No you weren’t quoting Smolin, but Pokejustice was. And then you answered a post that wasn’t directed at you. You stated, that I was flippantly debunking the views of senior scientists as though it were due to misplaced arrogance. I wanted Pokejustice to admit that he was using scientific ideas that were at odds with mainstream science (credit to him, he did). And I called Smolin’s position marginal, not Hawking…Your initial point that I was unwilling to debate because I didn’t accept ideas that supported your views is fatuous.
Let me explain the reasoning for not accepting such an illegitimate approach to unveiling the truth on a subject such as the origin of the universe. There are several formulations for systems describing quantum gravity. I’ll use two examples that most on this forum seem familiar with: String theory and Loop quantum gravity. The model for the origin of our universe under string theory can be described by two colliding membranes in 11-dimenional hyperspace. Where as, loop quantum gravity posits a cyclic model of the universe, or a ‘big bounce’ model. Such theories of quantum gravity are formulated by the greatest minds on the planet, they are formulated by intellectuals who posses intellectual accolades equal or greater than those of Hawking. This is why no self-respecting scientist would submit a doctorate and attempt to vindicate his/her assertions by quoting another scientist. This is why scientists back their claims by experimental evidence. As I’ve shown, numerous scientific minds are in disagreement to what is truth. We see the world’s greatest minds at odds. So, it follows they can’t all be right, some of those intellectuals must be wrong. It is simply impossible to accept all scientific ideas. It is only ideas possesing categorical, definitive, exact, reproducible and indisputable experimental evidence that we may accept. Thus evidence, logic and mathematics are preferable, words aren't. There are too many contradicting opinions for them to be preferable.
When I said "the scientific consensus agrees with me” I thought sourcing evidence would be unnecessary for such a mainstream idea. I believe it was the fundamental uncertainty I was mentioning. If you want to see that such ideas are mainstream pick up a highschool textbook. This will evidence my claim that my views reflect the scientific consensus.
1. I didn’t change my claim I extended it to show how lacking your rebuttal was. Probability may exist independent of time. Time is not a requisite for probability. Let’s assume we have a pile of sand that pre-dates our universe. It can take any shape possible, we can deduce that a sand castle is far less probable than a random assorted pattern. Now it’s hard to produce a definite numerical probability but simple deduction can be used to determine which states are more probable than others. You’ve already done this, by agreeing that a being with omni prefixes is a statistical impossibility. No calculations, were used.
2.I’ll try simplify the point. God knowingly created the universe, thus he is a complex being. He has a statistically significant level of consciousness. Laws are not complex they are simply fundamental parameters on the interactions of a universe, they do not know what they’re doing. Thus, independent of time, the state in which a conscious God resides is less probable, given the difference in complexity.
3. This is nonsense. If I toss a coin I can say that the event: the coin will lands heads, is more likely than the event: the coin will turn into a horse. We can (often) logically deduce which events are more or less probable than others without a numerical calulation.
This was what the whole Smolin thing was about, wasn’t it? The uncertainty principle coupled with an inflationary epoch can lead to the multiverse. So no, our universe came from ‘somewhere’ elsewhere. Presumably, the multiverse ‘foam’. The elegance of the theory of inflationary epochs coupled with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is that the universe needs nothing for its birth, literally nothing. The universe may form from a state containing a modicum of energy, a near infinite energy supply, or none at all. So, in essence I believe energy pre-dates our universe. However, entropy would still exist irrespective of energy. It is a law manifest of statistics and mathematical order.
I presume you’re alluding to Einstein’s theory of general relativity. This describes how time behaves and can be warped by mass, not why times exists. It is entropy that explains the arrow of time. The assertion that God is subject to laws born from statistical and logical order needs no clarification, these laws by their defining qualities transcend our universe.
Why are they poor explanations? And why is God the most logical explanation?
Last edited:
