Suicidal

[Stuart-T]

I think you and @Stuart-T give people too much credit. They're not as smart as you think. Look at what they used to believe... that the earth was flat, for example. They didn't even know about microbial bacteria until 1676. It's commonly said that our ancestors have existed for 6 million years and modern humans about 200,000. So it took humanity hundreds of thousands of years to figure out this simple stuff, that the earth is a sphere and bacteria exists? I'm not that impressed and you shouldn't be either.

The technological and medical boom didn't occur until the last century, so why we sat around twiddling our thumbs for millennia after millennia is weird. At best, we're a lazy and unmotivated species, but we're probably not that smart either in the big scheme of things. Science is always evolving and should never be stubborn or arrogant in its thinking. The Big Bang Theory and Theory of Evolution provide their own shortcomings and contradictions, too. As I said before, the ultimate folly of humanity is to assume we know everything.

I agree that proven science is irrefutable. I'm not talking about theories. What I said in my previous post backs that up, too. I am simply questioning the nature of time itself. If the universe was born as a 13 billion year old entity, then that doesn't change the fact that its scientific attributes are still true. Why God would've created an old universe instead of a young one makes sense — to expedite the process and allow life to work right away, as intended, rather than waiting billions of years for it to adjust. Why would he want to wait 4 billion years when he could just bypass time to join a mature creation in progress? The Genesis account shows that he did that in multiple ways. If God could create it to begin with, then he could do anything he wants.

The universe is gigantic. Bypassing time would allow all the light of the great expanse to be visible in the sky and through telescopes. We wouldn't even know God's vast creation exists if it wasn't for this bypass in time. We wouldn't be able to see it because of the way light works.

There are a lot of things in this universe that go beyond the realm of scientific understanding, like paranormal events. One time, for example, I saw a picture fly off the wall and a light come unscrewed in an adjacent room, both simultaneously, and phantom voices were heard, too, in the same house. Multiple witnesses saw these things. What does science say about that?

I don't see how the time it took to reach the stage where we are now at has any relevance - unless you are saying that because humans are not as smart as we think - we should accept creation stories and tweak them so that they do not contradict scientific discoveries. Genesis has nothing in it which could not have been made up by the people who wrote it. They actually get things wrong - such as the order of creation does not agree with what we know actually happened. God creates the sun and stars and moon AFTER plant life is created (Genesis 1:14-16). If the sun was created in verses 14-16 there could have been no light as is claimed in verse 3 let alone vegetation.

You are erecting straw men - who claims to know everything? Science is always striving for the best answer and there are scientists out there looking for ways to overturn existing science. The conclusions are always tentative - because new information could become available. So nothing is proven as such - but theories can be confirmed and they can be falsified. So you are not denying the findings of cosmology and biology - you are just trying to find a way of validating biblical claims by inventing hypotheses such as universe created with age. I get that. Though I don't see any evidential justification.

There is no confirmation that the paranormal or supernatural even exist. Did you video these pictures flying off the wall - record the phantom voices? Science has nothing to say about claims unless there is some evidence to examine. Sadly - verbal claims and testimonials alone are not evidence which is going to lead to any other conclusion than - "unexplained and unconfirmed".

 

[dan]

My future house.

 

[Aschenherz]

since i develope the low hum after the new permanent increase and/or relapse in august, i am at the level of "living life by the minute." It is giving me immense anxiety, that i developed this noise after 5 years in. i think, it also starts to get worse for me, like for a lot of people..

 

[star-affinity]

I agree this is for another thread, but I'd just like to add my thoughts to this;

These are what we may refer to as metaphysical entities, i.e. things which are beyond (meta) our physical reality. Because these entities are beyond our physical reality, we may not be able to scientifically measure them with physical means. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is impossible to assume they exist. I, for example, find the argument from reason pretty compelling, in favor of the metaphysical.

Paranormal activity may be instances of an intersect between our physical reality and a metaphysical one, but of course it's only the physical manifestation that we can observe.

I've heard of that argument before. I think it makes several unfounded assumptions.

Here's a refutation of it:

"The famous novelist C. S. Lewis developed a fascinatingee argument which aimed to discredit naturalism and prove the existence of God. It is called the argument from reason. Although his argument is compelling at first glance it ultimately suffers from a number of fatal flaws."

A response to C. S. Lewis's argument from reason​

And what do you think of Richard Carrier's reasoning about it here?

"If God did not design us, our innate reasoning abilities should be shoddy and ad hoc and only ever improved upon by what are in essence culturally (not biologically) installed software patches (like the scientific method, logic and mathematics, and so on), which corrected our reasoning abilities only after thousands of years of humans trying out different fixes, fixes that were only discovered through human trial and error, and not communicated in any divine revelation or scripture. But if God did design us, our brains should have worked properly from the start and required no software patches, much less software patches that took thousands of years to figure out, and are completely missing from all supposed communications from God.

