Jack Rabbit said:
They are treating God like a balloon. When confronted with scientific and logical arguments, they inflate their pet balloon so large and make it bigger than universe beyond the realm of testability and falsifiability. When none are around and faced with thoughts on life/after-life, they deflate the balloon and treat it like a tribal deity.
Subair said
-
X - നെ ഞാന്‍ താഴെ കൊടുക്കുന്ന പോലെ നിര്‍വചിക്കുന്നു.
X എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ പ്രാപഞ്ചിക നിയമങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് അതീതവും, അപ്പുറവും ആയ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ കാരണത്തിന് ഹേതുവായ ഉന്മ. X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിലെ ഒരു നിയമങ്ങല്കും വിധേയനല്ല, കാരണം X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ തെന്നെ ഉത്ഭവത്തിന് കാരണമാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ അതിലെ നിയമങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയതും X ആണ്. അതെ പോലെ തെന്നെ X അനാദിയാണ്, X ഇല്ലാത്ത ഒരു കാലം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നിട്ടില്ല. ഏറ്റവും പ്രധാനമായി X തീരുമാനങ്ങള്‍ എടുക്കാന്‍ കഴിവുള്ള ഒരു ശക്തിയാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ X വേണമെന്ന് വെച്ചിട്ടാണ്ട് ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചം ഉണ്ടാക്കിയത്.
ഇനി ഞാന്‍ ചെയ്യേണ്ടത്, X മുകളില്‍ നിര്‍വചിച്ച ശക്തി ഉണ്ട് എന്ന് തെളിയിക്കുകയാണ്. - എന്റെ വാദം താഴെക്കൊടുക്കുന്നു.
1. ഉത്ഭവം ഉള്ള എതോന്നിനും ഒരു കാരണം ഉണ്ടാകും.
2. ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന് ഒരു ആരഭം ഉണ്ട്.
3.അത് കൊണ്ട് ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന് ഒരു കാരണം ഉണ്ട്. - ഇനി ഈ കാരണം X ആകുന്നതു എങ്ങിനെയെന്ന് ?
പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ കാരണം തീര്‍ച്ചയായും പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന് പുറത്തായിരിക്കും. കാരണം പ്രപഞ്ചം ഇല്ലാതെ ഒരു അവസ്ഥയില്‍ നിന്നാണല്ലോ അത് ഉണ്ടായത്. അതെ പോലെ തെന്നെ പ്രപഞ്ചവും സമയവും ഇല്ലാത്ത ഒരു അവസ്ഥയില്‍ നിന്നും പ്രപഞ്ചം ഉണ്ടായി എങ്കില്‍ അത് മനപ്പൂര്‍വ്വം ഉണ്ടാക്കിയതായിരിക്കണം. കാരണം സമയമില്ലാത്ത ഒരു ലോകത്ത് സംഭവങ്ങളും ഉണ്ടാകില്ല, സംഭവങ്ങള്‍ ഇലാല്‍ എങ്കില്‍ ഒന്നും "താനേ" ഉണ്ടാകില്ല. അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ സമയത്തിന് അപ്പുറത്തുള്ള, പ്രാപഞ്ചിക നിയമത്തിനു അതീതനായ ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന് കാരണക്കാരനായ X എന്ന ശക്തിയുണ്ട്
അതിന് ശേഷം X എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ ഒന്നാണോ, പലതാണോ, ഒന്നും മൂന്നും കൂടിയതാണോ, ആ ശക്തിയെ അള്ളാഹു എന്ന് വിളിക്കണമോ, ആ ശക്തിക്ക് അവതാരങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടോ തുടങ്ങിയ കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ നമ്മുക്ക് ആസ്തികര്‍ എന്ന നിലക്ക് ചര്‍ച്ച ചെയ്യാം.
Finally, Hussain has clearly spelled out what kind of God he is defending. Read his comment 8 and my response 8 here . He is defending a God which is refuted by Dawkins in this book The God Delusion - Abrahamic God
- How anyone can prick this balloon -X ?
Let us take your assumptions:
1. ഉത്ഭവം ഉള്ള എതോന്നിനും ഒരു കാരണം ഉണ്ടാകും.
This isn't always true. In particle physics, virtual pairs can originate with no reason as it is the outcome of uncertainity principle. This is quite relevant in cosmology. During cosmological inflation, when space was expanding exponentially fast, by the time these particles are ready to find each other and disappear again, they're already stretched out across the Universe. This is how tiny quantum fluctuations create regions with less dense and more dense parts in our universe.
Also there are physical events like radioactive decay which happens without any particular reason.
Hmm this is like plane crashing even before take off.
Let us continue on the universe needs an eternal creator line of thought.
