Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

Jim Al-Khalili in his book "Paradox" made the following statement on page 148.

"Both our future and our past -indeed all of time must exist together and are all equally real" He also concluded on page 149, "Time is like a DVD movie in which one can jump around."

Al-Khalili goes on to say that there would be no such thing as free will if this is all there was to the universe because of the fact that past present and future all exist and be equally real."

He proposes a solution to this paradox on page 151 and 152. The quantum multiverse. "An infinite number of parallel universes all piled on top each other. And every time a choice is made you are thrown into that universe that looks exactly the same except for that one different choice that you made.

Question does this help the problem of free will?

There are only 2 possible solutions that can happen here.

1. All the alternative universes have to exist there for their past present and future also have to exist.

This solution only exacerbates the creation problem. Not only would our universe have to be created but every other universe almost infinite number of universes would have to be created.

2. We are all God's and every decision we make creates a new universe. The universe that we all perceive we are in right now is nothing more than someones good decision that they made since Earth Science guy is in this one.
This also brings into question what exactly is a universe if they can be created by the thought of so many beings.

As this options is thought through absurdity soon finds its home.



The only answer to a universe in which we perceive to find ourselves is a a universe in which God created every point on the timeline at the same time. This would give everyone the free will they desire and God the Sovereignty that He says that He has in His word.

Conclusion the only answer to this universe is Yahweh.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 5 by Bust Nak]


EarthScienceguy wrote:

1. All the alternative universes have to exist there for their past present and future also have to exist.

This solution only exacerbates the creation problem. Not only would our universe have to be created but every other universe almost infinite number of universes would have to be created.

If this universe does not have to be created then why would any other universe have to be created?

Because none of us would exist if this universe were not here.

Quote:
2. We are all God's and every decision we make creates a new universe. The universe that we all perceive we are in right now is nothing more than someones good decision that they made since Earth Science guy is in this one.
This also brings into question what exactly is a universe if they can be created by the thought of so many beings.

As this options is thought through absurdity soon finds its home.

Like what? And what does "create" mean in this sense? Many-worlds interpretation sense of create doesn't require any of us to be gods.

The absurdity of the number of universes that must exist simply because someone makes a choice. If this theory is true that means that a new universe was/is created not only when I decided to write this post but also what I wrote in this post, when I stopped and decided to do something else. Where are these universes how were they created, they had to have always existed. If past present and future still exist in this new universe then it would also exist in those alternate universes.

If this all part of a wave function then at what point did these universes come into existence if past present and future exists in all these universes then they had to be in existence. Otherwise they came into existence when a choice is made.

It is absurd to think that the universe when it came into being created not only the universe in which we assume we are in but also an infinite number of universes that are all based on the decisions of beings that were created inside it.

Quote:
Conclusion the only answer to this universe is Yahweh.

What about all the usual absurdity that goes this this answer? If we take your word for granted, then it seems like we have 3 undesirable solution and the sensible thing to do here, is to discard the idea of freewill. Why a lack of freewill would harm a rational universe, I can only guess at.

Forfeiting free will is the option that some do take. But it does by appear like we do have free will.

But the problem of the universe having to create every moments at the same time still exists.

Finally, do you have the actual passages we can review? The bits quoted sound sensible enough, but I want to see what he actually said about the solution. You have access to the passages in question, right?

It is in his book "paradox"

[Bust Nak]

Because none of us would exist if this universe were not here.

Sure, but that doesn't answer my question. Why would the universe not be here?

The absurdity of the number of universes that must exist simply because someone makes a choice. If this theory is true that means that a new universe was/is created not only when I decided to write this post but also what I wrote in this post, when I stopped and decided to do something else. Where are these universes how were they created, they had to have always existed.

If past present and future still exist in this new universe then it would also exist in those alternate universes.

If this all part of a wave function then at what point did these universes come into existence if past present and future exists in all these universes then they had to be in existence. Otherwise they came into existence when a choice is made.

It is absurd to think that the universe when it came into being created not only the universe in which we assume we are in but also an infinite number of universes that are all based on the decisions of beings that were created inside it.

What is so absurd about any of that? Sounds to me like you meant personal incredulity rather than classical absurdity.

Forfeiting free will is the option that some do take. But it does by appear like we do have free will.

But the problem of the universe having to create every moments at the same time still exists.

Why would this so called problem still exist without freewill?