Thus, observation confirms that the actual evidence of human reason is far more probable if God did not exist than if he does. Thus, even the Christian's own Argument from Reason argues that God does not exist, rather than that he does. Because once again, when we bring in all the evidence, the Bayes Factor strongly supports atheism."​

And what about computers and AI etc. that are based on the physical world?

"Failing to pay attention to all the pertinent scientific evidence like this is typical of Christian apologetics generally, but it is especially typical of proponents of the AfR. They don't even think to ask if we've already built purely physical deterministic systems that do all of the reasoning humans do. They don't even think to ask if we have already isolated physical features of the human brain that replicate functional physical computation like this. They don't even think to ask if we have already built coherent, evidence-based evolutionary models that explain why brains do this and have gotten better at doing it over evolutionary time. The AfR-claim that physical systems "can't" do any of this has been as empirically refuted as any claim could ever be. The claim is done. Dusted. Sorry guys, you lost this argument. Time to move on."​

More on this page:

Richard Carrier - The Argument from Reason

 

[Chinmoku]

Interesting musings, physics and metaphysics. String theory, is that science or pure mathematics? Is mathematics science? Does pi (as an irrational transcendent number) exist? In which sense it exists? In which plane of existence? Platonia (Penrose). You can never write it down exactly although you can generate more and more decimals with the arctangent series but in which sense does it exist? Why is mathematics so effective (Wigner)? Big bang, sure, but what about quantum gravity at the beginning? String theory, really? Loop quantum gravity?

And what about dark matter and dark energy? Why are there more than eight interpretations of quantum mechanics that agree with experiments? Is the world non-local or non-real (Bell). When you think about this you really realize science has very little to be certain about. Still, we can't do better than that. Weirder and weirder.
But yes, the Bible, for people who believe, should be considered an allegory at best.

Before this torturing maddening electric scream destroyed my life I would have written a good, coherent post. Now, sadly, the above rant is all that comes out.

Come on, medicine, catch up, you are very much behind. We need you to grow into a better science so we can close this thread, more fundamentals, less statistics. Statistics is key but it's not enough.

Rant over.

 

[Stuart-T]

Interesting musings, physics and metaphysics. String theory, is that science or pure mathematics? Is mathematics science? Does pi (as an irrational transcendent number) exist? In which sense it exists? In which plane of existence? Platonia (Penrose). You can never write it down exactly although you can generate more and more decimals with the arctangent series but in which sense does it exist? Why is mathematics so effective (Wigner)? Big bang, sure, but what about quantum gravity at the beginning? String theory, really? Loop quantum gravity?

And what about dark matter and dark energy? Why are there more than eight interpretations of quantum mechanics that agree with experiments? Is the world non-local or non-real (Bell). When you think about this you really realize science has very little to be certain about. Still, we can't do better than that. Weirder and weirder.
But yes, the Bible, for people who believe, should be considered an allegory at best.

Before this torturing maddening electric scream destroyed my life I would have written a good, coherent post. Now, sadly, the above rant is all that comes out.

Come on, medicine, catch up, you are very much behind. We need you to grow into a better science so we can close this thread, more fundamentals, less statistics. Statistics is key but it's not enough.

Rant over.

I think what you mean is theoretical physics has little it can be certain about. I think in most fields of science there are vast bodies of knowledge which we can have a high degree of confidence in if not certainty. But lack of certainty is not an excuse for making stuff up to fill in the gaps.

As for tinnitus and science - as Jerad pointed out - there are hundreds of uncurable and untreatable conditions and tinnitus is just one of them - not because science is not effective - it is just not equal to the all the challenges given finite resources and the scale of the problems that need to be solved.

 

[danielthor]

View attachment 52101

My future house.

Birds are as loud as people.

 

[Greg Sacramento]

Interesting musings, physics and metaphysics. String theory, is that science or pure mathematics? Is mathematics science? Does pi (as an irrational transcendent number) exist? In which sense it exists? In which plane of existence? Platonia (Penrose). You can never write it down exactly although you can generate more and more decimals with the arctangent series but in which sense does it exist? Why is mathematics so effective (Wigner)? Big bang, sure, but what about quantum gravity at the beginning? String theory, really? Loop quantum gravity?

And what about dark matter and dark energy? Why are there more than eight interpretations of quantum mechanics that agree with experiments? Is the world non-local or non-real (Bell). When you think about this you really realize science has very little to be certain about. Still, we can't do better than that. Weirder and weirder.
But yes, the Bible, for people who believe, should be considered an allegory at best.

Before this torturing maddening electric scream destroyed my life I would have written a good, coherent post. Now, sadly, the above rant is all that comes out.

Come on, medicine, catch up, you are very much behind. We need you to grow into a better science so we can close this thread, more fundamentals, less statistics. Statistics is key but it's not enough.

Rant over.