Can we call X as the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ? No. Why ?
Take this example of linear system of equations for an analogy
x,y,z,w are unknowns
x + y + z + w = 10
x + 2y + z + w = 12
x + y + 3z + w = 16
x + y + z + 4w = 22
The solution of this is x=1, y=2, z=3 and w=4
Had i showed only the first equation, x + y + z + w = 10, (x,y,z,w) could have been (1,2,3,4), (1,1,4,4), (1,1,1,7)...Many combination can satisfy the first equation.
The above is only a special case where we have unique solution when we have all 4 equations. This doesn't mean that all sets of equation have unique solutions. Some may have no solution and some may have many solutions
So unless we bring all the attributes of the God under discussion, X could be anything.
So what attributes do we have in hand ?
X എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ പ്രാപഞ്ചിക നിയമങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് അതീതവും, അപ്പുറവും ആയ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ കാരണത്തിന് ഹേതുവായ ഉന്മ. X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിലെ ഒരു നിയമങ്ങല്കും വിധേയനല് - beyond any physical laws
കാരണം X പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ തെന്നെ ഉത്ഭവത്തിന് കാരണമാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ അതിലെ നിയമങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയതും X ആണ്. - Creator of universe and all its natural laws
അതെ പോലെ തെന്നെ X അനാദിയാണ്
X ഇല്ലാത്ത ഒരു കാലം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നിട്ടില്ല. - eternal
ഏറ്റവും പ്രധാനമായി X തീരുമാനങ്ങള്‍ എടുക്കാന്‍ കഴിവുള്ള ഒരു ശക്തിയാണ്, അതുകൊണ്ട് തെന്നെ X വേണമെന്ന് വെച്ചിട്ടാണ്ട് ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചം ഉണ്ടാക്കിയത്. - Since X is powerful to take decisions like creating this universe he should be omnipotent and omniscient (all knowledgeable, since he has to take decisions)
Is this the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ? Not yet
What is missing here ? This X doesn't need to have any connection with humans or the world we live in and it has only partial resemblance to Abrahamic God.
So which is the God Hussain is defending or Dawkins is refuting ?
It is similar to Case 1 God: God with infinite abilities (eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinitely compassionate) who also intervenes in our daily life and co-exist with evil around us.
These are the features you omitted compared to my definition
1. infinitely compassionate - I am taking that from the beginning of almost every Surah in Koran - IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST COMPASSIONATE, MOST MERCIFUL. You may choose to deny this feature by denying Allah and Koran.
2. intervenes in our daily life - If your X has no business with our lives, why are you spending so much time to defend him/her ?
3. co-exist with evil around us - You may choose to deny there is no evil in this world and it is my illusion
Can we omit any of these features while making the transition from X to God under discussion ? No
Tell me why X who is omnipotent, powerful to take decisions and infinitely compassionate choose to leave so much evil in this world ? This was the question asked by Epicurus 2500 years ago, even before Christ or Muhammed.
Please don't come up with this absurd reply.
God was aware about the future events but he didn't take decision on the course of future events instead he gave free will and delegated decision making to humans. So evil is creation of humans. God cannot be blamed for that.
This kind of bail-out plan was advocated by Hussain and Alikoya.
Hussain proved he is dumb enough not to understand proof by Epicurus .
It looks like both aren't aware about evil in nature other than those caused by humans. For eg: the famous example by William L. Rowe on natural evil:
In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn (baby deer) is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. God could have chosen otherwise.
Don't tell me this is a hypothetical situation. Wild fires are common in places like Yellow Stone National Park
Alikoya was wise enough not to reply my question.
See whether you can answer my question to Alikoya ?
Alikoya Sir,
Here is my moral dilemma.
One group decided to bomb and derail a passenger train. I came to know about their plan. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE PREPARATION OR PLANNING STAGES. I remained silent. The D-day came, their mission was successful and many people died.
Am i culpable of any crime on the judgment day ? My plea before Allah is i was only aware of the mission and didn't plan or execute it.
PS: At the end of the demonstration, it is commonly observed that some act like an unsinkable rubber duck by claiming their balloon is still intact despite the fact that nobody in 2800 year old history of philosophy (from axial age to current day) was able to do so .
27 comments:
ഹുസൈന്‍ എന്റെ ഗുരുവോ, ഞാ അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ ശിഷ്യനോ അല്ല. ഞാനും അദ്ദേഹവും ആയി നേരിട്ടോ, ഇന്റര്‍നെറ്റ്‌ വഴിയോ യാതൊരു ആശയ വിനിമയും ഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല - ഇത് വരെ.
ഞാന്‍ പറഞ്ഞ കാര്യങ്ങള്‍, അതിലെ തെറ്റുകളും ശരികളും എന്റേത് മാത്രമാണ്.
