The Watchmaker Revisited

[godnotgod]

Interesting viewpoint. But QM is exactly the rational explanation of what we have observed. It was found through observation, logic, reasoning, and testing. The problem isn't QM, but rather the attempts to understand the descriptions of the new theory (QM) using the biases of the old (classical mechanics). That is where the paradoxes arise. If you stay internal to QM, there are no such paradoxes.

Contrary to your claim, QM is *the* rational, reasoned way we have come to understand reality. And yes, that includes the properties of a quantum vacuum. It isn't *classical*, but it is quite logical and based on reason. It most certainly *isn't* non-rational.

Reason cannot explain that the Quantum vacuum is 'absolutely nothing', as Tong explained in the video, while the field remains as part of the vacuum. How do 'particles' emerge from 'absolutely nothing'? Tong addresses this by stating that 'there are no particles in the world'.

'Properties' of the Quantum vacuum is not the same as 'nature' of Reality. You say we have 'come to understand reality'. What have we come to understand about the nature of Reality? Nothing! Tong even pointed out that the Quantum vacuum is actually a mystery, which, if solved mathematically, would bring a million dollar reward to anyone who 'solves' it. Ultimately, Reality itself cannot be encapsulated within any conceptual framework, such as mathematical models. Nature is bigger than the tools used to describe it. The menu is not the meal.

 

[godnotgod]

Your second comment directly contradicts your first. That you fail to understand that is very telling.

You like to think so, but you are just plain wrong. How is 'perfect union with the Universe' supernatural, pseudoscientific, or woo? You are in perfect union with the Universe at all times, whether you think you are or not. Does that mean you are supernatural?

Acceptance of mysticism is thoughtless? I agree. Rational, thoughtful people reject it.

They reject it because they cannot get a handle on it in rational terms. It doesn't fit their mental model of reality because reality cannot be explained in those terms. The thinking mind is forever seeking a way to encapsulate reality into some formula or description. That process is the product of thought. Insight, without the interference of thought, never attempts to encapsulate reality into concept; it simply sees things as they are. Seeing things as they are is the direct experience of Reality itself, sans a model of Reality. Those who seek a rational explanation of Reality require some reference by which they can 'understand' Reality, instead of employing Reality itself as the reference.

Defined as the permanent cessation of all brain activity as measured by clinical and laboratory tests, brain death is currently accepted in all 50 states and within the context of all major religions....medical researchers established brain death as the primary clinical determination.

​

Yoga = Death. That's one of the first things you have said that I can fully agree with.

Except that I never said that at all. You're fabricating things from whole cloth. I quoted Patanjali as saying: 'Yoga (ie divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind" , which you twisted in your woo woo brain to mean: 'yoga=death'. When all of the activities of the mind come to an end, you do not die; you are still alive and conscious, but you just are not thinking. It is at that point that it is realized by consciousness that the mind is a self-created principle, an illusion, really. That is when one realize that one is already in perfect union with the Universe. If anything, consciousness increases. Only mind is subdued. How long can you go without thinking a single thought? 2 seconds or so? We call this mind the discursive mind, because it jumps from one thought to another, like a monkey jumping from one branch to another. It cannot be still. To do that requires training and practice. It is likened to just sitting and allowing the mud churned up in a pond to settle naturally of its own accord, so one can see all the way through to the bottom of the pond. It would be helpful if you were to use your head before posting your erroneous fabrications.

Hmmm. I thought science was:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
​

I don't see anything in that definition regarding or referring to:

a highly conditioned and altered state of consciousness
hypnosis
transfixed vision ​

'Systematic study' is exactly an altered state of consciousness. It is the method of the mind conditioned by Logic, Reason, and Analysis. Seeing directly into the nature of things does not employ any 'system' of thought to do so. It is consciousness in an unconditioned, unaltered state. Taoists, for example, use the metaphor of an uncarved block of wood before the carver places his first mark upon it to symbolize the mind in its natural state. His marks represent the social conditioning called indoctrination which we are subjected to since childhood. As we become more and more conditioned by our schools, religions, governments, etc. we lose touch with our original, natural state of mind, until some of us become artificial, mimicking behavior which we think is appropriate to our socialization.
​

If you want to communicate, even somewhat intelligently, you need to use words properly.

