Nothingness

[Harris]

Whilst I'm interested in theories of nothingness to somethingness, I have no need to discuss it. Why do you? Are you making a scientific claim from Islam?

Does Islam = science to you? Which one is most correct?


Please link your reply to Little_Monkey. I've just read the whole thread... I don't remember it and I have no desire to re-read. Thanks.

Ah ok I found it. here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-18672-po...#pid441699
You think that science and theology can be combined. You are deluded.

second part of the discussion see below

little-monkey wrote
I understand you are talking from a philosophy POV. I'm no philosopher. I can only give you a physicist POV. So bear with me.

Now, you are comparing nothingness with space. In GR, that would be incorrect. In relativistic classical physics, time is another dimension with space, why we use space-time (sometimes without a hypen), and space-time can have dynamical properties. That means it does interact with matter/energy.

Secondly, if you mean nothingness is vacuum energy, then it is something. So continuing in labelling it as "nothingness" will bring confusion.

You are also asking, Is there a substitution for God? I'm not sure if I understand your question. For instance, why would there be a necessity for a substitution? It could be that the universe always existed, and what we are witnessing is its present state. At some earlier times, it might have been in a completely different state, and our job is to find that out. And so you have many theories on the market trying to answer that - cyclic theories, multiverse theories, fecund theories, conformal theories, to name a few. Which one will prevail, only time will tell as we will require new discoveries to filter out the incorrect ones.

At present, the Big Bang Theory is the prevailing paradigm. But it has deficiencies, the primary one being that it has a singularity. A singularity is a mathematical entity, not a real one. If it is present in a theory, it's a red flag that either the theory is not applied correctly, or it is invalid at a certain scale. In the case of the BBT, we think that we need a new theory that will combine Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, as none of them can deal with the Planck scale. And so this is another thing that physicists are trying to work out.


little monkey
"Now, you are comparing nothingness with space. In GR, that would be incorrect. In relativistic classical physics, time is another dimension with space, why we use space-time (sometimes without a hypen), and space-time can have dynamical properties. That means it does interact with matter/energy."

my response
In my previous response, I have clearly mentioned for me, space and nothingness are two different entities. You can check my previous response I had given many quotes of different authors to back up my idea. I never tried to compare space with nothingness.
Therefore, your physical point of view is a perfect match to my philosophical point of view.

little monkey
"Secondly, if you mean nothingness is vacuum energy, then it is something. So continuing in labelling it as "nothingness" will bring confusion."

my response
I don’t mean nothingness is vacuum or vacuum energy. I again ask you to refer my previous response especially the quotations that I have provided.

little monkey
"You are also asking, Is there a substitution for God? I'm not sure if I understand your question. For instance, why would there be a necessity for a substitution? It could be that the universe always existed, and what we are witnessing is its present state. At some earlier times, it might have been in a completely different state, and our job is to find that out. And so you have many theories on the market trying to answer that - cyclic theories, multiverse theories, fecund theories, conformal theories, to name a few. Which one will prevail, only time will tell as we will require new discoveries to filter out the incorrect ones."

my response
Certainly multiverse theory can be possible but I totally disagree and factually, it is incorrect if someone tries to say that multiverse is eternal in past. It is incorrect because no mathematically consistent and empirically adequate physical model of the universe is capable of being extrapolated past infinity. The Lankan theorem shows if even there is a multiverse it too must have had a beginning at some time in the finite past. All the evidences say there is a beginning of the universe and there is no evidence about the universe is beginning less.
It seems for many atheist physicists multiverse is some kind of a substitute of God. It is their kind of doing metaphysics without using the letter G.
Multiverse theory is an attempt to a marriage between string theory and inflationary cosmology both of which have extremely speculative boundary area of science. But the important thing is even given the inflating Universe that uses string theory for its fundamental physics, such a universe still cannot be eternal in the past.
When you say Multiverse is eternal that really highlights atheists believe that there has to be something eternal because universe can’t come from nothing and you seem to agree with that.

little monkey
"At present, the Big Bang Theory is the prevailing paradigm. But it has deficiencies, the primary one being that it has a singularity. A singularity is a mathematical entity, not a real one. If it is present in a theory, it's a red flag that either the theory is not applied correctly, or it is invalid at a certain scale. In the case of the BBT, we think that we need a new theory that will combine Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, as none of them can deal with the Planck scale. And so this is another thing that physicists are trying to work out."

my response
It’s a physical fact that quantum vacuum is not stable and because it is not stable it can’t persist for infinite time. It is I think a sufficient argument that quantum vacuum state is itself has a beginning, that’s why universe is not infinitely old, and big bang theory is one of the more stable theory among other models available on universe.