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.
Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.
Moderator: Moderators
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #151
[Replying to post 148 by EarthScienceguy]
Boltzmann Brains are a thought experiment. Nobody believes that modern physics, or modern science in general, predicts that humans can't exist and only Boltzmann Brains can. You've been reading too much science fiction and not enough real science. The evolution of humans from earlier primates has been shown to be the correct explanation of how we got here, and doesn't require crazy thought experiments that lead to absurd ideas like Boltzmann brains.
The evolution of life on Earth is independent of how the universe formed many billions of years prior to our solar system forming. And there is nothing in modern physics that is incompatible with humans existing just as we are. If there were, the physics would be wrong because we do in fact exist. Creationism doesn't help as it requires a creator, and such a being is another thought experiment.
... it does not create a universe like the one we know and love because of the Boltzmann Brain paradox.
Boltzmann Brains are a thought experiment. Nobody believes that modern physics, or modern science in general, predicts that humans can't exist and only Boltzmann Brains can. You've been reading too much science fiction and not enough real science. The evolution of humans from earlier primates has been shown to be the correct explanation of how we got here, and doesn't require crazy thought experiments that lead to absurd ideas like Boltzmann brains.
The evolution of life on Earth is independent of how the universe formed many billions of years prior to our solar system forming. And there is nothing in modern physics that is incompatible with humans existing just as we are. If there were, the physics would be wrong because we do in fact exist. Creationism doesn't help as it requires a creator, and such a being is another thought experiment.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9855
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #152
Okay, but that does not seem to answer my question. Why can't the universe that we know an love come about in the way modern science thinks it did, given the premise that this universe has higher entropy than a hypothetical universe that generated a Boltzmann Brain?EarthScienceguy wrote: Because a universe like ours has a higher entropy than an universe in which we are nothing more that a boltzman brain.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #153
[Replying to post 151 by DrNoGods]
Sean Carroll does. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00850.pdf
Wikipedia your favorite stiteing site says Boltzmann brains are a problem for cosmology https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00850.pdf.
Oh the anthropic god is back. Even though science working theory whatsoever as to how energy organized itself in this universe, I have faith that the universe still created everything I see.
At least Christians beliefs do not break the law of conservation of mass and energy.
Who said this? Because every cosmologist I read considers this a problem.Boltzmann Brains are a thought experiment. Nobody believes that modern physics, or modern science in general, predicts that humans can't exist and only Boltzmann Brains can.
Sean Carroll does. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00850.pdf
Wikipedia your favorite stiteing site says Boltzmann brains are a problem for cosmology https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00850.pdf.
Who else is saying Boltzmann are an absurd idea? Anyone.You've been reading too much science fiction and not enough real science. The evolution of humans from earlier primates has been shown to be the correct explanation of how we got here, and doesn't require crazy thought experiments that lead to absurd ideas like Boltzmann brains.
The evolution of life on Earth is independent of how the universe formed many billions of years prior to our solar system forming. And there is nothing in modern physics that is incompatible with humans existing just as we are. If there were, the physics would be wrong because we do in fact exist. Creationism doesn't help as it requires a creator, and such a being is another thought experiment.
Oh the anthropic god is back. Even though science working theory whatsoever as to how energy organized itself in this universe, I have faith that the universe still created everything I see.
At least Christians beliefs do not break the law of conservation of mass and energy.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #154
[Replying to post 153 by EarthScienceguy]
Really? Here is the last sentence of his abstract:
"The issue is not that the existence of such observers is ruled out by data, but that the theories that predict them are cognitively unstable: they cannot simultaneously be true and justifiably believed."
And a statement from the conclusion:
"We therefore conclude that the right strategy is to reject cosmological models that would be dominated by Boltzmann Brains (or at least Boltzmann Observers among those who have data just like ours), not because we have empirical evidence against them, but because they are cognitively unstable and therefore self-undermining and unworthy of serious consideration."