It is in his book "paradox"

You said that much already in your OP. I asked you to quote the passage because a) I want to see what he actually said about the solution. b) I want to verified that you actually read what he wrote.

[Divine Insight]

Jim Al-Khalili in his book "Paradox" made the following statement on page 148.

You're taking quotes out of context and trying to use them to support ideas that Jim Al-Khalili doesn't actually support. Those quotes that you referred to in his book are just hypothetical situations that could be used to possibly explain some current speculations. But he's not claiming that things actually need to be that way.

Here's Jim Al-Khalili speaking for himself. And he clearly has his own doubts whether time travel into the past could ever actually be possible.

[youtube][/youtube]

You should be ashamed of yourself trying to use famous people to support your positions when in truth they don't. He makes it clear at 43:30 that he believes these are all just mathematical tricks and there is no testable science to back up any of these speculations.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 10 by DrNoGods]

Modern physics does not concern itself with free will, or any such philosophical issues. It doesn't address the subject in any way so I'm not sure where the above statement comes from ... other than that it is some conclusion you have reached based on a misunderstanding of what physics is. Merriam-Webster defines free will as:

1 : voluntary choice or decision I do this of my own free will.

2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

Their definition of physics is:

1 : a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions.

Oh! physics does, here is a video of atheist Jerry Coyne who describes how.

By "we" are you referring to creationists? Because otherwise this sentence makes no sense. If the Big Bang hypothesis turns out to be correct (or even if it doesn't), we know that about 4.6 billion years ago a planet we call Earth formed in the solar system we all live in. Of the huge variety of life forms that evolved since that time, one very recent example is Homo sapiens. These animals evolved highly complex brains that allow them to perceive a universe that they live in, to have free will, and all kinds of other capabilities that their body form and high level of intelligence allows. It is a pretty simple scenario, and does not require any kind of god (or multiverses) in the process.

Well, it is quite complicated and fraught with problems and paradoxes.

1. The "Big Bang" does not start till after the creation of the universe. The Big Bang does not describe where the universe came from.

The Big bang theory can only account for Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium the other 89 elements had to had come from supernova in stars termed Population III stars.


2. How did the sun form? Physicists still do not understand the process.

Astronomers believe stars are still forming, it is not actually know how. They believe swirling hydrogen gas cools and condenses until it is dense enough to possess enough gravity to prevent re-expansion. However, gases tend to expand, not contract. Furthermore, if a swirling mass of gas contracted, it would spin faster in order to conserve angular momentum, and that increased angular velocity would oppose continued contraction. Finally, the massive collapse of gas would produce a great increase in the magnetic field, also opposing the shrinkage required to form a star. Thus the ongoing formation of stars seems contrary to the laws of physics, given the conditions that exist in space.

Many theorize that compression happen during supernova events. But if stars need supernova to exist then how could Population III stars form when there were no other stars.

3. Mercury's high density is not compatible with stellar evolution. Along with the Mercury's magnetic field which it is not suppose to have according to stellar evolutionary theory.

4. Problems with generating life which we see on this planet

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.
Problem 2: Forming Polymers Requires Dehydration Synthesis
Problem 3: RNA World Hypothesis Lacks Confirming Evidence
Problem 4: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
Problem 5: No Workable Model for the Origin of Life

I will stop here I could go on but I think this gives enough for anyone who was to discuss further.

Clearly not the only answer, because a Creator God has never been shown to exist. Many have been postulated to exist, but not one has ever been demonstrated to actually exist (much like multiverses as Paul Davies said). These things may one day be shown to exist, but as of today neither of them have.

But like physicists has shown one of them has to exist.

Quote:
The multiverse is simply the physicist communities solution to this problem that Einstein created with relativity.

It is one of many hypotheses, yet to be confirmed. Relativity has been experimentally proven to describe many aspects of nature and we take advantage of these things every day (eg. the GPS system and corrections to the clocks on those satellites). Multiverses are still at a hypothesis stage ... the same as gods ... and have nothing to do with free will.

The "scientist" that you quoted did not offer any alternative. You are right in saying that there are alternatives but they are even more bizarre then then multiverse theory, alien computers, existing inside black holes real crazy stuff.

The bottom line is we are here, we do exist and there is no natural theory that can explain how that happen.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

You are not understanding the problem!!!!

Look at what you wrote "He doubts that it would be possible." He can only say that he doubts it would be possible because he knows that the past exist. Exactly what i said, Dr. Greene said, Max Tegmark and other physicist.

