Do supernatural forces exist?

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Defender of Truth
Scholar
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: United States

Do supernatural forces exist?

Post #1

Post by Defender of Truth »

Tired of the Nonsense and I decided to debate the above topic.

Resolved: A preternatural agent exists

I will be arguing the affirmative, Tired of the Nonsense will be arguing the negative.

User avatar
Defender of Truth
Scholar
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: United States

Post #11

Post by Defender of Truth »

You're still claiming that matter|energy cannot have had a beginning because of the first law. But that's illogical because if matter|energy had a beginning then the first law had a beginning too!
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I wrote:The Law of Conservation of Energy is a Law of Nature.
The conservation of energy is a condition observed by humans and described in the Law of Conservation of Energy. It represents, to all observation, a physical limit with exists within our physical universe.
Our experience indicates that it can not be overcome, which is why it is called a law.
So... you agree. It's a law of Nature.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I wrote:Laws of Nature apply only to Nature.
The Laws of Physics apply to all things within our physical universe.
Okay, good answer. That's the definition that I was using for nature, nature being "all natural phenomena and all matter|energy". So we agree that Laws of Physics apply to all things within our physical universe.

So far we agree on the first two points.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:The Laws of Physics do not apply to what you might imagine in your brain.
True, but irrelevant. Right now we're discussing whether Laws of Physics would apply to something outside of our physical universe. You already agreed that they don't, you said
The Laws of Physics apply to all things within our physical universe
Italics added.

Since you agree that the Laws of Physics apply only to the physical realm, then you must, according to the law of the excluded middle, believe that they do not apply to a supernatural realm, if I could prove one to exist.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:One MUST say that "The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the creation of energy", or else it wouldn't be a law
No, because you're assuming that the Law of Conservation always existed. However, if I could prove that matter|energy had a beginning, then it would also prove that the Law of Conservation of Energy had a beginning.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:The Law of Conservation of Energy SPECIFICALLY states that energy may not be created or destroyed. It does not offer any exceptions, nor are any observed.
You're right in saying it doesn't offer any exceptions, but nothing prohibits someone from creating matter|energy before the Law of Conservation existed. I would propose that at one time the First law did not exist. That time was when matter|energy did not exist. So if we can get past these two points, I'll state why I believe matter|energy did not always exist.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:I have already stipulated that humans are fallible and therefore not giving to know things to an absolute state of certainty, so anything COULD be true. I also pointed out that contradictions seem to negate themselves and therefore it seems probable that not everything IS true. You seemed to agree. Did "nature have a beginning?" Well it's possible, in the sense that anything could be true.
Correct, in the post you're referring to I did not give evidence that matter|energy had a beginning. All I was doing was refuting the idea that it was impossible for matter|energy to have a beginning. All I was trying to establish is that it could have had a beginning, since you're saying it couldn't have had a beginning because of the first law. Once this point is established, I will state why I believe it not only could have had a beginning, but did.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Post #12

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"The conservation of energy is a condition observed by humans and described in the Law of Conservation of Energy. It represents, to all observation, a physical limit with exists within our physical universe.
Our experience indicates that it can not be overcome, which is why it is called a law."
Defender of Truth wrote: So... you agree. It's a law of Nature.


I prefer the term "physical law," or "the Laws of Physics," but if your term and mine mean the same thing, then I agree.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"The Laws of Physics apply to all things within our physical universe. "
Defender of Truth wrote: Okay, good answer. That's the definition that I was using for nature, nature being "all natural phenomena and all matter|energy". So we agree that Laws of Physics apply to all things within our physical universe.



Whether the laws of physics as we understand them extend beyond the observable universe I am unable to say. I am afraid that I am unable to expound in any great detail on that which cannot be observed and studied.
Defender of Truth wrote: Since you agree that the Laws of Physics apply only to the physical realm, then you must, according to the law of the excluded middle, believe that they do not apply to a supernatural realm, if I could prove one to exist.


