Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Also, in a biological sense, we know why you were born - it has a biological reason. You didn't just sporadically pop into existence, you were born to your mother. The universe however, has no answer how it came about, which also adds to the mystery on top of the one's I mentioned. (Even if we had the answer how the universe came into existence, we'd still need to explain why it was this universe out of the deep potential of infinite initial start-up conditions which must have been at the disposal of nature). How do you know this aethewulf? Can you say anything about the universe coming into being other than the conditions are so fine tuned for life ( I personally take exception to this) that if they were any one of an infinite number of possible universes life as we know it couldn't exist? Can you actually show that the coming into being of a universe can be different? Can you show that the universe we see is not always the way universes form? Can you assert with evidence to back it up that universes must use all possible conditions? Can you say that the formation of the universe can even be different from ours except for simply saying it is possible? How can you say what is possible with only one data point? I honestly see no reason to give your evidence any more credence than someone who says look at the world around us as proof of god... JMJones0424 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 How do you know this aethewulf? I honestly see no reason to give your evidence any more credence than someone who says look at the world around us as proof of god... How do I know this? One of the basic rules of quantum mechanics is that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe, no matter where. These laws would have also played a significant part in the universes creation. Before the universe appeared therefore, there must have been a potential which plotted an infinite amount of states in which it could have began as. The book, Parallel Universes, by Wolf, in 1985 explains this fact of quantum mechanics. Keep in mind however the two solutions I spoke about, those being Parallel Universes and the Bohmian Interpretation. Either one of these shifts the statistics in a drastic way. Also, I have explained about the God thing, if you deny my God, you deny the physical laws we call quantum mechanics and field theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 ''Can you actually show that the coming into being of a universe can be different? Can you show that the universe we see is not always the way universes form? '' I've just cited a book by a physicist who explains this ''quantum nature'' of the wave function and the beginning of the universe. Also, I don't exactly need to ''show proof'' per se. The fact the wave function is all about ''different probabilities'' and never the same one (unless a single collapse has been made on your system) then obviously it stands to reason that the universe we see is not always the universe which should form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Also, I have explained about the God thing, if you deny my God, you deny the physical laws we call quantum mechanics and field theory. No i deny that your idea of god is valid because you asserted it was some form of hyper intelligence responsible for those laws.... :rolleyes: In light of this, it seems there may indeed be some superintellect, that has guided creation. You said that, then you say this... It is not stupid to think this way, but rather quite logical. God hoewver, in what shape and form, is not some sentient being we often attribute life to being guided by a sentient cause... rather one that might lead to life in general. Which makes no sense to start with and looks like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too... Edited July 18, 2012 by Moontanman JMJones0424 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 No i deny that your idea of god is valid because you asserted it was some form of hyper intelligence responsible for those laws.... :rolleyes: Something above us yes... what is a hyperintelligence? Have you attached some sentient meaning to this? I have already explained God is most likely not a sentient being. Not reading me again are we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Also, I don't exactly need to ''show proof'' per se. The fact the wave function is all about ''different probabilities'' and never the same one (unless a single collapse has been made on your system) then obviously it stands to reason that the universe we see is not always the universe which should form. Ummm, to make a positive assertion yes you do need to show some proof, it stands to reason is no better William Lane Craig spouting his nonsense about everything that happens must have a cause... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Something above us yes... what is a hyperintelligence? Have you attached some sentient meaning to this? I have already explained God is most likely not a sentient being. Not reading me again are we? Now you are not making sense, aethelwulf, you are again making an unsupported assertion, I think i read you loud and clear... <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Let me explain what the ''suiperintelligence'' could be. I believe that it is possible within the framework of quantum mechanics to think that what we might call God is just some very sophisticated device located in our future. How did this universe come about from an infinite amount of possible start-up conditions? On answer comes from Cramers Delayed Choice experiment - that is an experiment which showed that actions in the present actually alter states which exist in the past... this has been experimentally varified time and time again, especially by the most recent experiment called Quantum Eraser. Imagine it, that things in our past, that might exist as a ghostly superposition of states where actually being formed by something in our future sending signals back in time? This is not speculation but it is based on hard scientific facts. There is even an interpretation of phsyics which uses this model, it's called the Transaction Interpretation. The way the transactional interpretation treats the wave function is the idea of a positive time wave and a negative time wave are able to move from the future to the past and from the past to the future. The wave moving forward in time is an advanced and moving back the retarded wave functions; and as you may guess, the waves are solutions of different quantum information packets which upon the absolute square amplitude they will define real existing things. The emmiter could be an electron, radiating a photon, which is caused by producing a field. The field is time-symmetric under the Wheeler-Feynman description which and as John Cramer describes it ”time-symmetric combination of a retarded field which propagates into the future and an advanced field which propagates into the past.” He considers a net field