ഇനി എന്റെ വാദങ്ങള്‍ക്കാണോ താങ്കള്‍ മറുപടി പറഞ്ഞത് ബുദ്ധിയുള്ളവര്‍ തീരുമാനിക്കെട്ടെ.
Subair, Look who is crying now. Two days ago it was you teasing me for having some anonymous fans with whom i have no contact. Nevertheless, i have removed the synopsis portion.
I have expanded the portions which mayn't have been obvious. Take a look. When i did that, X crash landed even before take off.
Dear Jack,
Thanks for your analysis.
Refuting the proposition “everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence”, you say “this isn't always true”. This logically means generally everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence and exceptionally there may not be a cause. Why you accept an exception by rejecting a generally accepted fact? This approach itself is irrational and unscientific because science and rational thinking is based on generalizations, not on exceptions.
Secondly, in the subatomic world fluctuations are a temporary phenomenon and it does not violate cause and effect relationship. Do you know it was Quantum Mechanics that paved way for the downfall of materialism and rationalism in the modern world? I do not try to elaborate more as it would be a worst scenario for you. You indicated a New York Times newspaper article. I shall quote the concluding part of it: 'The vacuum is certainly a most mysterious and elusive object that makes itself known by only the most indirect of hints.' 'This is the words of Dr. Stephen M. Barnett of Oxford University. Do rationalists believe in mysterious and elusive things?
Finally, I am very reluctant to refute you elaborately as you are not qualified to engage in scholarly debates.
ജാക്, quantum flactuaion നെ ക്കുറിച്ച് താങ്കള്‍ പറഞ്ഞത് ഞാന്‍ കണ്ടിരുന്നില്ല.
അപ്പോള്‍ എന്റെ ഒന്നാമത്തെ വാദമാണ് താങ്കള്‍ അന്ഗീകരിക്കാത്തതു. ഉത്ഭവം ഉള്ളതിനെല്ലാം കാരണം വേണ്ടാ എന്നും, യാതൊരു കാരണവും ഇല്ലാതെയും കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ ഉണ്ടാകാം എന്നും ആണ് താങ്കള്‍ പറയുന്നത് എന്ന് മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നു.
ഏതായാലും ഇത് ഏറെക്കുറെ ഞാന്‍ പറഞ്ഞ വിഷയവുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടുള്ള മറുപടിയാണ്.
വിഷയവുമായി അല്പം ബന്ഫ്‌=ധപ്പെട്ട് മറുപടി നല്‍കിയതില്‍ അഭിനന്ദനങള്‍. quantum fluctation ഉപയോഗിച്ച് ദൈവത്തെ, പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന് ആരഭം ഉണ്ടേങ്കിലും കാരണം ആവശ്യമില്ല എന്ന വാദവും അതിനുള്ള മറുപടികളും atheists/theists വെബ്സൈട്ടുകളില്‍ വായിച്ചിട്ടുള്ള അറിവ്‌ മാത്രമേ ഇപ്പോള്‍ എനിക്കുള്ളൂ.
ഇതുകൊണ്ട് അതിനെ ക്കുറിച്ച് കൂടുതല്‍ പറയാന്‍ തല്‍കാലം എനിക്ക് കഴിയില്ല. വിഷയ സംബന്ധമായി ഒരു കമ്മന്റ് ഇട്ടതിനും അഭിപ്രായം വ്യക്തമാക്കിയത്തിനും അഭിനന്ദനങ്ങള്‍.
Mr. Hussain said ..This logically means generally everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence and exceptionally there may not be a cause. Why you accept an exception by rejecting a generally accepted fact?
Let me elaborate on this as there is ample room for misrepresentation.
Here quantum fluctuations/ formation of virtual pair particles isn't something exceptional. It is a prediction and validation of quantum mechanics. In that case, it isn't an exception. It sits quite well in the general framework on quantum mechanics.
So where does the discussion on exception comes from ?
To common sense (not reality) everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. In the case of formation of pair particles, it looks like a violation.
But there is no scientific statement/generalization/law stating that everything should have a cause (previous step/action/agent driving this), although this is generously misused to argue universe needs a creator.
See what does law means in a scientific context ?
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
In short, scientific laws doesn't represent 99.99% of observations, but 100% of observations. There are no exceptions here. If there were one, law would have been dead.
Here quantum fluctuations/ formation of virtual pair particles isn't something exceptional. It is a prediction and validation of quantum mechanics. In that case, it isn't an exception. It sits quite well in the general framework on quantum mechanics.
==============
Oh you seem to know a lot about quantum mechanics and you are very confidant that the quantum model of the origin of universe is absolutlye true.
