U
upant
Guest
what creates the laws? he admits he doesn’t mean “no” thing
yet the universe is still created by this force, not by the matter itself
created by God for lack of a better word.
- Status
created by God for lack of a better word.
O
openmind77
Guest
This is not a description unless you are saying you can visualize or understand brahman after this statement.then you describe brahman:
openmind77:
O
openmind77
Guest
According to him nothing creates the laws. The laws are properties on emptiness/nothingness
You can say that if you prefer, but ‘God’ implies a person.
A
AlNg
Guest
I thought that a description was when you give some features of the object. Your brahman has the following features:
it exists, it has consciousness and it is bliss and is beyond human comprehension.
A
AlNg
Guest
It is a contradiction to say nothingness has laws.
BTW, how do you know that nothingness has laws and it is not chaotic.
O
openmind77
Guest
Sorry, I don’t say that. That’s what Krauss says. This guy: Lawrence Krauss - Wikipedia
Just to be clear, Krauss does not say he knows the laws of nothingness, he just says it must have some laws.
Last edited:
O
openmind77
Guest
If you can understand brahman with that ‘description’, you can now educate all Hindus.
U
upant
Guest
but how can nothing have properties? what are the mathematics? how can nothing be unstable? what is fluctuating if it is nothing? he admits his nothing is something. I guess people believe in his pink elephant.
A
AlNg
Guest
Do you agree or disagree with Krauss?
H
Hume
Guest
Why, the Big Bang, of course.Hume:
Why is it important that the alien had three butt cheeks? And what were the consequences of the appearance of this alien?
It (there is no gender in Zip’s universe) created ours on a date and put it in a trashcan shortly after. Our universe has been sitting in their dump since.
Point being, what’s beyond our universe (and thus before it) is beyond the realm of observation. We know nearly nothing about it.
A
AlNg
Guest
Some descriptions are weak, others are strong. But even though a description is not perfect or all encompassing, it is still a description of sorts IMHO and according to how I understand the definition of the word.
O
openmind77
Guest
I have no idea. I am no expert on quantum mechanics.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
As far as I remember Saul of Tarsus never met Yeshua. So I’m not sure what his basis was for claiming he had risen?
O
openmind77
Guest
I don’t know how they come up with those three attributes.openmind77:
Some descriptions are weak, others are strong. But even though a description is not perfect or all encompassing, it is still a description of sorts IMHO and according to how I understand the definition of the word.
But ‘existence’ is definitely not a description.
‘consciousness’ just means that brahman is not inanimate.
‘bliss’ is really what is experienced when one merges with it during meditation (they don’t say that brahman is blissful, but that it is bliss itself).
You can keep calling it a description if you prefer.
H
Hume
Guest
The only cosmological evidence the cosmos provides is that it exists, it’s expanding and if we rewind the expansion, it seems to have been condensed about 13.5 billion years ago.
It provides literally no more cosmological information than that. The rest is speculation.
Fitness provides your answer. The competition of life.
Primitive photosynthetic protist evolves a little nerve branch that can detect light and dark. It can now meaningfully move toward the light that feeds it.
A bit later, another less primitive protist can detect shadows and avoid being eaten by other drifting protists.
This nerve tissue evolves further to make out silhouettes. Then actual shapes. Then depth. Then color. We’re now at a human eye.
Some species that found it to be beneficial for survival have evolved even better eyes than ours. Some can see at night much better than we can. Some can see at distance much better than we can. Some have a much higher contrast than we do, some detect motion better.
Genetic mutation and natural selection have combined to produce complexity in a universe that is very generally moving toward entropy.
No god needed to explain that one.
No, it’s proof that the universe that followed from the big bang had laws. You can thank electromagnetism for most of it.
It triggers a rational response where the atheist realizes that god and Bigfoot enjoy similar levels of supporting evidence for their existence.
RNA is just evidence for the great “common ancestor” of life. All living things descend from it.
Go back far enough and both an oak tree and a fox have the same common ancestor. That’s what RNA proves.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Oh I, and fundamental physics, beg to differ.
H
Hume
Guest
Now that’s interesting.OurLadyofSorrows:
Oh I, and fundamental physics, beg to differ.
I’m aware it can become energy. And if struck by it’s anti-particle, both cease to exist.
Anything else you know that I don’t about matter ceasing to exist? Genuinely interested.
Last edited:
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
The fluctuation occurs in a quantum field. The mechanism of those fluctuations can be described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Quantum field theories are the most successful we have devised so far when it somes to explaining observed phenomenon and predictive accuracy (like the agreement between calculated value and experimental value of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron, to eleven decimals (or twelve? I can’t remember).
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Matter never becomes energy. I know such explanations occur in popular science. But are not correct. What is commonly called matter is a particular group of particles. Two explanations comes to mind:
- Particles that are not force carriers
- Particles that on an average moves much below c
The distinction between matter and energy is on the other hand razor sharp. Matter is always a type of object and energy is a property of such an object in relation to another object. Energy is never something on its own.
Particle 1 + Antiparticle 1 <—> Particle 2 + Antiparticle 2
For example:
Electron + Positron <—> photon + photon
If looking at these reactions and comparing them to E=mc^2 one easily becomes confused and wonder what happened to the mass of the electron and positron. This confusion is easily solved by appying the correct equation E^2= (pc)^2(mc^2)^2 . With this equation it is clear how the energy in the form of mass of the electron and positron is converted to the momentum of the massless photons. E=mc^2 is only applicable to stationary objects.
A
AlNg
Guest
Is the philosophy of quantum field theory well understood and is there general agreement on the foundations of quantum field theory? For example do you accept the Copenhagen interpretation of the wave function and quantum theory. If so, can you kindly explain how quantum fluctuations arise from a deterministic evolution of the state vector without introducing measurements or the people taking these measurements? If you are going to take the state vector as representing probabilities of obtaining various results when people make observations, it means that part of the theory involves bringing people into the measurement process when clearly there are no people around if there is nothing there.
- Status