@Chinmoku, I like your thoughts and that question. The most I think I could add; is that space physics has so far found no logic of the beginning arising from nothing. In our daily lives, this is not truth - as every beginning arises from something. A health problem may begin from smoking. Space - how the beginning could arise from nothing? I don't think the Planck epoch explains this. A designer able to understand infinity? Then how did the designer come about? Our brains certainly have 'infinity or not' understanding limitations.

 

[Chinmoku]

I think what you mean is theoretical physics has little it can be certain about. I think in most fields of science there are vast bodies of knowledge which we can have a high degree of confidence in if not certainty. But lack of certainty is not an excuse for making stuff up to fill in the gaps.

No, also practical physics, meaning dark matter and dark energy are postulated to explain discrepancies in measurements. It's not just a theoretical issue. Everything we know is made of particles and fields, if science doesn't understand those - and it doesn't very well yet when gravity is taken into account - then everything has shaky foundations. Sure, we can find practical rules and cause and effect to work on our macroscopic scale and rely on those, chemistry works, etc, but eventually when you get to the foundations, everything is very shaky. General relativity is a masterpiece theory and it works in many contexts in practice but not when quantum effects are relevant. Quantum mechanics is very precise and it gave us many practical findings but it has many different interpretations and it doesn't work with gravity, and the solutions being proposed to make it work, like string theory, which has become an exercise in pure mathematics, would require a particle accelerator as large as the solar system to be tested. Good luck with that. There are now some competing theories like loop quantum gravity but everything is so hard to test.

And my comment on medicine was this, that medicine is even worse, much worse than physics. In physics, in the limited contexts where a theory works, the precision is formidable. Sure, the foundations as a whole are shaky, but in practice in separate contexts the theories and practices work well, to an admirable precision. Medicine is largely based on statistics, give this medication to a number of people, see how many have severe side effects, how many don't, how many live, how many die, and make a decision on whether it's a good medication or not. I'd rather medicine be able to say something about the individual. How many lives have been ruined by medications or vaccines? We have examples in this very forum. I'm not a no-vax proponent, by any means, vaccines do overall good, but it's the statistical approach I contend with, I'd rather medicine advance to a point where it can say how a medication will affect a specific individual rather than a statistical figure, because the devastation vaccines or other medications have created in some lives is horrible. I hope we will be there one day, maybe through research on genetics and genomics or other fundamental breakthroughs. I agree that this will become easier and faster with better funding, that goes without saying.

@Chinmoku, I like your thoughts and that question. The most I think I could add; is that space physics has so far found no logic of the beginning arising from nothing. In our daily lives, this is not truth - as every beginning arises from something. A health problem may begin from smoking. Space - how the beginning could arise from nothing? I don't think the Planck epoch explains this. A designer able to understand infinity? Then how did the designer come about? Our brains certainly have 'infinity or not' understanding limitations.

Agreed, Greg, for example the ridiculous attempt of Krauss with his book "A universe from nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" to explain how the universe arose possibly from nothing, with Dawkins embarrassing himself by comparing this laughable attempt to Darwin's work on evolution, shows how even good physicists don't understand the basics of philosophy or metaphysics, confusing metaphysical or philosophical claims with physics. The subtitle in Krauss book's, "why there is something rather than nothing" is a red herring, because he doesn't deal with that at all. Fields and quantum gravity laws are there in Krauss' account, and fields and quantum gravity laws are not "nothing". So, he didn't really explain why there is something rather than nothing. This was masterfully pointed out by David Albert, another physicist (but also a philosopher of science, two PhDs), in his NYT review of Krauss's book. The review is hilarious, very competent and very well worth a read if one has time.

'A Universe From Nothing,' by Lawrence M. Krauss - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

[Stuart-T]

@Chinmoku, I like your thoughts and that question. The most I think I could add; is that space physics has so far found no logic of the beginning arising from nothing. In our daily lives, this is not truth - as every beginning arises from something. A health problem may begin from smoking. Space - how the beginning could arise from nothing? I don't think the Planck epoch explains this. A designer able to understand infinity? Then how did the designer come about? Our brains certainly have 'infinity or not' understanding limitations.

I think it is a mistake to talk in terms of something cannot come from nothing. It is far more complex and we are just at the beginning of our understanding. If it were so simple - more top level cosmologists and theoretical physicists would be turning to god - but this is not happening - the higher up the academic scale you go - the fewer theists we find. If something cannot come from nothing had any merit to the people that really understand the science - this would not be the case.

I believe in the course of time we will see more a greater understanding of what set of circumstances gave rise to the universe we live in. In the meantime - I see no reason to postulate an all powerful entity as a cause - since as you indicate - we would need to ask where did it arise from? It always existed? Then why not just say the universe - in one form or another - that we do not currently understand - always existed.

