Is the universe orderly?

[McBell]

One means that science goes gibberish when confronted with such questions. Please
Regards

This has been gone over.
When you claim science has gone gibberish, all it means is that you either do not understand it and or you dislike it.

Why you want to beat this dead straw horse is anyone's guess.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Look, I usually enjoy to address the FTA from a position of disadvantage. Because it is fun. It is like fighting with just one arm and still winning. But tonight I am lazy, so I will simply destroy the necessity of its conclusions in the most direct way.

If carbon life cries for an explanation (big if) and we can exclude a random unlikely process, then I can think of at least two alternatives:

1) someone with an obsession for carbon life created the Universe finely tuned for carbon life
2) there is a huge, possibly infinite, multitude of universes. One, or more than one, have neccesarily the conditions for carbon life

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

I have no problem with door number two Viole> I think we got off on the wrong foot so to speak when I was discussing the issue of a fine tuned universe with another member who was claiming there was absolutely no evidence for the existence of God an intelligent creator. The discussion was heated and I was even more angry with him when he then rejected Penroses idea saying only empirical evidence was acceptable. I should not have allowed my emotional state interfere with our conversation. Or I might of simply been high on crack....lol....

Personally my belief is that unless a new set of tools ie probably a new physics as Hawking called it is developed, hard or empirical evidence for existence of God or an intelligent designer will not be forthcoming. The reason being is the same reason that we may never know what lies beyond a event horizon or what caused the big bang to bang (if its not cyclic). Our laws of physics break down or become useless as we near or cross the EH or try to discover what happens just before or before 'time zero' of the big bang. I would love to be around when it happens tho no matter what the outcome!

 

[viole]

I have no problem with door number two Viole> I think we got off on the wrong foot so to speak when I was discussing the issue of a fine tuned universe with another member who was claiming there was absolutely no evidence for the existence of God an intelligent creator. The discussion was heated and I was even more angry with him when he then rejected Penroses idea saying only empirical evidence was acceptable. I should not have allowed my emotional state interfere with our conversation. Or I might of simply been high on crack....lol....

Personally my belief is that unless a new set of tools ie probably a new physics as Hawking called it is developed, hard or empirical evidence for existence of God or an intelligent designer will not be forthcoming. The reason being is the same reason that we may never know what lies beyond a event horizon or what caused the big bang to bang (if its not cyclic). Our laws of physics break down or become useless as we near or cross the EH or try to discover what happens just before or before 'time zero' of the big bang. I would love to be around when it happens tho no matter what the outcome!

Well, I agree. As a side note, from the block universe point of view, beginnings are nonsensical even under the classical regime of inflation and relativity.

And I would also love to be around, no matter what the outcome, as long as it explains matter, of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[joelr]

Yes the Universe is extremely fine tuned. The cosmological constants and the way space-time, mass and the speed of light are all connected to allow for a causal/linear experience and the extremely low entropy state of the original ball of hyper-dense quantum energy is all very strange.

This gives no more credibility to any modern theistic notions than it does to prove the Universe was actually created by the All-Father Odin.

The Block Universe theory has some serious problems associated with it as well

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Well, I agree. As a side note, from the block universe point of view, beginnings are nonsensical even under the classical regime of inflation and relativity.

And I would also love to be around, no matter what the outcome, as long as it explains matter, of course.

Ciao

- viole

I am not a fan of inflation, or of the Block Universe theory. Thanks for your reply Viole~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Yes the Universe is extremely fine tuned. The cosmological constants and the way space-time, mass and the speed of light are all connected to allow for a causal/linear experience and the extremely low entropy state of the original ball of hyper-dense quantum energy is all very strange.

I as a person who has both a science theological paradigm (world view) I've debated many atheists who attempt to gain an upper hand in debate by claiming there is no evidence for the existence of a creator God (or an ID). Unfailing, they actually mean there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God (I coined the word GID to include creator of any type, GID means God the intelligent creator). There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence and logical argument for the existence of GID. However, they are correct in claiming there is no pure or hard empirical evidences for the supernatural* or to prove an supernatural being exists. That makes sense to me because science by its very nature is the study and definition of the material world. Science fails when attempting to describe fringe areas of nature and/or what we term as metaphysics attempting to describe and define our universe, much less the areas that are for not out of the ability for science to may exist.