If you want to communicate, even somewhat intelligently, you need to stop fabricating lies based on your assumptions, and to learn how to read accurately what others are saying.

If you need to make up your own versions of words like mystic and science and superstition to support your beliefs it should be clear to you that your beliefs do not have a solid foundation.

I did not make up anything. I told you repeatedly that 'mystic' simply refers to the realization of one's union with the entire Universe. You are the one adding your own colorations to the word to suit your ideas of what woo is. You haven't a clue. You know nothing of meditation, yoga, zen, breath control, and until you practice a bit of these, you are just on the outside looking in. The first thing you would need to do, however, is to leave your baggage at the door.

Now you just mentioned 'my beliefs'. I want you to show me where you see any such 'beliefs'.

 

[shunyadragon]

You presented a bit of a confusing response to @Polymath257

Reason cannot explain that the Quantum vacuum is 'absolutely nothing', as Tong explained in the video, while the field remains as part of the vacuum. How do 'particles' emerge from 'absolutely nothing'? Tong addresses this by stating that 'there are no particles in the world'.

Agree that the philosophical 'absolute nothing' is not the Quantum nothing of the Quantum World.

'Properties' of the Quantum vacuum is not the same as 'nature' of Reality. You say we have 'come to understand reality'. What have we come to understand about the nature of Reality? Nothing! Tong even pointed out that the Quantum vacuum is actually a mystery, which, if solved mathematically, would bring a million dollar reward to anyone who 'solves' it. Ultimately, Reality itself cannot be encapsulated within any conceptual framework, such as mathematical models. Nature is bigger than the tools used to describe it. The menu is not the meal.

Clarification is needed here. We have come to understand the macro world reality very well. We understand far more about the Quantum World than 'nothing.' I disagree with the use of mystery here in describing the nature of the knowledge and what is still unknown concerning the Quantum World.

I do not believe that scientists claim to 'encapsulute' the nature of the Quantum world in any sort of conceptual framework.Scientist fully realize that our laws, theories, and knowledge of the Quantum world are a human perspective, and always subject to change.

Math is a tool, and mathematical models cannot solve anything on their own, and never will solve it..

 

[Polymath257]

Reason cannot explain that the Quantum vacuum is 'absolutely nothing', as Tong explained in the video, while the field remains as part of the vacuum. How do 'particles' emerge from 'absolutely nothing'? Tong addresses this by stating that 'there are no particles in the world'.

You are correct. The quantum vacuum is NOT 'absolutely nothing'. It is a physical state of the universe that has a higher energy than a universe with stuff in it. It is the decay from the high energy state to the lower energy state that gives the universe as we know it.

'Properties' of the Quantum vacuum is not the same as 'nature' of Reality. You say we have 'come to understand reality'. What have we come to understand about the nature of Reality? Nothing! Tong even pointed out that the Quantum vacuum is actually a mystery, which, if solved mathematically, would bring a million dollar reward to anyone who 'solves' it. Ultimately, Reality itself cannot be encapsulated within any conceptual framework, such as mathematical models. Nature is bigger than the tools used to describe it. The menu is not the meal.

The Millennium Problem related to QM is a purely mathematical problem, not really a question of physics. It asks whether a certain type of system of partial differential equations has a discrete spectrum.

One does not have to understand *all* of reality to understand *part* of reality. And the fact, as discovered by reason and observation, is that reality has a quantum nature, not a classical one. So, yes, we have come to understand much more than 'nothing' about reality.

 

[ecco]

You like to think so, but you are just plain wrong. How is 'perfect union with the Universe' supernatural, pseudoscientific, or woo?