 

[Stuart-T]

No, also practical physics, meaning dark matter and dark energy are postulated to explain discrepancies in measurements. It's not just a theoretical issue. Everything we know is made of particles and fields, if science doesn't understand those - and it doesn't very well yet when gravity is taken into account - then everything has shaky foundations. Sure, we can find practical rules and cause and effect to work on our macroscopic scale and rely on those, chemistry works, etc, but eventually when you get to the foundations, everything is very shaky. General relativity is a masterpiece theory and it works in many contexts in practice but not when quantum effects are relevant. Quantum mechanics is very precise and it gave us many practical findings but it has many different interpretations and it doesn't work with gravity, and the solutions being proposed to make it work, like string theory, which has become an exercise in pure mathematics, would require a particle accelerator as large as the solar system to be tested. Good luck with that. There are now some competing theories like loop quantum gravity but everything is so hard to test.

And my comment on medicine was this, that medicine is even worse, much worse than physics. In physics, in the limited contexts where a theory works, the precision is formidable. Sure, the foundations as a whole are shaky, but in practice in separate contexts the theories and practices work well, to an admirable precision. Medicine is largely based on statistics, give this medication to a number of people, see how many have severe side effects, how many don't, how many live, how many die, and make a decision on whether it's a good medication or not. I'd rather medicine be able to say something about the individual. How many lives have been ruined by medications or vaccines? We have examples in this very forum. I'm not a no-vax proponent, by any means, vaccines do overall good, but it's the statistical approach I contend with, I'd rather medicine advance to a point where it can say how a medication will affect a specific individual rather than a statistical figure, because the devastation vaccines or other medications have created in some lives is horrible. I hope we will be there one day, maybe through research on genetics and genomics or other fundamental breakthroughs. I agree that this will become easier and faster with better funding, that goes without saying.

Agreed, Greg, for example the ridiculous attempt of Krauss with his book "A universe from nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" to explain how the universe arose possibly from nothing, with Dawkins embarrassing himself by comparing this laughable attempt to Darwin's work on evolution, shows how even good physicists don't understand the basics of philosophy or metaphysics, confusing metaphysical or philosophical claims with physics. The subtitle in Krauss book's, "why there is something rather than nothing" is a red herring, because he doesn't deal with that at all. Fields and quantum gravity laws are there in Krauss' account, and fields and quantum gravity laws are not "nothing". So, he didn't really explain why there is something rather than nothing. This was masterfully pointed out by David Albert, another physicist (but also a philosopher of science, two PhDs), in his NYT review of Krauss's book. The review is hilarious, very competent and very well worth a read if one has time.

'A Universe From Nothing,' by Lawrence M. Krauss - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Thanks for the correction. I admit my ignorance in many of these matters. And I also have no way of confirming or denying many of your statements and opinions. Opinions on Krauss's work is divided. I can't assess it.

From an atheistic perspective - none of the above matters. Our lack of understanding and inability to explain certain things - the sheer scale of the bafflement and confusion - the possibility that we have made mistakes in our assessments of the evidence - still leaves me with no option but to say - I do not know - and await further evidence on the question of the existence of anything beyond the material world let alone a specific conscious cause of the existence of the universe.

 

[Chinmoku]

I think it is a mistake to talk in terms of something cannot come from nothing. It is far more complex and we are just at the beginning of our understanding.

This is a metaphysical/philosophical problem, not a physics problem. Physics would need at the very least some laws and basic entities (particles, fields, quantum vacuum and mathematics) to formulate a theory, even a theory of something originating from nothing, but then it would not really be nothing. Physics cannot explain and will probably never be able to explain why there is something rather than nothing because this is not physics. Unless you redefine "nothing" to mean something, then yeah it works, but it's not really the question here. And I'm not advocating for God here, I'm just saying it's not a scientific problem. I strongly recommend David Albert piece on the NYT on this, offering the perspective of an atheist renowned academic who is both a physicist and a philosopher.

 

[Chinmoku]

Thanks for the correction. I admit my ignorance in many of these matters. And I also have no way of confirming or denying many of your statements and opinions. Opinions on Krauss's work is divided. I can't assess it.

You are welcome. I think it's pretty much agreed that he didn't solve the philosophical/metaphysical problem. He explained how the universe could have originated by some physical configurations that have some characteristics we would vaguely associate with "nothing" but that are not really nothing. David Albert's piece is not hard to read even for a non expert. If Krauss had been honest and especially had not put that subtitle in the book, and if Dawkins had not written that embarrassing endorsement, it would be an ok book, still with a few problems but ok. I definitely prefer his old book on Star Trek's physics though.

From an atheistic perspective - none of the above matters. Our lack of understanding and inability to explain certain things - the sheer scale of the bafflement and confusion - the possibility that we have made mistakes in our assessments of the evidence - still leaves me with no option but to say - I do not know - and await further evidence on the question of the existence of anything beyond the material world let alone a specific conscious cause of the existence of the universe.

I agree, the good scientists themselves, the more they learn, the more they realize there is so much we do not know.