If a supernatural realm should exist I have nothing whatsoever to say about it, because it is can neither be detected, observed nor studied, and I have absolutely no viable information to work with.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"One MUST say that "The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the
creation of energy", or else it wouldn't be a law."
Defender of Truth wrote: No, because you're assuming that the Law of Conservation always existed. However, if I could prove that matter|energy had a beginning, then it would also prove that the Law of Conservation of Energy had a beginning.



If the Law of Conservation of Energy is not inviolate, then it is not a law, plain and simple. If you can prove that energy had a beginning, a creation, then the law is not inviolate, and all observation is incorrect.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"The Law of Conservation of Energy SPECIFICALLY states that energy may not be created or destroyed. It does not offer any exceptions, nor are any observed."
Defender of Truth wrote: You're right in saying it doesn't offer any exceptions, but nothing prohibits someone from creating matter|energy before the Law of Conservation existed. I would propose that at one time the First law did not exist. That time was when matter|energy did not exist. So if we can get past these two points, I'll state why I believe matter|energy did not always exist.


If you believe that you can overturn one of the primary laws of physics then be my guest. There may be a Nobel in it for you.

User avatar
Defender of Truth
Scholar
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: United States

Post #13

Post by Defender of Truth »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:I prefer the term "physical law," or "the Laws of Physics,"
Fair enough.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:If the Law of Conservation of Energy is not inviolate, then it is not a law, plain and simple
I agree that the Law of Conservation of Energy is inviolate, I disagree that a supernatural being creating matter|energy violates the Law of Conservation of Energy, since the First law is directed at the physical realm only.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we agree that one cannot use the Law of Conservation of Energy to say that something outside of the physical realm created matter|energy. Of course, one must prove that something outside of the physical realm exists, and that it created matter|energy, but one cannot disprove it by using the first law. The reason is because the first law is a law of natur--- physical law :) and something supernatural isn't physical so the physical law doesn't apply to it. Again, that's if someone were to prove a supernatural being existed. That's my job. Right now I'm just establishing that the first law doesn't apply to something supernatural.

Agreed? If so, I'll move onto why I believe matter|energy had a beginning.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Post #14

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Mag·ic
The art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. (Dictionary.com)

Magi-ic
Seeming control over or foresight of natural events, forces, etc. (Funk & Wagnells New Dictionary)

Magic is the claimed art of altering things either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult natural laws unknown to science.[1] Magic has been practiced in all cultures, and utilizes ways of understanding, experiencing and influencing the world somewhat akin to those offered by religion, though it is sometimes regarded as more focused on achieving results than religious worship.[2] Magic is often viewed with suspicion by the wider community, and is commonly practiced in isolation and secrecy. (Wikipedia)


Magic, by definition, can overcome the laws of physics. I understand and acknowledge the definition. My question for you is, do stories of miracles "prove" that miracles are more than just stories?

User avatar
Defender of Truth
Scholar
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: United States

Post #15

Post by Defender of Truth »

You wrote:Mag·ic
The art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. (Dictionary.com)
This definition does not apply to what I proposed, since what I said has nothing to do with incantation or other techniques, and it has nothing to do with human control over supernatural agencies.
You wrote:Magic is the claimed art of altering things either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult natural laws unknown to science.[1] Magic has been practiced in all cultures, and utilizes ways of understanding, experiencing and influencing the world somewhat akin to those offered by religion, though it is sometimes regarded as more focused on achieving results than religious worship.[2] Magic is often viewed with suspicion by the wider community, and is commonly practiced in isolation and secrecy. (Wikipedia)
This definition is irrelevant also since what I proposed has nothing to do with an "art", which, according to the dictionary
a field, genre, or category of art
.

It also has nothing to do with secrecy or isolation. What it is is the logical fact that PHYSICAL LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO THE PRETERNATURAL.

After reading through all those definition of "magic", I discovered that you agree with the above statement. I understand you don't believe the preternatural exists, that's my job to prove, but you accept that if I could prove the preternatural exists, the first law wouldn't be a valid objection.