Only someone who is superstitious and believes in the supernatural would state such mystical nonsense as "man is in perfect union with the Universe. This is not something rational people believe.

They reject it because they cannot get a handle on it in rational terms. It doesn't fit their mental model of reality because reality cannot be explained in those terms.

No, they/we/I reject it for the same reasons that they/we/I reject ghosts and goblins and gods and psychic snowflakes. Lack of evidence for and a preponderance of evidence against.

Once again, you are just like the YO Creationist posting pictures of nature and exclaiming "If only you understood, you would see this as evidence of God's Creation."

Except that I never said that at all. You're fabricating things from whole cloth. I quoted Patanjali as saying:'Yoga (ie divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind. When all of the activities of the mind come to an end, you do not die; you are still alive and conscious, but you just are not thinking.

Brain waves are an indication of the mind functioning. How does one, ie. you or your yoga, stop the mind from working without stopping brain waves?

It is at that point that it is realized by consciousness that the mind is a self-created principle, an illusion, really. That is when one realize that one is already in perfect union with the Universe. If anything, consciousness increases.

The mind is a set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory. It is usually defined as the faculty of an entity's thoughts and consciousness.​

consciousnesses​

• the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
• the awareness or perception of something by a person.
• the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
• "consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

Would you care to state your mumbo jumbo using commonly accepted dictionary definitions.

'Systematic study' is exactly
<snip more redundant mysticisms>
to our socialization. I did

not make up anything. I told you repeatedly that 'mystic' simply refers to the realization of one's union with the entire Universe.
Now you just mentioned 'my beliefs'. I want you to show me where you see any such 'beliefs'.

In back to back sentences you say you don't make up stuff and misstate what mystic means.

mys·ti·cism
ˈmistəˌsizəm/
noun
1.
belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
2.belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

​

 

[gnostic]

I told you repeatedly that 'mystic' simply refers to the realization of one's union with the entire Universe. You are the one adding your own colorations to the word to suit your ideas of what woo is. You haven't a clue. You know nothing of meditation, yoga, zen, breath control, and until you practice a bit of these, you are just on the outside looking in. The first thing you would need to do, however, is to leave your baggage at the door.

You know you are making it worse, don’t you?

You are turning Buddhism, zen and yoga into a sham.

You are doing exactly what theistic creationists do when they attempt to twist science and their scriptures/teachings into one.

You are attempting to twist your version of Buddhism, to force it to fit with science, as if they are the one and the same, but when you have people who disagree with you, you tried a different tactics (moving the goalpost) that science is “limited”, and your mysticism is better at attaining direct knowledge BS.

You saying you are “I’m not making thing up”, but that what people see when they read your replies.

The whole “union with the universe” and “one with the universe” is nothing more than distortion of your abilities, meditation or no meditation. It just more BS.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Natural Laws represent the human perspective of the nature of our physical existence. Like all sciences, including the science of evolution, it is at present consistent and predictable with all that is known about our universe.

Beyond this it represents a philosophical/theological assumptions and beliefs. Christians predominantly believe in Creation 'ex nihilo.' The Baha'i Faith believes in a Created physical existence that eternally exists with an eternal God as a reflection of the attributes of God. Neither view can be falsified nor demonstrated by science and remains an open question. At present the scientific evidence of Quantum Mechanics favors a boundless eternal physical existence..

The Laws point to this creation/existence being made ex nihilo. There was nothing and then there was everything in this time/space.

It sounds like you are saying QM is opposed to The Laws. Yet I'm told by others that The Laws were there since Planck time. If you feel QM points to an eternal universe you have an oscillating universe and I don't think thermodynamics supports you there.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am not saying it is true or false. There are too many things we don’t know about the universe. And some things we may never know.

But if the conservation energy/mass is true (as in being eternal), then the whole biblical creation is false, since it clearly indicated god create heaven and earth from nothing.

