Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

The universe is billions of years old from one perspective and a mere six days old from another. And both are correct!

Gerald Schroeder, Age of the Universe,
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

Gerald Schroeder:

He earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute, while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics.

http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=2

[Show Me the Wire]

YouTube (Short URL)

[Greyfox]

Thank you for posting that video ShowMe.
It makes a lot of sense to me.

[hcap]

According to physics everything, space, time, matter and energy came into existence after the big bang. How does Schroeder know the laws of nature preceded the big bang?

My point is using our limited language to argue potentiality versus actuality of Aristotle and trying to understand the infinite regress Aquinas uses to "prove" god is based on words that do a very poor job of describing reality.
Something and nothing are our human failings trying to grasp things in a anthropomorphic way. Occasionally we approximate reality. The invention of the term zero is a mathematical attempt thay has practical and successful uses.

So we can define nothing. It just is not an easy concept. A deity creating the entire universe begins to be less useful than understanding the spontaneous creation of matter and energy from the vacuum. On the tiniest physical scales — the Planck scale — empty space itself vibrates and curves, and there is a fundamental uncertainty in the energy content — at any given time — of nothingness. Therefore a all knowing creator is not required to arrange a creation. We have learned the uncertainty principle and random appearance and disappearance takes place without a definite intent. So we can argue endlessly about the philosophical meaning of nothing, but should instead just look at it as zero.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

According to physics everything, space, time, matter and energy came into existence after the big bang. How does Schroeder know the laws of nature preceded the big bang?

My point is using our limited language to argue potentiality versus actuality of Aristotle and trying to understand the infinite regress Aquinas uses to "prove" god is based on words that do a very poor job of describing reality.
Something and nothing are our human failings trying to grasp things in a anthropomorphic way. Occasionally we approximate reality. The invention of the term zero is a mathematical attempt thay has practical and successful uses.

So we can define nothing. It just is not an easy concept. A deity creating the entire universe begins to be less useful than understanding the spontaneous creation of matter and energy from the vacuum. On the tiniest physical scales — the Planck scale — empty space itself vibrates and curves, and there is a fundamental uncertainty in the energy content — at any given time — of nothingness. Therefore a all knowing creator is not required to arrange a creation. We have learned the uncertainty principle and random appearance and disappearance takes place without a definite intent. So we can argue endlessly about the philosophical meaning of nothing, but should instead just look at it as zero.

How could we know Space existed unless Matter (in Motion) was in it to reveal Space to us? It's meaningless gibberish to talk about "empty" space because at best it's only conjecture, since there is no way for any scientist to observe "empty" space. There is no empirical evidence for such a thing. You might as talk fantasize over Nothing. Oh wait...you already have. My bad.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Thank you for posting that video ShowMe.
It makes a lot of sense to me.

But not so much to me. I see the proverbial chicken and egg problem. According to Schroeder, the Laws of Nature predate everything. These laws are not physical in nature. They act, however, on the physical. They created the universe. (It's no wonder this guy said these "laws" or quantum physics sound an awful lot like God! His god are the laws of nature!) All he has done is take, these unseen, non-physical forces and put a god label on them. However, in the real world -- in reality as we all know it -- we know that laws (or even rules) govern things that are already in existence. Yet, Schroeder is adamant (in order to try preserve his "analogy" between these impersonal forces and his version of the divine) that the laws of nature predate all things. But how does he know this? Isn't he really telling us that the laws of nature are eternal? And aren't the laws of NATURE laws of the NATURAL realm? But if the laws of nature predate all things, then what were they governing prior to the existence of the physical universe? Of course, the next problem I have is that in the real world, we also know that all laws are created by intelligence for specific purposes. But notice that Schroeder never raises the question of what caused the laws of nature, since in his mind, those laws are self-existent and transcendent and, therefore, are his god. Schroeder sounds more like a pantheist to me than anything else. At the end of the day, he says that the universe had a beginning and was, therefore, caused -- but caused by eternal "laws of nature".

As as Christian, I cannot buy into Schroeder's view. The eternal, self-existing, transcendent, personal being (God) created all things, including the laws of nature and the physical.

