(Nancy) Struck a Nerve!
Walter Nusbaum walter@thechoicenet.com
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:41:37 -0500 (00877477297, 01BCDE6C.EAE76A00@ppp342.why.net)
Nancy,
Well now, I guess we must have struck a nerve. Notice how Nancy begins
attacking me when she begins to see the irrationality of her views. SHE
ACTUALLY POSITS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE LAW OF CONTRADICTION
COULD BE FALSE IS SOME OTHER UNIVERSE!!!! Nancy, you don't even
know what you are talking about, you are just babbling away.
Secondly, your assertion that an infinite universe in more economical =
than
an infinite creator is just that...an assertion. How in the world could =
you=20
even begin to prove such a statement?? Worse still, you discount all of
the evidence that points in favor of the temporality of the universe. =
You
know, there is a reason that the far majority of scientists accept the =
Big
Bang theory of origins...IT'S BECAUSE IT LINES UP WITH THE EVIDENCE!!
But NOOOOOOOOO, Nancy wants to reject all that evidence and hold on
to her little eternal universe theory. What's worse, is you actually =
use=20
Hawking in a gross way to defend your proposition. Hawking's work is=20
no more than theoretical AT BEST. In fact, he even acknowledges this
by saying of his theory "is just a proposal: it cannot be deduced from =
some
other principle."(p. 136)
Once again on Hawking, notice the speculative nature of his statements =
when
discussing the nature of real and imaginary time. Though he may try to=20
say that the two are in reality the same thing, he can't get out of the =
dilemma
that in 'real time' singularities exist. Apparently they aren't the =
same thing since in imaginary time, these singularities disappear. Why =
does he say 'in the real time that we live'? Until a quantum theory of =
gravity arives, Hawking is stuck with singularities which is why he says =
until then, the universe HAS A=20
BEGINNING. Face it Nancy, you are stuck and you are doing anything you=20
can to get out of this dilemma. (ie. THE LAW OF CONTRADICTION MAY
NOT EXIST IN ANOTHER UNIVERSE!! HA HA HA HA HA HA....OH SORRY!)
See ya,
Walt Jr.
----------
From: Greg, Nancy, and James Todd[SMTP:todds@pa.net]
Sent: 21 October 1997 20:08
To: errancy@infidels.org
Subject: RE: (Nancy)RE: Immaterial Existence
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.=20
>WALT, JR.
The universe, according to your love of science and=20
>reason, is finite and temporal. =20
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=20
>Hawking's use of imaginary time and real time? Tell me the difference.
>Why does he speak of us living in real time?=20
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=20
>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=20
>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=20
>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."=20
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=20
>>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,=20
>>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.)
>=20
>>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=20
>>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 =
ead Pagels'
>book, or Hawking's.=20
>
>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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>=20
>
>
>