As I told you , I';m not competent enought to comment on this, but I have goone through several detabtes berween and thiests and atheists, both atheists websites (such as infidel.com, reasonablefaith etc). As far as I know none those atheist who argue for this model were that confidant as you, they were only shoiwng that model as plassible scnenario against the supernatural cause.
Any way since you seem to be a expert in the field, please enlighten me with your valuble comments on the below critique on quantam model of the origin of the universe and whether it support atheism or theism.
Please,please dont just give any link, write it in you own words. point by poiint, so that I can decide which side is closer to the truth.
I'm copy-pasting from the below website:
http://www.origins.org/articles/craig_causedbeginning.html
Smith's use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. It therefore seems that Smith has failed to refute premiss (1').
...
Smith's argument throughout his paper appears to be infected with positivism, so that it is predicated upon a notion of causality that is drastically inadequate. Smith assumes uncritically the positivistic equation between predictability in principle and causation. But this verificationist analysis is clearly untenable, as should be obvious from the coherence of the position that quantum indeterminacy is purely epistemic, there existing hidden variables which are in principle unobservable, or even the more radical position of die-hard realists who are prepared to abandon locality in order to preserve the hidden variables. Clearly, then, to be "uncaused" does not mean, even minimally, to be "in principle unpredictable."
..
This single point alone seems to me to vitiate Smith's entire argument for his conclusion (ii) and against (TH) in particular. For now we see that Smith's argument, even if successful, in no way proves that the universe began to exist without a cause, but only that its beginning to exist was unpredictable. What is ironic about this conclusion is that it is one with which the theist is in whole-hearted agreement. For since according to classical theism creation is a freely-willed act of God, it follows necessarily that the beginning and structure of the universe were in principle unpredictable even though it was caused by God. The theist will therefore not only agree with Smith that "That there are uncaused events in this sense follows from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle" (p. 49), but even more insist that such uncaused events are entailed by classical theism's doctrine of creation. He will simply deny that this is the relevant sense when we are inquiring whether the universe could have come into being uncaused out of nothing
I dont see my firt post here, it might be there in your SPAM
Please see if it is there and let me know, otherwise I have to delete reset of the comments also, because without that there is no continuation. and it would look like I copied something without citing source.
When we ask that question, we are asking whether the whole of being could come out of non-being; and here a negative answer seems obvious.<> Concerning this question, even genuine quantum indeterminacy affords no evidence for an affirmative response. For if an event requires certain physically necessary conditions in order to occur, but these conditions are not jointly sufficient for its occurrence, and the event occurs, then the event is in principle unpredictable, but it could hardly be called uncaused in the relevant sense. In the case of quantum events, there are any number of physically necessary conditions that must obtain for such an event to occur, and yet these conditions are not jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the event. (They are jointly sufficient in the sense that they are all the conditions one needs for the event's occurrence, but they are not sufficient in the sense that they guarantee the occurrence of the event.) The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever. Now at this juncture, someone might protest that such a requirement is too stringent: "For how could anything come into existence without any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions?" But this is my point exactly; if absolutely nothing existed prior to the Big Bang--no matter, no energy, no space, no time, no deity--, then it seems impossible that anything should begin to exist.
The answer to the question as to whether such models now provide plausible empirical explanations for the universe's origin is, of course, no, both because the theories are so problematic and underdeveloped and because there is no empirical evidence in their favor. Christopher Isham comments,
None of the schemes proposed so far are in any sense rigorous theories. This stems partly from the lack of any proper unification of general relativity and quantum theory. However, even setting this aside, the extant proposals are incomplete; in particular it is by no means clear that they do in fact lead to a unique quantum state. Major conceptual problems arise when trying to apply quantum theory to the universe as a whole. This problem is so severe that many highly respectable theoretical physicists think the whole subject of quantum cosmology is misconceived.
It follows from the above that theories of the quantum origin of the universe are highly speculative and do not have anything like the scientific status of, say, even the more exotic branches of modern elementary particle physics (Isham [1992], sec. 1.5).
It is remarkable that Smith has so high a degree of confidence in quantum fluctuation models that he thinks it unreasonable to believe in (TH), for this is tantamount to saying that in light of these theories it is no longer reasonable to hold to a Big Bang model involving a singularity. But these theories are so inchoate, incomplete, problematic, and poorly understood that they have not commended themselves to most scientists as more plausible than traditional Big Bang models. Of course, quantum effects will become important prior to 10-43 sec, but it is pure speculation that the initial singularity will be averted.{8}
===================================
I'm stopping copy-pasting here. You may read the full articile from the website. I'm waiting for you reply. Happy reading.
Subair said...
