do)?
>But consciousness and existence are independent, and the whole scientific
>method relies on that fact.
That's a bold statement! How do you justify the independence of
consciousness and existence? Are you implying that if there was no
existence, there would still be consciousness? Is this not begging the
question of theistic entities?
>If it were true that QM proves that existence can arise from non-
>existence, then that proof would invalidate QM (and every other
>science) in the process - because they were all built on the premise
>of the independence of consciousness and existence.
I should point out here that it was QM that taught us about the
inseperability of the observer and the universe. This was one of the
greatest discoveries of modern physics! Are you completely unaware of it?
This principle (of the observer affecting the observations) flatly
contradicts your notions of the independence of consciousness and
existence.
-- Morgan Burke (mor...@reg.triumf.ca)
BURKE, MORGAN
>Well, historically, Aristotle is widely recognized as the "father" of
>science, because it was with him (and other Greeks of the time) that
>the study of nature became systematic.
Well, there is a lot of room for debate here. The scientific method was
not devised until Galileo. Aristotle and cronies were philosophers; they
sometimes speculated about how the world worked, but the notion of testing
and refining their speculations did not occur to them. Science is much
more than natural philosophy: the notion of objective verification is
central to it, and missing from the works of the ancient Greeks.
>Observe
>that with an act of consciousness alone, you cannot alter reality.
>If you drop a pen, you can't stop it from falling by wishing, or hoping,
>or by any other act of consciousness.
With an act of consciousness, I can move various parts of my body in
various ways. By extending my hand, I can stop the pen from falling.
By corrolary, I can stop the pen from falling with an act of
consciousness. With every single thought I alter the physical state
of my brain and body. That is also an act of consciousness. Using an
EEG or polygraph, I can cause the pen traces to do all sorts of funny
things, simply by thinking in certain ways. That, too, is an act of
consciousness.
>In short, if existence and consciousness were not independent, then
>knowledge of any kind would be impossible. In particular, none of
>the conclusions of science could be regarded as valid. The premise
>of the independence of existence and consciousness is implicit in the
>scientific method, it is one pillar of the foundation on which all
>science builds - remove that pillar, and the whole thing collapses.
Proposed Theorem: Science depends on independence of consciousness and
existence.
Lemma: Science demonstrates conclusively (with regards to the effect of
the observer in QM) that consciousness and existence are not
independent. Simple observations of the effect one's mind has
on one's body and, by extension, one's environment, further
support the findings of science.
Conclusion: The lemma and theorem are contradictory. Via reductio ad
absurdum, we must conclude that the theorem is false.
-- Morgan Burke (mor...@reg.triumf.ca)
house ron
>Given that there is no god, no supernatural entity responsible for
>"creating" what we perceive as the physical universe, I'd get a kick
>out of hearing theories from alt.atheism folks regarding how this
>physical universe came into being - or, if it's considered to have always
>been around, is there any conclusions we can come to/guess at regarding this
>always-existed matter? The wildest theories won't be laughed at (by
>me, at least :) as long as they're _possible_.
Why not look in some back issues of Scientific American. I recall an article
some years ago which discussed such things as random variations in nothing
due to Quantum effects. Sorry I don't recall it well enough to repeat it
in a clear manner. You seem to be looking for ways to set up a universe
without a god. Such a goal does not seem to very very difficult (at least
in speculation) under current physical theory. My problem is not that
physics cannot offer possible ways for the universe to come about, rather
that we must assume, to use the theories, that the _rules_ of physics
were pre-existent. It's an unsolved problem, but not a reason to
argue for either atheism or theism.
--
Regards,
Ron House. (s64...@zeus.usq.edu.au)
(By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)
house ron
>In <1991Nov7.1...@cherokee.uswest.com> ste...@helena.uswest.com ( Steve Novak #3000 x2110 ) writes:
>If one rejects the idea of a "creator," one must accept the idea of
>an eternal universe. To do otherwise is contradictory, since a
>universe with a beginning requires the existence of a creator as
>its cause.
Not so. An apocryphal story has it that Bertrand Russell once pointed out
to a meeting that the creator explains nothing since one can then question
where the creator came from. That is undoubtedly the right way to
estimate this issue, and therefore a creator neither solves nor confounds
the issue. Unfortunately poor Bert was worsted on that occasion, as
a little old lady got up and said "I believe the world rests on
a turtle." BR said, "But madam, on what does the turtle rest?" The
LOL then said "You won't get me that easily Mr Russell, it's turtles
all the way down!"
>This isn't the same, however, as claiming that matter has always existed,
>i.e., the big-bang isn't necessarily incompatible with atheism. A big-bang
>theory which supposes that there was literally nothing before the big-bang
>*is* incompatible, because a supernatural cause is required to explain
>the creation of something from nothing.
See my other post. There is no problem in creating something from
nothing. The energy in matter is balanced by a certain amount of
negative energy in empty space.
house ron
>I fail to see how a universe that was created from nothing is 'incompatible'.
>This is because I do not agree with the sentence, "because a supernatural cause
>is required to explain the creation of something from nothing". I fail to
>see why this is necessarily so Mark - indeed many modern physics theories
>allow matter being created from nothing (eg: Hawking radiation, semi-conductor
>theory, etc).
Just a minor nit: Hawking radiation is not something from nothing. Energy
inside a black hole ends up outside. I don't know what you are getting
at by your reference to semiconductors.
house ron
>In <913121...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> ca...@ecr.mu.oz.au (Ivan the TERRIBLE) writes:
>>not true. Just that the total sum of energy must = 0. I suggest you
>>read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
>>make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
>I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
>philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Existence cannot arise
>from non-existence. There must have been *something* before the
>big-bang, because if there was nothing, then nothing existed to cause
>the big bang - leaving as the only possible explanation a supernatural
>creator.
You can't deflect the force of an argument by categorizing it as
'philosophical', 'scientific', or 'religious', for that matter. If the
argument is false, say why. The bald assertion 'existence cannot arise
from non-existence' may be true, or it may be false, but the fact that
lots of philosophers think it true doesn't make it so. Science has
established certain laws, and scenarios have been propounded whereby
the universe can arise from nothing without breaking any of those laws.
>Precisely *what* it was that existed before the big bang is a scientific
>question, one whose answer can't contradict the fact that whatever the
>*what* was, it did exist.
But if time cam into existence at the big bang, what on earth does
your statement mean?
Lucifuge
Matter appears from nowhere in discrete forms such as paper-clips,
clothes-hangers and old Kate Bush albums....universal psychologists have
postulated that the violence associated with the big bang can lead to
emotional problems in later life.
If you want the Proper Version of this it's in 'Eric'.
Just my little contribution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
knowledge=power=energy=mass=matter
ogo...@unix1.tcd.ie equation from 'Sourcery' by T.Pratchett
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mathew
> In reference to the theory that the physical world arose out of a
> "vacuum," I also agree with Jarek that whatever a "vacuum" is, it
> isn't nothing. Nothing is not a kind of thing, it is the absence
> of a thing - which is why a thing cannot arise from it, i.e., why
> existence cannot arise from non-existence.
A classic example of proof by repeated assertion. "A thing cannot
arise from nothing, because nothing is the absence of a thing".
Alex Bunker
>Morgan Burke:
>>> Fact is, the idea that the universe is nothing more than some kind of
>>> vacuum fluctuation with a total energy of zero is completely consistent
>>> with observational evidence and physical theory. Such a universe does
>>> require a creator, nor even a prior cause, and yet it has a well-defined
>>> beginning.
>
>>You meant DOESN'T require a creator, I guess? So my malicious question is:
>>Where the vacuum come from?
>
>
>
>graham
>--
>Graham Matthews Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.
>Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz If that is granted all else follows.
>gra...@maths.su.oz.au
yes vaccumn has allways been and allways will be the universe sprung fourth
from vaccumn and will return to vaccumn. forever and ever AMEN :-)
I somehow find faith in vaccumn much easier than in a bearded Karl Marx
lookalike waving his arms around and making universes.
ALEX BUNKER
Mikel Evins
>
>[ As an aside: Does anyone have any more information about this supposed
> experiment where a mechanical device acted as a QM observer? ]
I believe there is a brief article about it in the most
recent Scientific American. Send mail to balor!mi...@apple.com
reminding me and I'll dig up details for you.
Tim Abbott
>Imagine what the world would be like if we saw energy quantization at
>the macroscale...
Ooh, yeah, then we could have, um, lasers, video cameras, photomultiplier
tubes, small computers, CD players......
Sorry, I'll go away again now.
Tim Abbott
>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com>, m...@svl.cdc.com writes...
