Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #1

Post by EarthScienceguy »

How is the universe not absurd (or possible) without a creator in light of the following?

1. The universe without a creator breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

The question that needs to be answered: Where did all of the energy come from? I am using space and energy as synonymous terms because energy comes from space.

2. The universe without a creator breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

The question that needs to be answered is: Why we are individuals and not a Boltzmann brain?

3. The universe without a creator breaks all laws of probability.

The question that needs to be answered is: Why do the constants of nature have the values that they do? Or why do we have laws of nature?

There are more but we will stop at three.

User avatar
thomasdixon
Apprentice
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:19 pm
Location: usa
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 14 times
Contact:

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #61

Post by thomasdixon »

I am still a bit confused.
When the pendulum stops briefly at the top of its swing, the kinetic energy is zero, and all the energy of the system is in potential energy. When the pendulum swings back down, the potential energy is converted back into kinetic energy. At all times, the sum of potential and kinetic energy is constant.
conservation of energy | Definition & Examples | Britannica

In the above example, due to friction the pendulum above slows down and will eventually stop. According to the “ideal” definition the swing back and firth is perpetual.
never-the-less, this debate could be perpetual which is not a place I want to be.

Wish you and yours a great day and beyond
bye O:)

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #62

Post by Bradskii »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:58 pm
Bradskii wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:46 pm
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:44 am [Replying to Bradskii in post #47]
Let's be more accurate. We know that this universe had a beginning. Let me know when you discover that there was nothing on the other side of the big bang. In the meantime, may I suggest you check out Sir Roger Penrose's proposal for a cyclic universe. Solves the problem of infinite time very well indeed (as does Hawkin's no-boundary proposal).
Yes, Penrose abanded his previous work on gravity fluctuations because of entropy of a black hole was way too high to produce the universe in which we live. The cyclic universe has been proposed before. And it's demised was caused by high entropy that it would produce if I remember correctly but don't quote me on that one.
Demised? It seems you don't know much about it. Let me know when you do.
This theory has long since been discarded 80's or 90's.
Gee, it was discarded years before Penrose proposed it? Such foresight.

Let me know when you've checked it out (plus all the proposals that have been made well after the 90's.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #63

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Bradskii in post #62]

Even Pemrose's current theory is really not that convincing.
There are numerous problems to be overcome in this proposal, which involves a radical rethinking of Penrose’s own ideas about the second law. One serious difficulty is that it relies heavily on all particle masses, including that of the electron, becoming exactly zero in the very distant future. Many particle physicists will question that. But the biggest difficulty of all is that even if the shapes of the aeons match, how does the transition from an infinitely large scale before crossover to an infinitely small scale after crossover occur? This is where the argumentation and mathematics get tough.

Penrose effects the crossover with a scalar field dubbed “phantom” before the crossover, because it involves a purely mathematical conformal transformation. This field then becomes physical after crossover, and Penrose tentatively identifies it with the dark matter needed to explain the structure of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Although the scalar field evolves deterministically, and in that respect is conventional, its transformation “at once” from being a purely mathematical object to a physical one has no parallel elsewhere in physics – unless one likens it to the notorious collapse of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics. https://physicsworld.com/a/inside-penroses-universe/
All particles lose all of their mass in the future and phantom fields that are purely mathematical. Not very convincing.

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #64

Post by Bradskii »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:53 pm [Replying to Bradskii in post #62]

Even Pemrose's current theory is really not that convincing.
There are numerous problems to be overcome in this proposal, which involves a radical rethinking of Penrose’s own ideas about the second law. One serious difficulty is that it relies heavily on all particle masses, including that of the electron, becoming exactly zero in the very distant future. Many particle physicists will question that. But the biggest difficulty of all is that even if the shapes of the aeons match, how does the transition from an infinitely large scale before crossover to an infinitely small scale after crossover occur? This is where the argumentation and mathematics get tough.

Penrose effects the crossover with a scalar field dubbed “phantom” before the crossover, because it involves a purely mathematical conformal transformation. This field then becomes physical after crossover, and Penrose tentatively identifies it with the dark matter needed to explain the structure of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Although the scalar field evolves deterministically, and in that respect is conventional, its transformation “at once” from being a purely mathematical object to a physical one has no parallel elsewhere in physics – unless one likens it to the notorious collapse of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics. https://physicsworld.com/a/inside-penroses-universe/
All particles lose all of their mass in the future and phantom fields that are purely mathematical. Not very convincing.
Well, he's not trying to convince those with limited knowledge of the physics. And I'm not interested in a cut 'n' paste war where I post complex and complicated support for his proposal and you post refutations. Neither of which either of us will understand.