Oh you seem to know a lot about quantum mechanics and you are very confidant that the quantum model of the origin of universe is absolutely true.
Any way since you seem to be a expert in the field, please enlighten me with your valuable comments on the below critique on quantum model of the origin of the universe and whether it support atheism or theism.
Subair,
You are extrapolating a lot from the things i said. Please look back what i was saying
1. ഉത്ഭവം ഉള്ള എതോന്നിനും ഒരു കാരണം ഉണ്ടാകും.
This isn't always true. In particle physics, virtual pairs can originate with no reason as it is the outcome of uncertainty principle. This is quite relevant in cosmology.
As you can see clearly, i wasn't proposing any model for the origin of universe. I was strictly commenting on your proposition
ഉത്ഭവം ഉള്ള എതോന്നിനും ഒരു കാരണം ഉണ്ടാകും. - whatever has a beginning to its existence has a cause. My reply was this does not say that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause; it is possible that some things begin to exist without a cause. Then i cited the example the quantum fluctuations which is the outcome of uncertainty principle.
So my aim was only restricted to that and not to propose any model for origin of universe.
You have quoted the debate between Smith and Craig, two Professors in Philosophy who have been carrying out this for more than 20 years. Your cited article was published in 1993. It is nearly impossible for me to give line by line reply or see how the debate progressed by reading all prior and posterior articles. I have no problem (unlike Hussain) to say it is beyond my resources now. Wouldn't it be better for you to check how Smith responded to that ?
Nevertheless, i will reply some portions which i felt was relevant for our discussion. (you also highlighted the same)
A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
This is due to misconception what vaccum should be. Just because we say God created ex nihilo, we imagine it was out of nothing. We imagine vaccum=nothing=something void of anything. This is the problem of common sense (expectation) vs reality on which Hussain flip-flopped in the discussion with me. Just because we can construct something in language and imagine it as a dark void, doesn't mean in nature it should be like that.
Quantum mechanics gives the best description of reality in microscopic world. Despite the fact that Hussain want to think as a mystic or mysterious stuff, it works perfectly well in explaining and predicting things. That is why i quoted eg: of Transistors/Lasers/Hard-disk to show how close its applications to our day-today life.
Quantum fluctuations are the outcome of uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. It is a reality whether we like it or not.
The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions.
I amn't sure what does he mean by physically necessary conditions. Quantum effects are observed in microscopic scale (distance and time). Here we are talking about the initial state of universe, (around 10^(-35) seconds and 10^-35 m). So the dimensions we are taking about has to be small. There are reasons why quantum effects aren't observed in macroscopic scale like de-coherence etc. This is like asking i want to see quantum behavior of electrons but we shouldn't restrict the size of electrons.
Contd..
Contd...
How do we know they played any role in the origin of universe ?
Timeline of the expansion of universe is depicted here.
Readers, please don't ask what is in the dark region outside the grids :)
We know there was period of inflation which resulted in exponential growth of universe. We don't know what was responsible for inflation. Before inflation we only know the space was filled with matter-antimatter-virtual particles. Although we call virtual, they are real, can be measured and observed in particle accelerators and Casimir effect measurements.
During cosmological inflation, when space was expanding exponentially fast, by the time these particles are ready to find each other and disappear again, they're already stretched out across the Universe. This is how tiny quantum fluctuations create regions with less dense and more dense parts in our universe.
How do we know whether this is true ?
The inflationary theory or big bang predict a particular distribution of the ripple sizes in the cosmic microwave background that is consistent with the results from the high-altitude balloon experiments, WMAP and COBE
We don't know much about the pre-inflation stage of universe as it homogenizes any differences in the observable universe (parts of the universe which can communicate with us yet).
But this is my point exactly; if absolutely nothing existed prior to the Big Bang--no matter, no energy, no space, no time, no deity--, then it seems impossible that anything should begin to exist.
To me this conclusion is silly. He is trying to enforce what reality should be according to his expectations.
Jack Rabbit,
Okay, so you were not proposing the qutantum model of the orign of th euniverse, you were only pointing out that, not every thing that begin to exist required a cause ? So you do not have a problem, even if the universe has s super natural cause?
Second, You did not refute any thing what I qouted in that article. It states that qutantum vaccum is not abolute nothing, it doesnt violate the cause and effect. It say the appearance of the pariccles in quantum vaccum is only spontanius and not uncaused because it has many physically necessary condition, so one may may ask what caused the quutanum vaccum.
Also, you did not address the comments of Christopher Isham who I think is leading scientist in this field.
Finally let me conlude, you were talking to me as if you know eevery thing in quantum mechanism and how it relate to the proposition of the uncaused universe. But now i understand, you know nohting more than what I already know from internet, and you did not show that the appearance of particle in quantum vaccum violate the cause effect relationship. Thanks
Subair said..