>>the nature of the sub-atomic world, and performing the calculations
>>necessary to make practical use of this nature. This methodology
>>is *not* identical with the reality - it is the means of grasping it.
>
>That is a personal philosophy, rather than a hard truth.
No, it is a hard truth. Any scientist who argues otherwise is comitting
professional suicide. The model is *not* the reality.
An example - I observe cataclysmic variable stars. The current *model*
for these stars describes a white dwarf primary and a late type secondary
orbiting eachother and transferring mass from the secondary to the
primary. Various observable parameters support this model, and, as
yet, there is very little to suggest that the model is wrong. Nevertheless,
the model is not the star. The star is a long way off and I cannot
see that it follows the model in any direct way. I would be ultimately
foolish to demand that the model is reality and if the star disagrees
with me, then it must be wrong.
This is a subtle and very important point in modern science.
> There are other,
>equally valid epistemologies that claim that methodology is all there is.
Such as astrology?
>After all, human perception and reason is nothing more than a methodology.
Granted, welcome to reality.
>Why do _you_ assume that human perception and reality are equivalent (if,
>in fact, you do)?
He *has* to. At least, if he's going to do science, or understand it,
he must.
>>But consciousness and existence are independent, and the whole scientific
>>method relies on that fact.
Not necessarily true (although it might have been about 50 yrs ago) -
consider the relationship of the observer to the experiment in
quantum mechanics (Heisenberg might have been here, and all that)
>That's a bold statement! How do you justify the independence of
>consciousness and existence?
Modern science tries to do this, even in the face of the requirement
that the observer be part of the experiment. You try and divorce the
observer as much as possible from what he is observing (in astronomy,
that's real easy). It is the best way of attempting to determine
physical rules without bias from the human observer, who is
inclined to be irrational and illogical from time to time.
>Are you implying that if there was no
>existence, there would still be consciousness? Is this not begging the
>question of theistic entities?
Wow! Biggest leap of faith I've seen in a while....
>>If it were true that QM proves that existence can arise from non-
>>existence, then that proof would invalidate QM (and every other
>>science) in the process - because they were all built on the premise
>>of the independence of consciousness and existence.
>
>I should point out here that it was QM that taught us about the
>inseperability of the observer and the universe. This was one of the
>greatest discoveries of modern physics! Are you completely unaware of it?
>This principle (of the observer affecting the observations) flatly
>contradicts your notions of the independence of consciousness and
>existence.
Nah, it just shows them to be out of date.
(and remember, it's just a model).
Mark Peters
>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com>, m...@svl.cdc.com writes...
>>There are two subjects being mixed together improperly in the claims
>>that quantum mechanics "proves" that existence can arise from
>>non-existence, namely, metaphysics and epistemology.
>Well, QM really says that existence can arise without prior cause. As I've
>already pointed out, I think you may be confusing this debate by flipping
>between the issues of the creation of existence and the creation of matter
>(or the universe). Using principles derived from QM, we can conclude
>that matter, energy, time, and space can all pop into existence without
>cause.
I don't know how to make this any clearer! The claim that QM invalidates
the law of cause and effect is in exactly the same category as the
claim that it shows that something can come from nothing. If the law
of cause and effect does not hold (even some of the time), then QM
and every other science is completely blown out of the water. Science
relies on the law of cause and effect to arrive at its conclusions, just as
it relies on the independence of existence and consciousness.
>>Quantum mechanics is first and foremost a *methodology* for grasping
>>the nature of the sub-atomic world, and performing the calculations
>>necessary to make practical use of this nature. This methodology
>>is *not* identical with the reality - it is the means of grasping it.
>That is a personal philosophy, rather than a hard truth. There are other,
>equally valid epistemologies that claim that methodology is all there is.
>After all, human perception and reason is nothing more than a methodology.
>Why do _you_ assume that human perception and reality are equivalent (if,
>in fact, you do)?
An epistemology which claimed that only methodology exists is self-refuting -
it must deny the existence of its adherents. Reason *is* a methodology,
i.e., it is our means for obtaining knowledge of reality - it isn't reality
itself. Sense-perception provides us with the raw data that our reason
identifies and integrates in obtaining knowledge. But sense-perception is
NOT equivalent to reality - it is what puts us in contact with reality.
>>But consciousness and existence are independent, and the whole scientific
>>method relies on that fact.
>That's a bold statement! How do you justify the independence of
>consciousness and existence? Are you implying that if there was no
>existence, there would still be consciousness? Is this not begging the
>question of theistic entities?
I justify the independence of consciousness and existence merely by
observing that there are things that nobody can alter by an act of
consciousness alone.
To say that consciousness is independent from existence is merely to
say that "Wishing doesn't make it so." This doesn't imply that
there can be consciousness without existence, in fact, the opposite
is true - there can be *no* consciousness without existence. To be
conscious is to be conscious of *something.*
>>If it were true that QM proves that existence can arise from non-
>>existence, then that proof would invalidate QM (and every other
>>science) in the process - because they were all built on the premise
>>of the independence of consciousness and existence.
>I should point out here that it was QM that taught us about the
>inseperability of the observer and the universe. This was one of the
>greatest discoveries of modern physics! Are you completely unaware of it?
>This principle (of the observer affecting the observations) flatly
>contradicts your notions of the independence of consciousness and
>existence.
It does nothing of the kind. The only thing that QM shows in this regard
is that by the nature of our senses, we cannot observe a sub-atomic
event without affecting it, e.g., we have to bounce light particles off
of what we're trying to observe, thus changing position and/or momentum.
If, instead of trying to observe a sub-atomic event, one just sits in
an easy chair and tries to "wish" things to happen, the sub-atomic
events will go on in their merry way, unaffected.
Mark Peters
>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com>, m...@svl.cdc.com writes...
>>Well, historically, Aristotle is widely recognized as the "father" of
>>science ...
>Well, there is a lot of room for debate here. The scientific method was
>not devised until Galileo. Aristotle and cronies were philosophers; they
>sometimes speculated about how the world worked, but the notion of testing
>and refining their speculations did not occur to them. Science is much
>more than natural philosophy: the notion of objective verification is
>central to it, and missing from the works of the ancient Greeks.
This is simply not so. At the time of the Greeks, science and philosophy
were essentially the same subject. It was with the Greeks that methodology
first arose, i.e., the Greeks gave birth to the subject of epistemology.
They used their metaphysics (reality is independent of consciousness) and
their epistemology (reason is the means of grasping reality) to ask and
answer the first truly scientific questions.
Aristotle gave us the ideas of an objective reality, and of reason and logic
as the means of understanding that reality - science as we know it would
never have arisen without these.
>>Observe that with an act of consciousness alone, you cannot alter reality.
>>If you drop a pen, you can't stop it from falling by wishing, or hoping,
>>or by any other act of consciousness.
>With an act of consciousness, I can move various parts of my body in
>various ways. By extending my hand, I can stop the pen from falling.
>By corrolary, I can stop the pen from falling with an act of
>consciousness.
The fact of the integration of mind and body does not affect the question
of the independence of existence and consciousness. Sure, you can will
your hand to move, but you can't will *mine* to move. Using your hand
to stop a pen from falling is *not* an example of unaided consciousness
altering reality. It was your mind and your hand together that stopped
the pen, not your mind alone.
>> The premise
>>of the independence of existence and consciousness is implicit in the
>>scientific method, ...
>Proposed Theorem: Science depends on independence of consciousness and
> existence.
>Lemma: Science demonstrates conclusively (with regards to the effect of
> the observer in QM) that consciousness and existence are not
> independent. ...
>Conclusion: The lemma and theorem are contradictory. Via reductio ad
> absurdum, we must conclude that the theorem is false.
The fact that bouncing one particle off another changes the position
and/or momentum of both does *not* demonstrate the dependence of
existence on consciousness - it is merely an instance of the law of
causality, as is the movement of the body as directed by the mind.
William B. Knight
|> >This isn't the same, however, as claiming that matter has always existed,
|> >i.e., the big-bang isn't necessarily incompatible with atheism. A big-bang
|> >theory which supposes that there was literally nothing before the big-bang
|> >*is* incompatible, because a supernatural cause is required to explain
|> >the creation of something from nothing.
|>
|> See my other post. There is no problem in creating something from
|> nothing. The energy in matter is balanced by a certain amount of
|> negative energy in empty space.
I'm not disagreeing, but is negative energy something? Why or why not? Does
it exist?
I've heard that matter (or energy?) can be created spontaneously by a quantum
fluctuation in space or the vacuum. Does this mean that the vacuum is something?
If not, then how do you get a quantum fluctuation in it?
