The something from nothing "problem" has been addressed by numerous authors with some plausible sounding arguments. To site one recent summary, with references: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
LWS On Sep 4, 2011, at 1:06 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/4/2011 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> On 9/4/2011 8:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote: >>> On 04.09.2011 07:51 meekerdb said the following: >>> >>> ... >>> >>> >>> If that's what you're trying you're giving aid and comfort to the >>> enemy. Every religious fundamentalist in America hates materialism >>> and believes in an immaterial spirit, distinct from brain processes, >>> which is responsible for our thoughts and actions. >>> >>> You know, I was raised in the USSR where the official religion was atheism >>> and materialism. The results were disastrous. >>> >>> Hence you could take the existence of people in the USA who "believe in an >>> immaterial spirit, distinct from brain processes" positively. After all, >>> they are working hard and contribute to prosperity. >>> >>> In any case, I do not think that the ideology should affect reasoning. >>> >>> Evgenii, >>> >>> The kind of atheism and materialism which stood as the official religion of >>> the Soviet Union, and that held by most atheists today is naive. The >>> leading scientific explanations for conscious are mechanistic, but taken to >>> its logical end mechanism leads to remarkable conclusions: consciousness is >>> not attached to the body, it survives death of the body, it continues >>> forever, it may be reincarnated into different forms, it may switch between >>> realms. In this respect, science leads directly to something very much >>> like a soul. >> >> Only by taking partial theories and over extending them. >> >> If you accept the first few steps of the UDA regarding duplication / >> survivability with clones (digital mechanism), and you accept any of the >> following: 1. the universe is infinitely big, 2. many worlds interpretation, >> 3. string theory landscape, 4. ultimate ensemble or 5. mathematical realism, >> then it can be clearly demonstrated. I think the only reason you call it >> "over extended" is that you are uncomfortable with the conclusion. > > If by "accept" you mean "believe", I don't accept 2, 3,4, and 5. I consider > 1 to be an inference from some theories, but I don't necessarily accept those > theories. When you make a long chain of inferences and arrive at a > conclusion contrary to experience that is called a reductio ad absurdum. > Then it is time to review your bets. > >> >> >>> >>> Similarly, the materialist effort to explain the existence of this universe >>> without invoking God ends up pointing to the existence of something that >>> has no cause, exists timelessly, contains infinite variation (perhaps >>> everything possible), may be identical to the sum of all truth, is >>> everywhere and everything. While not every scientist or person on this >>> list agrees with this, it is the conclusion of any rational effort to >>> explain the fine tuning of this universe. >> >> I don't think any scientists agrees with all of that. >> >> 1. Something exists without a cause (Any Platonist believes this. Also, it >> is inconsistent to believe that nothing exists without cause, unless you >> believe something can come from nothing) > > Most current theories of cosmogony say something like that. > >> 2. Exists timelessly (Again, every platonist accepts mathematical truth >> exists timelessly) > > That is a peculiarly mathematical meaning of "exists". > >> 3. Contains infinite variation, perhaps everything possible (Mathematical >> truth is infinite in scope, and math contains all possible structures, again >> according to the platonist philosophy of mathematics (which is the most >> popular)) > > Which cardinality of infinite? All of them? > >> 4. Is everywhere and everything (This follows from digital mechanism and >> platonism. Most today are unaware of this of course, but I think if all the >> choices were well defined and described most rational people would identify >> with platonism and finite mechanism.) > > "Something exists everywhere and everything"? I don't understand what is > being asserted. Is it a mere tautology? > >> >> For no scientist to agree with all of the above means means you think no >> scientist is both platonist and mechanist and consistent in his or her >> beliefs. >> >> It is just armchair philosophizing based on hypotheses like "everything >> exists". It is certainly not the *only* possible explaination of the >> alleged fine tuning of some physical parameters. >> >> >> I indicated that not everyone accepts the universe is fine tuned. Again I >> think you are uncomfortable with the premise of fine tuning because of where >> it inevitably leads. > > First, I'm not sure the concept is well defined. It is relative to some > theory of possible ranges of parameters that make life possible. That's two > "possibles" we don't know how to define. Second, if a parameter has a > life-friendly range of 50 to 100 is that "fine-tuned"? Are we to compare it > to a possible range of 0 to infinity? or -inf to +inf? Once you start > saying that everything happens infinitely many times you lose the ability to > say this is more probable than that and also the ability to say this is > improbable, i.e. fine-tuned. > >> >> >>> >>> Beware of those materialists who say all we can see is all that there is. >> >> Beware of those who say they can see what you can't be shown. >> >> >> There is an inconsistency in seeing what cannot be seen. > > But there are those who claim a special ability to see what you can't. > >> There is no inconsistency in there existing something which cannot be seen. >> This list is founded to discuss the idea that the theory that everything >> exists can explain more, while assuming less, and remain consistent with >> observations. If you reject this, then how large a concept of reality do >> you think is scientifically justified? The Hubble Volume? The Block Time >> Hubble Volume? The minimum 10^23 - 10^26 * the hubble volume implied by >> inflationary theories? Infinitely large volume of spacet-time? Any of the >> previous with CI or with MWI? > > Science isn't about justifying theories. It's about creating models that > have predictive and explanatory power. To ask what concept is scientifically > justified is to misconceive the enterprise. Some theories are better > supported by evidence than others. Some are contradicted by evidence. > That's all. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
