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.
Absurdity of the universe without a creator
Moderator: Moderators
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator
Post #41[Replying to Gracchus in post #38]
This actually has nothing to do with the discussion because the discussion is where did the energy come from that caused the singularity that made this universe. The above is simply explaining why modern science believes why the universe began as a singularity. So the beginning would be for the point in which you are starting.Let's start from the beginning, one step at a time.
When we look out into spacetime, we are looking into the past. What we see as four light-years away happened four years ago. This is true in whatever direction we look. If the spacetime, is expanding, then we are looking out in all directions into a smaller universe. It was smaller in the past, but we see it whichever way we look.
Do you dispute this, or have you some explanation for this?
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 times
Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator
Post #42This is where your error in logic begins, with this ASSUMPTION. You start with your unfounded conclusion, that "X created the universe." From that assumption you conclude "X created the universe."
This is of course classically circular.
Claiming that there is something external to the universe merely expands the definition of 'universe,' as well as constituting a giant pile of assumption.
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator
Post #43[Replying to Difflugia in post #39]
Quantum tunneling does not solve the problem either, because you have to ask the question; Tunneling from where? In this case, I am assuming that Vilenkin is speaking of a hypothetical pure de Sitter space in which matter does not exist. But it really does not matter because de Sitter space would still be somewhere.
Just to remind you we were talking about Tryon's quantum bubbles making the universe. And quantum tunneling is not quantum bubbles.
I would call that a fatal flaw.That's what intentional irony looks like, by the way. While a separate irony (also intentional, no doubt) lies in your double-standard of supporting your position with a book that wasn't peer-reviewed, it's also doesn't quite say what Jeff Miller wants (and presumably you want) it to say. Vilenkin does later identify some deficiencies in Tryon's proposal, but here he's simply reporting the initial reaction to Tryon's idea, spoken extemporaneously three years before he fleshed it out into a paper.
Vilenkin's critiques of Tryon aren't fatal (like violating energy conservation, the claim you're supposed to be supporting), but simply ones that Vilenkin found problematic (smaller universes than this one being more probable and the necessity of some sort of vacuum prior to fluctuation and inflation). Vilenkin himself corrects these perceived defects with his own, arguably better cosmology. That's what the book being quoted is explaining, in fact, and that is the essence of the quote mine: one finds a quote that seems to offer support for the miner's position but is instead from a larger context that is actually counter to the miner's position. Vilenkin adapts Tryon's proposal to a different interpretation of quantum mechanics and an origin in a quantum tunneling event rather than a vacuum fluctuation. That one, for the record, doesn't violate the conservation of energy, either. Vilenkin explained it more fully in a peer-reviewed 1982 paper.
Quantum tunneling does not solve the problem either, because you have to ask the question; Tunneling from where? In this case, I am assuming that Vilenkin is speaking of a hypothetical pure de Sitter space in which matter does not exist. But it really does not matter because de Sitter space would still be somewhere.
Again if we take your above comment as true "an origin in a quantum tunneling event rather than a vacuum fluctuation" then Tryon is still wrong according to your people. And let me remind you these are all atheists that are saying these things. I am assuming Guth is speaking of tunneling from de Sitter space or Minkowski Space which would still be a place because it is space so the question still has to answer how did it get there.Alan Guth, professor of physics at M.I.T., wrote in response to Tryon:
You mean this Alan Guth? The one that helped refined inflationary models of the early universe? A a paper he co-wrote in 1987 includes this gem:
It seems clear that no conservation laws are violated in this hypothetical process. The possibility of such tunneling remains for now a matter of speculation, but perhaps further work can clarify the situation.
Inflationary cosmology is not Tryon's theory. Tryon's theory is inflation for quantum bubbles.If an inflationary universe can be created by tunneling from Minkowski space, then the process may be a key step in a solution to the cosmological constant problem.
Yeah, it sure sounds like he thinks inflationary cosmology is wrong and violates the conservation of energy.
Where did it tunnel from and to where did it tunnel?The picture of quantum tunneling from nothing has none of these problems. The universe is tiny right after tunneling but is filled with a false vacuum and immediately starts to inflate. In a fraction of a second, it blows up to a gigantic size.
Guth said that the tunneling came from Minowski space so where did Minowski space come from.Prior to the tunneling, no space or time exists, so the question of what happened before is meaningless. Nothing—a state with no matter, no space, and no time—appears to be the only satisfactory starting point for the creation.
Yeah, his theory from 1982 seems to have not gotten too much interest because that is not the current belief.Did you catch that? The complete lack of your "something" is, according to Vilenkin, "the only satisfactory starting point".
Yeah, Minowski space and quantum tunneling, not quantum vacuum bubbles.Like Alan Guth said the founder of inflation theory.
It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from.
Just to remind you we were talking about Tryon's quantum bubbles making the universe. And quantum tunneling is not quantum bubbles.
No, I keep saying the above statement because you give answers that do not answer the question of where did the energy come from.The universe from nothing does not answer the question of where the energy comes from to form the bubbles.