That is a dead link, and not a Wikipedia link anyway, but Boltzmann Brains are a thought experiment. Not sure why you like to dredge this up.
No need to when you can claim a god who can poof things into existence from nothing and suspend natural laws (ie. miracles) whenever convenient. You're complaining about a thought experiment that requires assumptions that are either not realistic or unjustified, and taking a prediction from that as if it were fact, then offering up Christian beliefs that depend on a purely imaginary god being that is performing miracles and creating things from nothing as if that were consistent with modern physics. It isn't.
Who said this? Because every cosmologist I read considers this a problem.
Sean Carroll does. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00850.pdf
Really? Here is the last sentence of his abstract:
"The issue is not that the existence of such observers is ruled out by data, but that the theories that predict them are cognitively unstable: they cannot simultaneously be true and justifiably believed."
And a statement from the conclusion:
"We therefore conclude that the right strategy is to reject cosmological models that would be dominated by Boltzmann Brains (or at least Boltzmann Observers among those who have data just like ours), not because we have empirical evidence against them, but because they are cognitively unstable and therefore self-undermining and unworthy of serious consideration."
Wikipedia your favorite stiteing site says Boltzmann brains are a problem for cosmology https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00850.pdf.
That is a dead link, and not a Wikipedia link anyway, but Boltzmann Brains are a thought experiment. Not sure why you like to dredge this up.
At least Christians beliefs do not break the law of conservation of mass and energy.
No need to when you can claim a god who can poof things into existence from nothing and suspend natural laws (ie. miracles) whenever convenient. You're complaining about a thought experiment that requires assumptions that are either not realistic or unjustified, and taking a prediction from that as if it were fact, then offering up Christian beliefs that depend on a purely imaginary god being that is performing miracles and creating things from nothing as if that were consistent with modern physics. It isn't.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #155
[Replying to post 154 by DrNoGods]
not that the existence of such observers is ruled out by data
not because we have empirical evidence against them,
"Cognitively unstable" interpretation we do not think it is true because of the consequences if it is true.
Did you read what you quoted?Really? Here is the last sentence of his abstract:
"The issue is not that the existence of such observers is ruled out by data, but that the theories that predict them are cognitively unstable: they cannot simultaneously be true and justifiably believed."
And a statement from the conclusion:
"We therefore conclude that the right strategy is to reject cosmological models that would be dominated by Boltzmann Brains (or at least Boltzmann Observers among those who have data just like ours), not because we have empirical evidence against them, but because they are cognitively unstable and therefore self-undermining and unworthy of serious consideration."
not that the existence of such observers is ruled out by data
not because we have empirical evidence against them,
"Cognitively unstable" interpretation we do not think it is true because of the consequences if it is true.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #156
[Replying to post 155 by EarthScienceguy]
We are here, and that is a fact. Any physics that suggests otherwise is bad physics, not license to jump to a conclusion that a creation story from an ancient holy book is therefore legitimate or correct. There is no data or empirical evidence to support creation claims any more than there is for Boltzmann Brains.
Yes I did, including Carroll's statement that BB theories are "unworthy of serious consideration." Again, these are thought experiments and not something to use as a serious argument against modern cosmology, or to jump to unwarranted conclusions that physics is incompatible with the evolution and existence of human beings.Did you read what you quoted?
We are here, and that is a fact. Any physics that suggests otherwise is bad physics, not license to jump to a conclusion that a creation story from an ancient holy book is therefore legitimate or correct. There is no data or empirical evidence to support creation claims any more than there is for Boltzmann Brains.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #157
This non sentence suggests you claim someone argued "it isn't true because we don't like the consequences if it were true." Who said that? Who made that argument? Please quote and cite the post.EarthScienceguy wrote:
"Cognitively unstable" interpretation we do not think it is true because of the consequences if it is true.
The central argument is 'There is no evidence for a god being necessary to explain the existence of the universe.' Since the universe could have come into existence (or have always existed) without the need for a 'god' to explain existence, it is foolish to invent a 'god' to explain existence.