I was a theist, now I'm more leaning to agnosticism or even maltheism. There is no way around the problem of evil for a theist, and most theists are honest enough to admit this. I agree with what you say about using God to fill the holes in our understanding, a God of the gaps is wrong, but in many theists' defense, this is not what they advocate.

There is a good debate between Hans Halvorson (Princeton) and Sean Carroll (Caltech) on this on YouTube, Halvorson is a theist and Carroll an atheist, and yet Halvorson opposes both God of the gaps and intelligent design/fine tuning arguments, and creationist arguments. So that would be a theist closer to my heart, but the reasons why I don't believe anymore have more to do with the problem of evil and finding out how many errors we have in current interpretations and translations of the bible rather than with cosmology and physics.

The topic has implications for this thread, because often some people contemplating self deliverance are anguished by thoughts on the afterlife. Yet, most of current evidence points to there being nothing, although nobody can be certain 100%.

 

[Stuart-T]

This is a metaphysical/philosophical problem, not a physics problem. Physics would need at the very least some laws and basic entities (particles, fields, quantum vacuum and mathematics) to formulate a theory, even a theory of something originating from nothing, but then it would not really be nothing. Physics cannot explain and will probably never be able to explain why there is something rather than nothing because this is not physics. Unless you redefine "nothing" to mean something, then yeah it works, but it's not really the question here. And I'm not advocating for God here, I'm just saying it's not a scientific problem. I strongly recommend David Albert piece on the NYT on this, offering the perspective of an atheist renowned academic who is both a physicist and a philosopher.

Thanks for your thoughtful replies and recommendations.

Yes, the implications of all this for those contemplating suicide are obvious, though many suicides may accept absolute death compared with what they are experiencing in life.

Just one or two points - how often do we see theists saying something can't come from nothing - and persuading others on the basis of this reasoning that belief in God is somehow a viable explanation.

I don't see this - for reasons already stated - and I think you agree.

But in addition - if something cannot come from nothing (a big if because we have never had an absolute nothing to see if anything can in fact come from it) - then God is in a pickle.

In order to create the universe - he would need some material to be working from - unless you want to claim he can violate an absolute which you are appealing to in your argument - and if this absolute can be violated - we might as well accept that something can possibly come from nothing after all.

Maltheism - just looked at that - interesting. Given the suffering of the innocents in the world - I can see how that might appeal. Tinnitus is maybe a condition that might make one believe in such a devilish God.

 

[star-affinity]

@ChinmokuThe most I think I could add; is that space physics has so far found no logic of the beginning arising from nothing.

"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction."​

Agreed, Greg, for example the ridiculous attempt of Krauss with his book "A universe from nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" to explain how the universe arose possibly from nothing, with Dawkins embarrassing himself by comparing this laughable attempt to Darwin's work on evolution, shows how even good physicists don't understand the basics of philosophy or metaphysics, confusing metaphysical or philosophical claims with physics. The subtitle in Krauss book's, "why there is something rather than nothing" is a red herring, because he doesn't deal with that at all. Fields and quantum gravity laws are there in Krauss' account, and fields and quantum gravity laws are not "nothing". So, he didn't really explain why there is something rather than nothing. This was masterfully pointed out by David Albert, another physicist (but also a philosopher of science, two PhDs), in his NYT review of Krauss's book. The review is hilarious, very competent and very well worth a read if one has time.

'A Universe From Nothing,' by Lawrence M. Krauss - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Now, I haven't been able to read the article by David Albert fully since it has to be paid for, but I think the essence comes down to this:

"The main point of Krauss is not about existence some sort of natural laws that we are unaware of (and where do they come from), but whether we can explain the origin of the universe with what we already have. The already known laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity seem to be enough already, we don't need to postulate anything beyond that.

Krauss obviously was not interested in religious or philosophical debates, he wrote a book on physics. He did point out, though, that whatever is meant by "nothingness" in such "debates", is not only not observable, but also incoherent, and has zero value for physics and science in general.

He also pointed out that while some time ago the concept of "nothingness" in physics was about the same as in philosophy (if defined as empty space devoid of any fields and particles, in other words, energy), things changed two or three decades ago, when it turned out that empty space itself has energy, and probably may exist in different energetic states. After that the philosophical concept of "nothingness" diverged from the one of physics."​

Now, I don't know why it seems so hard for many to accept that the philosophical concept of nothing might not exist.

And I don't understand why for the theist something must always come from something else, but that doesn't apply to God who has always existed "for no reason" and didn't need a first cause. Why not? How do you know?

 

[just1morething]

I used to be interested in the Bible and if there was an afterlife etc. - but my tinnitus and to a certain degree some neuropathy in my toes/feet have been consuming my attention. Death and an afterlife is such a big unknown anyway. I feel bad for all people with chronic afflictions ruining their lives.