which consists of a retarded plane wave form F1 [math]F_1 = e^{i(kr-\omega t)}[/math] for [math]t_1[/math]. Here, [math]t_1[/math] is the instant of emission. The advanced solution [math]G_1[/math] is simply [math]G_1 = e^{-i(kr - \omega t)}[/math] for [math]t_2[/math]. The idea is that the the absorbing electron responding to the incident of the retarded field [math]F_1[/math] in such a way it will gain energy, recoil, and produce a new retarded field [math]F_2=-F_1[/math] which exactly cancels the incident field [math]F_1[/math]. The net field after such a transaction is zero. [math]F_{net} = (F_1 + F_2) = 0[/math] Applying this to a universe can be beneficial. It can help explain how the early universe came into existence, because the future implied it through probability. The future of our universe can shape the early universe in such a way that it can define parts of the universe which are smeared by possibilities and out of which only one true history can survive. So there is the chance that the wave function in our universe is sending information back to points in our universes history where the early universe is just being formed. But the question is now standing, what is sending this quantum information back in time able to shape up our early universe? Fred Hoyle has speculated that perhaps God is really some kind of sophisticated machine located in our future horizon which is capable of shaping up the early universe. I personally, think it is some kind of superintelligence (which very well could be a computer of types). The universe as it continues to expand has a steady increase and flux of complexity. Perhaps at some point in the future, the flux of intelligence of complexity gets so high that this manifests the uncertain future by shaping it up and by pulling it out of its many infinite possible states which quantum mechanics dictated should have been around. And before anyone questions the authenticity of such a type of claim, the science is certainly there. Hawking has also suggested a Top-Bottom Model, stating that perhaps the future is somehow influencing the early universe - so instead of thinking of creation the usual way, where we have a past moving into the future, perhaps we should be thinking of the creation of the universe the other way round, from future to past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Now you are not making sense, aethelwulf, you are again making an unsupported assertion, I think i read you loud and clear... <_<No I don't think you read me loud and clear. You roll your eyes at the word ''superintelligence'' as if you are making some kind of unique point. I am simply saying God is not a sentient being. He's not biological nor does it even seem remotely conceivable he has a ''mind which thinks as he commands actions''. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Ummm, to make a positive assertion yes you do need to show some proof, it stands to reason is no better William Lane Craig spouting his nonsense about everything that happens must have a cause...No I don't... you didn't understand me. Quantum mechanics is my proof. This is just the way things work, asking me to provide proof... I may as well direct you to our earliest experimental evidence of the wave function, the double slit experiment by Thomas Young. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Let me explain what the ''suiperintelligence'' could be. I believe that it is possible within the framework of quantum mechanics to think that what we might call God is just some very sophisticated device located in our future. How did this universe come about from an infinite amount of possible start-up conditions? On answer comes from Cramers Delayed Choice experiment - that is an experiment which showed that actions in the present actually alter states which exist in the past... this has been experimentally varified time and time again, especially by the most recent experiment called Quantum Eraser. Imagine it, that things in our past, that might exist as a ghostly superposition of states where actually being formed by something in our future sending signals back in time? This is not speculation but it is based on hard scientific facts. There is even an interpretation of phsyics which uses this model, it's called the Transaction Interpretation. The way the transactional interpretation treats the wave function is the idea of a positive time wave and a negative time wave are able to move from the future to the past and from the past to the future. The wave moving forward in time is an advanced and moving back the retarded wave functions; and as you may guess, the waves are solutions of different quantum information packets which upon the absolute square amplitude they will define real existing things. The emmiter could be an electron, radiating a photon, which is caused by producing a field. The field is time-symmetric under the Wheeler-Feynman description which and as John Cramer describes it ”time-symmetric combination of a retarded field which propagates into the future and an advanced field which propagates into the past.” He considers a net field which consists of a retarded plane wave form F1 [math]F_1 = e^{i(kr-\omega t)}[/math] for [math]t_1[/math]. Here, [math]t_1[/math] is the instant of emission. The advanced solution [math]G_1[/math] is simply [math]G_1 = e^{-i(kr - \omega t)}[/math] for [math]t_2[/math]. The idea is that the the absorbing electron responding to the incident of the retarded field [math]F_1[/math] in such a way it will gain energy, recoil, and produce a new retarded field [math]F_2=-F_1[/math] which exactly cancels the incident field [math]F_1[/math]. The net field after such a transaction is zero. [math]F_{net} = (F_1 + F_2) = 0[/math] Applying this to a universe can be beneficial. It can help explain how the early universe came into existence, because the future implied it through probability. The future of our universe can shape the early universe in such a way that it can define parts of the universe which are smeared by possibilities and out of which only one true history can survive. So there is the chance that the wave function in our universe is sending information back to points in our universes history where the early universe is just being formed. But the question is now standing, what is sending this quantum information back in time able to shape up our early universe? Fred Hoyle has speculated that perhaps God is really some kind of sophisticated machine located in our future horizon which is capable of shaping up the early universe. I personally, think it is some kind of superintelligence (which very well could be a computer of types). The universe as it continues to expand has a steady increase and flux of complexity. Perhaps at some point in the future, the flux of intelligence of complexity gets so high that this manifests the uncertain future by shaping it up and by pulling it out of its many infinite possible states which quantum mechanics dictated should have been around. And before anyone