Now, it's nice and well for me to say that the first law doesn't prohibit something preternatural from creating matter|energy, but it's another thing for me to say that something preternatural did actually create matter|energy. That's what I need to prove now.

The first step is establishing that matter|energy had a beginning. I claimed that it did in post 3. You objected to this in post 8, saying that the law of conservation of energy prohibited a beginning. However, we established that although the conservation of energy is inviolable, it would not be a violation for something preternatural to create matter|energy, since physical laws don't apply to the preternatural. You made it extremely clear that you do not believe in the preternatural and that you do not believe there are any exceptions to the law of conservation of energy. I agree with the latter statement, it's just that it's not a violation for something preternatural to do it since it is not bound by physical laws (it isn't physical).

Also in post 8, you responded to my argument made in post 3 that matter|energy had a beginning. I haven't responded yet because I first wanted to deal with the first law objection. Now, however, I'm ready to deal with your objections in post 8 that matter|energy had a beginning.

From post 3,
I wrote:The Minor Premise is supported through an argument using the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In the Second Law, the law of entropy is stated, which says that there is no organizing principle within matter|energy. Only a disorganizing principle. Therefore matter, when left to itself, will tend toward randomness and disorder. It will continue to become more and more disorganized until it has reached a point of maximum randomness. Some scientists refer to this by using the term “heat death�. We conclude, therefore, from the law of entropy that matter|energy could not have existed forever. Supposing it did exist in eternity past, it would have by definition taken eternity to get to the present. If it did have eternity to get to the present, we would be experiencing "heat death" by now, because over eternity matter|energy would get more and more random until maximum disorder. However, when we look around us, we do not see this; therefore matter|energy could not have existed in eternity past.
Since matter|energy did not exist in eternity past, we have two options. (1) It doesn't exist, or (2) it had a beginning. I'm sure we agree that (1) is not an option, therefore we must accept the only option left: matter|energy had a beginning, which is the Minor Premise of the argument.
Your response, from post 8,
You wrote:
Defender of Truth wrote:There must have been a before matter|energy because matter|energy cannot have existed forever. We know this because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it had existed forever, we'd be experiencing "heat death".
This assumes that energy in the observable universe is all the energy there is, which clearly is not true. When energy disappears into a black hole, it's gone from our observable universe, leaving behind only it's gravity. It has gone "somewhere else," and yet it clearly still exists. Because of course it can't be destroyed. Energy which can go "somewhere else" also presents the possibility of energy which can come FROM "somewhere else." Coincidentally, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. To do this it must be gaining energy from "somewhere else." Think entire cosmos here, not merely the observable universe. Also, don't think of the beginning of the observable universe as a moment of creation, think of it as a birth.
I will break this down and reply. I apologize if this post appears choppy. I typed out nearly the entire post and then it shut down and I lost all of it. I'm trying to type it again real quick from memory, but it was somewhat long and I'm having trouble. I am now periodically copying and pasting into a different document as I go along as a sort of "save" button.
You wrote:
Defender of Truth wrote:There must have been a before matter|energy because matter|energy cannot have existed forever. We know this because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it had existed forever, we'd be experiencing "heat death".
This assumes that energy in the observable universe is all the energy there is, which clearly is not true
Actually, it doesn't. We know from the Law of Conservation of Energy that energy in a quantum vacuum, although it can longer be observed, still exists. Therefore it is still subject to the law of entropy.
You wrote:When energy disappears into a black hole, it's gone from our observable universe, leaving behind only it's gravity. It has gone "somewhere else," and yet it clearly still exists. Because of course it can't be destroyed
Agreed, for our purposes.
You wrote:Energy which can go "somewhere else" also presents the possibility of energy which can come FROM "somewhere else."
What does this have to do with the law of entropy? I don't care where the energy came from, if it existed forever as you claim it would be in a state of maximum disorder right now, and it's not. However or wherever it spent its time, the second law of thermodynamics still applies, and right now we'd be experiencing "heat death". You need to tell me, if matter|energy existed forever as you claim, why we're not experiencing that heat death. If you can't, then we must assume matter|energy had a beginning.

