Starts one of the following interactive narratives: new user, advanced user.
@discobot roll 2d6
3, 6
@discobot quote
Carry out a random act of kindness, with no expectation of reward, safe in the knowledge that one day someone might do the same for you ā Princess Diana
This seems a little pessimistic to me. I think that as technology continues to advance, the envelope of what we can observe will also continue to expand.
Maybe, but there are physical limits. I think string theory is mentioned in the articleāto test it, a supercollider too large to be practical would be necessary. You may be right, and surely scientists will not be throwing in the towel on it, but our ability to look at the larger and smaller scales of reality does seem to have limits.
I realize my contradiction in criticizing one physicist for bringing in what he āthoughtā and then I turn around and do the same. I guess that at a certain point, I say enough already with the speculative theories and itās time for philosophy (and I think all theories that touch on something from nothing and alternatives to the universe having a beginning are speculative).
As for something from a literal nothing, yes, Vilenkin argues this in that same article, for example (http://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe). Krauss also argues this. I think at least Krauss has in mind the cosmological argument when he argues something from nothing. You must argue against at least one of those two pesky premises of the argument if youāre an atheist.
Those physical limits apply to our current state of technological development. Before every big technological leap, itās impossible to fully grasp what lies beyond it. Itās like how we thought we were about to hit a physical limit with Mooreās Lawā¦and then quantum computing came along.
I tried reading that article, but itās too tough sailing for me. Iāll try to read it again later. Didnāt he talk about a larger spacetime than ours? Maybe it was something different I read. Physicists talk about nothing all the time, but what Krauss seems to mean for example, some kind of quantum field I think, isnāt what I would call nothing. Iām thinking of an argument that asserts a definite knowledge that there is nothing outside our universe, which doesnāt seem possible.
Must? No way, not until the day someone can explain to me how God has always existed.
Sure, but it currently seems to be the case, and is an issue for cosmology, I think. As for the future, who knows what it may bring. In another sense, every new discovery seems to bring awareness of another unknown layer, so a limit may be inevitable.
I think if the definition of God, or the meaning of the term, God, is the cause of the Big Bang, it is hard to deny the existence of God. There is no reasonable proof that the God is identical with any specific god of a specific religion.
I guess when Einstein thought up special relativity, he knew he was right, well before any observations verifying the authenticity of his theory. He knew because everything fell into place beautifully. Thatās what the notion of an infinite, powerful being does for me when it comes to the beginning of the universe. Iām sorry but my philosophy doesnāt get any more complicated than that! To me, everything falls into place beautifully.
This is all very generic. If all we have is a supposition that God caused the Big Bang, what else do we know about them? Why call them āGodā? It seems that āBig Bang Causal Agentā would be a more apt title. More below
Thatās cool. No need to apologize. Iād only note, and I guess youād agree, that this is a belief, and not some kind of generally explanatory theory.
I also believe there are forces at work in reality which as of now at least are beyond our understanding. I really believe theyāll always remain so. Thereās gotta be something going on back there. I just donāt think Iāor anyone elseāknow what it is. I canāt see how we could reasonably put any label on āitā, much less think we know what it wants, that it cares what we do, knows we exist etc. etc. or is even sentient or capable of such things. This makes me an atheist, but an agnostic atheist.
I want to know the cause of the Big Bang, and I donāt suppose that God caused the Big Bang. I just said, if we call the cause as God, it is hard to deny the existence of the āGodā. Of course, there is no need to call it God, as it is very confusing with the religious God. I prefer just saying āthe cause of the Big Bangā.
Though I donāt think gods create us, nor they are something reasoning our existence, I believe the existence of gods.
I think in the context of that statement of mine (we were talking science, physics, cosmology), it doesnāt make sense to talk about ābeforeā the Big Bang since time itself was created with the Big Bang.
As a matter of fact, from the point of view of science, it doesnāt seem to make sense to discuss events ābeforeā the Big Bang because they have no observational consequences: We can (and I do) just ignore such events as speculation. These are not defined because itās not possible to measure them, which is an important aspect of science.
But if you want to talk philosophy, well yes, I believe then there are some good conversations to be had. And if you want to discuss speculation (like many scientists do when it comes to such events ābeforeā the Big Bang), then again letās discuss away.
Yes, itās a belief. But letās be clear, multiverse theory, string theory, etc. are speculative ideas put forward by scientists to make sense of it all at best, and wild speculation by scientists to desire anything but God at worst. At the very least, I donāt think the arrogance toward people of faith by scientists is warranted given the crazy shit many of them put forward as āscience.ā Letās all be honest, nobody knows these answers and itās quite possible we will never know (well from my point of view, I believe that to be more than just āquite possibleā- I believe that multiverse and other speculative theories will always be in principle unprovable).