questions the authenticity of such a type of claim, the science is certainly there. Hawking has also suggested a Top-Bottom Model, stating that perhaps the future is somehow influencing the early universe - so instead of thinking of creation the usual way, where we have a past moving into the future, perhaps we should be thinking of the creation of the universe the other way round, from future to past. And you know what, you still don't even have to believe this above ^^^^ But you can't sit there and tell me quantum mechanics had no role in the beginning of the universe. You can't sit there and tell me that the universe did not arise from an infinite amount of possible start-up conditions when this is mainstream science we are dealing with. My faith is stronger in science than what it is with your inability to understand why... I am afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 And you know what, you still don't even have to believe this above ^^^^ Actually I am aware of that idea and i am currently collecting notes to write a science fiction story along those lines... But you can't sit there and tell me quantum mechanics had no role in the beginning of the universe. No, in fact I am quite sure it had at least something to do with it, the ekroptic universe is my personal favorite... wouldn't that negate your premise if some evidence to support it is found? You can't sit there and tell me that the universe did not arise from an infinite amount of possible start-up conditions when this is mainstream science we are dealing with. Yes but can you honestly tell me it did? My faith is stronger in science than what it is with your inability to understand why... I am afraid. Ah faith, i wondered when it was going to pop up it's ugly head and with an veiled ad hominem attack attached to it as well, thank you aethelwulf, as i said i think we understand each other quite well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) But you can't sit there and tell me quantum mechanics had no role in the beginning of the universe. You can't sit there and tell me that the universe did not arise from an infinite amount of possible start-up conditions when this is mainstream science we are dealing with.Fortunately I am not trying to do any of the above. The point is, as the title of this thread suggests, and the opening post claims, is there a particular significance to the handful of physical constants in this universe that necessitates the existence of a being that "finely tuned" those constants to make life possible? I'm beginning to think that maybe we are not talking about the same thing when we are referring to a universe that is finely tuned for life. I know your definition of god is a non-standard one. EDIT: left out a very important word, now included and italicized. Edited July 18, 2012 by JMJones0424 Moontanman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Actually I am aware of that idea and i am currently collecting notes to write a science fiction story along those lines... No, in fact I am quite sure it had at least something to do with it, the ekroptic universe is my personal favorite... wouldn't that negate your premise if some evidence to support it is found? Yes but can you honestly tell me it did? Ah faith, i wondered when it was going to pop up it's ugly head and with an veiled ad hominem attack attached to it as well, thank you aethelwulf, as i said i think we understand each other quite well... Faith... I believe in science, whatever you want it to be. But when I tell you about a science you don't want to hear it and may as well be calling me a liar when I tell you these things! ''Actually I am aware of that idea and i am currently collecting notes to write a science fiction story along those lines...'' Wonderful, then you probably understand all this quite well.. so why try and stop acting as if it is vague on you? ''No, in fact I am quite sure it had at least something to do with it, the ekroptic universe is my personal favorite... wouldn't that negate your premise if some evidence to support it is found?'' We are working with the most accepted theories. Ekpyrotic theory, whilst it is mainstream is highly speculative and also part of string theory. Ekpyrotic theory is imaginative and perhaps... one of the most speculative models we have simultaneously. ''Yes but can you honestly tell me it did? '' Yes. I can honestly tell you it did. Obviously it depends on your interpretation of physics. But in the framework of the Copenhagen Interpretation, yes, this is a very real prediction which should have governed the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I'm beginning to think that maybe we are not talking about the same thing when we are referring to a universe that is finely tuned for life. I know your definition of god is a non-standard one. Not life per se... I am doing something better. I am talking about this universe as a whole... in effect, only some universes would have been able to sustain life, this is true, but this one universe was dipped out of an infinite pool of universes which could have arose. Those statistics are so exact, that is 1 in an infinity. Staggering and almost incomprehensible. If you want to attach a meaning of life to this, then by all means yes, there are several fine tuning examples in quantum mechanics as well outside of the one I am currently trying to exploit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Now, I am leaving this discussion, I will be back tomorrow if you indeed have had anything further to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Not life per se... I am doing something better. I am talking about this universe as a whole... in effect, only some universes would have been able to sustain life, this is true, but this one universe was dipped out of an infinite pool of universes which could have arose. yes, if you are correct and I think that is huge if but still... if things had been different we wouldn't be here to say anything about it... Those statistics are so exact, that is 1 in an infinity. Staggering and almost incomprehensible. If you want to attach a meaning of life to this, then by all means yes, there are several fine tuning examples in quantum mechanics as well outside of the one I am currently trying to exploit. yes, statistics, lies, damn lies, and statistics... I have no doubt you really believe this aethelwulf, my doubt is in the validity of the statistics. If you want to find something bad enough in statistics it can be found... no I don't think you are intentionally lying but the idea of something being infinitely unlikely that obviously happened raises alarm bells to me immediately.. It reminds me of the argument against abiogenesis, the idea that forming the first cell was so unlikely that the universe could not last long enough to allow it to happen... yet here we are... Some really famous scientists bought into this argument at first until it was realized how inaccurate that assumption was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.