I have told you dozens of times before, in other threads that the Big Bang only explain about the universe cosmology as we know it - the “observable universe”.

It doesn’t explain what happened before the Big Bang, of if there is even a “before”. I keep telling know one knows, not the scientists, not any follower of religions, not you and I.

As to this infinite regression, that’s the straw man that you keep regurgitating whenever you bring up modern cosmology.

May I ask why you believe conversation is true, eternally? May I ask whether that causes you to ask yourself, "Why was here always here?"

 

[godnotgod]

You presented a bit of a confusing response to Polymath.

Agree that the philosophical 'absolute nothing' is not the Quantum nothing of the Quantum World.

What's the difference?

Did you watch the video I am referring to? Tong said that, if you remove EVERYTHING, and that means all particles, from space, you end up with empty space, or absolutely nothing, in his words. I post the video link here again for your benefit, as you entered the thread after it was initially posted:

Clarification is needed here. We have come to understand the macro world reality very well. We understand far more about the Quantum World than 'nothing.' I disagree with the use of mystery here in describing the nature of the knowledge and what is still unknown concerning the Quantum World.

We understand nothing. We have knowledge, not understanding. We don't actually know what the Universe actually IS. We can talk about how it behaves, and make predictions about it, but we have no actual understanding as to its true nature. When science says it has reached an 'understanding' about some phenomena, it is talking about it's mechanics, not it's nature. It is talking about factual knowledge.

If you think you 'understand' what the Universe IS, intrinsically, then please proceed.

I do not believe that scientists claim to 'encapsulute' the nature of the Quantum world in any sort of conceptual framework.Scientist fully realize that our laws, theories, and knowledge of the Quantum world are a human perspective, and always subject to change.

Knowledge via encapsulation may not be the claim up front, but that is the intent. Science is attempting to define the nature of Reality in terms of conceptual frameworks, via a subject/object split in the mind.

Math is a tool, and mathematical models cannot solve anything on their own, and never will solve it..

Tong, in the video, refers to the solving of the paradox of the Quantum vacuum, and other paradoxes, via mathematics.

 

[godnotgod]

You are correct. The quantum vacuum is NOT 'absolutely nothing'.

Tong says that it IS 'absolutely nothing' in those very words.

Tong: 1
Mysticism: 1
Polymath: 0

It is a physical state of the universe that has a higher energy than a universe with stuff in it. It is the decay from the high energy state to the lower energy state that gives the universe as we know it.

So essentially what you are saying is that Everything, ie 'The (material) Universe', comes out of pure energy, which is no-(material)-thing. IOW, Everything comes out of Nothing.

The Millennium Problem related to QM is a purely mathematical problem, not really a question of physics. It asks whether a certain type of system of partial differential equations has a discrete spectrum.

One does not have to understand *all* of reality to understand *part* of reality. And the fact, as discovered by reason and observation, is that reality has a quantum nature, not a classical one. So, yes, we have come to understand much more than 'nothing' about reality.

Reality is both classical AND Quantum, depending on one's level of orientation. But there is still zero understanding as to the true nature of The Universe. All we have so far is partial knowledge as to its mechanics. That is not understanding. I think you are using the term 'understanding' for 'factual knowledge'. They are not the same thing.

 

[godnotgod]

Only someone who is superstitious and believes in the supernatural would state such mystical nonsense as "man is in perfect union with the Universe. This is not something rational people believe.

Well, DUH! Of course 'rational' people do not believe it: they have been conditioned to believe they are a separate ego acting upon the world since dhildhood due to the subject/object split created by the mind. Tell me: where do you leave off and the Universe begins? Show me where that point of distinction exists.

No, they/we/I reject it for the same reasons that they/we/I reject ghosts and goblins and gods and psychic snowflakes. Lack of evidence for and a preponderance of evidence against.

Which is just another way of saying that "they reject it because they cannot get a handle on it in rational terms. It doesn't fit their mental model of reality because reality cannot be explained in those terms."