I think maybe this thread is being complicated by semantic difficulties. Maybe
some definitions could be supplied for some terms like nothing, nonexistence, etc.
Brad
--
Brad Knight
Intergraph Corp.
Huntsville, AL
kni...@abulafia.b21.ingr.com
Mark Peters
>m...@u02.svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:
>> [That something cannot arise from nothing.]
>See my other post. There is no problem in creating something from
>nothing. The energy in matter is balanced by a certain amount of
>negative energy in empty space.
Does this "negative energy in empty space" exist or not? If it does
exist, and matter arises from it, then matter does not arise from
nothing. If it doesn't exist, then what is the matter "balanced" by?
****
Mark Peters
>m...@u02.svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:
>>[That existence cannot arise from non-existence]
> Science has
>established certain laws, and scenarios have been propounded whereby
>the universe can arise from nothing without breaking any of those laws.
Maybe so, but those "laws" *do* violate logically prior philosophical
laws, i.e., they violate philosophical principles that had to be relied
upon (implicitly, at least) in the process of arriving at those scientific
laws. That something cannot arise from nothing is one such philosophical
principle.
U26...@uicvm.uic.edu
>
>m...@u02.svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:
>
>>In <913121...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> ca...@ecr.mu.oz.au (Ivan the TERRIBLE)
>writes:
>
>>>not true. Just that the total sum of energy must = 0. I suggest you
>>>read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
>>>make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
>
>>I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
>>philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Existence cannot arise
>>from non-existence. There must have been *something* before the
>>big-bang, because if there was nothing, then nothing existed to cause
>>the big bang - leaving as the only possible explanation a supernatural
>>creator.
>
>You can't deflect the force of an argument by categorizing it as
>'philosophical', 'scientific', or 'religious', for that matter. If the
>argument is false, say why. The bald assertion 'existence cannot arise
>from non-existence' may be true, or it may be false, but the fact that
>lots of philosophers think it true doesn't make it so. Science has
>established certain laws, and scenarios have been propounded whereby
>the universe can arise from nothing without breaking any of those laws.
But current unified theory can only describe the behavior of matter/energy
at temperature levels that exist after 10 to the -42 seconds after the
theoretical big bang, and the conditions that exist between then and now
cause whatever existed to be governed by different laws than those which
govern so-called "natural events" at the temperature and proximity we are
accustomed to. Again, this doesn't help theists or atheists prove their
points, but in discussing big bang theory one must keep in mind that the
conditions of the big bang make everything that happens supernatural from
the perspective of macro-atomic, universal-mean-temperature=3K human beings.
>>Precisely *what* it was that existed before the big bang is a scientific
>>question, one whose answer can't contradict the fact that whatever the
>>*what* was, it did exist.
It ain't necessarily so. The big bang at this point gives one licence to
come up with nearly whatever theory you like, since the conditions of that
first bit of a second are such that current theory can't describe matter/
energy interactions. The conditions before the big bang, or at the very
moment of bb are the realm for the time being of science fiction, and have
led sober, serious phycists to posit the existence of things which are not
matter or energy as we understand them and therefore not subject to the laws
they've come up with so far. You'll find the same thing in some attempts to
answer questions of quantum physics, such as Bell's Theorem and John
Wheeler's quantum theory.
Nyarl
Pedro Oscar Cubillos
>>I should point out here that it was QM that taught us about the
>>inseperability of the observer and the universe. This was one of the
>>greatest discoveries of modern physics! Are you completely unaware of it?
>>This principle (of the observer affecting the observations) flatly
So, the the observer affects the OBSERVATIONS.
>>contradicts your notions of the independence of consciousness and
>>existence.
I don't see the contradicction. Your observation may be
screwy but the real object is there, unmoved, unless you move it with
your hand feet, etc. ie. another real object.
> Nah, it just shows them to be out of date.
> (and remember, it's just a model).
Show me. But this time for real!
Oscar
Eric Rescorla
>In article <1991Nov13....@cs.yale.edu> resc...@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Imagine what the world would be like if we saw energy quantization at
>>the macroscale...
>
>Ooh, yeah, then we could have, um, lasers, video cameras, photomultiplier
>tubes, small computers, CD players......
>
>Sorry, I'll go away again now.
baseballs had energy eigenvalues and you'll see what I'm talking
about. Yes, I know that they do, but they're so close together that you
can't really see them.
Actually, video cameras, PMTs, and CD players don't need quantum effects
to operate. Some may USE them, but all the technologies could be built
without them. Moreover, lasers could be built without real quantization.
Take a look at a dye laser, for example. R6G, for instance, has almost
continuous absorbtion.
-Ekr
Eric Rescorla
>
>I don't know how to make this any clearer! The claim that QM invalidates
>the law of cause and effect is in exactly the same category as the
>claim that it shows that something can come from nothing.
> If the law
>of cause and effect does not hold (even some of the time), then QM
>and every other science is completely blown out of the water. Science
>relies on the law of cause and effect to arrive at its conclusions, just as
>it relies on the independence of existence and consciousness.
Wrong.
Cause and effect is an outdated notion that has been rejected by
QM. Asking questions like "why does a wavefunction evolve" is pointless
once you realize that the universe as a whole has eigenstates
that are only partially separable. How can you have cause and effect
when the state of the universe is described by a single eigenstate
which simply obeys the laws of wavefunction evolution.
Richard Caley
mp> If the law of cause and effect does not hold (even some of the
mp> time), then QM and every other science is completely blown out of
mp> the water. Science relies on the law of cause and effect to
mp> arrive at its conclusions, just as it relies on the independence
mp> of existence and consciousness.
It relies on neither. Hence end of argument. If you disagree, please
provide an example of where science relies upon cause and effect. Let
alone consciousness.
I think you are simply confusing your assumptions about the world
which you may or may not apply to scientific questions with what is
necessarily part of a scientific investigation.
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
house ron
>m...@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:
>> Quantum mechanics is first and foremost a *methodology* for grasping
>> the nature of the sub-atomic world, and performing the calculations
>> necessary to make practical use of this nature. This methodology
>> is *not* identical with the reality - it is the means of grasping
>> it.
>This statement is predicated on the existence of an etic reality which is
>somehow different from the emic reality I perceive. I don't accept the
>existence of such an external reality, so I disagree with the statement.
>As far as I'm concerned, reality *is* what is measured, and so if QM
>explains the nature of measurements then it explains the nature of reality.
You can't define reality to be whatever you like. As for the point about
explaining measurements, Feynman put this well in his lectures on physics.
He explained (my paraphrase from memory) that a physical theory is not
_obliged_ to posit or explain entities which cannot be measured. That is
the central point of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. It is an
entirely different question as to whether they really exist. There may
not be an answer forthcoming from science (or anywhere else for that matter),
but to _legislate_ them out of existence on the basis of one's own
access to them seems to me to be a case of cosmic megalomania.
Of course the other way to take your remark is as an example of relativism.
In that case all the standard criticisms of relativism apply.
Richard Caley
mp> Maybe so, but those "laws" *do* violate logically prior philosophical
mp> laws, i.e., they violate philosophical principles that had to be relied
mp> upon (implicitly, at least) in the process of arriving at those scientific
mp> laws. That something cannot arise from nothing is one such philosophical
mp> principle.
Fine, it's called growing up.
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Graham Matthews
> The vacuum does not come from anything - it is not an object, it is nothing.
Jarek:
>In a series of comments (to your posts, Graham) to this thread I have
>pointed out a pretty trivial fact that vacuum IS NOT nothing because it
>has a STRUCTURE. Now, where are your replies, Graham? Only this sentence
>above? First show that my arguments are wrong. I found errors in yours.
Jarek all you have done to date is *assert* that the 'that vacuum IS NOT
nothing because it has a STRUCTURE'. You claim that this is a 'trivial fact'
but to date I have not seen even the remotest attempt to prove this
so called triviality - all I have seen is assertions.
I even asked you to distinguish between the two theories
a) the vacuum us NOT nothing, it has structure. Virtual particles come from
this vacuum
b) virtual particles just pop into existence. One moment they are not and the
next they are.
And to this question you reply with the assertion given in your first
quote above.
Thread getting close to extinction ....
Jarek Dabrowski
> In article <1991Nov11....@rz-berlin.mpg.de>,
>dabr...@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>>
>> In article <10NOV199...@reg.triumf.ca>, mor...@reg.triumf.ca
>> (BURKE, MORGAN) writes:
>>
>> > Fact is, the idea that the universe is nothing more than some kind of
>> > vacuum fluctuation with a total energy of zero is completely consistent
>> > with observational evidence and physical theory. Such a universe does
>> > require a creator, nor even a prior cause, and yet it has a well-defined
>> > beginning.