P.S. This post came out a lot shorter the second time around.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Post #16

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Defender of Truth wrote: What it is is the logical fact that PHYSICAL LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO THE PRETERNATURAL.

After reading through all those definition of "magic", I discovered that you agree with the above statement. I understand you don't believe the preternatural exists, that's my job to prove, but you accept that if I could prove the preternatural exists, the first law wouldn't be a valid objection. .
I agreed that the laws of physics do not apply in your imagination. Yes, the burden of proof is on you to establish that the things that you imagine can circumvent the laws of physics beyond the realm of your imagination.
Defender of Truth wrote: Actually, it doesn't. We know from the Law of Conservation of Energy that energy in a quantum vacuum, although it can longer be observed, still exists. Therefore it is still subject to the law of entropy..

Maximum entropy only occurs in a closed system. We observe that the universe is accelerating in the rate of it's expansion. This makes sense if the universe is gaining in energy, and if the universe is gaining in energy as it appears to be doing then it is not a closed system.
Defender of Truth wrote: What does this have to do with the law of entropy? I don't care where the energy came from, if it existed forever as you claim it would be in a state of maximum disorder right now, and it's not. However or wherever it spent its time, the second law of thermodynamics still applies, and right now we'd be experiencing "heat death". You need to tell me, if matter|energy existed forever as you claim, why we're not experiencing that heat death.
I mentioned quarks in an earlier post, and I referred to them as bits, rather than particles. Units is another term I prefer, because quarks are not microscopic dust balls. Quantum physicists describe them as loops of energy. A loop of energy has no beginning, and no end. It simply loops around itself endlessly.

User avatar
Defender of Truth
Scholar
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: United States

Post #17

Post by Defender of Truth »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Maximum entropy only occurs in a closed system.
Of course. Agreed.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:We observe that the universe is accelerating in the rate of it's expansion. This makes sense if the universe is gaining in energy
Which means it had a beginning. If you trace back an expansion you eventually come to a starting point. I'll talk more about this later.

This is what Albert Einstein's problem. From his experiments he came to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. He didn't like that, though, because he knew it meant the universe had a beginning, which meant it was created. So he changed the equation so the universe wasn't expanding. However, after more evidence including Edwin Hubble's findings, Albert eventually admitted that changing the equation was one of the worst mistakes in his life. After faced with the fact that the universe was expanding, Albert became a deist, accepting the fact of the preternatural.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Think entire cosmos here, not merely the observable universe
According to The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.®, which is not religious by the way, "Appeals to multiple or 'parallel' cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic 'Big Bang/Crunch' oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Maximum entropy only occurs in a closed system. We observe that the universe is accelerating in the rate of it's expansion. This makes sense if the universe is gaining in energy, and if the universe is gaining in energy as it appears to be doing then it is not a closed system
Okay, let's go back further then. Before the universe existed. Here are some scientists who believe the universe had a beginning.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
-- Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time

"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago."
-- Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University

"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other."
-- CalTech

"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything."
-- Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University

"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning."
-- Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe."
--Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan

"The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE BEGINNING OF TIME!"
-- Terry Herter, Cornell University

"That radiation is residual heat from the Big Bang, the event that sparked the beginning of the universe some 13 billion years ago."
-- Craig Hogan, University of Washington

"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950."
-- University of Illinois

"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)."
-- Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University

"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something."
-- Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University

"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang."
-- Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles

"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity."
-- Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University

"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event."
-- , Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama

"Now, after decades of observing and thinking, we have come to answer confidently the question of the origin of our universe... with what is known as the "big bang"."
-- [url=http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm]Yuki D. Takahashi,
Caltech

"The theory is the conceptual and the calculational tool used by particle physicists to describe the structure of the hadrons and the beginning of the universe."
-- Keh-Fei Liu, University of Kentucky.