Once again, you are just like the YO Creationist posting pictures of nature and exclaiming "If only you understood, you would see this as evidence of God's Creation."

No, not 'just like', the difference being that 'if only you understood' points to belief, not experience. I repeat once more: the mystical EXPERIENCE does not involve thought, and therefore, cannot be a belief, as belief is dependent upon thought.

Brain waves are an indication of the mind functioning. How does one, ie. you or your yoga, stop the mind from working without stopping brain waves?

No, BRAIN waves are NOT an indication of the MIND functioning, but of the BRAIN functioning. Meditation and yoga do NOT stop brain waves. In fact, Alpha wave output by the brain dramatically increases during meditation. What did I say? I said that the mind is a self-created principle. IOW, it is an illusion. Once the activities of the mind come to a complete halt, it is then realized that there never was a mind to begin with. This illusion of 'mind' is a fabrication of consciousness. You can prove this to yourself. Sit quietly and stop all thinking. Thoughts are a product of the mind. So when you stop all thoughts, you will also see that there is no such 'mind' present. Only consciousness remains, which does not think, but only SEES. You will continue to see, without thought.

The mind is a set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory. It is usually defined as the faculty of an entity's thoughts and consciousness.

​

consciousnesses​

• the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
• the awareness or perception of something by a person.
• the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
• "consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

Would you care to state your mumbo jumbo using commonly accepted dictionary definitions.

Dictionary definitions are the product of conditioned awareness and so do not reflect the reality of what mind and consciousness actually are.

In back to back sentences you say you don't make up stuff and misstate what mystic means.

mys·ti·cism
ˈmistəˌsizəm/
noun
1.
belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
2.belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.​

It is both, depending on one's level of consciousness. But again, your definitions are the product of conditioned consciousness, not of actual experience. It's like trying to describe what the experience of flight is for a bird raised in captivity. The writers of these definitions are forced to qualify them by use of the word 'belief' to satisfy those who don't have the experience, like yourself, for example. To the prisoners in Plato's Cave, the 'Sun' experienced by the escaped prisoner is only a belief. They 'KNOW' what reality is, having been indoctrinated since birth that the shadows dancing on the cave walls represent reality. Let's say those prisoners went even further, and codified their experience of cave wall shadows into some book called 'dictionary'. Now their delusive thought has the authority of having been codified. For them, that definition of reality is real, just as the dream images of the dreamer are real on that level of consciousness. Only awakening, or in the case of Plato's Cave, going outside to experience the Sun first hand, will show them the true nature of reality.

But to clarify: the authentic spiritual experience is 'the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'.

That is yoga, or the realization that you are one with The Absolute, ie; 'The Universe', and have never at any time NOT been one with The Universe.

​

 

[shunyadragon]

What's the difference?

Did you watch the video I am referring to? Tong said that, if you remove EVERYTHING, and that means all particles, from space, you end up with empty space, or absolutely nothing, in his words. I post the video link here again for your benefit, as you entered the thread after it was initially posted:

I have a good back ground in science and physics I do not need a you tube video for me to make a distinction between the Quantum Nothing and the 'absolute nothing of philosophy. It is rudely simple. The absolute nothing of philosophy is indeed absolutely nothing.

The Quantum nothing is indeed something: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html

Even at its lowest energy level, there are fluctuations in the quantum vacuum of the Universe. There are quantum particles popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. ... There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really meaning "the universe from a potentiality.".

We understand nothing. We have knowledge, not understanding. We don't actually know what the Universe actually IS.

As far as the macro world of our universe we very much know a great deal.

We can talk about how it behaves, and make predictions about it, but we have no actual understanding as to its true nature. When science says it has reached an 'understanding' about some phenomena, it is talking about it's mechanics, not it's nature. It is talking about factual knowledge.

If you think you 'understand' what the Universe IS, intrinsically, then please proceed.

