“God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

[paarsurrey1]

The assertion “God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.�
Christopher Hitchens

Right, please?

Regards

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 68 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: �So the universe exists, and because that's not separable from its cause, you then know what the cause is. Well?�

There are a couple of approaches to the explanation. Start with some basic math: In any infinite string of random digits, there are just as many digits in a string composed of every second or third digit. For instance, there are just as many even integers as there are integers. Thus, in every random infinite string of real numbers every real number is inevitable. Thus, in every infinite chaos there are inevitable regions of order.

As a corollary, in every field of quantum probabilities, the most probable state is that of maximum entropy, but in an infinite field of quantum probabilities there will exist an infinite number of states of minimum or less than maximum entropy decaying toward maximum entropy. That is the quantum formulation of the second law of thermodynamics. Thus, in a state of infinite disorder, states of order are inevitable. No cause is necessary. The universe is causelessly necessary.

Do you require clarification of these concepts?

Thanks for the patronizing attitude.

I've heard it all too many times before. But the second law of thermodynamics to which you appeal states: "In all spontaneous processes, the total entropy always increases and the process is irreversible." But that's not what we see in the universe with total chaos proceeding to order across the universe, and in the ever increasing complexity of living beings. Even if the 2nd law is not a complete picture or even wrong in some way, nobody can show how any of that would lead to the Big Bang.

ThePainefulTruth: �There are many flood myths from around the world.�

People do have to live where they have access to fresh water, and preferably, flowing water. They are therefore subject to floods and flood myths.

More so on the beaches and harbors on the sea, at the mouths of those rivers, where long range transport is enable, and is an unending source of high protein food. Those are the areas which would be most susceptible to the sometimes catastrophic flooding due to rising sea levels. And those settlements/cities(?) would have been concentrated more towards the equator during the ice age.

ThePainefulTruth: �Sorry, I misspoke, and unlike many, I admit it. Change 400' higher to lower and my statement is correct. And I think the biblical flood myth, as well as the Garden of Eden allegory are centered on the Persian Gulf. It would have been incredibly fertile being watered by the combined Tigress and Euphrates rivers--until sea level rose and flooded it all.�

But that 100 meter rise took place over several thousand years. It was not a sudden, catastrophic inundation.

It was at times. The worse case was the ice sheet over northeast Canada where water built up behind and underneath the ice sheet which could release in stages in short catastrophic pulses which would be felt worldwide in a matter of weeks, and sometimes, in certain locations, hours. Other forces were also at work. With the melting of the miles high ice caps, the load on the continents would be lessened, while the rise in sea level would increase the load on the sea bed in others--leading to stories like Atlantis.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 71 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "Thanks for the patronizing attitude."

I made an offer to clarify. You regard it as "patronizing" but you obviously do require clarification.

ThePainefulTruth: "I've heard it all too many times before. But the second law of thermodynamics to which you appeal states: 'In all spontaneous processes, the total entropy always increases and the process is irreversible.'"

If you've heard it before you haven't understood it.

A quantum statement of the second law is about probability. The increase in entropy is not "irreversible", merely improbable, a probability near zero but zero only in some scaled dimensions. A decrease is is highly improbable in some dimensions but certain in others. (Think e^(ix) = cos (x) + i sin (x) where x is an n-dimensional vector, and cos (x) is the sum of the Fourier series of n-1 dimensions projected onto our space-time.)
In fact the probabilities in Hilbert space are periodic functions whose Euler angles always sum to one, the certainty of reality. But the dimensions involved are periodic, projected onto our perceived 3 + t space-time.
For instance, the projections of a unit vector onto an associated affine coordinate system always conserve symmetry. |(Σ [cos x(n)])| =1 This means that while some nth coordinates (probabilities) are periodically approaching zero other the sum is always 1 (certainty). The universe is always real because the Fourier sum of the probabilities is always 1. The state of maximum entropy on one set of dimensions is not a state of maximum entropy on another set of dimension and what we perceive is the projection of all dimensions onto a surface (our three + 1 space, which is represented by quaternions or the inverse Gibbs algebra which is simply a change of handedness).
The reason I offered clarification was because it is very hard for us to imagine more than three dimensions which we perceive as changing over time. I wasn't being condescending, I was merely acknowledging the difficulties of the concepts involved. A state of “maximum entropy� is not an unchanging state, there is still the periodic fluctuation of quantum foam which still sums to 1. Think of a neutrino/anti-neutrino pair popping into existence and then, unless near the event horizon of a singularity, spontaneously annihilating each other. Try to conceive of such an event as a scaled universe popping into and back out of existence.

ThePainefulTruth: "But that's not what we see in the universe with total chaos proceeding to order across the universe, and in the ever increasing complexity of living beings. Even if the 2nd law is not a complete picture or even wrong in some way, nobody can show how any of that would lead to the Big Bang.�

As you look out at the universe you are looking into the past. You are looking, since the universe is expanding, into a smaller universe. The singularity is seen from one perspective as a black hole and from the inverse perspective as a “big bang�. Now remember that space and time are a matter of perspective. So in the gravitational field space time appears to those not so deep as “compressed�. And if we hold that the speed of light is constant then the clocks (periodic functions) seem to run slower. Or think of it this way, the big bang expands the universe but the black whole contracts it. The black hole and the big bang are the external and internal surfaces the event horizon, of a Klein bottle.