[Actor]

But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.

As I have already pointed out, what is "potentiality" and what is "actuality" depends on your frame of reference. All frames of reference are equal, thus ones choice of frame is totally arbitrary.

[Actor]

Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.

It's tempting to point out that Aquinas was totally ignorant of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. He also knew nothing of the nature of combustion (fire). But I will simply point out that this sentence brings nothing new to the table and move on.

[Actor]

6. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects.
7. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold.

I'm making a single response to these two sentences because they address the same thing, and they are both false. Something can be both potentially hot and potentially cold at the same time. Take a glass of water. At the same time it is potentially hot (it could become steam) and potentially cold (it could become ice). End of story.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But not so much to me. I see the proverbial chicken and egg problem. According to Schroeder, the Laws of Nature predate everything....

It's exactly a chicken and egg problem, since the question of "where did GOD come from?" is left hanging. Schroeder also bases his view on the THEORY of the Big Bang where "something from nothing" came along, but does not address the possibility of the THEORY of an oscillating universe, with never ending Big Bangs.

So, like this thread, we're stuck in a Ground Hog day existence.

By the way Boxcar, in post # 3033, you provided a narration in which you were speaking for God. Very dangerous and deep waters, there.....

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How could we know Space existed unless Matter (in Motion) was in it to reveal Space to us? It's meaningless gibberish to talk about "empty" space because at best it's only conjecture, since there is no way for any scientist to observe "empty" space. There is no empirical evidence for such a thing. You might as talk fantasize over Nothing. Oh wait...you already have. My bad.

Need I remind you, you claimed Stephen Hawking embarrasses himself and you think you don't!

The official physics definition of space.

Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction. Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime

There is no requirement that matter or energy define space's existence or dimensions.

Up until recently before quantum flux and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle helped us understand pairs of matter and anti-matter particles are spontaneously created and annihilated, there was no reason there could be zero particles of matter on the non-Planck scale in space.

Empty space is not just a conjecture.

Btw, do you propose a mathematical ratio of particles of matter to cubic centimeter of space before you consider space defined and not just a "conjecture"? 1000 atoms per cc or 1 atom.

Where is your experimental data?

As usual you do not use math although claiming to be a world renowned scientist all the while claiming physicists as Hawking and Einstein who DO USE math embarrass themselves.

How come?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But not so much to me. I see the proverbial chicken and egg problem. According to Schroeder, the Laws of Nature predate everything. These laws are not physical in nature. They act, however, on the physical. They created the universe. (It's no wonder this guy said these "laws" or quantum physics sound an awful lot like God! His god are the laws of nature!)......blah, blah, blah

I posted a similar objection in my post 3079 which you QUOTED.

Originally Posted by Me

According to physics everything, space, time, matter and energy came into existence after the big bang. How does Schroeder know the laws of nature preceded the big bang?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's meaningless gibberish to talk about "empty" space because at best it's only conjecture,

Do you understand what average means in statistics?

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...3/notes11.html

The air we breathe has a density of approximately 1019 molecules per cubic centimeter. (One cubic centimeter = 1 milliliter = 1/1000 liter).

By contrast, the lowest density regions of interstellar space contains approximately 0.1 atoms per cubic centimeter.

In each case both densities are expressed as an average. There must be varying specific densities per cubic centimeter. Could be billions of atoms per cc down to 0 atoms.

Also ACTUAL values within each segment of a cc varies. What happens to that space that has zero atoms per cc and zero atoms per fraction of a cc. Does they cease to exist Mr Wizard?

[hcap]

https://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ms.html

We can tell that most of the Universe is a vacuum because matter absorbs and scatters light. We can accurately measure the amount of material between us and stars, and that gives an average density of gas in the Galaxy of only one atom per cubic centimeter. That's a better vacuum than we can achieve in a laboratory.

[hcap]

http://education.jlab.org/qa/how-muc...pty-space.html

How much of an atom is empty space?

Very nearly all of it. Let's take a look at an atom of hydrogen to see how empty it really is. Of course, this diagram isn't drawn to scale...