Second, You did not refute any thing what I qouted in that article. It states that qutantum vaccum is not abolute nothing, it doesnt violate the cause and effect. It say the appearance of the pariccles in quantum vaccum is only spontanius and not uncaused because it has many physically necessary condition, so one may may ask what caused the quutanum vaccum.
Please re-read my previous reply. I have clearly explained vaccum and quantum vaccum is same thing and is the best description of what we call nothing. Please let me know what did you understand by physically necessary conditions. You are talking as if vaccum and pair production can exist only under certain conditions. Pair production in vaccum cannot be eliminated as it is the outcome of uncertainty principle. There is no cause (some agent driving the generation) and effect here. All these discussion what exists before vaccum is PURE SPECULATION. You have the right to disagree and believe without any shred of evidence. As i said earlier, these discussions are driven by the disconnect between common sense and reality on what nothing means.
Imagine Hussain speaking to a Martian on his Abrahamic God cloaked in sophisticated theistic arguments. Martian has only limited knowledge in English
Martian: Who created universe ?
Hussain: God created universe
Martian: How was universe created ?
Hussain: God created it out of nothing
Martian: Who created nothing ?
Okay, so you were not proposing the qutantum model of the orign of th euniverse, you were only pointing out that, not every thing that begin to exist required a cause ? So you do not have a problem, even if the universe has s super natural cause?
It looks like you are losing lot of sleep without getting a back door entry for a supernatural agent here. You can invoke God of the gaps argument and ascribe all unknowns to supernatural agent - what caused inflation or why do we have this set of physical constants in standard model ? This is same as my answer to your X. Such case has many solutions. We have to add the remaining constraints and see whether we have a logically coherent proposal. My reply for a logically consistent case is same as before
Finally let me conlude, you were talking to me as if you know eevery thing in quantum mechanism and how it relate to the proposition of the uncaused universe. But now i understand, you know nohting more than what I already know from internet, and you did not show that the appearance of particle in quantum vaccum violate the cause effect relationship.
I have never mentioned i know everything about quantum mechanics. I only said i know better than Hussain who is living in the world of quotations. You are free to believe what ever comforts you as long as it doesn't harm anyone.
JR, I was not arguing for a God of gaps. I'm asking, based what we know already, would you consider the supernatural cause a paussible explanation of the universe. If not why ?
Regarding quantum vaccum being nothing, you said it is it the best description of what we call noithing. No I'm taking about best description, I'm talking about absolulte nothingness.
The artcicle I qouted argue that quantum vaccum is not nothing n the real sense, its being driven by natural laws.
I qoute the main points again.
"The recent use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (1986, p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause
See Jack, both John Barrow and Frank Tipler are reputed scientists. So if you think what the above author says is incorrect, then you need to show that with authentic references. Not just repeating yourself will not do.
And if what they say is true that the creationg of particle in quantum vaccum is not creation ex nihilo then, that would only mean, my question will shift to another level. Becasue if the universe come from quantum vaccum I could still ask what caused the quantumm vaacum.
In fact, I could see many websites that talk about quantum vaccum say the same thing. For example see the following educational website.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html
"The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level.
The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time. There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws.
The quantum vacuum is the ground state of energy for the Universe, the lowest possible level. Attempts to perceive the vacuum directly only lead to a confrontation with a void, a background that appears to be empty. But, in fact, the quantum vacuum is the source of all potentiality. For example, quantum entities have both wave and particle characteristics. It is the quantum vacuum that such characteristics emerge from, particles `stand-out' from the vacuum, waves `undulate' on the underlying vacuum, and leave their signature on objects in the real Universe.
You asked the following question right ?
What do you mean by temporary ? What is the timescale you use to differentiate between temporary and permanent
Doesn;t the above question show your ignorance of the subject. If you had the idea of QM you wouldnt have asked that silli question.
The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time. There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html
Please check you SPAM blox and relase my commetns.
Dear Mr.Jack,
Many thanks.
Let me come to your arguments.
(1)I had already replied to all of your arguments and it was you people who failed to provide me explanation for my many critical comments( Jack in one stage declared to withdraw without giving an explanation for many points ).
(2)Both people(Manushyan) equally and exactly misunderstood my word ‘generalisation’( an intelligent person can easily identify this as a case of an identity fabrication). In the philosophy of science generalisation means inductive reasoning.A law is generalised by inductive reasoning on the basis of a limited observation.This induction rules out exceptions. Without understanding this primary notion in philosophy of science you blunderous identical twins have written so many wastes .See a few examples:
“In the world of science, one single piece of rock solid evidence can overthrow any established theory. Here you are discounting it and making generalization”.