This gives no more credibility to any modern theistic notions than it does to prove the Universe was actually created by the All-Father Odin.

I disagree. Not about Odin, personally if there is a creator entity that can create life giving universes it can look like the flying spaghetti monster. What I meant is my agreement or disagreement f how the universe was formed greatly depends on which theory of origins and evolution of the universe(s) is true. Since I still believe the hot model of the big bang with only one universe having been created is true evidences like FT or revelation have a better chance of being true than say the infinite or many universe interpretation (or the many worlds interpretation MWI).

The Block Universe theory has some serious problems associated with it as well

I remember when I first read about the BUT (lol). The analogy for the universe in the BT was a loaf of rye bread! Apparently the BUT or a similar version of it had been around since the turn of the century. I would like to see a new origins theory because I am beginning to suspect my current choice for how the universe began is faulty. Maybe A few more years of CERN running wide open and perhaps a couple more satellites data may reveal another more plausible theory.

 

[joelr]

I as a person who has both a science theological paradigm (world view) I've debated many atheists who attempt to gain an upper hand in debate by claiming there is no evidence for the existence of a creator God (or an ID). Unfailing, they actually mean there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God (I coined the word GID to include creator of any type, GID means God the intelligent creator). There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence and logical argument for the existence of GID. However, they are correct in claiming there is no pure or hard empirical evidences for the supernatural* or to prove an supernatural being exists. That makes sense to me because science by its very nature is the study and definition of the material world. Science fails when attempting to describe fringe areas of nature and/or what we term as metaphysics attempting to describe and define our universe, much less the areas that are for not out of the ability for science to may exist.

Well the more Quantum Physics, Cosmology, AstroPhysics and even some Astronomy I learn the Universe does seem as if it's a design. Especially the way it starts out with a hyper-dense ball of quantum energy and from that, out come all these symmetries and laws (based on mathematics) that allow for everything we see in the Universe to form, including life. And it's quite a delicate balance. Even experiencing a causal past - future sequence is because of the way space-time keeps light speed constant.

What this means could be many things, there could be scientific reasons for all of that and we just can't see it yet. It's easy to put a "God in the Gap" when science has no answer. There could be beings from other older Universes that have merged with technology and would seem like gods to us. They could create those quantum balls and release them into barron regins to see what forms?

II disagree. Not about Odin, personally if there is a creator entity that can create life giving universes it can look like the flying spaghetti monster. What I meant is my agreement or disagreement f how the universe was formed greatly depends on which theory of origins and evolution of the universe(s) is true. Since I still believe the hot model of the big bang with only one universe having been created is true evidences like FT or revelation have a better chance of being true than say the infinite or many universe interpretation (or the many worlds interpretation MWI).

What I meant by Odin is that the Universe seeming to be a created structure doesn't help prove what many religious people want it to prove. They will bring up the cosmological constants and say "See follow Jesus or go to Hell!"

If one is going to use modern science to show reasons why the Universe may be created then one could just as easily say "Look it's proof Odin created the Universe"
Or whatever 1000's of other mythologies with creation myths.

II remember when I first read about the BUT (lol). The analogy for the universe in the BT was a loaf of rye bread! Apparently the BUT or a similar version of it had been around since the turn of the century. I would like to see a new origins theory because I am beginning to suspect my current choice for how the universe began is faulty. Maybe A few more years of CERN running wide open and perhaps a couple more satellites data may reveal another more plausible theory.

Block time is weird because it kills free will but it's even worse on a quantum level.
The whole thing with Quantum Mechanics is you can know, for example, that a radioactive particle is going to decay, 1 atom in a chip of Uranium every 10 seconds or so. But you can never ever know which one. And information about position and momentum cannot both be known. It's a fundamental concept in nature.