>> >
>> You meant DOESN'T require a creator, I guess? So my malicious question is:
>> Where the vacuum come from?
>
> Does everything always *need* to origin from something else? Even in theology
> when we discuss if God created the concept of god and evil, the theists
> say that these concepts have *always* existed.
>
> This could be the same of vacuum, it has always existed and will always exist.
> Simple.
>
Oh, come on. In this sense, we don't have to refer to science at all.
Even more, we can't, because it is not possible to make an experimental
verification of eternal existence. Moreover, the notion of time is not
important to the problem; the creation is not bound to happen in time,
isn't it? The problem is: Why does Something exist rather than Nothing?
Back to my question: The argument was that "SUCH a universe doesn't
require a creator", just as if the value of total energy DID make any
difference in this reasoning. But it DOES NOT (from your reply I guess
you noticed that). Hence the question. Because of the scientific content
of the original argumentation, this question must be answered within
science. Still pending...
No comments on God, good and evil, and theology. We are in a wrong
discussion. This one is meant to be secular.
Best wishes,
Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
.-----. dabr...@fhi-berlin.mpg.dbp.de
`-> <-' (Jarek Dabrowski)
Jarek Dabrowski
-Mark Peters:
>>>>I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
>>>>philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Existence cannot arise
>>>>from non-existence. There must have been *something* before the
>>>>big-bang,...
[stuff deleted]
-Ivan:
> but there was no time 'before'. Go back, read Hawkins again...
>
Are you sure you don't quarrel about how to express the problem? It is
a bit *difficult* to talk about ideas which do not involve our lovely
space-time. Let me try my formulation again: WHY THERE IS SOMETHING
RATHER THAN NOTHING? Now, please explain me why shouldn't I ask why
(if you think I shouldn't, of course :->). Can you prove that time must
be a valid parameter for every casual sequence?
Bob Daniel
>
>>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com>, m...@svl.cdc.com writes...
>
|>>Well, historically, Aristotle is widely recognized as the "father" of
|>>science ...
|>Well, there is a lot of room for debate here. The scientific method was
|>not devised until Galileo. Aristotle and cronies were philosophers; they
|>sometimes speculated about how the world worked, but the notion of testing
|>and refining their speculations did not occur to them. Science is much
|>more than natural philosophy: the notion of objective verification is
|>central to it, and missing from the works of the ancient Greeks.
|This is simply not so. At the time of the Greeks, science and philosophy
|were essentially the same subject. It was with the Greeks that methodology
|first arose, i.e., the Greeks gave birth to the subject of epistemology.
|They used their metaphysics (reality is independent of consciousness) and
|their epistemology (reason is the means of grasping reality) to ask and
|answer the first truly scientific questions.
I guess it depends on how you value the contribution to science but Galileo
is the one who made the most significant contributions to science as we
know it today. The Greeks had very unrealistic views to how things in
the world worked. Their explanations to motion and time are not even
close to how we understand it today. Galileo's discoveries still stand
as we understand science today, many of the Greeks explanations towards
science do not apply anymore.
Aristotle's explanation of motion was a good attempt but too philosohpical.
Greek attitudes towards time was interesting.. They viewed time as circular.
Day/Evening/Night/Morning, Summer/Fall/Winter/Spring, etc. They percieved
time as repeating itself and some believed time would repeat itself every
600 years or so based on how it occurs on the smaller scale. Galileo's
linear (and infinite) perception of time is what contributed to his
discoveries in measuring the displacement of objects (motion) in relation
to time (acceleration and velocity).
I recommend reading "Time's Arrows" (I believe the author is Richard Morris).
It thoroughly covers the history of science and attitudes towards time.
I survived the big bang..
and thus that God (or whatever) was that cause.
If everything needs a cause, then what caused this God? If not everything
needs a cause, why is the universe one of those things which _must_ have one?
}----------------------------------------------------------------------->
}-IvArch-> }-Brett G. Lemoine---------------->
}-Texas A&M University CSC - Remote Micro Facilities--->
}-Internet: bgl...@zeus.tamu.edu Bitnet: bgl6000@tamzeus->
}-Compu$erve: 72531,3241 America Online: IvArch---------->
}----------------------------------------------------------------------->
}----"Don't tell me how to think, and I won't tell you how to think."--->
}----------------------------------------------------------------------->
BURKE, MORGAN
>>>This methodology
>>>is *not* identical with the reality - it is the means of grasping it.
>
>>That is a personal philosophy, rather than a hard truth.
>
>No, it is a hard truth. Any scientist who argues otherwise is comitting
>professional suicide. The model is *not* the reality.
Counter example: I observe photon interference in a Young double-slit
experiment. The current model describes the resulting interference
fringes as a consequence of interacting wave _equations_. There are no
equations hurtling through space, just something that we term a "wave
packet"; some composite of mathematical functions. A photon is not
an object that exists in our everyday notion of the word; we lack
the means to fully comprehend what it is. (Wave? Particle? You know
the drill...) It exists in some realm beyond our _human_ reality,
and all we can say about it is that it is a mathematical object. The
model _is_ the reality at the extreme limits of our universe.
What _you_ are calling reality is actually a very limited slice of
what _is_. Once you get too far removed from our scale, (stars are
not nearly far enough), _your_ reality breaks down and you are left with
mere models. Not because we don't understand the phenomena yet, but
because the phenomena transcend all the limits of human perception
and understanding (consider the pre-Planck time universe, or the
sub-Planck scale vacuum). I think you must accept that methodology is
all that is left beyond these limits, because otherwise you must admit
that there is an alternative way of _perceiving_ the universe that
encompasses these phenomena in a self-consistent framework. But by
doing that, you admit that human perception offers us an inadequate
picture of reality, and is in fact a methodology itself.
Keep in mind that when I use the term "model", I am referring to a
self-consistent intellectual construction that agrees with that part
of reality that we can perceive. Wanton speculations and fanciful
notions need not apply.
-- Morgan Burke (mor...@reg.triumf.ca)
BURKE, MORGAN
>the law of cause and effect is in exactly the same category as the
>claim that it shows that something can come from nothing. If the law
>of cause and effect does not hold (even some of the time), then QM
>and every other science is completely blown out of the water.
I was not suggesting that QM invalidates the "law" of cause
and effect; merely that that "law" does not operate at QM scales (at
least not the same way we suppose it does at macro scales). This does
not blow science out of the water; all it does is prevent physicists
from applying classical, deterministic, macro-scale rationales to
quantum phenomena.
Let me be a little more explicit. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation
holds that delta E delta t >= constant. One consequence of this
relation is that so long as the duration of existence (delta t) is
small enough, any amount of energy (read: mass, universe) can come
into existence, without direct cause. Perhaps a little more correctly,
the amount of energy is not defined within certain limits, and can fluctuate
freely between null and finite values. Conversely, so long as the
energy is small enough, the creation can persist for any length of time.
Given that it is possible that the net energy of the universe is zero,
it's extended existence does not require postulating its cause.
One could even take the view that the universe doesn't really exist
in the sense that you are using the term "existence", since everything
ultimately cancels out (much like virtual pair production).
>An epistemology which claimed that only methodology exists is self-refuting -
>it must deny the existence of its adherents. Reason *is* a methodology,
>i.e., it is our means for obtaining knowledge of reality - it isn't reality
>itself. Sense-perception provides us with the raw data that our reason
>identifies and integrates in obtaining knowledge.
Raw data is not reality either. If all we are working with is data
and reason, then surely you must admit that reality as our minds
construct it is also a methodology. This does not invalidate science
at all. It merely demonstrates that science is not a means for divining
some objective reality; in fact it is little more than a means of
describing what we perceive in a self-consistent framework.
If I may say so, you appear to be stuck in some Newtonian scientific ideal
that ascribes meaning to concepts such as absolute time, absolute space,
and absolute reality. While that is a very comfortable world view that
agrees strongly with common sense, it was invalidated at the beginning of
this century, and does not have any real meaning beyond the human scale
of existence.
>>That's a bold statement! How do you justify the independence of
>>consciousness and existence? Are you implying that if there was no
>>existence, there would still be consciousness? Is this not begging the
>>question of theistic entities?
>
>I justify the independence of consciousness and existence merely by
>observing that there are things that nobody can alter by an act of
>consciousness alone.
That is a faulty observation. With mere thoughts I can alter the
images on a CAT-scan monitor or EEG. My thoughts themselves are
composed of changes in reality: the flow of chemicals and electrons
in my brain. If the chemicals and electrons do not flow, I do not
think. In fact, I die and cease to exist. The flow itself _IS_ my
thought. Physical reality and consciousness are inextricably bound
up in each other.