All you need to do is get a decent education in science, physics and math, because @Polymath257 and I will not spoon feed you the textbooks.

I simply made the distinction for you between the philosophical nothing 'ex nihilo' and the nature of Quantum nothing. I should not have had to do that. Instead of looking at you tube videos you can look these things up yourself.

Raising the fog index, and kicking up dust concerning the science of physics and Quantum Mechanics when this is not the reality of science and our knowledge.

Knowledge via encapsulation may not be the claim up front, but that is the intent. Science is attempting to define the nature of Reality in terms of conceptual frameworks, via a subject/object split in the mind.

It has never been either the claim up front nor the intent of science.

Tong, in the video, refers to the solving of the paradox of the Quantum vacuum, and other paradoxes, via mathematics.

So what?!?!!? Yes, there are unknowns and Paradoxes, there always have been and will be in the future.Apparently by the content of your posts you do not understand the references.

Just using the shotgun of 'arguing from ignorance,' without a fundamental knowledge of science gets you nowhere.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Laws point to this creation/existence being made ex nihilo. There was nothing and then there was everything in this time/space.

The laws, theories and hypothesis that form the foundation in science only point to the knowledge of science of our physical existence. In science there is no evidence of 'absolutely nothing.'

There is nothing in science that points to 'ex nihilo.' In fact the question whether our physical existence is eternal or infinite, or temporal and finite remains an unanswered question in science and likely unanswerable. There is not any objective verifiable evidence either way.

It sounds like you are saying QM is opposed to The Laws.

No I never said this.

Yet I'm told by others that The Laws were there since Planck time.

The Quantum World is the nature of our physical existence at the Plank level micro world, which does not follow the Theories and Laws of the macro world. Gravity of the marcro world does not function at the Plank level of the Quantum World.

If you feel QM points to an eternal universe you have an oscillating universe and I don't think thermodynamics supports you there.

Quantum Mechanics is indifferent to whether our partiular universe is eternal or not. The evidence indicates that the Quantum Mechanics world may be eternal and/or infinite. There are several current models that are possible eternal such as: the Multiverse, cyclic universe, and Black Hole Model.

There is a good model for a cyclic universe which has no problem with thermodynamics.:

From: https://www.edge.org/conversation/paul_steinhardt-the-cyclic-universe-paul-steinhardt

THE CYCLIC UNIVERSE: PAUL STEINHARDT

I am theoretical cosmologist, so I am addressing the issue from that point of view. If you were to ask most cosmologists to give a summary of where we stand right now in the field, they would tell you that we live in a very special period in human history where, thanks to a whole host of advances in technology, we can suddenly view the very distant and very early universe in ways that we haven't been able to do ever before. For example, we can get a snapshot of what the universe looked like in its infancy, when the first atoms were forming. We can get a snapshot of what the universe looked like in its adolescence, when the first stars and galaxies were forming. And we are now getting a full detail, three-dimensional image of what the local universe looks like today. When you put together this different information, which we're getting for the first time in human history, you obtain a very tight series of constraints on any model of cosmic evolution. If you go back to the different theories of cosmic evolution in the early 1990's, the data we've gathered in the last decade has eliminated all of them—save one, a model that you might think of today as the consensus model. This model involves a combination of the Big Bang model as developed in the 1920s, '30s, and '40s; the Inflationary Theory, which Alan Guth proposed in the 1980s; and a recent amendment that I will discuss shortly. This consensus theory matches the observations we have of the universe today in exquisite detail. For this reason, many cosmologists conclude that we have finally determined the basic cosmic history of the universe.

more to read in the site.

 

[shunyadragon]

Tong says that it IS 'absolutely nothing' in those very words.

Tong: 1
Mysticism: 1
Polymath: 0



So essentially what you are saying is that Everything, ie 'The (material) Universe', comes out of pure energy, which is no-(material)-thing. IOW, Everything comes out of Nothing.