 

[Greg Sacramento]

my tinnitus and to a certain degree some neuropathy in my toes/feet

My feet and legs are so swollen from this.

I meant $30,000 (1979) in post that you commented on - mention of think tank position. This was two years after making $7.50 per hour - government job.

 

[Chinmoku]

"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction."​

Now, I haven't been able to read the article by David Albert fully since it has to be paid for, but I think the essence comes down to this:

"The main point of Krauss is not about existence some sort of natural laws that we are unaware of (and where do they come from), but whether we can explain the origin of the universe with what we already have. The already known laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity seem to be enough already, we don't need to postulate anything beyond that.

Krauss obviously was not interested in religious or philosophical debates, he wrote a book on physics. He did point out, though, that whatever is meant by "nothingness" in such "debates", is not only not observable, but also incoherent, and has zero value for physics and science in general.

He also pointed out that while some time ago the concept of "nothingness" in physics was about the same as in philosophy (if defined as empty space devoid of any fields and particles, in other words, energy), things changed two or three decades ago, when it turned out that empty space itself has energy, and probably may exist in different energetic states. After that the philosophical concept of "nothingness" diverged from the one of physics."​

Now, I don't know why it seems so hard for many to accept that the philosophical concept of nothing might not exist.

And I don't understand why for the theist something must always come from something else, but that doesn't apply to God who has always existed "for no reason" and didn't need a first cause. Why not? How do you know?

This is not about theists. David Albert is an atheist. And Krauss, with the book title and subtitle, and with Dawkins' endorsement, read what he claims Krauss has done, is being at the very least dishonest. Because he claims to have solved the problem of problems but he hasn't.

But that's not the only problem with Krauss.

Even being generous and stretching the definitions of nothing to a physical state, there are problems.

The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren't, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.

What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as "vacuum" states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.

But that's just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn't this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don't is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don't. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves.

Epic fail, dear Krauss.

Dawkins compared this to Darwin's revolution in biology. Embarrassing, to say the least.

David Albert makes some other good points too. I'll try to retrieve the whole review.

 

[Jerad]

I agree this is for another thread, but I'd just like to add my thoughts to this;

These are what we may refer to as metaphysical entities, i.e. things which are beyond (meta) our physical reality. Because these entities are beyond our physical reality, we may not be able to scientifically measure them with physical means. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is impossible to assume they exist. I, for example, find the argument from reason pretty compelling, in favor of the metaphysical.

Paranormal activity may be instances of an intersect between our physical reality and a metaphysical one, but of course it's only the physical manifestation that we can observe.

@star-affinity and @Stuart-T, in my opinion, there's most definitely a paranormal realm. It's not a fairy tale; not a construct of fertile minds; not a fable from imagination, only to be read or heard about, but never to be seen or touched. Quite the opposite is true, actually. It's real and something more, where good, bad, god, the devil all exist within its prism. And then there's us, the "great" surveyors, with all our crumbs and bits of knowledge, who suddenly think we're all-knowing. Nope... we're not so great after all.

But debating such things is a worthless venture. People believe what they wanna believe, first and foremost. They're creatures of desire, finding refuge in all things "comfort" and not unbiased trains of thought. So we'll never fold when faced with challenge. We'll always retain a poker face, even if we're caught off guard or feel we've been bested. In this day and age of internet forums, everybody's right in their own minds. So it doesn't matter what I say or what you say... we'll always wind up in the same spot.

 

[CW Dragon]

True crime.

View attachment 52009

Did some research and threw that together. Disgusting, ain't it?

This world is sickland.

 

[Stuart-T]

People believe what they wanna believe, first and foremost.

Speak only for yourself. I want to believe in eternal life - I desire eternal life. But I don't believe in eternal life. There is no good evidence to support it. There - just falsified your presupposition.

You really should not generalise and try to characterise how others assess reality based on the way YOU assess reality.

If you think debating such things is worthless - it is not worth exchanging posts with you so bye.

 

[Jerad]

Speak only for yourself. I want to believe in eternal life - I desire eternal life. But I don't believe in eternal life. There is no good evidence to support it. There - just falsified your presupposition.

You really should not generalise and try to characterise how others assess reality based on the way YOU assess reality.

If you think debating such things is worthless - it is not worth exchanging posts with you so bye.

But the reality is that you can't know for sure, man. No disrespect intended. I can tell you're intelligent and intellectually driven, and I usually do enjoy reading what you have to say. But I guess there's no way to know in a non-empirical way whether a god or creator exists unless you have a profound experience which suggests otherwise, so to rule it out would be shortchanging yourself. You just haven't seen it. Many logically conclude that the cosmos was the result of a creator based off its consistency, near-perfect execution, and mathematical harmony. To say that a god or someone else created it kind of spoils the fun of science, though. It would erase the mystery and suspense of finding that elusive "theory of everything" that most scientists salivate over. I think people tend to form their beliefs based off personal experiences in life, their upbringing, and innermost desires. That's what I learned from psychology.