>>I should point out here that it was QM that taught us about the
>>inseperability of the observer and the universe.
>
>The only thing that QM shows in this regard
>is that by the nature of our senses, we cannot observe a sub-atomic
>event without affecting it, e.g., we have to bounce light particles off
>of what we're trying to observe, thus changing position and/or momentum.
As you pointed out earlier, however, our senses are the only means we
have of interacting with the universe. If we cannot interact with the
universe without affecting it, then how are we independent from it?
You yourself said that consciousness must have some existence to
perceive before it can exist; if the very act of perception affects
the existence, as it must according to QM, then the two are NOT
independent.
>>The scientific method was
>>not devised until Galileo. Aristotle and cronies were philosophers; they
>>sometimes speculated about how the world worked, but the notion of testing
>>and refining their speculations did not occur to them. Science is much
>>more than natural philosophy: the notion of objective verification is
>>central to it, and missing from the works of the ancient Greeks.
>
>This is simply not so. At the time of the Greeks, science and philosophy
>were essentially the same subject.
Science is defined by use of the scientific method. The Greeks,
advanced though their ideas were, did not use this method, and so
were practitioners of philosophy, not science. Mathematics and
reason alone do not a science make. This thread is a testament to
that fact. :-)
>Aristotle gave us the ideas of an objective reality, and of reason and logic
>as the means of understanding that reality - science as we know it would
>never have arisen without these.
Granted. However, simply because A is a precursor to B, does not make
A equal to B.
>>With an act of consciousness, I can move various parts of my body in
>>various ways. By extending my hand, I can stop the pen from falling.
>>By corrolary, I can stop the pen from falling with an act of
>>consciousness.
>
>Sure, you can will your hand to move, but you can't will *mine* to move.
This is silly. You are talking about telekinesis, not consciousness
and existence. The reason I cannot move your hand is because of a huge
potential barrier between my brain and your nerves, not because of any
inherent contradiction in terms.
>Using your hand
>to stop a pen from falling is *not* an example of unaided consciousness
>altering reality. It was your mind and your hand together that stopped
>the pen, not your mind alone.
It was my mind alone that cause my hand to move! My hand is a real,
physical object, every bit a part of existence as the pen! Why do
you make a distinction between a pen and my hand? It is very easy to
give the _appearance_ of independence of mind and matter by erecting
enough barriers between two particular instances of them. By removing
those barriers, (as with hands, EEGs, etc) we can see that in fact the
two are not only dependent, but in fact part of the same thing.
-- Morgan Burke (mor...@reg.triumf.ca)
Mark Peters
>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com>, Mark Peters (mp) writes:
>mp> If the law of cause and effect does not hold (even some of the
>mp> time), then QM and every other science is completely blown out of
>mp> the water. Science relies on the law of cause and effect to
>mp> arrive at its conclusions, just as it relies on the independence
>mp> of existence and consciousness.
>It relies on neither. Hence end of argument. If you disagree, please
>provide an example of where science relies upon cause and effect. Let
>alone consciousness.
This is unbelievable - you really can't think of an example of science
relying on cause and effect? How many times have scientists said to
themselves, "I wonder what would happen if ..." or "I wonder why that
happened?" or ... I think you get the picture. Science is all about
finding out the *causes* of natural phenomena, primarily so that we
can put those causes to use in creating effects beneficial to human
life.
I feel uncomfortable giving an example of this, because if *I* were
a scientist, I'd feel that doing so would utterly trivialize my entire
livelyhood. With apologies in advance to any scientists reading this,
here is one example out of the thousands upon thousands available:
Newton's laws of motion.
Mark Peters
>>>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com>, m...@svl.cdc.com writes...
>|[That the Greeks are the "fathers" of science]
>I guess it depends on how you value the contribution to science but Galileo
>is the one who made the most significant contributions to science as we
>know it today. The Greeks had very unrealistic views to how things in
>the world worked.
I'm not saying that the scientific knowledge of the Greeks was more
advanced than Galileo's, I'm merely saying that it was the Greeks who
invented the methodology that made Galileo's discoveries possible.
Without Aristotelian logic, for example, Galileo couldn't have done
what he did.
Siddarth Subramanian
>a few questions to all those who claim that the universe _must_ have had a cause.
>and thus that God (or whatever) was that cause.
>
>If everything needs a cause, then what caused this God? If not everything
>needs a cause, why is the universe one of those things which _must_ have one?
This is not a problem for theists. What they do is to define God in
such a way that he doesn't need a cause. The universe has a concrete
definition and thus does not lend itself to such a lack of cause. You
can explain the universe using God and define this individual in such
a way that to question his existence is unthinkable.
This is actually a neat logical trick. I've often seen Occam's Razor
being used to argue against theism. In fact, OR can easily be used to
support God. This is because any loose ends in our understanding of
the universe (i.e., any unexplained phenomena) can be explained by
this single assumption. That's about as simple an explanation as you
can imagine. Since God is defined in such a way that he needs no
explanation, there are no longer any unexplained phenomena.
Historically, I believe the simplicity of this God-explanation is
probably what has driven so many intelligent people to accept theism.
(This is a problem that's confused me in the past - i.e., why do so
many reasonable people believe in something I find as unlikely and
irrational as God?) Atheism has only gained (limited) popularity in
the last century when it has looked like science might possibly
explain most natural phenomena without any resort to the supernatural.
What I believe this points to is that Occams Razor-style criteria for
rating explanations should depend not just on the number of
assumptions but on their intrinsic quality as perceived by the person
making the assumption. Most atheists would probably believe that an
assumption that is testable (falsifiable) is intrinsically more
pleasing than one that isn't. This would then rule out most
explanations that depend on the supernatural. Most theists who
actually think about these things, on the other hand, have the
God-notion so ingrained in them that that particular assumption,
despite being supernatural, seems reasonable to them.
--
Siddarth Subramanian INTERNET: sidd...@cs.utexas.edu
Austin, Texas UUCP: uunet!cs.utexas.edu!siddarth
mathew
> mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >As far as I'm concerned, reality *is* what is measured, and so if QM
> >explains the nature of measurements then it explains the nature of reality.
>
> You can't define reality to be whatever you like.
Why not? It's a metaphysical choice. Do you have evidence that there
is more to reality than what we can measure? If not, then I think it's
quite reasonable that I refuse to believe in something for which there
is no evidence. Show me a hidden variable!
> As for the point about
> explaining measurements, Feynman put this well in his lectures on physics.
> He explained (my paraphrase from memory) that a physical theory is not
> _obliged_ to posit or explain entities which cannot be measured. That is
> the central point of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. It is an
> entirely different question as to whether they really exist.
What do you mean by "really exist"? If something cannot be measured at
all, in what sense does it exist?
> There may
> not be an answer forthcoming from science (or anywhere else for that matter),
> but to _legislate_ them out of existence on the basis of one's own
> access to them seems to me to be a case of cosmic megalomania.
No, it's just scepticism. I don't wish to predicate my entire worldview
on a belief in something for which I have no direct or indirect evidence
whatsoever.
> Of course the other way to take your remark is as an example of relativism.
> In that case all the standard criticisms of relativism apply.
Could you briefly enumurate them?
mathew
--
Another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices.
mathew
> I don't know how to make this any clearer! The claim that QM invalidates
> the law of cause and effect is in exactly the same category as the
> claim that it shows that something can come from nothing. If the law
> of cause and effect does not hold (even some of the time), then QM
> and every other science is completely blown out of the water. Science
> relies on the law of cause and effect to arrive at its conclusions, just as
> it relies on the independence of existence and consciousness.
Anything else you think science relies on while you're at it? I like a
good laugh.
> I justify the independence of consciousness and existence merely by
> observing that there are things that nobody can alter by an act of
> consciousness alone.
Name one.
Jarek Dabrowski
> mathew writes:
>>> So when photons just pop out of nowhere, where are they coming from?
>>> JHVH-1's Discount Photon Shop?
> Jarek Dabrowski in reply:
>>From vacuum. It is not an absolute "nowhere". It has a structure which
>>allows it to give birth to observable particles when certain conditions
>>are fulfilled.
>
> Well this is certainly one view of things, positing some physical entity
> outside this universe.
>
> However in the context of this discussion I cannot see why this statement is
> any better than just saying 'the particles do not exist and then they just
> pop into existence' ie: they don't come from anywhere. On moment they are not
> and the next they are.