My comment was that the past, present and future all exist which he does believe. And he was going through solutions that would solve the problems associated with that happening.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for understanding the problem and then acting like you do not and then trying to some underhanded deception because you can not address the argument at hand.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 14 by EarthScienceguy]

1. The "Big Bang" does not start till after the creation of the universe. The Big Bang does not describe where the universe came from.

The Big bang theory can only account for Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium the other 89 elements had to had come from supernova in stars termed Population III stars.

None of this has anything to do with formation of planet Earth 4.6 billion years ago, and human evolution, which was my point. But elements up to Fe can form within stars through the normal sequence of nuclear reactions that progress as the star ages. Above Fe the elements are formed during supernova explosions where there is enough energy to form them. This is all well understood and confirmed by spectroscopic and other observations.

2. How did the sun form? Physicists still do not understand the process.

Yes they do. We can see stars in all stages of formation and the basic processes involved in star formation are known, and not contrary to the laws of physics. You are simply wrong on this one.

3. Mercury's high density is not compatible with stellar evolution. Along with the Mercury's magnetic field which it is not suppose to have according to stellar evolutionary theory.

What has Mercury got to do with stellar evolution? It is a small planet orbiting our star.

4. Problems with generating life which we see on this planet

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.
Problem 2: Forming Polymers Requires Dehydration Synthesis
Problem 3: RNA World Hypothesis Lacks Confirming Evidence
Problem 4: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
Problem 5: No Workable Model for the Origin of Life

Origins again ... you always resort to that whether it has anything to do with the subject or not.

But like physicists has shown one of them has to exist.

Not true. Physics says nothing about gods existing, or not. Gods are religious concepts. Multiverses are hypothetical. It is perfectly compatible with modern physics if neither of them exist.

The bottom line is we are here, we do exist and there is no natural theory that can explain how that happen.

The natural theory that explains how humans are here is called the Theory of Evolution. We evolved from a great ape ancestor as genetics has shown. Do some Googling (and skip the creationist websites ... stick to actual science instead).

[Divine Insight]

He can only say that he doubts it would be possible because he knows that the past exist.

This is absolute nonsense. I'm sorry to have to burst your bubble but you DO NOT speak for Jim Al-Khalili.

In fact, you just happened to stumble upon one of my favorite scientists. I totally respect his videos precisely because he DOES NOT support you utter nonsense. He is a very down-to-earth and practical scientist who fully understands the difference between speculation and science. Something that you clearly do not understand at all.

I am absolutely certain that he would not support your claims about what he supposedly supports or believes.

So please give up this utter nonsense. You're not only embarrassing yourself, but you're actually bearing false witness against what Jim Al-Khalili actually believes.

Let him speak for himself. He does it far better than you could ever hope to do. And I'm absolutely certain that he does not support your position.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]

Dude, just stop trying to refute this you have nothing. If Jim Al-Khalili is one of your favorite physicists then you might want to listen to him when he speaks. The clip you gave is evidence that he believes that the past, present and future are real. Why else would have have to to say that he does not BELIEVE that time travel in the past is not possible. A place can be real even if you cannot get there.

Indians in the 1600's could not get to Europe but it did not make Europe any less real.

He is not a determinist. He believes in free will because of quantum fluctuation, i. e. many worlds hypothesis. I and other physicist simply do not believe that the many worlds hypothesis saves free will for the reasons outlined above. That is the debate.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 16 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
1. The "Big Bang" does not start till after the creation of the universe. The Big Bang does not describe where the universe came from.

The Big bang theory can only account for Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium the other 89 elements had to had come from supernova in stars termed Population III stars.

None of this has anything to do with formation of planet Earth 4.6 billion years ago, and human evolution, which was my point. But elements up to Fe can form within stars through the normal sequence of nuclear reactions that progress as the star ages. Above Fe the elements are formed during supernova explosions where there is enough energy to form them. This is all well understood and confirmed by spectroscopic and other observations.

The problem is not making heavy molecules it is where they came from in the first place. All stars we observe today have heavy elements in them. BB theory says that these heavy elements came from population III stars which were supposedly made of just hydrogen and helium. But as of yet we have not observed any population III stars.

So these hypothetical star since they have not been found totally refutes current BB theory. No BB theory, no earth but we are here so there has to be another reason.

Quote:
2. How did the sun form? Physicists still do not understand the process.

Yes they do. We can see stars in all stages of formation and the basic processes involved in star formation are known, and not contrary to the laws of physics. You are simply wrong on this one.

