uncaused cause

[john_doran]

hecd2:

On the contrary, a detailed reading of Linde and Linde 's paper leads to the conclusion that they are positing a universe with stationary spatial statistics which has no need for an *initial *singularity since such a universe is infinitely self-sustaining.

here’s what Linde says:
Andre Linde:

However, after making all kinds of improvements of this theory, we are now winding up with a model of a stationary Universe, in which the notion of the Big Bang loses its dominant position, being removed to the indefinite past.

Andrei Linde, Dmitri Linde, and Arthur Mezhlumian, “From the Big Bang Theory to the Theory of a Stationary Universe,”, pp. 67-68

the essay is here:

arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9306/9306035.pdf
hecd:

On the contrary, the Hawking-Hartle model is a perfectly reasonable model of the physical universe that refutes Aquinas’s axiom by logical necessity.

i disagree that reifying imaginary time is “perfectly reasonable”: it is actually meaningless. at least it means absolutely nothing to me, and would mean nothing to aquinas. and if that counts as a refutation, then here’s my refutation of the hawking-hartle model: creech bleem flargle-dum bingder.
hecd:

But the sacrifice one needs to make in order to save determinism is too great.

depends who you ask. it’s a price i’m certainly willing to pay.

 

[benny54]

Is Aquinas’ uncaused cause argument for God’s existence really all that great? I mean, why couldn’t we have been created from another universe that isn’t limited by the physical laws that we have?

i think about that sort of thing, about there being other physical universes, or dimentions, that have far more knowlage of spirituality and god, but mayby they dont call it a universe they call it heaven, get what i mean? we dont know everything but were given what we need to know, thats faith for ya.

 

[bobzills]

. Not only is the non-zero value of the scalar fields in ‘empty space’ from which spontaneous quantum generation of partcle/antiparticle pairs arise good theoretical physics - it also predicts empirically measurable phenomena. The detection of the Casimir effect to an error better than 5% demonstrates the fact of these quantum effects of spontanaeous ‘uncaused’ phenomena.

I thought that pair production, if that is what is being talked about here?, is possible only if there is enough energy available to create the pair, so it is not spontaneous generation out of nothing. And I thought that pair production does not occur in empty space, but it occurs when a high energy photon hits an atomic nucleus?

 

[bobzills]

Even in the temporally finite universe, where models begin with the Big Bang, there are respectable hypotheses (for example those of Hawking and Hartle that rely on the Wick rotation to imaginary time) that have no boundary conditions

I thought that the Hawking Hartle no boundary proposal involved Riemannian geometries and path integrals which supposedly give a superposed family of non-singular spaces. However, has anyone ever come up with a clear cut and exact computation of a path integral? You only get an approximate value. But then you have to anti-Wick rotate back to get the answer and this involves analytic continuation. But, if you know the real value of an analytic function, but only approximately, I don’t think that you can say much about the imaginary part, because it can vary drastically. And by the way, when you do a Wick rotation like that, don’t you have to implicitly assume the existence of symmetries and other structures, and why is it clear that these other structures should be present?

 

[benny54]

I thought that the Hawking Hartle no boundary proposal involved Riemannian geometries and path integrals which supposedly give a superposed family of non-singular spaces. However, has anyone ever come up with a clear cut and exact computation of a path integral? You only get an approximate value. But then you have to anti-Wick rotate back to get the answer and this involves analytic continuation. But, if you know the real value of an analytic function, but only approximately, I don’t think that you can say much about the imaginary part, because it can vary drastically. And by the way, when you do a Wick rotation like that, don’t you have to implicitly assume the existence of symmetries and other structures, and why is it clear that these other structures should be present?

whaaat the f*******, ill leave that quantum physics stuff up to you guys, just remember, we are creatures, ie a product of creation, not the other way around, and theres the simple fact that as humans just because we can doesnt mean we shuld.
im done with this thread

 

[bobzills]

… ill leave that quantum physics stuff up to you guys,

You can read about a Hawking model for cosmology with no boundary conditions here:
arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602091
But does it make sense to apply Bayesian type techniques to string theory?

 

[benny54]

You can read about a Hawking model for cosmology with no boundary conditions here:
arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602091
But does it make sense to apply Bayesian type techniques to string theory?

ok ur joking right? in case your not whats a bayesian technique? and whats a string theory?
ill have a look, that sort of thing’s interesting but they are just theorys, and its not against gods law to learn obviously, but what im getting at is spirituality is a very real thing, ive experienced plenty of the supernatural, and i know alot of people who have too, all the religious phenomena that goes on is real. and in our search for scientific fact, thinking were smart enough and old enough to not need the guidance of our god is a really bad move, thats like a 5 year old kid thinking he knows more than his parents and can do fine without em.

 

[bobzills]

ok ur joking right?.

No. The point is that the Hawking method of getting rid of singularities such as the Big Bang are not without their own problems, so the Big Bang theory is still a credible one.
Remember it was the Belgian Roman Catholic priest, professor of physics and astronomer at the Université catholique de Louvain. Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Éduard Lemaître, who proposed the big bang theory in about 1931. By the way, this theory was endorsed by Einstein after Hubble’s result came out, according to which the universe was expanding.

 

[bobzills]

ill have a look, that sort of thing’s interesting but they are just theorys, and its not against gods law to learn obviously, but what im getting at is spirituality is a very real thing, ive experienced plenty of the supernatural, and i know alot of people who have too, all the religious phenomena that goes on is real. and in our search for scientific fact, thinking were smart enough and old enough to not need the guidance of our god is a really bad move, thats like a 5 year old kid thinking he knows more than his parents and can do fine without em.

There is a book, which is easy to read, but at the same time has some serious arguments in favor of the Uncaused Cause:
There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese

 

[buffalo]

There is a book, which is easy to read, but at the same time has some serious arguments in favor of the Uncaused Cause:
There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese

Yes - I believe he said - I followed the evidence where it led.