>
reach you? It is not "one view of things", it is a hard consequence
of quantum mechanics, and it has nothing to do with positing any physical
entities outside this universe. You're right saying "One moment particles
are not and the next they are", but it is completely unrelated to the
problem, because they are born OF vacuum and IN vacuum and we miss the
source of the vacuum itself. In fact, there's no qualitative difference
between vacuum and matter relevant to our discussion, because matter can
be viewed as an excited state of the vacuum. If you like semiconductors,
look at phonon-electron interaction. There's no conservation rule for the
phonon number, and they really DO pop into existence. But all this happen
in a STRUCTURE - in a semiconductor... Phonons are a hard consequence of
this structure. More: All details of their behavior depend heavily on
the semiconductor, Graham (just as details of the behavior of elementary
particles depend on the vacuum structure; that's why theories of vacuum
are possible). Phonons are in fact just excited states of the specific
semiconductor lattice.
Jarek Dabrowski
-Mathew:
>> > So when photons just pop out of nowhere, where are they coming from?
>> > JHVH-1's Discount Photon Shop?
-Jarek:
>> From vacuum. It is not an absolute "nowhere". It has a structure which
>> allows it to give birth to observable particles when certain conditions
>> are fulfilled.
-Mathew:
> So what *is* the structure of nothing?
>
Of nothing? None. Of vacuum? As given by any theory which deals with
elementary particles. An example of an established element from this
structure? The (current value of the) speed of light.
Mark Peters
>> = Mark Peters
>Let me be a little more explicit. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation
>holds that delta E delta t >= constant. One consequence of this
>relation is that so long as the duration of existence (delta t) is
>small enough, any amount of energy (read: mass, universe) can come
>into existence, without direct cause. Perhaps a little more correctly,
>the amount of energy is not defined within certain limits, and can fluctuate
>freely between null and finite values. Conversely, so long as the
>energy is small enough, the creation can persist for any length of time.
>Given that it is possible that the net energy of the universe is zero,
>it's extended existence does not require postulating its cause.
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because in the
above paragraph you make exactly the sort of error I pointed out
earlier - equating our method for grasping reality with reality
itself. The fact that the math can only specify energy amounts within a
range does not prove that in reality the energy is of no particular
amount.
>>An epistemology which claimed that only methodology exists is self-refuting -
>>it must deny the existence of its adherents. Reason *is* a methodology,
>>i.e., it is our means for obtaining knowledge of reality - it isn't reality
>>itself. Sense-perception provides us with the raw data that our reason
>>identifies and integrates in obtaining knowledge.
>Raw data is not reality either. If all we are working with is data
>and reason, then surely you must admit that reality as our minds
>construct it is also a methodology.
I've spent this entire thread arguing that method and reality are different,
so I'm certainly not going to admit that "reality as our minds construct
it is also a methodology." Our minds don't construct reality, they
*grasp it* via observation and reasoning based on observation, i.e.,
via method.
>>I justify the independence of consciousness and existence merely by
>>observing that there are things that nobody can alter by an act of
>>consciousness alone.
>That is a faulty observation. With mere thoughts I can alter the
>images on a CAT-scan monitor or EEG. My thoughts themselves are
>composed of changes in reality: the flow of chemicals and electrons
>in my brain. If the chemicals and electrons do not flow, I do not
>think. In fact, I die and cease to exist. The flow itself _IS_ my
>thought. Physical reality and consciousness are inextricably bound
>up in each other.
The observation is not in the least faulty; there *are* things that
nobody can alter by an act of consciousness alone. We each learned this
lesson as children, when we realized that no amount of crying would
cause an out-of-reach toy to jump into our hands.
Because brain functioning does have physical manifestations, we are able to
build machines specifically to detect those manifestations. These machines
can do nothing *but* give output that conforms to what they detect, so to
describe their changing output as "reality" being "altered" by consciousness
makes no sense. It's only *because* consciousness is dependent on
existence that such machines can be designed and built in the first place.
The mind and body form a single, integrated whole, that, like a CAT-scan
machine, has a particular nature or identity, i.e., has certain
characteristics. That certain physical processes must go on in the brain
for thought to occur is just one fact about the nature of mind/body, and
doesn't give any support to the idea that consciousness alone can alter
reality.
>As you pointed out earlier, however, our senses are the only means we
>have of interacting with the universe. If we cannot interact with the
>universe without affecting it, then how are we independent from it?
>You yourself said that consciousness must have some existence to
>perceive before it can exist; if the very act of perception affects
>the existence, as it must according to QM, then the two are NOT
>independent.
Our senses put us into contact with reality, i.e., they are our basic
means for grasping (not interacting with) reality. The fact that
"seeing" a sub-atomic particle requires bouncing another particle off it
(thus altering its position/momentum) *supports* the idea that existence is
independent of consciousness, because it *is* a fact of existence that we
cannot alter.
>>>With an act of consciousness, I can move various parts of my body in
>>>various ways. By extending my hand, I can stop the pen from falling.
>>>By corrolary, I can stop the pen from falling with an act of
>>>consciousness.
>>Sure, you can will your hand to move, but you can't will *mine* to move.
>This is silly. You are talking about telekinesis, not consciousness
>and existence. The reason I cannot move your hand is because of a huge
>potential barrier between my brain and your nerves, not because of any
>inherent contradiction in terms.
You bet I'm talking about telekinesis! Telekinesis is the primacy of
consciousness viewpoint made explicit - and it is nonsense because
the primacy of consciousness viewpoint is nonsense. The fact that
you can't move my hand with your mind because your mind isn't
*connected* to my hand via nerves nicely illustrates the falsity of
the primacy of consciousness viewpoint.
>>Using your hand
>>to stop a pen from falling is *not* an example of unaided consciousness
>>altering reality. It was your mind and your hand together that stopped
>>the pen, not your mind alone.
>It was my mind alone that cause my hand to move! My hand is a real,
>physical object, every bit a part of existence as the pen! Why do
>you make a distinction between a pen and my hand?
Because there *is* a distinction between a pen and your hand. Your
mind and your pen don't form an integrated whole, but your mind and
your body *do*.
> It is very easy to
>give the _appearance_ of independence of mind and matter by erecting
>enough barriers between two particular instances of them. By removing
>those barriers, (as with hands, EEGs, etc) we can see that in fact the
>two are not only dependent, but in fact part of the same thing.
Mind and body are inseparable (except for purposes of analysis), but this
isn't true of consciousness and existence. Mind and body are two
aspects of one thing, but consciousness and existence are not - a universe
without consciousness is possible.
*****
(As I said earlier, I think we should just agree to disagree - I don't
think either one of us is convincing the other.)
George Kimeldorf
I don't know. But I also don't know how the human brain works
(I don't even know how a mouse's brain works), and I can't
explain consciousness. (Could someone please explain to me how
the manufacturer gets the toothpaste into the tube?)
But why discuss the origin of matter in alt.atheism? What has
this question to do with atheism? Just this: Throughout the
history of human civilization, we have ascribed supernatural
causes to phenomena which we couldn't explain: things like
droughts, eclipses, epidemics, thunder, etc. So, since we can't
explain the origin of matter, let's ascribe it to God.
A plausible theory explaining the origin of matter would probably
be as welcomed by organized religion as were Galileo and Darwin.
Imagine the notion that people, supposedly created in God's
image, having evolved from animals who have no souls. Blasphemy!
How can the Earth not be the center of the universe? Sacrilege!
Eric Rescorla
>Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because in the
>above paragraph you make exactly the sort of error I pointed out
>earlier - equating our method for grasping reality with reality
>itself. The fact that the math can only specify energy amounts within a
>range does not prove that in reality the energy is of no particular
>amount.
Tunnelling requires negative energies. Since negative energies are non-physical
you need uncertainty to make things work.
Mikel Evins
>laws, i.e., they violate philosophical principles that had to be relied
>upon (implicitly, at least) in the process of arriving at those scientific
>laws. That something cannot arise from nothing is one such philosophical
>principle.
Can you refute strict nominalism? I.e. can you show that
those philosophical 'laws' must be obeyed by the
phenomenal world, or is it logically possible that, as Hume
proposed, science appears to correspond to reality, but
we cannot know rationally that it actually does?
Mikel Evins
>a scientist, I'd feel that doing so would utterly trivialize my entire
>livelyhood. With apologies in advance to any scientists reading this,
>here is one example out of the thousands upon thousands available:
>Newton's laws of motion.
Newton's laws of motion are several examples. Let us examine one
of them: F = ma, where F is force, m is mass, and a is
acceleration. Show how cause and effect are involved in
this law.