Like I said, you're clearly smart, but you did dismiss my paranormal encounters causally and easily, and without much thought, even though there were several eyewitnesses. Phantom voices were heard and a picture flew off the wall. I didn't say this before, but the picture that fell was the subject matter of something I had been discussing with a friend on the day prior. I was talking about Israel's Temple Mount and the next night the picture that fell was of the Temple, which makes it even weirder. At the same time, a light fixture came unscrewed from the ceiling in another room — the actual screws came loose and it was dangling. I did video it afterwards to document what had happened. It wouldn't let me post the video here, but here's the pictures of it.

 

[Stuart-T]

But the reality is that you can't know for sure, man. No disrespect intended. I can tell you're intelligent and intellectually driven, and I usually do enjoy reading what you have to say. But I guess there's no way to know in a non-empirical way whether a god or creator exists unless you have a profound experience which suggests otherwise, so to rule it out would be shortchanging yourself. You just haven't seen it. Many logically conclude that the cosmos was the result of a creator based off its consistency, near-perfect execution, and mathematical harmony. To say that a god or someone else created it kind of spoils the fun of science, though. It would erase the mystery and suspense of finding that elusive "theory of everything" that most scientists salivate over. I think people tend to form their beliefs based off personal experiences in life, their upbringing, and innermost desires. That's what I learned from psychology.

Like I said, you're clearly smart, but you did dismiss my paranormal encounters causally and easily, and without much thought, even though there were several eyewitnesses. Phantom voices were heard and a picture flew off the wall. I didn't say this before, but the picture that fell was the subject matter of something I had been discussing with a friend on the day prior. I was talking about Israel's Temple Mount and the next night the picture that fell was of the Temple, which makes it even weirder. At the same time, a light fixture came unscrewed from the ceiling in another room — the actual screws came loose and it was dangling. I did video it afterwards to document what had happened. It wouldn't let me post the video here, but here's the pictures of it.

View attachment 52114

View attachment 52115

I do not rule out the existence of god or the supernatural so your whole post is based on a false assumption. I also do not rule out the cosmos is the result of divine creation.

My position is - I accept that there may be a god or gods - but I do not believe in any god. I am awaiting evidence to justify belief. That is not the same as ruling out god/s. I also do not claim to know anything for sure. I proportion my belief to the quality of the evidence. I can have a high level of confidence in a claim based on the evidence - even if not certainty.

Thanks for the photo but it just shows a picture on the ground. I am not claiming what you saw is not real and the result of supernatural/paranormal forces - but I would need more evidence to believe it.

I hope you can understand the distinction between not believing that something is true and making a claim that something is false. They are not the same.

 

[Fightthearmy]

Interesting musings, physics and metaphysics. String theory, is that science or pure mathematics? Is mathematics science? Does pi (as an irrational transcendent number) exist? In which sense it exists? In which plane of existence? Platonia (Penrose)...

Math's just a tool.

 

[Chinmoku]

@Jerad, I used to consider the harmony of mathematics and other things you mentioned but then what about the ear disorders that keep us in this thread, and other horrid conditions affecting even children? Where is God's design in something like catastrophic tinnitus, children bone cancer, Alzheimer's etc? I'm in hell every minute, I'm typing this through a horrid wall of pain, watching my kids from far away, I can't play with them anymore, wearing Peltors and "listening" to torture. People we know too well, good people, had to end it because they could not stand it one more minute. It's a disease that is demonic, as you wrote poignantly many times. How can a good God allow for this? Continued torture that doesn't kill you? "Evil is there to leave men their freedom to choose" is an "explanation" that does not hold water. There is no freedom in this horror, in debilitating chronic illness, in natural disasters. The problem of evil is unsolvable by any theistic approach. How does one keep their faith in the face of it?

The paranormal episodes you mentioned are incredible. I don't think you are lying, I trust you are in good faith and you even said other people were with you. So personally I don't doubt your good faith but there could be different explanations, even if I don't see them. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so while on a personal level I think you are in good faith, making a general claim based on your experience is hard. For example, near death experiences (NDEs) are pointing to an afterlife, and quite a few are convincing, taken individually, but when studied in controlled conditions as in the A.W.A.R.E. study, why couldn't they confirm a single one? There was maybe only one case that could be used as controlled evidence, out of so many, but I would have expected more. It's something to think about, though.

I don't know if the existence of an afterlife would be consoling for me anymore. Seeing what kind of horrors existence can subject us to, I'd rather "rest" in nothingness, safe, rather than risk further existence. So I hope the experience after we die is the same we had as before being born. But nobody knows. As for heaven, why save us after death but leave us impossibly tortured for years when still alive? It doesn't make sense. Worst of all is reincarnation, but fortunately I don't believe in it. I really hope it's lights out, even if this poses a number of problems on the meaning of this life, on the basis of morality and other issues. But we know very little, we need to take a guess. I hope it's peace, or maybe heaven, but if it's heaven I don't understand this at all, it looks like a sadistic game. As for hell, hell is here, but fortunately it is not eternal, it ends at some point, one way or another.