Reality is both classical AND Quantum, depending on one's level of orientation. But there is still zero understanding as to the true nature of The Universe. All we have so far is partial knowledge as to its mechanics. That is not understanding. I think you are using the term 'understanding' for 'factual knowledge'. They are not the same thing.

@Polymath257 trumps youtube.

 

[godnotgod]

I have a good back ground in science and physics I do not need a you tube video fro me to make a distinction between the Quantum Nothing and the 'absolute nothing of philosophy. It is rudely simple. The absolute nothing of philosophy is indeed absolutely nothing.

The Quantum nothing is indeed something: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-what-is-nothing.html

Even at its lowest energy level, there are fluctuations in the quantum vacuum of the Universe. There are quantum particles popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. ... There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really meaning "the universe from a potentiality.".

Excuse me. You dismiss the video because it is a YouTube video? Isn't that rather ignorant of you? The video, sir, happens to be that of a prominent theoretical physicist, someone who, I think, knows a bit more about the Quantum vacuum than a geologist, wouldn't you say?

Uh, 'potentiality' is not a material 'something'. It is something held in consciousness. The potential is that a 'material' Universe comes out of a non-material potential. 'Nothing' refers to both the philosophical and the Quantum notions of 'nothing'. Consciousness is the fundamental reality out of which Everything emerges.

Tong, in the video I posted, and which you poo pooed out of your arrogance, tells us that 'there are no particles in the world', and 'all particles are the result of fluctuations in the field'. I put my money with a theoretical physicist and not with a geologist.

As far as the macro world of our universe we very much know a great deal.

We like to think so, don't we? You are talking 'factual knowledge', not understanding.

All you need to do is get a decent education in science, physics and math, because @Polymath257 and I will not spoon feed you the textbooks.

I simply made the distinction for you between the philosophical nothing 'ex nihilo' and the nature of Quantum nothing. I should not have had to do that. Instead of looking at you tube videos you can look these things up yourself.

Yes, I am familiar with 'ex nihilo', which is just a theist's poor 'explanation' for the existence of the world via a god. Neither the theist nor the scientist have a handle on actual Reality. Tong proves via his video that you do NOT require an education in math to know what Quantum Physics is saying. I reject the pablum you want to 'spoon feed' to me. Eat it yourself. You need a dose of your own medicine to cure your arrogant attitude. 'I am a geologist and blah blah blah' ad nauseum.

(BTW, I was at one time a Marine Invertebrate Zoology major, with groundings in geology, zoology, biology, botany, astronomy, and chemistry, as well as philosophy, and am a student of world religions, so don't lecture me about a 'science education')

It has never been either the claim up front nor the intent of science.

I said that it was not the claim, didn't I? But the intent has always been the case, otherwise science would not continue to do so. You just don't like the term 'encapsulation'. 'Concept' and 'theory' and 'hypothesis' are primary objectives in science. These are encapsulations; ie 'conceptual frameworks'. Math especially.

So what?!?!!? Yes, there are unknowns and Paradoxes, there always have been and will be in the future.Apparently by the content of your posts you do not understand the references.

Just using the shotgun of 'arguing from ignorance,' without a fundamental knowledge of science gets you nowhere.

Typical science snobbery and foolishness which knows all the facts but tells us nothing.

You said: 'Math is a tool, and mathematical models cannot solve anything on their own, and never will solve it..' My reference to Tong and the paradox of the Quantum vacuum being solved via math was a direct rebuttal to your self-assured statement.

Now go to your room and remain there until further notice.

 

[godnotgod]

@Polymath257 trumps youtube.

YouTube trumps PolyDragon knockoffs with Tong originals.

 

[gnostic]

May I ask why you believe conversation is true, eternally?

I think you mean “conservation”, not “conversation”.

May I ask why you believe conversation is true, eternally? May I ask whether that causes you to ask yourself, "Why was here always here?"