“So, for Science, exceptions are as important as the existing theory. The general acceptance of any new hypothesis/theory depends on how successful it is in explaining the exceptions.
So, your first assertion that Science relies on generalizations and not exceptions is incorrect. If you follow the history of science, you will realize that exceptions act as the key catalysts for better scientific models.
I hope this clears that there was no perception error from my side. Your assertion shows a lack of exposure to scientific methodology”.
“In short, scientific laws doesn't represent 99.99% of observations, but 100% of observations. There are no exceptions here. If there were one, law would have been dead. ...”
(Jack Rabbit)
Contiue...
All these went astray due to the misunderstanding of a key concept in the philosophy of science.
See this also:
“You mentions that science and rational thinking relies on generalizations and not exceptions.
This says that you are ignorant about key aspects of scientific thought. In science and logic, you only need a single exception to disprove anything. It would be better that you realize these simple facts before pretending that your arguments are water tight..”( Manushyan)
To expell your misunderstanding, I posted a reply as follows:
“I stated that science and rational thinking is based on generalizations not exceptions.This is a fact.If not, please provide me the reasons.
Any exception can disprove a scientific law as you pointed out. This is another fact. Any contradiction in between these two facts? Please explain”.
What was Jack Rbbit’s reply? See :
“I am not sure on what type of "rationalism" you follow, but realize that it is the quest to unravel the exceptions that drives advances in science and technology. Take for example, classical physics and quantum mechanics. Around the turn of 20th century, it became apparent that classical laws are insufficient to describe physics at small scale. So, if, according to you, the researchers of that time ignored this exception, then we would not be having the entire field of modern physics now”.
Is this a reply for my argument? Let readers decide.
All these were nothing but waste wordings that had nothing to do with my argument or question.
See Manushyas last words:
“I gave my response to your question on the role of generalizations and exceptions in science and logic.
Now it is your turn to clarify whether you agree with them or not”.
I have already clarified and asked you to point out any contradiction in between what you and I have stated. So far no contradiction is spelled out either by Jack Rabbit or by his clone Manushyan.
Continue ...
(3) Regarding the philosophical impact of QM, Jack Rabbit quoted my words as follows:
“In the case of Quantum Mechanics,See the following words of Dr.Paul Davies: “… the new physics …find closer accord with mysticism than materialism”.
Actually what I claimed was a simple and widely accepted observation on philosophical impact of QM.But Jack and Manushyan are ignorant followers of blind materialism.Please remember that though Davies is a populariser of science,he is a reputed physicist also and got his PhD in QM”.
What was his reply? See:
“See one of my old post on Paul Davies here
Also see Paul Davies' own reply from his site after getting Templeton prize to advance the world's understanding of God and/or spirituality”
I carefully read both of these links but there was no counter explanation against my view in these posts.Moreover both of these pieces were not even slightely related with issue in the discussion that is philosophical impact of QM. So this is an outright lie and deception from the part of Mr.Jack Rabbit.
See what had written by Manushyan:
“Just curious to know how your "rational" thinking lead to the conclusion that Quantum Mechanics was the cause for the demise of rationalism (Quantum Mechanics padicharum, athil research cheyyunavarum okke ee bhoologathil vereyum undu maashe..and that too through proper academics and not from popular science books.. so keywords eduthu ammanamadunna paripadi venda ennartham)”
But no counter explanation or evidence from Manushyan!
In addition to Paul Davies’ assertion , I here add the words of one of the founders of QM Heisenberg:
"Quantum theory has led the physicists far away from the simple materialistic views that prevailed in the natural science of the nineteenth century" Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, (1962), 128
Jack, now you can teach Heisenberg QM.What a wonderful idiot you are( my former exclamation ‘what a wonderful rationalist you are’ now outdated!)
Continue ...
(4) My words: “In the case of evolution, there is no systematic fossil record. It is really very jerky and you people manufacture a theory out of this exceptions. This shows your approach regarding the knowledge itself is unscientific and irrational. On the other hand , we reject Darwinism on the basis of systematic gaps in the fossil record which very much in accordance with the spirit of science.”
Jacks reply:
“It is not even two days you paraded your ignorance on evolution.
The following paragraph was my reply to Prof. Wahid also.
Fossilization is a rare occurrence in nature as it demands special conditions. Creationists demand to see fossil records like a movie film roll to agree. Even if we had no fossils, by comparison of sequences (of DNA, RNA and proteins) alone and molecular phylogenetics analysis prove evolution. For those who are looking for a popular account of this, refer to Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. Since you are completely ignorant on this, ask any person who is doing molecular biology or population genetics to verify my statement.”