 

[Chinmoku]

Math's just a tool.

If you are not surprised by how this tool is so suited to describe the world, how discoveries made decades earlier like Ricci-Curbastro absolute calculus or Hilbert spaces turned out to describe the structure of the universe so precisely and intimately, I suggest, if you are not familiar with it, you read Wigner's (Nobel Prize in physics) "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". Maths is too intimately related to the structure of reality to say it's just a tool. General Relativity and quantum field theories show that clearly.

 

[dan]

If you are not surprised by how this tool is so suited to describe the world, how discoveries made decades earlier like Ricci-Curbastro absolute calculus or Hilbert spaces turned out to describe the structure of the universe so precisely and intimately, I suggest, if you are not familiar with it, you read Wigner's (Nobel Prize in physics) "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". Maths is too intimately related to the structure of reality to say it's just a tool. General Relativity and quantum field theories show that clearly.

Dude, this is the Suicidal thread, not a Math Doctorate.

 

[Chinmoku]

Dude, this is the Suicidal thread, not a Math Doctorate.

Man, you are right by looking at this single post in isolation. However, this is connected to the nature of reality and this may have a bearing on what we may expect in the afterlife, if anything. Is there a creator God or not? Does the effectiveness of maths (this post) say anything on this? Is God good, if He exists? Will we meet God after death or is it lights out, or something else? Is there any evidence from science? It's all connected to the question of the afterlife, which is obviously relevant for this thread.

Apologies to all bored by these musings, I didn't start them but I got into them because pre tinnitus I was very passionate about this.

Anyway, there is an easy way out, put me on ignore or just skip my posts. Peace.

 

[dan]

Man, you are right by looking at this single post in isolation. However, this is connected to the nature of reality and this may have a bearing on what we may expect in the afterlife, if anything. Is there a creator God or not? Does the effectiveness of maths (this post) say anything on this? Is God good, if He exists? Will we meet God after death or is it lights out, or something else? Is there any evidence from science? It's all connected to the question of the afterlife, which is obviously relevant for this thread.

Apologies to all bored by these musings, I didn't start them but I got into them because pre tinnitus I was very passionate about this.

Anyway, there is an easy way out, put me on ignore or just skip my posts. Peace.

I wasn't attacking you, just making a joke.

 

[Travis Henry]

@Jerad, I used to consider the harmony of mathematics and other things you mentioned but then what about the ear disorders that keep us in this thread, and other horrid conditions affecting even children? Where is God's design in something like catastrophic tinnitus, children bone cancer, Alzheimer's etc? I'm in hell every minute, I'm typing this through a horrid wall of pain, watching my kids from far away, I can't play with them anymore, wearing Peltors and "listening" to torture. People we know too well, good people, had to end it because they could not stand it one more minute. It's a disease that is demonic, as you wrote poignantly many times. How can a good God allow for this? Continued torture that doesn't kill you? "Evil is there to leave men their freedom to choose" is an "explanation" that does not hold water. There is no freedom in this horror, in debilitating chronic illness, in natural disasters. The problem of evil is unsolvable by any theistic approach. How does one keep their faith in the face of it?

The paranormal episodes you mentioned are incredible. I don't think you are lying, I trust you are in good faith and you even said other people were with you. So personally I don't doubt your good faith but there could be different explanations, even if I don't see them. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so while on a personal level I think you are in good faith, making a general claim based on your experience is hard. For example, near death experiences (NDEs) are pointing to an afterlife, and quite a few are convincing, taken individually, but when studied in controlled conditions as in the A.W.A.R.E. study, why couldn't they confirm a single one? There was maybe only one case that could be used as controlled evidence, out of so many, but I would have expected more. It's something to think about, though.

I don't know if the existence of an afterlife would be consoling for me anymore. Seeing what kind of horrors existence can subject us to, I'd rather "rest" in nothingness, safe, rather than risk further existence. So I hope the experience after we die is the same we had as before being born. But nobody knows. As for heaven, why save us after death but leave us impossibly tortured for years when still alive? It doesn't make sense. Worst of all is reincarnation, but fortunately I don't believe in it. I really hope it's lights out, even if this poses a number of problems on the meaning of this life, on the basis of morality and other issues. But we know very little, we need to take a guess. I hope it's peace, or maybe heaven, but if it's heaven I don't understand this at all, it looks like a sadistic game. As for hell, hell is here, but fortunately it is not eternal, it ends at some point, one way or another.

Nailed it.

One life. This is it. It was black before we were born and it'll be black when we are done. It's a science trip we are on.

Heaven and hell are on earth. I have experienced both. Heaven is spending great time with someone you love in the wilderness and hell is what I am experiencing now.