As I said to you earlier (last reply), I cannot say if the conservation being “eternal” is true or false, because we currently don’t know enough about BEFORE the Planck Epoch started, which was also the start of the expansion.

Even the Planck Epoch and half-a-dozen of epochs that followed, are still hypothetical, and cannot be verifiably and directly observed. The universe before the Recombination Epoch was opaque, acting like the event horizon of the black hole, where nothing can be seen pre-Recombination epoch.

(Note, that the Recombination Epoch started about 377,000 years after the start of the Big Bang.)

The earliest observable things that we can directly detect and measure is the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation). The photon were emitted when the electrons finally bonded with the earliest elements, turning ionised hydrogen and ionised helium into electrically neutral and stable atoms, thereby causing the universe to become transparent, during the Recombination Epoch.

Before Recombination Epoch, the universe was opaque, because atoms (ionised) were ionised, make it impossible for light or photon impossible to travel freely, because the light emitted was quickly re-absorbed with the ionised elements. Photon cannot successfully decouple while matters were ionised.

My whole point of bringing up that while the universe was opaque, we do not know how much of the 1st law of thermodynamics still applied in the earlier epochs before the Recombination Epoch. And we certainly don’t know much before the Planck Epoch.

So I don’t know if the conservations (of energy and of mass) apply in these circumstances, so I don’t know if conservations are eternal or not.

When I wrote my last reply to you, I was merely putting hypothetical scenario.

If energy and mass are eternal and eternally conserved, then your creation myth of god creating anything and everything is moot.

The emphasis on the word “if”. The “if” is hypothetical position, which have the potential of being “true” or “false”...or the 3rd possible outcome, “undetermined”.

If mass and energy are eternally conserved, then god didn’t do anything, eg “creating”.

PS, i don’t think you understand that energy and mass are both characteristics or properties of matters. Energy don’t exist without mass and matter.

 

[gnostic]

Excuse me. You dismiss the video because it is a YouTube video? Isn't that rather ignorant of you? The video, sir, happens to be that of a prominent theoretical physicist, someone who, I think, knows a bit more about the Quantum vacuum than a geologist, wouldn't you say?

No, because anyone can make YouTube videos, and there are loads of pseudoscientific rubbish.

Any idiot can expressed their biased opinions in front of the camera, and many who do post up their videos, don’t necessary have the qualifications and experiences in science, on the subjects they are talking about.

YouTube videos don’t decide what is or isn’t science.

I don’t watch much YouTube videos because of these biased idiots. And when I do watch the little that I do, is to punch holes RF members’ arguments, who rely too heavily on YouTube as authority.

 

[shunyadragon]

Excuse me. You dismiss the video because it is a YouTube video? Isn't that rather ignorant of you? The video, sir, happens to be that of a prominent theoretical physicist, someone who, I think, knows a bit more about the Quantum vacuum than a geologist, wouldn't you say?

I dismiss you and the misuse of the video.

 

[gnostic]

The video, sir, happens to be that of a prominent theoretical physicist, someone who, I think, knows a bit more about the Quantum vacuum than a geologist, wouldn't you say?

As to this Tong, you are harping on about.

Note the words you used, “theoretical physicist”.

I don’t accept anything from theoretical physicists until they have empirical and verifiable evidences to back up their proposed models.

Theoretical physics are only “proposed” scientific theory. Theoretical physics only provide conceptual and mathematical solutions, so it is not real-world solutions (verifiable evidences).

Their models don’t become actual scientific theories until their proposed explanations are backed by empirical evidences.

Theoretical physics relied only on maths (hence proof), not on being testable evidences.

If you cannot repeatedly and rigorously test a hypothesis, then it isn’t a scientific theory.

Tong is just one of many theoretical physicists, putting their proposed models are only providing abstract and conceptual solutions, but none of these proposals are scientific theories.

Steven Hawking is a theoretical physicist too. And while he is a genius with maths, a lot of his models remained untestable.