Alan Filipski
#>In <913121...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> ca...@ecr.mu.oz.au (Ivan the TERRIBLE) writes:
#>>not true. Just that the total sum of energy must = 0. I suggest you
#>>read 'a brief history of time', by Dr Steven Hawkings. It may
#>>make some suggestions to you, re time 'before' the big bang.
#
#>I have read it, but it is utterly irrelevant because this is a
#>philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Existence cannot arise
#>from non-existence. There must have been *something* before the
#>big-bang, because if there was nothing, then nothing existed to cause
#>the big bang - leaving as the only possible explanation a supernatural
#>creator.
By using the phrase "before the BB" you are implicitly assuming that
there is some kind of time which is outside of, and able to exist
without, the Universe. Is this "philosophical time" different from
"scientific time" in the sense of "Space-time"? Why do you speculate
that it even exists, any more than "north of the north pole" exists?
If by "philosophy", you mean unsubstantiated assertions such as
"existence cannot arise from non-existence", there is really not much
room for logical argument.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
( {decvax,hplabs,uunet!amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff Lee
>
> (Could someone please explain to me how
> the manufacturer gets the toothpaste into the tube?)
Easy. The empty tubes and toothpaste are shipped to Communist Finland,
where the toothpaste is fed to rabbits whose chromosomes are made of amino
acids. Mistaking the toothpaste for cud, the rabbits attempt to chew it,
and the empty tubes are placed in front of the rabbits' mouths. When the
rabbits discover that it is, in fact, toothpaste, they then spit it out,
filling up the tube.
The rabbits are then fed four-legged grasshoppers to clear the taste from
their mouths, and the whole process is started again.
:-)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Lee | UUCP: uhasun!smylex!jlee
| Internet: jlee%smyle...@uhasun.hartford.edu
| Voice: (203) 666-5836 (Newington, CT)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edmund, you've killed Nursie! That's horrid!
Tim Abbott
> I (Tim Abboot) wrote:
>>No, it is a hard truth. Any scientist who argues otherwise is comitting
>>professional suicide. The model is *not* the reality.
>[example involving contact binary stars deleted to conserve bandwidth]
>
>Counter example: I observe photon interference in a Young double-slit
>experiment. The current model describes the resulting interference
>fringes as a consequence of interacting wave _equations_. There are no
>equations hurtling through space, just something that we term a "wave
>packet"; some composite of mathematical functions.
And that "composite of mathematical functions" is a *model* of what
is actually there, subject to revision as we learn more about what
is going on.
>It exists in some realm beyond our _human_ reality,
>and all we can say about it is that it is a mathematical object. The
>model _is_ the reality at the extreme limits of our universe.
No, it is not. We use obscure mathematical formulae to describe what
is at the extreme limits of our universe, but that does not make
the extreme limits of our universe obscure mathematical formulae.
If that were the case, then our models would *be* reality, which
requires them to be absolutely correct, which requires that reality
be "dependent on consciousness" as some around here are so fond
of arguing.
The fundamental and vitally important difference between reality and
a scientific model is that the model is subject to revision the moment
that it fails to describe a physical phenomenon. Reality is subject
to no such requirement. You cannot revise reality, what happens, happens
and that's all there is to it (scientifically speaking).
>What _you_ are calling reality is actually a very limited slice of
>what _is_. Once you get too far removed from our scale, (stars are
>not nearly far enough), _your_ reality breaks down and you are left with
>mere models.
Now this I truly do not comprehend. The further we remove from
immediate reality, the more we must depend on models to describe
what we, ultimately, cannot see. At the range you are discussing
we can only infer what is there by extreme extrapolations.
> Not because we don't understand the phenomena yet, but
>because the phenomena transcend all the limits of human perception
>and understanding (consider the pre-Planck time universe, or the
>sub-Planck scale vacuum).
They cannot transcend all limits of human perception and understanding,
or else we would not be able to study them at all! Scientifically,
at least. (Isn't God transcendent of all limits of human perception
and understanding?) The examples you cite are both realms of extreme
physical reality it is true and we posit some pretty odd models to
describe them. Nevertheless, the statement of a model does not
guarantee so much as their existence! At some point the model must
be anchored in reality, it must describe what is actually there,
otherwise we are simply contemplating our (imaginary) navels. It
must also be capable of revision - consider the number of times
scientists have been made to look foolish because they said they knew
it all (I believe that Steven Hawking was the latest).
> I think you must accept that methodology is
>all that is left beyond these limits,
No, I must not. A science that describes something that can't be
seen, in some way, either with your eyeball or through some sequence
of physical events leading to something measureable on the macroscale
is not a science but a religion.
>because otherwise you must admit
>that there is an alternative way of _perceiving_ the universe that
>encompasses these phenomena in a self-consistent framework.
Every scientist perceives the universe in his own way. He uses the
same equations and mathematical formalism to describe it, but
his perception is up to him. Consider Pauli's epiphany on the beach
(I forget the exact anecdote) when he suddenly saw everything around
him in terms of particles and wave equations. I can imagine what
it must have been like, but I cannot see through his eyes. It's
like an example I gave in a previous posting - how do you know
that your "red" is the same as your neighbour's "red"? If you
could look inside his skull you might see what you've been calling
blue, even though you see the same wavelengths of light.
>But by
>doing that, you admit that human perception offers us an inadequate
>picture of reality, and is in fact a methodology itself.
'Never said otherwise. The scientific method tries to be independent
of human observers, a condition which is not always
possible, but it's the best method we have yet of trying to understand
reality.
Consider - have you ever seen a textbook or paper that said about an
equation "this *is* reality" as opposed to "this *describes* reality"?
If you have then the author of that textbook or paper was sloppy about
his writing and any referee was half asleep.
>Keep in mind that when I use the term "model", I am referring to a
>self-consistent intellectual construction that agrees with that part
>of reality that we can perceive.
Ah, but that construction is not the reality itself.
>Wanton speculations and fanciful
>notions need not apply.
Personally, I like a bit of that now and again (but not in my science).
--
Tim Abbott | "out there in the darkness, out there in the night
Astronomy, UTexas Austin | out there in the starlight, one soul burns
tm...@astro.as.utexas.edu | brighter than a thousand suns." - Simple Minds
Jarek Dabrowski
> Me:
>> The vacuum does not come from anything - it is not an object, it is nothing.
> Jarek:
>>In a series of comments (to your posts, Graham) to this thread I have
>>pointed out a pretty trivial fact that vacuum IS NOT nothing because it
>>has a STRUCTURE. Now, where are your replies, Graham? Only this sentence
>>above? First show that my arguments are wrong. I found errors in yours.
> nothing because it has a STRUCTURE'. You claim that this is a 'trivial fact'
> but to date I have not seen even the remotest attempt to prove this
> so called triviality - all I have seen is assertions.
>
comment on my explanations. Shall I repeat them all again?
> I even asked you to distinguish between the two theories
>
> a) the vacuum us NOT nothing, it has structure. Virtual particles come from
> this vacuum
>
> b) virtual particles just pop into existence. One moment they are not and the
> next they are.
>
> And to this question you reply with the assertion given in your first
> quote above.
>
The distinction is easy: (a) is physics, while (b) is metaphysics. And
a funny one. Why? Because not only unnecessary, but also troublesome.
Let's take (once more) the semiconductor example you seem to like. Where
do the phonons come from? Why, from nowhere, they pop into existence:
One moment they are not and the next they are. (Right, because there's
no conservation rule for the number of phonons). But this metaphysical
statement is in fact worthless, because it doesn't allow to tell you
anything about phonons. It can't explain why phonons are as they are.
And it is completely unnecessary, because phonons can be properly
described as excited states of the lattice. Their properties are
governed by the structure of the semiconductor. Enough, or more?
> Thread getting close to extinction ....
>
Not my fault...
BURKE, MORGAN
>>>This principle (of the observer affecting the observations) flatly
>>>contradicts your notions of the independence of consciousness and
>>>existence.
>
> I don't see the contradicction. Your observation may be
>screwy but the real object is there, unmoved, unless you move it with
>your hand feet, etc. ie. another real object.
Not true. The real object is _not_ unmoved. You _DO_ in fact
move it with another real object. That's the whole point!
When you look at an object, you aren't actually seeing the
object, you are seeing photons that bounced off or were emitted by
the object, changing the object in the process. It is impossible
(LOGICALLY impossible, not just practically) to observe an object
without affecting/altering it in some way. That is what observation is.
mathew
> (I don't even know how a mouse's brain works), and I can't
> explain consciousness. (Could someone please explain to me how
> the manufacturer gets the toothpaste into the tube?)