"The three-part lecture series includes: "How the Universe Began," "The Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy" and "Cosmic Inflation: The Dynamite Behind the Big Bang?" (Lectures by Michael S. Turner, Bruce V. and Diana M. Rauner at Penn State University)

"Travel back in time to the beginning of the Universe: The Big Bang"
-- Douglas Miller, University of Arizona

"Beginning of the Universe 20.0 billion yr ago"
Charly Mallery, University of Miami

"At the beginning the universe was extremely hot and dense (more about this later) and as it expanded it cooled."
-- Syracuse University

"THE UNIVERSE AND ALL OF SPACE ARE EXPANDING FROM A BIG BANG BEGINNING"
-- Center for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago

"Gamow realized that at a point a few minutes after its beginning, the universe would behave as a giant nuclear reactor."
-- Valparaiso University, Department of Physics and Astronomy

"I'll also include what the time is since the creation of the Universe, and an estimate of the temperature of the Universe at each point."
-- Siobahn M. Morgan, University of Northern Iowa.

"The Universe is thought to have formed between 6-20 billion years ago (Ga) as a result of the "Big Bang"
-- Kevin P. Hefferan, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

"The dominant idea of Cosmology is that the Universe had a beginning."
-- Adam Frank, University of Rochester Department of Physics & Astronomy

"The hot dense phase is generally regarded as the beginning of the universe, and the time since the beginning is, by definition, the age of the universe."
-- Harrison B. Prosper, Florida State University

"One of the major hypotheses on which modern cosmology is based is that the Universe originated in an explosion called the Big Bang, in which all energy (and matter) that exists today was created."
-- Eric S. Rowland, UC Santa Cruz

"Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God."
-- Stephen W. Hawking "Origin of the Universe" lecture


I'm sure you agree that the universe had a beginning. Now, the question is, what do you think started the universe? The BB?
Tighten the belt of truth about your loins, wear integrity as your coat of mail.

-- Ephesians 6:14b



Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

-- Doyle, Arthur

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Post #18

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"We observe that the universe is accelerating in the rate of it's expansion. This makes sense if the universe is gaining in energy."
Defender of Truth wrote: Which means it had a beginning. If you trace back an expansion you eventually come to a starting point. I'll talk more about this later.
I am referring to the unexplained acceleration in the expansion of the universe, when the force of gravity should be slowing it down. This implies that unless energy is being created, an impossibility according to all experimentation, then the universe is gaining in energy from a source external to the universe. And this implies that the observable universe may not all that there is, hence my reference to the term "cosmos;" everything that exists, ever existed or ever will exist. It's a term designed to explore the POSSIBILITY of other universes. We only observe what we observe of course, so I am not declaring that there are such universes, nor do I hold a devout belief in them. My mind is open to the possibility however.
Defender of Truth wrote: This is what Albert Einstein's problem. From his experiments he came to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. He didn't like that, though, because he knew it meant the universe had a beginning, which meant it was created. So he changed the equation so the universe wasn't expanding. However, after more evidence including Edwin Hubble's findings, Albert eventually admitted that changing the equation was one of the worst mistakes in his life. After faced with the fact that the universe was expanding, Albert became a deist, accepting the fact of the preternatural.

Einstein realized that a static universe was not consistent with relativity and that long distant force which is gravity. If enough matter existed in the universe then gravity should eventually cause the universe to collapse in on itself. Einstein much preferred a static state universe and so he created his "cosmological constant," a natural repulsive force, which balanced gravity and kept the universe static. He would later refer to this as his "greatest blunder" after learning of Hubble's observations that the universe was in fact expanding, a staggeringly unexpected result. Modern astrophysicists calculate that the universe's rate of expansion is not only NOT slowing down due to the force of gravity, it is accelerating. This has renewed the interest in Einstein's repulsive force. It also produced the concept of "dark energy"; some form of energy we can't observe and have never detected. Nor have we ever detected the repulsive force of Einstein's constant. The most obvious cause for such an accelerated expansion of course is that is that the universe is gaining in energy. Unless energy is being created, then it must be getting this energy from "someplace else." Which leads to the possibility of something beyond the observable universe. And of course it's not proven, but wouldn't it be foolish not to explore the possibility?

