uber reality

Originally posted by humy
To the big bang (BB) deniers:

Not everyone who accepts the fact of the BB thinks it was necessarily the start of space and time because there are many scientific variations of theory on this and science has not yet told us conclusively once and for all exactly which theory is correct.
But, IF the BB was the start of space and time then that does NOT then this would strengthen and NOT weaken the case for the BB!

Stephen Hawking described a theory that does say something could have come from nothing... and he meant literally nothing. No virtual particles, no mysterious vibrations acting on a sea of whatever, he literally meant what a true definition of nothingness is.

In a nutshell, the idea is that nothing could have spontaneously split into positive and negative material values, and the only reason we are still here is because those positives and negatives haven't yet interacted with one another. If they all came into contact with each other they would all cancel out, and we would be back to nothing again.

The problem is this theory somehow assumes an agent or force causing nothing to split into two piles of somethings. As an aside it also assumes these two piles of oppositely charged somethings are separated by who knows what, I can't even begin to guess what is separating them. So even if there was a force or agent that could do this, you have to at least assume the existence of that force or agent... and that force or agent would be something. To say (or imply) something could be in (or act on) nothing is logically inconsistent with the idea of absolute nothingness.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Stephen Hawking described a theory that does say something could have come from nothing... and he meant literally nothing. No virtual particles, no mysterious vibrations acting on a sea of whatever, he literally meant what a true definition of nothingness is.

In a nutshell, the idea is that nothing could have spontaneously split into posi uld be in (or act on) nothing is logically inconsistent with the idea of absolute nothingness.

Stephen Hawking described a theory that does say something could have come from nothing..

Then he is simply wrong. Scientists are only human and thus can be and often are wrong just like the rest of us.
But scientific facts are never wrong -just people. And thus all of my claims I made in that last post still stand.
So your point is...?

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]IF the earths axis of rotation was east/west instead of north/south then you could travel south forever in endless circles around the earth without ever traveling north.[/b]

Nevertheless, there is no such thing as 181 degrees longitude West. Dimensions may be finite and circular or finite and bounded, but to talk of something outside a dimension as if it is part of the dimension remains an error.

Originally posted by humy

Stephen Hawking described a theory that does say something could have come from nothing..

Then he is simply wrong. Scientists are only human and thus can be and often are wrong just like the rest of us.
But scientific facts are never wrong -just people. And thus all of my claims I made in that last post still stand.
So your point is...?

Actually no.

Something from nothing, and that's absolute nothing, is an inevitable
consequence of the uncertainty principle.

Current physics absolutely allows (and observes) something from nothing.

Whether there was actually nothing before the big bang is a different question.
But it's certainly possible under our current understanding of physics for
something (including the entire universe and the laws of physics that govern it)
to spontaneously arise from absolutely nothing.


And to the best of our ability to tell the total energy budget of the universe is 0

The positive energy of matter is balanced out by the negative energy of gravity.

Originally posted by apathist
The big bang happened somewhere.

Yes, the big bang happened in the space within the big bang.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In predicate logic, a statement such as "all cats have teeth" would be written differently (I can't write the syntax here, but look it up if you're interested).

A statement can be both illogical and true, for example:
All cows are mammals,
therefore,
grass is green.

Both the premise and the conclusion are true, but one does not follow logically from the other.

I think you are getting mixed up in your terms...

"All cows are mammals" is a statement of fact
as is "Grass is green"

"All cows are mammals,
therefore,
grass is green." is an argument... and is logically invalid.

The argument is false even though both statements in it are true.
(well kinda true... grass is not always actually green but we can
assume it is for the purposes of this discussion)

It is not true that grass is green because all cows are mammals.
Thus the argument is illogical and false.

I am not convinced that you can have an illogical argument that
is also true. (I am actually reasonably sure you can't)

And this example does nothing to change that.


You can of course have a completely logical statement that is false
but that does not necessitate that it's possible to have an illogical
statement that is true.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually no.

Something from nothing, and that's absolute nothing, is an inevitable
consequence of the uncertainty principle.

Current physics absolutely allows (and observes) something from nothing.