Really, How small does a gas cloud have to be to collapse under its own weight? Astronomer Sir James Jeans answered this question back in 1902. He found that the cloud must be somewhat larger than a star, but many orders of magnitude smaller than any observed cloud for this to happen. That is, no observed gas cloud is even close to the Jeans length.

So the problem is how does the gas cloud condense down the Jean length? Several mechanisms has been suggested the main one seems to be a shock wave from a supernova. The problem is there were no stars to produce shock waves for the population III stars. So there is no way for stars to form.

Astronomers have never observed any gas close even close to the Jean's length to produce stars. How could this happen in an expanding cloud. How would angular momentum form in such a smooth universe.

How can stars form today if there are no clouds of gas close to the Jean's length

Quote:
3. Mercury's high density is not compatible with stellar evolution. Along with the Mercury's magnetic field which it is not suppose to have according to stellar evolutionary theory.


What has Mercury got to do with stellar evolution? It is a small planet orbiting our star.

Mercury has to be explained by stellar evolution and it cannot.

Quote:
4. Problems with generating life which we see on this planet

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.
Problem 2: Forming Polymers Requires Dehydration Synthesis
Problem 3: RNA World Hypothesis Lacks Confirming Evidence
Problem 4: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.
Problem 5: No Workable Model for the Origin of Life


Origins again ... you always resort to that whether it has anything to do with the subject or not.

You are the one that brought this up. You said everything was known and it is not.

Quote:
But like physicists has shown one of them has to exist.


Not true. Physics says nothing about gods existing, or not. Gods are religious concepts. Multiverses are hypothetical. It is perfectly compatible with modern physics if neither of them exist.

Physics shows what is possible in an adiabatic universe which is what are universe is.

Creationist believe in a open universe which makes sense of our observations.

Quote:
The bottom line is we are here, we do exist and there is no natural theory that can explain how that happen.


The natural theory that explains how humans are here is called the Theory of Evolution. We evolved from a great ape ancestor as genetics has shown. Do some Googling (and skip the creationist websites ... stick to actual science instead).

You really want to go to origins again and have me show how natural theory cannot explain life.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 19 by EarthScienceguy]

The problem is not making heavy molecules it is where they came from in the first place.

Fusion. Elements up to Fe are made in stars like our sun through fusion reactions that are well understood and start with H -> He. There are countless published papers, web articles, etc. on this subject, for example:

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~nlanger/siu_ ... ter5-7.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

So these hypothetical star since they have not been found totally refutes current BB theory. No BB theory, no earth but we are here so there has to be another reason.

BB is a hypothesis. The statement "no BB theory, no earth" is nonsense.

That is, no observed gas cloud is even close to the Jeans length.

And even more nonsense. The Jeans length is just one aspect of star formation, and is of the order of 50 parsec (pc). 1 pc is 3.26 light years, so the Jeans length is of the order of 163 light years. Sagittarius B2 (for just one example relatively close by) is about this size (150 light years across):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_B2

Hardly not "even close" to the Jeans length. But the Jeans length is not the only factor involved in star formation, which is not as simple as you are trying to make out.

So there is no way for stars to form.

But there are trillions of them in the universe. How do you propose they formed ... just poofed into existence by a god? And if that is the case, why do we observe stars in all stages of formation from beginning to end? If god wanted to create stars (according to the bible to give us humans a little light to see by) why all the trouble to fake us out by giving the appearance that they form as modern physics understands them to form?

How can stars form today if there are no clouds of gas close to the Jean's length

There ARE molecular gas clouds comparable to the Jeans length, so that question is moot.

Mercury has to be explained by stellar evolution and it cannot.

Mercury is a planet and does not have to be explained by stellar evolution. It is explained by the mechanisms of planet formation, not the mechanisms of star formation. Or do you think Mercury is a star? You're so far off on these claims you are making that it is hard to tell.

You are the one that brought this up. You said everything was known and it is not.

I never said that everything is known. What is "everything"?

Physics shows what is possible in an adiabatic universe which is what are universe is.

Creationist believe in a open universe which makes sense of our observations.

Physics shows, Creationist believe. You finally got something right.

You really want to go to origins again and have me show how natural theory cannot explain life.

No ... you're the one who always resorts to some comment on origins when you can't debate the subject at hand. You may want to read up on star formation though, and planet formation, as you seem to be sorely lacking in these areas.