Einstein was a devout Jew in his early teens. As an adult he was perhaps the model prototype of an agnostic. He did talk about God, using the term as one might refer to mother nature. I do the same thing myself.
Defender of Truth wrote: According to The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.®, which is not religious by the way, "Appeals to multiple or 'parallel' cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic 'Big Bang/Crunch' oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability.
Actually I can't say I care much what the Origin-of-Life Foundation has to say on the subject of multiple universes, or big crunch oscillations. If other universes are there, then they are there. And the big crunch/big chill debate has been going on among physicists for a hundred years. Ironically, just as dark matter was being discovered and shown to exist between galaxies, placing the total amount of matter needed to cause the collapse of the universe into the big crunch well over the top and seeming to settle the issue once and for all in favor of a "big crunch," new calculations were made which indicates that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down at all as expected, but in fact actually seems to be accelerating. Seemingly contradictory observations. What this means is still being worked out despite any pronouncements by the esteemed Origin-of-Life Foundation.
Defender of Truth wrote: Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature.

Belief in God is without hard physical evidence as well, but that has never stopped anyone before. I would have to agree however that a "belief" in multiple universes is unjustified. It's an interesting possibility with some tantalizing bits of possible evidence to support it. But unless or until we can come up with a way to test for other universes, it's not scientific.
Defender of Truth wrote: Okay, let's go back further then. Before the universe existed. Here are some scientists who believe the universe had a beginning.
That the universe had a beginning is seldom even debated any longer. It's the nature of that beginning that is the real question. Lawrence Krauss has indicated that the current state of the universe is nothing more than a quantum fluctuation between a state where energy and gravity have reached a condition of perfect equilibrium, when everything is exactly even, a null, essentially a state of nothingness... and a state where we are now, of the separation of energy and gravity. Our existence in this current state is nothing more than a matter of random quantum statistics and probability. Lawrence Krauss possesses the sort of intellect that should never be taken lightly. The universe is currently in between states of perfect equilibrium, an eternal process. That's one possibility.

Here's another possibility. We are in a black hole. Or on the other side of one to be more precise, existing on the inner surface of a membrane, or brane, which is a balloon-like bulge in the membrane of space/time created by a massive amount of matter acting on the brane of an even greater universe. A mother universe from which our universe was born.

You and I, two individuals distinctly unique from all other individuals who ever lived, or who will ever live, had our beginnings in a somewhat related manner. There was a time before we existed. And then there was the moment of our conception, and we began very very small. Yet we were born from existing material, because every effect is born of an even earlier cause, or so we observe. In this construct the big bang occurred exactly as described; a massive release of pure energy, only it was the result of the total collapse of a massive amount of matter into a massive black hole which had occurred in another universe. A "mother" universe. The material from that other universe disappeared from it's original plane of existence and reappeared in an entirely different plane of existence. Energy from "somewhere else," another universe, going to "someplace else;" HERE. If we are curious about what it is like to be in a black hole then, just perhaps, all we need to do is look around. And no, I am HARDLY the first person to consider this possibility. Because there are certain aspects of what we observe which make this idea crop up over and over.

Are there any observable models which might serve as evidence for this particular construct? Yes, in fact there are. We observe that the centers of most large galaxies seem to contain super massive black hopes, including our own Milky Way galaxy. This has been determined by calculating the amount of gravity necessary to hold the galaxies together at the rate they are rotating, and the fact that the centers of most large galaxies are absolutely radiant in x-rays, the signature of a black hole accreting material from it's surroundings. We are talking about black holes with solar masses in the millions swallowing up entire star systems. The black holes are gaining energy. Energy leaving this plane of existence, our observable universe, and going to "somewhere else." To any sentient being that existed inside of those super massive black, should there be any, it would seem that energy was being acquired out of nowhere. Rather like what we are observing in our own universe.

