(Nancy)RE: Immaterial Existence
Greg, Nancy, and James Todd todds@pa.net
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:08:17 -0400 (00877504097, 199710220108.VAA20565@emh1.pa.net)
NANCY
Walt, Jr. strikes again. He is unable to defend his doctrine of bible
inerrancy, so he wastes our time with bullshit that fails to even address
the arguments that have been posted. Walt, Jr., at least you are consistent;
you keep giving us nothing but unfounded assertions and ad hominems.
>WALT, JR.
>Nancy,
>
>A eternal universe may be more economical in your opinion, however, it seems
>to be patently false.
NANCY
First of all, a universe that has always existed *is* by definition a more
economical hypothesis than a universe created by a god that has always
existed. Contrary to your statement that this hypothesis is patently false,
it is completely compatible with current knowledge.
>WALT, JR.
The universe, according to your love of science and
>reason, is finite and temporal.
NANCY
Does this statement have anyone else scratching his head? According to my
love of science and reason, the universe is finite and temporal? Are you
serious? This question is nonsensical.
As for the universe being finite, Stephen Hawking proposes that the universe
is finite but has no boundary. It is completely self-contained, not affected
by anything outside itself, neither created nor destroyed. It just is. As
for the universe being temporal, it isn't by any definition of temporal that
I am familiar with.
>WALT
>By the way, could you please distinguish for me the difference between
>Hawking's use of imaginary time and real time? Tell me the difference.
>Why does he speak of us living in real time?
NANCY
Stephen Hawking, _The Illustrated A Brief History of Time_, p. 179:
@In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that
form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down.
But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. So maybe
what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is
just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe
is like. But according to the approach I described in Chapter 1, a
scientific theory is just a mathematical model we make to describe our
observations: it exists only in our minds. So it is meaningless to ask:
which is real, "real" or "imaginary" time? It is simply a matter of which is
the more useful description.@
"Real" time is time measured with "real" numbers; "imaginary" time is time
measured with "imaginary" numbers.
WALT, JR.
Your use of Hawking is
>grossly misrepresented. He is not an atheist as you understand atheism.
NANCY
Walt, I think you don't understand Hawking. He is very much an atheist. He
certainly doesn't believe in your ancient Semitic sky god, Yoohoo, nor does
he believe in your pagan resurrected savior god, Jesus, nor does he believe
your ghostly god, the holy breath/spirit, nor does he believe in your god of
evil, Satan. Nor does he believe in any other god. I bet he doesn't believe
in fairies, brownies, sprites, unicorns, leprachauns, fire-breathing
dragons, ancient astronauts, mermaids, smurfs, Bigfoot, the tooth fairy, or
Santa Claus, either. Can you spell metaphor, Walt? Do you know what a
metaphor is? Can you recognize a metaphor when you see one? Apparently not.
>WALT
>Finally, your assertion that the laws came into existence when the universe
>came into existence also seems highly irrational. It is equivalent to your
>statement that the laws of logic are dependent on the universe and that they
>could potentially have been different. You are sounding more and more
>irrational Nancy...but then again, what do you expect from an irrational
>world view?
NANCY
I said in a previous post, "I don't think it has even been established that
these laws have an eternal existence. If Hawking is correct, they have
always been and will always be. If they only came into existence with our
universe, then they are not eternal."
If the laws of physics break down at a singularity, then it seems to me to
be rational to think that these laws did not exist in our universe until
Planck time. Can you show me where my reasoning is incorrect? However, if
Hawking is correct in his proposal that a quantum theory of gravity would
eliminate singularities, then these laws, and our universe, would have
always existed and will always exist.
Walt believes in talking snakes and asses and he is calling *me* irrational.
What a hoot.
Nancy Todd
todds@pa.net
>
>His,
>Walt Jr.
>
>----------
>From: Greg, Nancy, and James Todd[SMTP:todds@pa.net]
>Sent: 17 October 1997 18:27
>To: errancy@infidels.org
>Subject: Re: (Nancy)RE: Immaterial Existence
>
>WALT, JR.
>>Nancy,
>>
>>Well, I'm glad you asked. Here are a few for you:
>>
>>Heinz Pagels (The Cosmic Code); "What they find is that the architecture
>>of the universe is indeed built according invisible universal rules, what I
>>call the cosmic code--the building code of the Demiurge." p. 156
>>
>>"The nothingness 'before' the creation of teh universe is the most complete
>>void tha we can imagine-no space, time or matter existed. It is a world
>>without place, without duration or eternity, without number...Yet this
>>unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence--a necessary
>>consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into the void?