So you keep saying, as though adding enough zeroes will eventually result in a one.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator
Post #44[Replying to Diogenes in post #42]
What? This has been a question every since Hubble discovered the Hubble constant in the 1930'sThis is where your error in logic begins, with this ASSUMPTION. You start with your unfounded conclusion, that "X created the universe." From that assumption you conclude "X created the universe."
This is of course classically circular.
Claiming that there is something external to the universe merely expands the definition of 'universe,' as well as constituting a giant pile of assumptions.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3017
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3247 times
- Been thanked: 1997 times
Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator
Post #45The brane system is closed, the universe (a part of the brane system) is not.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:36 amSo if the brane is not a closed system then what is outside of the brane?If brane cosmology is true, then the universe isn't closed
OK. What's the violation of the conservation of energy?EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:36 amBecause at some point the system of the multiverse has to close. At that point, we have to say that is all there is. All energy is contained in that system.If it's not, look it up yourself, then tell us what you find and how it supports your assertion that the universe violates the conservation of energy.
Do you have some evidence for claiming either of these? The creator and creation aren't necessarily the same thing or even coexistent beyond the moment and point of creation. Perhaps your "creator" completely converted itself into the universe, at which point the creator no longer exists and is therefore not eternal by definition. Perhaps the "creator" created the universe while remaining outside of it. By definition, that "creator" isn't omnipresent. Perhaps the "creator" reached some sort of critical configuration and had no choice but to create (or become) the universe. Having no choice, that "creator," then cannot be omnipotent by definition.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:36 amWhatever is eternal and if that object or person created everything, then it has to contain all energy and it has to be everywhere. That would make it omnipresent and omnipotent. It does not matter if it is God or the mother universe of the multiverse.
More to the point, you're still neither adequately defining your terms nor supporting your assertions.
It is, but if you don't mean an even ill-defined Christian god, you haven't defined "creator" at all. You're asserting necessary attributes for something that you haven't defined.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:36 amThe discussion of whether a creator created the universe is a very different discussion than who created the universe.
The latter is a metaphysical discussion in which Jesus would be a very important point. So in this discussion, I am simply using creator in the generic sense of the word.
At this point, so what? You were asserting that "the universe" (presumably implying necessarily all possible, or at least plausible, cosmologies) violates the conservation of energy. You then began to criticize Krauss' book (in an ad hominem way, at that) as though it applies to all proposed cosmologies. You've yet to support that either of those is valid. If you want to give up on this discussion and start a different one, that's fine, just make it clear that's what you're doing.
First, not in any conventional understanding of "somewhere" meaning a point in space and time. Space and time didn't exist until after the tunneling event. That was Vilenkin's explicitly-stated point.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:04 pmQuantum tunneling does not solve the problem either, because you have to ask the question; Tunneling from where? In this case, I am assuming that Vilenkin is speaking of a hypothetical pure de Sitter space in which matter does not exist. But it really does not matter because de Sitter space would still be somewhere.
Second, so what?
So what? Physicists disagreeing with each other doesn't establish that you're correct about the universe violating the conservation of energy (or anything else), which is what you're currently trying to establish.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:04 pmAgain if we take your above comment as true "an origin in a quantum tunneling event rather than a vacuum fluctuation" then Tryon is still wrong according to your people.
I'm sorry.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:04 pmInflationary cosmology is not Tryon's theory. Tryon's theory is inflation for quantum bubbles.
At this point, I'm going to refer you to this post and ask you to either support your ongoing claim or make some new claim and support it. If the claim isn't pursuant to your earlier assertion that the universe violates the conservation of energy, politely let us know that you've abandoned it for the moment, even if you're going to pick it back up later..EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:04 pmWhere did it tunnel from and to where did it tunnel?
Guth said that the tunneling came from Minowski space so where did Minowski space come from.
Yeah, his theory from 1982 seems to have not gotten too much interest because that is not the current belief.
Yeah, Minowski space and quantum tunneling, not quantum vacuum bubbles.
Is that the new topic?EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:04 pmJust to remind you we were talking about Tryon's quantum bubbles making the universe. And quantum tunneling is not quantum bubbles.
The zero joules came from the same place that my zero castles and zero pirate ships came from.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:04 pmNo, I keep saying the above statement because you give answers that do not answer the question of where did the energy come from.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator
Post #46[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #41]
But the observation points out a problem with the idea of the singularity. That is why we should start there. If the energy was always there, we don't have to explain where it came from.
But the observation points out a problem with the idea of the singularity. That is why we should start there. If the energy was always there, we don't have to explain where it came from.
- Bradskii
- Student
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator
Post #47Let's be more accurate. We know that this universe had a begining. 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).