The universe is simply the projection a neutrino popping into and out of existence as seen from the inside. I still find it hard to get my head around it. And to explain it without reference to some esoteric math is difficult. And we haven't even gotten around to the fractal nature of reality and it's relationship to consciousness. And different set of dimensions yields different Klein bottles, elliptical and hyperbolic spaces.

I am not condescending. I am trying to explain how to step up. Sorry I can't make it clearer without resorting to some really tough math, and several volumes of explanation. But you might consult Tensors Made Easy by Giancarlo Bernacchi, Quantum Mechanics in Simple Matrix Form by Thomas F. Jordan, Differential Geometry by Erwin Kreyszig, Visual Complex Analysis by Tristan Neeham, A Most Incomprehensible Thing: Notes towards a very gentle introduction to the mathematics of relativity by Peter Collier, and for light reading, Chaos by James Gleick, et cetera. Some familiarity with differential equations, non-Euclidian geometries and infinite series would be helpful.
The hard (but very satisfying ) part comes when you integrate it all into one whole understanding.

I will address the flood mythology in another post.

[ThePainefulTruth]

A quantum statement of the second law is about probability. The increase in entropy is not "irreversible", merely improbable, a probability near zero but zero only in some scaled dimensions.

What I quoted started out "In all spontaneous processes".... Absent God, the Big Bang must be a spontaneous event. The statement is from Atkins' Physical Chemistry, (2006), p.78.

But I'm saying there's something wrong with our understanding of entropy. At the start of the Big Bang, heat was at a maximum, equally distributed, and the disorder was chaotic and without any organized form. But as it expanded, yes it cooled, but not evenly, and the disorder resolved itself into organized particles and energy albeit with an overall cooling effect. And no theory of entropy that I'm aware of accounts for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, after an early period of decelerating expansion.

The Moon is there even when we aren't looking at it. I only bring that up to show how far afield science can and has let itself go in order to preserve the status quo.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 73 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "But I'm saying there's something wrong with our understanding of entropy. At the start of the Big Bang, heat was at a maximum, equally distributed, and the disorder was chaotic and without any organized form.'

The singularity, up close, would be perceived as Hawking radiation, and thus, would not be equally distributed, but rather, inversely proportional to the infalling mass on the opposite surface of the Klein bottle. Again: The big bang is the inverse surface of the event horizon of the black hole.

ThePainefulTruth: " But as it expanded, yes it cooled, but not evenly, and the disorder resolved itself into organized particles and energy albeit with an overall cooling effect.'

So you see as it increases in entropy, it also sorts itself by gravity into areas of locally decreasing entropy.

ThePainefulTruth: " And no theory of entropy that I'm aware of accounts for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, after an early period of decelerating expansion."

What we are discussing here is a GUTS hypothesis, a unification of quantum theory and general relativity. It has not been verified, and indeed I don't begin to understand how it could be verified. It does seem to fit well with observation. The apparent acceleration of the expansion is possibly accounted for by approaching the limit where the inverse square law begins to apply.

[ThePainefulTruth]

What we are discussing here is a GUTS hypothesis, a unification of quantum theory and general relativity. It has not been verified, and indeed I don't begin to understand how it could be verified. It does seem to fit well with observation. The apparent acceleration of the expansion is possibly accounted for by approaching the limit where the inverse square law begins to apply.
:

I think the confusion is brought about by quantum theory. We have all the many interpretations but nobody seems concerned with having an interpretation which explains quantum weirdness. There is one, the Transactional Interpretation, which is only now beginning to gain acceptance, but with the Copenhageners and Many-Worlders kicking and screaming.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 75 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "I think the confusion is brought about by quantum theory. We have all the many interpretations but nobody seems concerned with having an interpretation which explains quantum weirdness."

There are a few things to consider: What we see as space-time is a projection of higher dimensional space on our perceived reality, and a quantum field is a field of probabilities. Then we have to realize that in such a multi-dimensional curved space what we perceive as entangled particles or anti-particles are merely the same particle in curvilinear coordinates located in the concavity of the curved space.

ThePainefulTruth: "There is one, the Transactional Interpretation, which is only now beginning to gain acceptance, but with the Copenhageners and Many-Worlders kicking and screaming."

Once upon a time, doctors had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the practice of washing their hands before delivering babies or performing surgery.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 75 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "I think the confusion is brought about by quantum theory. We have all the many interpretations but nobody seems concerned with having an interpretation which explains quantum weirdness."

There are a few things to consider: What we see as space-time is a projection of higher dimensional space on our perceived reality, and a quantum field is a field of probabilities. Then we have to realize that in such a multi-dimensional curved space what we perceive as entangled particles or anti-particles are merely the same particle in curvilinear coordinates located in the concavity of the curved space.

I don't believe dimensions are the issue, I believe it's local space-time (our universe) vs. non-local space-time (timeless, "distanceless" Quantumland), and how quantum entities transition between and operate in both. If there is no time or distance in the "external" Quantumland, how can there be dimensions?

ThePainefulTruth: "There is one, the Transactional Interpretation, which is only now beginning to gain acceptance, but with the Copenhageners and Many-Worlders kicking and screaming."

Once upon a time, doctors had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the practice of washing their hands before delivering babies or performing surgery.

Yes!