People get the wrong idea about laws of nature. They think that this is something that is set and nature gets in trouble when it breaks it. What they are are observations of what happens.  Why those things happen can have simple reasons or many different causes. What is needed to find out what is study and evidence.
 
Thanks, DPB. “What they are are observations of what happens.”  Is it the effect of the law’s cause that is the observation, or is the law itself an observation?  That's probably an important distinction. If it's the former, then how would one classify a law itself if it is not an observation?

Edit: to add last sentence.

Everyone, please watch this. It's an amazing 101 physics perspective of our reality.
(Subject to change without notice if Alex calls bullshit on it. But the physics lady presenting is hawt!))

(June 5, 2017 at 12:26 pm)RedSox Wrote: Hi all, this is my first time posting.  I'm a Christian and I want to discuss what is the origin of matter?  Wouldn't the origin  have to be something (1) natural, (2) nothingness/null/void, (3) supernatural, or (4) paranormal?  One might argue "we don't know" which I can appreciate, but it would have to fall in one of those four categories, right?  Thank you in advance for your responses to get the conversation rolling!

1) Well matter does beget other matter the whole time (well to be precise, it causes other matter to be recombinated into new forms), 2) this is an observed process at the quantum level, 3) well seeing as the definition of supernatural is "something which only exists outside reality" that's a non starter, like trying to argue for invisible pink unicorns, 4) is 3) with a slightly different name like the way MaccyD's relabelled their famous salmonella burgers as Big Macs. Doesn't change a thing.

So your attempt to shoehorn a gotcha! moment into a forum dedicated to educated and informed thinking not only fails but makes you look like an idiot into the bargain. You must be proud.

from the UK, RedSox. I normally roll out the tea and biscuits but considering the topic, may I offer you some Schroedinger's Beverage? It's all possible beverages and you don't know what you're getting until you pour.

(June 10, 2017 at 7:29 am)Ben Davis Wrote: from the UK, RedSox. I normally roll out the tea and biscuits but considering the topic, may I offer you some Schroedinger's Beverage? It's all possible beverages and you don't know what you're getting until you pour.

As a scholar in fine wine and beer, I would try out a shrodinger beer. I think it would be a lager. Even if I was the cat in the box.

(June 10, 2017 at 7:34 am)LastPoet Wrote:

(June 10, 2017 at 7:29 am)Ben Davis Wrote: from the UK, RedSox. I normally roll out the tea and biscuits but considering the topic, may I offer you some Schroedinger's Beverage? It's all possible beverages and you don't know what you're getting until you pour.

As a scholar in fine wine and beer, I would try out a shrodinger beer. I think it would be a lager. Even if I was the cat in the box.

Statistically, since lager makes up a reasonable proportion of beverages, it's a reasonable bet but so do mediocre cabernet-sauvignons and fruit squashes. And let's not forget liquid methane, the favourite drink of the Andelusians of Garrex IV! Is it really a gamble you're willing to take?

Alternatively, I can offer you Heisenberg's Beverage, you can either drink it or know where it is, but not both

(June 10, 2017 at 6:51 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(June 5, 2017 at 12:26 pm)RedSox Wrote: Hi all, this is my first time posting.  I'm a Christian and I want to discuss what is the origin of matter?  Wouldn't the origin  have to be something (1) natural, (2) nothingness/null/void, (3) supernatural, or (4) paranormal?  One might argue "we don't know" which I can appreciate, but it would have to fall in one of those four categories, right?  Thank you in advance for your responses to get the conversation rolling!

1) Well matter does beget other matter the whole time (well to be precise, it causes other matter to be recombinated into new forms), 2) this is an observed process at the quantum level, 3) well seeing as the definition of supernatural is "something which only exists outside reality" that's a non starter, like trying to argue for invisible pink unicorns, 4) is 3) with a slightly different name like the way MaccyD's relabelled their famous salmonella burgers as Big Macs. Doesn't change a thing.

So your attempt to shoehorn a gotcha! moment into a forum dedicated to educated and informed thinking not only fails but makes you look like an idiot into the bargain. You must be proud.

We've already covered what you discuss in your post.  If you'd like to be helpful, read the entire thread and answer my latest question.

RedSox Wrote:Understood.  If we’re always left asking “where does that come from” would that logically lead to the belief that at least one of the following is infinite past (has always been)?: energy or matter or quantum fluctuations or really anything that is not null/void.

I don't see how it would logically lead to that belief. It doesn't seem to follow. Do YOU see how it would logically lead to that belief?

(June 12, 2017 at 9:38 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RedSox Wrote:Understood.  If we’re always left asking “where does that come from” would that logically lead to the belief that at least one of the following is infinite past (has always been)?: energy or matter or quantum fluctuations or really anything that is not null/void.

I don't see how it would logically lead to that belief. It doesn't seem to follow. Do YOU see how it would logically lead to that belief?

“Where does that come from” begs the question if it comes from something at all.  The possibilities are “it does come from somewhere/something” or “it does not come from somewhere/something.”  Even if we don’t know the answer, the reality is that it comes from somewhere/something or it does not (origin in this case a null/void).  If one believes this is a false dichotomy please provide a third, or fourth, etc. option.  Do you agree with the first 3 sentences in this paragraph?  If so, I can expand on why I think it would logically lead to that belief of an infinite past for something that is not null/void.

Edit: Just FYI, Mister Agenda has responded to this and he and I are discussing our conversation via e-mail... seems to be a more efficient medium for lengthy discussions and easier dialogue than message boards.

(June 6, 2017 at 9:48 am)RedSox Wrote:

(June 6, 2017 at 3:38 am)Alex K Wrote: Quantum flucuations is a term that is thrown around a lot, and I want to avoid the impression that it is a catch-all term for obfuscation a la "it's a miracle". The term has a precise definition. In quantum physics (i.e. in physics once you look close enough) most if not all quantities seem to be intrinsically uncertain. Take any quantity such as the velocity of a particle. Try as you may to give it a precise velocity from the outset, it will only lead to an uncertainty in its position, seemingly existing in many places at once until it is observed, which in turn spoils any velocity measurement. The fields that are present in otherwise empty space are subject to the same thing. If you try to imbue them with a value of precisely zero, they automatically will have a rate of change that renders them non-zero. Likewise, the fields governing the geometry of spacetime can be assumed to be subject to this, and one effect of that is that the universe can spontaneously expand and dump all the excess energy into its own contents in the form of particles.
If you ask me why do these fields exist and why are the dynamics such that these fluctuations occur, I'd have to say nobody knows probably.

Thanks, AK, for that description of quantum fluctuations.  Do you have any thoughts on the origin of positive energy?

No matter how far you dig you're not going to get the gotcha! moment of "goddidit". All you're doing is digging a hole to China.

---

(June 10, 2017 at 9:21 pm)RedSox Wrote:

(June 10, 2017 at 6:51 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: 1) Well matter does beget other matter the whole time (well to be precise, it causes other matter to be recombinated into new forms), 2) this is an observed process at the quantum level, 3) well seeing as the definition of supernatural is "something which only exists outside reality" that's a non starter, like trying to argue for invisible pink unicorns, 4) is 3) with a slightly different name like the way MaccyD's relabelled their famous salmonella burgers as Big Macs. Doesn't change a thing.

So your attempt to shoehorn a gotcha! moment into a forum dedicated to educated and informed thinking not only fails but makes you look like an idiot into the bargain. You must be proud.

We've already covered what you discuss in your post.  If you'd like to be helpful, read the entire thread and answer my latest question.

I find little reason to be helpful to those whose thinking begins and ends at "goddidit". When you get past that point, I'll reconsider.