And in passing, I need to point out that it's almost certain that anyone posting here is likely a gazillion miles from being qualified to discuss Penroe's or Hawkin's work, or any of the monstrously complicated physics involved in discussing the creation of the universe. It's like a couple of kids playing around with Lego blocks when the aim is to design a Large Hadron Collider. Let's all bear that in mind. Likewise, terms such as 'it's obvious that...' and 'common sense tells us that...' should be avoided at all costs.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator
Post #48[Replying to Difflugia in post #45]
If you are saying the brane or bulk is eternal then nothing.OK. What's the violation of the conservation of energy?
All energy that exists had to come from somewhere. In your theology, all energy comes from the bulk which exists outside of this universe and which this universe is a part of. So the bulk would have to contain all energy therefore omnipotent and everywhere would have to be contained in the bulk therefore omnipresent that would include every moment on the timeline also, therefore the bulk would be omnipresent. Four-dimensional spacetime demands that that past present and future exist. Therefore the point of creation was not just one instant but every point in the timeline. Therefore the creator had to create every point and every place on the timeline at the same time.Whatever is eternal and if that object or person created everything, then it has to contain all energy and it has to be everywhere. That would make it omnipresent and omnipotent. It does not matter if it is God or the mother universe of the multiverse.
Do you have some evidence for claiming either of these? The creator and creation aren't necessarily the same thing or even coexistent beyond the moment and point of creation. Perhaps your "creator" completely converted itself into the universe, at which point the creator no longer exists and is therefore not eternal by definition. Perhaps the "creator" created the universe while remaining outside of it. By definition, that "creator" isn't omnipresent. Perhaps the "creator" reached some sort of critical configuration and had no choice but to create (or become) the universe. Having no choice, that "creator," then cannot be omnipotent by definition.
It does if you do not believe that something is eternal.At this point, so what? You were asserting that "the universe" (presumably implying necessarily all possible, or at least plausible, cosmologies) violates the conservation of energy.
I am not the one that brought up Krauss book. I simply saying that Krauss' book does not answer the question of where the universe came from.You then began to criticize Krauss' book (in an ad hominem way, at that) as though it applies to all proposed cosmologies. You've yet to support that either of those is valid. If you want to give up on this discussion and start a different one, that's fine, just make it clear that's what you're doing.
The what started the tunneling event. Where did the energy come from to start the tunneling event? Vilenkin does not answer these questions and that is why his theory is not the predominant theory of where the universe came from.First, not in any conventional understanding of "somewhere" meaning a point in space and time. Space and time didn't exist until after the tunneling event. That was Vilenkin's explicitly-stated point.
No, I was simply answering your assertion that Tryon's theory answered the question of where the universe came from. So like I asserted earlier Tryon's theory was discarded.Second, so what?
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:04 pm
Again if we take your above comment as true "an origin in a quantum tunneling event rather than a vacuum fluctuation" then Tryon is still wrong according to your people.
So what? Physicists disagreeing with each other doesn't establish that you're correct about the universe violating the conservation of energy (or anything else), which is what you're currently trying to establish.
This universe does violate the law of conservation of energy. You indicated that YOU believe this universe does violate the law of conservation of energy when you said that you believe that the bulk is eternal. The bulk would be outside of our observable universe. The bulk is your theological view of what created the universe, not mine.At this point, I'm going to refer you to this post and ask you to either support your ongoing claim or make some new claim and support it. If the claim isn't pursuant to your earlier assertion that the universe violates the conservation of energy, politely let us know that you've abandoned it for the moment, even if you're going to pick it back up later.
You are the one that brought up Tryon's bubble machine not me and you also brought up quantum tunneling as viable options to produce a universe from nothing. I was simply answering the assertions you made.Just to remind you we were talking about Tryon's quantum bubbles making the universe. And quantum tunneling is not quantum bubbles.
Is that the new topic?
Yes, and absolutely nothing produces absolutely nothing, at least that is what the law of conservation of energy states. But I understand that people have different theologies and that false theologies produce false realities.The zero joules came from the same place that my zero castles and zero pirate ships came from.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator
Post #49[Replying to Gracchus in post #46]
What observation?
Where is there?
What is it?
Oh for a proper noun.
I have no idea what you are talking about.But the observation points out a problem with the idea of the singularity. That is why we should start there. If the energy was always there, we don't have to explain where it came from.
What observation?
Where is there?
What is it?
Oh for a proper noun.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator
Post #50[Replying to Bradskii in post #47]
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.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).
The derivation of the formulas and equations is very tedious. But once the formulas and equations are derived then the relationships of the variables in the formulas are a pretty straightforward thing. The particle detection in the Hadron collider is not a difficult concept looking at how much a particle bends in an electric field.And in passing, I need to point out that it's almost certain that anyone posting here is likely a gazillion miles from being qualified to discuss Penroe's or Hawkin's work, or any of the monstrously complicated physics involved in discussing the creation of the universe. It's like a couple of kids playing around with Lego blocks when the aim is to design a Large Hadron Collider. Let's all bear that in mind. Likewise, terms such as 'it's obvious that...' and 'common sense tells us that...' should be avoided at all costs.