Your explanation for the rarity of transitional fossils is simply false. Almost all transitional fossils go missing in all important places.This is not due to the rarity of fossilization process. Molecular similarities in no way prove an evolutionary relationship( For details see the book EVOLUTION : A THEORY IN CRISIS by Dr.Michael Denton)
Continue ...
(5) See my words and subsequent comment by Jack:
“ Secondly, in the subatomic world fluctuations are a temporary phenomenon and it does not violate cause and effect relationship.
What do you mean by temporary ? What is the timescale you use to differentiate between temporary and permanent ? Do you know aboutCassimir effect and it can be experimentally measured ?”
Firstly, you should study QM. It is a known fact that virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space.Don’t try to teach me any effect as that would affect your remaining image.Actually , you are a wondrful idiot parading as an expert in QM.
End.
Jack, Subair
We do not know what kind of laws hold at the singularity (the beginning). It might work under a totally different set of axioms where it gets "curioser and curioser".
The first cause 'God' is one of the least imaginative (lamest) hypothetical scenarios. I wont say that it is the least likeliest but it certainly does not interest me. In fact I would be very disappointed if the Semitic cosmology turns out to be true.
But for now I would rather think of the far more "curioser" possibilities like that of multiverses. May be our universe is a spring gushing out of a black hole in another universe or like an Escher painting or a Klein's bottle it is springing from that big blackhole in the middle of the Milky Way. Please listen to this talk if you have not done it already.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time.html
Endgame analysis: Act of the Desperate or Evidence of Delusion ?
Kudos to Subair for your improved lying and cherry picking skills
Why don't you DARE to quote me from my last comment ?
[Subair] : Regarding quantum vaccum being nothing, you said it is it the best description of what we call noithing. No I'm taking about best description, I'm talking about absolulte nothingness.
[Jack]:I repeatedly said there is no way we can remove all fluctuations and look at the "underlying vaccum". It is like asking you want to know position and momentum of an electron with absolute certainty as both are prevented by uncertainty principle.
The only way we may look at it is when quantum mechanics and uncertainty principle is wrong and there is some hidden variable theory. But you might already know based on your reading all that attempts were proven wrong.
[Link on Quantum Vacuum given by Subair] : The words "nothing," "void," and "vacuum" usually suggest uninteresting empty space. To modern quantum physicists, however, the vacuum has turned out to be rich with complex and unexpected behaviour. They envisage it as a state of minimum energy where quantum fluctuations, consistent with the uncertainty principle of the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, can lead to the temporary formation of particle-antiparticle pairs.
In this sense, the Universe is not filled by the quantum vacuum, rather it is `written on' it, the substratum of all existence.
[Jack]: What i am saying strongly is we cannot break that substratum and look beneath
Subair,
Why don't you openly admit you are looking for a method to look beneath quantum fluctations and insert your supernatural god ? I said (as can be read above) that this isn't possible due to quantum mechanics. You may want to do so by denying quantum mechanics ? Are you ready to do that ?
/JR
Subair,
See first paragraph of Hussain's comment. Ask him what was he meaning by exceptions in that context ? If you and Hussain thinks virtual particles are an exception i cannot help. That is due to your poor understanding of quantum mechanics. As i said before it is the direct outcome of uncertainity principle and quantum mechanics. I stop here. If there is anything here, anyone who knows physics better than you can correct me.
/JR
Jack:1. ഉത്ഭവം ഉള്ള എതോന്നിനും ഒരു കാരണം ഉണ്ടാകും.
This isn't always true. In particle physics, virtual pairs can originate with no reason as it is the outcome of uncertainity principle. This is quite relevant in cosmology. During cosmological inflation, when space was expanding exponentially fast, by the time these particles are ready to find each other and disappear again, they're already stretched out across the Universe. This is how tiny quantum fluctuations create regions with less dense and more dense parts in our universe.
[Hussain]: Refuting the proposition “everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence”, you say “this isn't always true”. This logically means generally everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence and exceptionally there may not be a cause. Why you accept an exception by rejecting a generally accepted fact? This approach itself is irrational and unscientific because science and rational thinking is based on generalizations, not on exceptions.
Secondly, in the subatomic world fluctuations are a temporary phenomenon and it does not violate cause and effect relationship
Subair,
If you can understand English well, anyone can clearly say Hussain was calling my example of virtual pairs as an exception and he is accusing of why i amn't following "his understanding of philosophy of science" by not going behind generalizations. He is further substantiating his argument that virtual pairs are an exception by invoking their short time span.
That is why i questioned his understanding of science in my next comment and asked him why did he use short time span as an evidence for exception and what time scale boundary differentiates temporary and permanent because most of the subatomic phenomena has very short time span.?
You owe me an apology for calling me a liar based on your confusion
/JR
Post a Comment