Whether there was actually nothing before the big bang is a different question.
But it's certainly possible under our current understanding of phy ...[text shortened]... verse is 0

The positive energy of matter is balanced out by the negative energy of gravity.

Current physics absolutely allows (and observes) something from nothing.

How would the uncertainty principle do so?
Can you give a specific example?
Would virtual particles or Hawking radiation be supposed examples? If so, that wouldn't be something from 'nothing' because the vacuum of space is not 'nothing'! And, according to standard theory, the energy in Hawking radiation doesn't come from 'nothing' but rather from the mass of the black hole.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think you are getting mixed up in your terms...

"All cows are mammals" is a statement of fact
as is "Grass is green"

"All cows are mammals,
therefore,
grass is green." is an argument... and is logically invalid.

The argument is false even though both statements in it are true.
(well kinda true... grass is not always actually green but we c ...[text shortened]... t does not necessitate that it's possible to have an illogical
statement that is true.

That is what I thought but he made me seriously doubt myself.

Originally posted by humy

Current physics absolutely allows (and observes) something from nothing.

How would the uncertainty principle do so?
Can you give a specific example?
Would virtual particles or Hawking radiation be supposed examples? If so, that wouldn't be something from 'nothing' because the vacuum of space is not 'nothing'! And, according to standar ...[text shortened]... awking radiation doesn't come from 'nothing' but rather from the mass of the black hole.

I will look up later when I have the facility a talk by a cosmologist where he
talks about just this...

However hawking radiation is just virtual particles given an energy boost by
the black hole. The virtual particles themselves are not generated by the
black hole.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I will look up later when I have the facility a talk by a cosmologist where he
talks about just this...

However hawking radiation is just virtual particles given an energy boost by
the black hole. The virtual particles themselves are not generated by the
black hole.

yes, I knew that.

Originally posted by humy
yes, I knew that.

ok but your earlier post made it look like you didn't...

Maybe I just misunderstood it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Stephen Hawking described a theory that does say something could have come from nothing... and he meant literally nothing. No virtual particles, no mysterious vibrations acting on a sea of whatever, he literally meant what a true definition of nothingness is.

In a nutshell, the idea is that nothing could have spontaneously split into posi ...[text shortened]... uld be in (or act on) nothing is logically inconsistent with the idea of absolute nothingness.

Can you give a link to the exact words Hawking said, what theory he is talking about? If it is going like you said, it would seem to imply there was an agency, or as creationists like to say, an intelligent designer.

As far as I know, Hawking is atheistic. Not sure if he would tout such a theory.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Can you give a link to the exact words Hawking said, what theory he is talking about? If it is going like you said, it would seem to imply there was an agency, or as creationists like to say, an intelligent designer.

As far as I know, Hawking is atheistic. Not sure if he would tout such a theory.

Well Hawking recently (last year?) announced that physics had proved that god didn't exist, but that doesn't preclude him having talked about the possibility of a 'designer' before.

Although I suspect it would be more along the lines of mollifying those who believe in a god by allowing the possibility that the big bang could have been started by an intelligence rather than him actually believing it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think you are getting mixed up in your terms...

"All cows are mammals" is a statement of fact
as is "Grass is green"

"All cows are mammals,
therefore,
grass is green." is an argument... and is logically invalid.

The argument is false even though both statements in it are true.
(well kinda true... grass is not always actually green but we c t does not necessitate that it's possible to have an illogical
statement that is true.

You can of course have a completely logical statement that is false but that does not necessitate that it's possible to have an illogical statement that is true.

Yes: a deductive argument can be logically valid (the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises), while being unsound—i.e., the conclusion is not true (does not correspond to the facts/reality).

I suggest that logic—while therefore not being the “ultimate arbiter of truth”—is the arbiter of coherence. An illogical argument is not worth considering.

Originally posted by googlefudge
...

But it's certainly possible under our current understanding of physics for
something (including the entire universe and the laws of physics that govern it)
to spontaneously arise from absolutely nothing.
...

No offense intended, please, but that claim makes zero sense and is not supported by science.