>>It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that existed prior
>>to time and space." (Perfect Symmetry) p. 347
>
>NANCY
>It would be interesting to read what Pagels wrote after this.
>
>
>>WALT, JR.
>>Paul Davies (The Mind of God); "First and foremost, the laws are universal...
>>Second, the laws are absolute. They do not depend on anything else. In
>>particular they do not depend on who is observing nature, or on the actual
>>state of the world...So we arrive at the third and most important property of
>>the laws of nature: they are eternal. The timeless, eternal character of the
>>laws is reflected in the mathematical structures employed to model the
>>physical world...(pp. 82-83)...I believe that these proposals about laws of
>>initial conditions strongly support the Platonic idea that the laws of nature
>>are 'out there,' transcending the physical universe. It is sometimes argued
>>that the laws of physics came into being with the universe. If that was so,
>>then those laws cannot explain the origin of the universe, because the laws
>>would not exist until the universe existed." (pp. 91-92)
>
>NANCY
>Singularity theorems show that the laws of physics break down at a
>singularity. If the laws of physics came about when the universe came into
>existence, then, as Davies points out, our current laws cannot explain the
>origin of the universe. However, I don't see how the laws that explain how
>our universe operates could exist without our universe existing, i.e. I
>don't see how they could transcend the physical universe.
>
>Hawking postulates that the singularity theorems that prove that the laws of
>physics break down at singularities actually show that the gravitational
>field becomes so strong that a quantum theory of gravity is needed to
>discuss the very early stages of the universe. He uses the mathematical
>concept of imaginary time--using imaginary numbers to measure time--and
>explains that a quantum theory of gravity would have no singularities at
>which the laws of science would break down. The universe would neither be
>created nor destroyed, it would just be, although singularities would still
>appear to occur in real time. (Stephen Hawking, _The Illustrated A Brief
>History of Time_ pp. 171-175.)
>
>>WALT, JR.
>>Roger Penrose (The Emperor's New Mind); "How 'real' are the objects of
>>the mathematician's world?...Can they be other than mere arbitrary
>>constructions of the human mind?...There often does appear to be some
>>profound reality about these mathematical concepts, going quite beyond
>>teh mental deliberations of any particular mathematician. It is as though
>>human thought is, instead, being guided towards some eternal, external
>>truth--a truth which has a reality of its own..." (p94-95)
>
>NANCY
>I don't have this book and I don't know the context of this quote.
>
>>WALT, JR.
>>Others:
>>
>>William Drees (Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God)
>
>NANCY
>As I understand it, William Drees is a theologian as well as a physicist,
>and even he recognizes that the "God" hypothesis is not necessary to explain
>the existence of the universe. I have not read Drees book, only a review of
>it, so I don't know if that is a fair representation of Drees' arguments.
>
>WALT, JR.
>>John Polkinghorne (Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding)
>>John Barrow (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle)
>>Frank Tipler (" " " " " " " ")
>>
>>
>>Shall I go on Nancy? So, why don't you answer my question now that I
>>gave you a few sources? Where did these laws originate?
>
>NANCY
>The laws of physics are nothing more that an attempt to describe the
>observations we make of the universe. We observe a certain order in the
>universe, and we describe it. This order apparently arose spontaneously as
>the universe "exploded" in the big bang. At least, this model is consistent
>with everything that is currently known. In time, as new information comes
>to light, this model may need to be modified, or scrapped altogether.
>
>WALT, JR.
>What is the
>>basis of the eternal existence of these laws?
>
>NANCY
>Hell if I know. I don't think it has even been established that these laws
>have an eternal existence. If Hawking is correct, they have always been and
>will always be. If they only came into existence with our universe, then
>they are not eternal.
>
>WALT, JR.
> I would like to hear your
>>explanation from an atheistic perspective. I can't wait to hear this one.
>
>NANCY
>Well, I imagine you are disappointed with my explanation. If you want an
>explanation from an atheistic perspective, perhaps you should read Pagels'
>book, or Hawking's.
>
>However, I must point out that the "God" hypothesis explains nothing. A
>universe that has always existed is a more economical hypothesis than a
>universe created by a god that has always existed.
>
>Nancy Todd
>todds@pa.net
>>
>>His,
>>Walt Jr.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>