It's pumped in through the wide (non-cap) end. You can actually unroll
the end of a (metal) tube of toothpaste. You can't do that with the newer
plastic tubes because they're heat-sealed.
mathew
--
God is dead. Satan is cool. Why not worship Satan?
I speak on behalf of the Royal Family.
Mark Peters
>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com> m...@svl.cdc.com writes:
>>here is one example [of cause and effect] out of the thousands upon
>>thousands available: Newton's laws of motion.
>Newton's laws of motion are several examples. Let us examine one
>of them: F = ma, where F is force, m is mass, and a is
>acceleration. Show how cause and effect are involved in
>this law.
This is very simple, because it was probably via this equation
that most people got their first scientific example of cause and
effect. If you want to impart a particular acceleration to an
object of a particular mass, you must apply a force that is
directly proportional to the product of that acceleration and mass.
In other words, if the *effect* you want is to impart an acceleration
"a" to mass "m" you must enact the appropriate *cause*, namely, a
force "F" equal to "m" multiplied by "a." This is perhaps the
most explicit (and famous) scientific example of cause and effect
that there is. Everybody has heard the saying that "For each action
there is an equal and opposite reaction" - this is just a layman's
statement of F = ma.
Mikel Evins
>
>>In article <37...@shamash.cdc.com> m...@svl.cdc.com writes:
>
>>>here is one example [of cause and effect] out of the thousands upon
>>>thousands available: Newton's laws of motion.
>
>>Newton's laws of motion are several examples. Let us examine one
>>of them: F = ma, where F is force, m is mass, and a is
>>acceleration. Show how cause and effect are involved in
>>this law.
>
>This is very simple, because it was probably via this equation
>that most people got their first scientific example of cause and
>effect. If you want to impart a particular acceleration to an
>object of a particular mass, you must apply a force that is
>directly proportional to the product of that acceleration and mass.
>
>In other words, if the *effect* you want is to impart an acceleration
>"a" to mass "m" you must enact the appropriate *cause*, namely, a
>force "F" equal to "m" multiplied by "a." This is perhaps the
>most explicit (and famous) scientific example of cause and effect
>that there is. Everybody has heard the saying that "For each action
>there is an equal and opposite reaction" - this is just a layman's
>statement of F = ma.
I think not. "F = ma" says that there are three quantifiable
characteristics of the motion of a mass: Force, mass, and acceleration,
and that they are related such that the force equals the mass
times the acceleration (all expressed in suitable units, of
course).
The interpretation that you present above is strictly
metaphysical; it posits the idea of causality gratuitously.
You may argue that 'F = ma' holds as a result of
causality, just as some people hold that the earth
exists as the result of the intervention of a divine
creator, or others hold that disease occurs as a result
of intrusions of harmful spiritual power, but in none
of these cases is the proposed agency of the phenomenon
strictly required by description of the phenomenon.
F = ma is simply a description of a phenomenon. You
need to show that, without causality, F = ma is
incoherent.
More problematically, we know from Bell's theorem
that local causality does not hold. (See any reasonably
modern discussion of the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky
paradox.) Therefore, if you are correct, and F = ma
implies that causality holds, then one of the following
must be true:
1. Locality does not hold (events have no specific
extension in space)
2. F = ma does not hold. Newton was wrong.
If 1 and 2 are false, then so is the assertion
that F = ma implies causality.
BURKE, MORGAN
[my comments on Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation deleted]
>Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because in the
>above paragraph you make exactly the sort of error I pointed out
>earlier - equating our method for grasping reality with reality
>itself.
No, Mark, it is _you_ who are making that error. You are equating
what we perceive to be reality, but your perception is _not_ reality,
nor does it show you even a reasonable facsimile of reality.
Let me try and demonstrate this point to you. You look at a Ferrari,
and you see RED. What does this REDNESS have to do with reality?
Nothing. It is a _model_ your mind constructs to make sense of 700nm
photons, and in NO WAY resembles the photons themselves. Color is not
something that actually exists, and your perception of it does not have
the slightest similarity to anything real.
Given that the same is true of all our sense data, we have no reason
to presume that our perception gives us a remotely accurate picture
of some _objective_ reality. Even things as intuitive as space and
time may be little more than models or approximations of some "larger"
existence (as some current radical theories have suggested).
[re: quantum mechanics]
>The fact that the math can only specify energy amounts within a
>range does not prove that in reality the energy is of no particular
>amount.
The undefined energy term in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation is
real, and is not simply a product of limitations in the math or
our ability to measure it. The quantum theory caused a major paradigm
shift in how we understand reality and the nature of energy and matter.
Few who haven't studied it grasp the significance of this change,
however, and remain locked into a Newtonian world view. I suspect that
you are one of these people.
>Because brain functioning does have physical manifestations, we are able to
>build machines specifically to detect those manifestations.
[ ... ]
>It's only *because* consciousness is dependent on
>existence that such machines can be designed and built in the first place.
I agree completely, but I have to wonder if I've bamboozled you.
I thought you were trying to show that consciousness is INdependent
of existence. More on this below...
>The fact that
>"seeing" a sub-atomic particle requires bouncing another particle off it
>(thus altering its position/momentum) *supports* the idea that existence is
>independent of consciousness, because it *is* a fact of existence that we
>cannot alter.
The fact that we are incapable of altering the laws of physics with our
thoughts, and that the very existence of consciousness as we know it
depends on the current configuration of those laws (ie. the Anthropic
Principle), shows that consciousness is dependent on existence.
>Mind and body are inseparable (except for purposes of analysis), but this
>isn't true of consciousness and existence. Mind and body are two
>aspects of one thing, but consciousness and existence are not - a universe
>without consciousness is possible.
But a consciousness without a universe is not.
Actually, Mark, I think this point may reveal the source of our
difficulties, and as usual in these kind of discussions, they are
purely semantic. You do not really mean to say that existence and
consciousness are [mutually] independent, but rather that only
existence does not depend on consciousness [and _NOT_ vice versa].
That is a point that I agree with. Are we getting any closer to
an understanding?
-- Morgan Burke (mor...@reg.triumf.ca)
Graham Matthews
>> I even asked you to distinguish between the two theories
>>
>> a) the vacuum us NOT nothing, it has structure. Virtual particles come from
>> this vacuum
>>
>> b) virtual particles just pop into existence. One moment they are not and the
>> next they are.
>>
>> And to this question you reply with the assertion given in your first
>> quote above.
Jarek:
>The distinction is easy: (a) is physics, while (b) is metaphysics.
This may seem obvious to you but it is not to me. I am at a complete loss
to understand why a) is physics and b) is not!
Cheers
graham
--
Graham Matthews Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz If that is granted all else follows.
gra...@maths.su.oz.au
Graham Matthews
>> (Could someone please explain to me how
>> the manufacturer gets the toothpaste into the tube?)
Jeff Lee writes:
>Easy. The empty tubes and toothpaste are shipped to Communist Finland,
>where the toothpaste is fed to rabbits whose chromosomes are made of amino
>acids. Mistaking the toothpaste for cud, the rabbits attempt to chew it,
>and the empty tubes are placed in front of the rabbits' mouths. When the
>rabbits discover that it is, in fact, toothpaste, they then spit it out,
>filling up the tube.
>
>The rabbits are then fed four-legged grasshoppers to clear the taste from
>their mouths, and the whole process is started again.
Brilliant Jeff! You should go into comedy film script writing!
Maybe there is an opening with the Python boys?!
VALIS
> In <59...@apple.Apple.COM> mi...@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> >Newton's laws of motion are several examples. Let us examine one
> >of them: F = ma, where F is force, m is mass, and a is
> >acceleration. Show how cause and effect are involved in
> >this law.
>
> This is very simple, because it was probably via this equation
> that most people got their first scientific example of cause and
> effect. If you want to impart a particular acceleration to an
> object of a particular mass, you must apply a force that is
> directly proportional to the product of that acceleration and mass.
>
> In other words, if the *effect* you want is to impart an acceleration
> "a" to mass "m" you must enact the appropriate *cause*, namely, a
> force "F" equal to "m" multiplied by "a."
The F=ma law says nothing about that. All it says is that at any given
instant, the force applied to the object is equal to the mass of the
object at that instant multiplied by its acceleration at that same instant.
It says nothing about "if you want this then you must do that".
> This is perhaps the
> most explicit (and famous) scientific example of cause and effect
> that there is. Everybody has heard the saying that "For each action
> there is an equal and opposite reaction" - this is just a layman's
> statement of F = ma.
No, that's a completely different law. As I recall, the three are:
1. Objects tend to remain at the same velocity unless acted upon by an
external force.
2. F=ma
3. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" (not actually
a very good way of stating the 3rd law, but it'll do for now.)