At least you now know about it. So I will be mentally prefacing all your comments from this point forward on matters such as the big bang, or an infinite universe etc with the words 'On the assumption that Penrose et al are wrong...'

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #65

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Bradskii in post #64]
Well, he's not trying to convince those with limited knowledge of the physics. And I'm not interested in a cut 'n' paste war where I post complex and complicated support for his proposal and you post refutations. Neither of which either of us will understand.
From the way you were discussing Pemrose theory, it seemed like you were not familiar with his theory, so the quote was for you to get context. Like Krauss, he proposed his theory in a book, not a scientific paper. I have no problem with you quoting scientific papers it helps give your comments, context. There have been a few times that I have been wrong, like a discovery that I have not heard about that was made, but for the most part, it will be shown that your paper will support what I have proposed.

At least you now know about it. So I will be mentally prefacing all your comments from this point forward on matters such as the big bang, or an infinite universe etc with the words 'On the assumption that Penrose et al are wrong...'
I do not understand what you are trying to say here. But if that makes you feel better.

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #66

Post by Bradskii »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:47 pm [Replying to Bradskii in post #64]
Well, he's not trying to convince those with limited knowledge of the physics. And I'm not interested in a cut 'n' paste war where I post complex and complicated support for his proposal and you post refutations. Neither of which either of us will understand.
From the way you were discussing Pemrose theory, it seemed like you were not familiar with his theory, so the quote was for you to get context. Like Krauss, he proposed his theory in a book, not a scientific paper.
You should check before you make those kind of assumptions.

'Unexpected hot spots in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) could have been produced by black holes evaporating before the Big Bang. So says a trio of scientists led by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose in a paper presenting new evidence that our universe is just one stage in a potentially infinite cycle of cosmic extinction and rebirth.' https://physicsworld.com/a/new-evidence ... olleagues/

And he has also written a book on the matter. It's been some time since I've read it but if you have any questions...

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #67

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Bradskii in post #66]
Unexpected hot spots in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) could have been produced by black holes evaporating before the Big Bang. So says a trio of scientists led by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose in a paper presenting new evidence that our universe is just one stage in a potentially infinite cycle of cosmic extinction and rebirth.' https://physicsworld.com/a/new-evidence ... olleagues/

And he has also written a book on the matter. It's been some time since I've read it but if you have any questions...

If you read his book then you should be familiar with the "phantom field" that is needed to produce the universe. A phantom field that is here at the beginning of the universe but then it disappears. Not real convincing that is why he wrote a book instead of paper. Your career is not on the line when you write a book.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3001 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #68

Post by brunumb »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:28 am Not real convincing that is why he wrote a book instead of paper. Your career is not on the line when you write a book.
You could have a point there. We have an old book which is an anthology of fanciful tales about God and his machinations which is pretty unconvincing, particularly when the source is allegedly an intelligence vastly superior to any human scientist.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #69

Post by Bradskii »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:28 am [Replying to Bradskii in post #66]
Unexpected hot spots in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) could have been produced by black holes evaporating before the Big Bang. So says a trio of scientists led by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose in a paper presenting new evidence that our universe is just one stage in a potentially infinite cycle of cosmic extinction and rebirth.' https://physicsworld.com/a/new-evidence ... olleagues/

And he has also written a book on the matter. It's been some time since I've read it but if you have any questions...

If you read his book then you should be familiar with the "phantom field" that is needed to produce the universe. A phantom field that is here at the beginning of the universe but then it disappears. Not real convincing that is why he wrote a book instead of paper. Your career is not on the line when you write a book.
You've been told he wrote a paper. Try to remember what you have been told. And here's some info about the phantom field:

'The particular choice of ϖ that gives us Einstein’s original physical metric g, is referred to as the ‘phantom field’ (since in Einstein’s g-metric it disappears, simply taking the value 1). The phantom field does not have any independent physical degrees of freedom, in the region prior to the (conformally invariant massless scalar field equation) but just keeps track of the metric g, telling us the scaling that gets us back to g from the ĝ-metric that is currently being used.'

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here. You've read something about 'the phantom field', it sounded wierd, so you thought you might use it to denigrate Penrose's work. And you have no idea what that quoted section means. I'll even suggest that you don't know if I made it up or copied it from Penrose's work.

Take a stab. It's 50:50.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #70

Post by Bust Nak »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:12 pm That this universe violates the law of conservation of energy. If it did not then there would be no need for an eternal brane.
Birds violates the law of gravity. If they do not there would be no need for wings. No, you have that exactly backwards. Brane is an explanation for why the universe violates the law of conservation of energy. Had this universe violates the law of conservation of energy, it could have just conjured up new energy out of nothing without further justification.

Post Reply