(Nancy) Struck a Nerve!
Greg, Nancy, and James Todd todds@pa.net
Thu, 23 Oct 1997 21:39:14 -0400 (00877678754, 199710240139.VAA18842@emh1.pa.net)
>WALT, JR.
>Nancy,
>
>Well now, I guess we must have struck a nerve.
NANCY
Is that the editorial "we" or the royal "we?"
WALT, JR.
> Notice how Nancy begins
>attacking me when she begins to see the irrationality of her views.
NANCY
I only pointed out, truthfully, that you avoid issues of biblical errancy
like the plague, and do not address the arguments I made in my posts on "the
cosmic code." Just saying, "no, you're wrong" isn't much of an argument.
>WALT, JR.
> 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.
NANCY
Walt, Jr., shouting won't make your argument stronger. You posit talking
snakes and asses, people rising from the dead, and self-replenishing jars of
wine, yet you think it is ridiculous that I think that there could possibly
exist a universe that is drastically different from the one we inhabit.
Considering that we still don't understand everything about this universe, I
think it would be foolish and arrogant to place our limitations on all
possible universes.
>WALT, JR.
>Secondly, your assertion that an infinite universe in [sic] more economical
than
>an infinite creator is just that...an assertion. How in the world could you
>even begin to prove such a statement??
NANCY
No, Walt, Jr., it isn't just an assertion. A universe that has always
existed *is* *by definition* a more economical hypothesis than a universe
created by a god that has always existed. It is compatible with all current
knowledge and has fewer assumptions. You have to include an infinite,
uncreated creator-deity, for which there is no evidence, and a created
universe in your hypothesis. Therefore, the eternal universe hypothesis is
more economical than your eternal god who creates the universe theory. Gee,
it wasn't so hard to prove the truth of my statement.
>WALT, JR.
> Worse still, you discount all of
>the evidence that points in favor of the temporality of the universe.
NANCY
You keep saying that the universe is temporal, but temporal means "of or
relating to time" and I don't know what you mean when you say the universe
is "of or relating to time." If what you are trying to say is that the
universe has a beginning, then I would agree that the Big Bang theory
supports this notion.
You still haven't explained what you mean when you say, "The universe,
according to your love of science and reason, is finite and temporal.
According to my love of science and reason?????? What the hell does that
mean? By the way, one aspect of Hawkings proposal of a universe that has
always been and always will be is that it is finite but without boundary.
Nobody is asserting an infinte universe.
>WALT, JR.
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!!
NANCY
I haven't discounted the Big Bang theory. I simply said that I don't think
that this universe's laws of physics necessarily existed before the universe
existed. I mentioned that the singularity theorems show that the laws of
physics break down at Planck time. This is part of the Big Bang theory, and
it is the reason why scientist cannot go back before Planck time. If the
laws of physics break down at the singularity, then it seems reasonable to
conclude that they did not exist at the singularity and came into existence
as our universe came into existence. But you have not addressed this.
>WALT, JR.
>But NOOOOOOOOO, Nancy wants to reject all that evidence and hold on
>to her little eternal universe theory.
NANCY
Walt, Jr., it's not my little theory. It is a proposal (not a theory) made
by a number of brilliant and highly respected scientists. And as I have
pointed out several times now, I have not rejected the Big Bang theory. I
have simply included Hawking's proposal in the discussion.
WALT, JR.
What's worse, is you actually use
>Hawking in a gross way to defend your proposition. Hawking's work is
>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)
NANCY
I never represented it as a theory. In fact, I used such terms as "Hawking
postulates" and "Stephen Hawking proposes."
>WALT, JR.
>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
>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'?
NANCY
Once again, I present you with Hawking's own words.
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.@
>WALT, JR.
>Until a quantum theory of gravity arives, Hawking is stuck with
>singularities which is why he says until then, the universe HAS A
>BEGINNING. Face it Nancy, you are stuck and you are doing anything you
>can to get out of this dilemma.
NANCY
What dilemma? I said, "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?" Well, can you?
I then said, "However, *if* [emphasis added] 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."
So where's the dilemma?
>WALT, JR.
> (ie. THE LAW OF CONTRADICTION MAY
>NOT EXIST IN ANOTHER UNIVERSE!! HA HA HA HA HA HA....OH SORRY!)
NANCY
So explain to me why the existence of a universe in which the law of
contradiction would not be valid is not possible.
Nancy Todd
todds@pa.net
>
>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.
>
>>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 ead
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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>