Block time doesn't allow for this freedom and that bugs me. During one of the World Science Festival videos on QP with 6 current physicists discussing current issues one of the scientists (Kip Thorne or Penrose I think) said the same thing about block time.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Well the more Quantum Physics, Cosmology, AstroPhysics and even some Astronomy I learn the Universe does seem as if it's a design. Especially the way it starts out with a hyper-dense ball of quantum energy and from that, out come all these symmetries and laws (based on mathematics) that allow for everything we see in the Universe to form, including life. And it's quite a delicate balance. Even experiencing a causal past - future sequence is because of the way space-time keeps light speed constant.

Yes it does seem that way doesn’t it? I can understand the unbelievers who use logic and reason to mount some very good counter arguments. Actually certain qualities the fine tuned universe is the weakest of evidences to support the existence of a creator. There are just so many more good evidences. Yes, yes indeedy, if we are so lucky that Big Bang (one universe) theory that has been the go to theory for the last 50 years (roughly) is correct one the universe is almost certainly created. For example how did the universe meaning the 'singularity' begin to exist and unfold? Or another question how did code emerge in the universe? Let me expand. We know patterns can occur in nature without a God or intelligent designer. By patterns I mean crystals of ice or snow, weather patterns, geological formations even waves (ocean). They are developed by nature employing chaos and fractals. Now back to codes. Examples include binary code, page music, the spoken languages, computer programs, and the clincher DNA. yes, DNA. The reason DNA is so exciting is that its code,that has information storage etc. And as I pointed out all codes are produced by an intelligence. Say hello to God.

What this means could be many things, there could be scientific reasons for all of that and we just can't see it yet. It's easy to put a "God in the Gap" when science has no answer. There could be beings from other older Universes that have merged with technology and would seem like gods to us. They could create those quantum balls and release them into barron regins to see what forms?

Yes I mentioned the advanced race idea. A race advanced enough to create universes with a thought or to live forever would be God. Yes typing that even makes me uncomfortable! That is why I said its not rational to be an atheist.

What I meant by Odin is that the Universe seeming to be a created structure doesn't help prove what many religious people want it to prove. They will bring up the cosmological constants and say "See follow Jesus or go to Hell!"

Ill tell you, I’ve been all over the world, from key west to Tok Alaska and from Anchorage AK to Germany etc etc, and just cant find those evil Christians that follow some of you guys around! Lol!!

If one is going to use modern science to show reasons why the Universe may be created then one could just as easily say "Look it's proof Odin created the Universe"
Or whatever 1000's of other mythologies with creation myths.

I don’t understand that line of thought.

Block time is weird because it kills free will but it's even worse on a quantum level.
The whole thing with Quantum Mechanics is you can know, for example, that a radioactive particle is going to decay, 1 atom in a chip of Uranium every 10 seconds or so. But you can never ever know which one. And information about position and momentum cannot both be known. It's a fundamental concept in nature.

Probability saves the day with free will! I use the cat in the box and the double slit experiment for an analogy of how God could engineer free will into the universe. This reply is already too long so I will not clarify unless requested.

Block time doesn't allow for this freedom and that bugs me. During one of the World Science Festival videos on QP with 6 current physicists discussing current issues one of the scientists (Kip Thorne or Penrose I think) said the same thing about block time.

Don’t worry my friend. Even though block time is gaining favor and becoming the go to theory I have a strong hunch it will be replaced with a better more reasonable theory.

End of reply


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


After the end time the universes physical laws are changed to allow freedom from sickness fear and time. The old curse of entropy in place since the fall of man will be swept away and a new Universe will begin to emerge;

Rev 21;

"Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband."

 

[stevevw]

What does the science say about it?
Please quote from a text book of science and or from a peer reviewed article in a reputed journal of science in support of your opinion.
Regards

According to this article which comes from scientific research the universe is made up of information and works like a computer binary code. So I would say that's pretty orderly.

“So, what is the universe? The universe is a physical system that contains and processes information in a systematic fashion and that can do everything a computer can do.”
The theory of everything: The universe is 'like a COMPUTER underlined by information'