That this our observable universe may not be all there is, represents one of your main positions I believe, so you can hardly deny the possibility of other universes. And if every black hole represents a unique universe, then the number of universes in the cosmos could be truly staggering. The cosmos would essentially be like a fractile, endlessly changing and transforming itself; a loop of energy looping around itself without end. As for maximum entropy, we are already there. Always have been. Always will be. Because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only endlessly transformed.

So how likely is this particular construct to be true? Well we are only discussing the greatest mystery of all time here, are we not? One which has confounded mankind since our brains got big enough to wonder about such things. At worst it is AT LEAST as likely as the existence of an invisible unknowable Being who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, existing simultaneously at all points of time, and who can create energy with a word.

User avatar
Defender of Truth
Scholar
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: United States

Post #19

Post by Defender of Truth »

Tired of the Nonsense, do you accept the Big Bang theory?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:I am referring to the unexplained acceleration in the expansion of the universe, when the force of gravity should be slowing it down. This implies that unless energy is being created, an impossibility according to all experimentation, then the universe is gaining in energy from a source external to the universe
You mention a "source external to the universe." According to the dictionary, the universe is
the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space;
.

Could you give your definition of the universe? I'm assuming your not using the definition the dictionary gave...

Now, you're claiming that energy is entering our universe from another world, therefore disqualifying it from the term "closed system", since it has interference from its surroundings. Now, if you want me to believe this, you're going to have to answer a few questions.

Is this "other world" bound by the laws of physics?

I'll end this post here, since I'll proceed based on your answers to the three questions given.

Do you accept the Big Bang Theory?

Could you give your definition of the universe? Since it apparently differs from the dictionary.

Is this "other world" bound by the laws of physics?

DoT
Tighten the belt of truth about your loins, wear integrity as your coat of mail.

-- Ephesians 6:14b



Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

-- Doyle, Arthur

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Post #20

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Tired of the Nonsense, do you accept the Big Bang theory?

Yes. Echoes of the Big Bang persist to this day.
Defender of Truth wrote: You mention a "source external to the universe." According to the dictionary, the universe is
Quote: the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space;
.

Could you give your definition of the universe? I'm assuming your not using the definition the dictionary gave...

I already have. It's everything that we can observe to exist. Note that the dictionary definition uses the word "known." The current model shows the "known" universe shaped like a football, with visible matter, the galaxies, non-uniformly clumped throughout. The term "cosmos" refers to everything that could possibly exists anywhere, past, present and future. If the observable universe is truly all that exists, then the terms universe and cosmos are interchangeable. However, if more exists then we can observe, then the term cosmos incorporates the unseen parts as well.
Defender of Truth wrote: Now, you're claiming that energy is entering our universe from another world, therefore disqualifying it from the term "closed system", since it has interference from its surroundings. Now, if you want me to believe this, you're going to have to answer a few questions.
I'm not claiming it to be true, merely pointing out that the most immediate and obvious explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe is the addition of energy from somewhere. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, this additional energy would necessarily have to be coming from outside of the observable universe. Unless if course there is a process at work within the universe that we don't understand, also a viable possibility. We don't exactly know everything, do we!
Defender of Truth wrote: Is this "other world" bound by the laws of physics?
Not an "other world," but other entire universes. Presumably everywhere is bound by SOME laws of physics. And some of those laws, at least, would be uniform with the laws observed in our universe, or else there would be no interaction. Energy would remain immutable, gravity is still gravity. Whether all laws of physics would be exactly the same everywhere is an open ended question, since obviously we don't currently even observe other universes, much less study them. It may well be that some of the parameters are reset at the moment of each Big Bang and determined by the total amount of energy present at that moment. Or maybe the laws are rigidly the same everywhere.

Post Reply