First order logic, set theory and God

[polymath257]

You say that this is a large scale anomaly but compared to what? this may be an incredibly tiny anomaly that seems large to us. What is your basis for comparison of scale?

Can the universe suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere? Sure why not, makes more sense than "magic man dun it".

I tend to think that there is some sort of pre-existing state that the universe emerged from. But I have little evidence for that and I only believe what can actually be proved.
You should try it.

Why would I need to compare it to anything?  I'm not making the claims.  Are you saying a few little particles that may have cause themselves by some unknown process equates to our universe with insane amounts of mass/energy?

As far as your second statement, it seems as though the parts of it are disqualifying to each other.  If you say it can happen, then why can't there be a source? Your last statements supports that conclusion.  What is that pre-existing state?  I'm fine with you saying "you don't know", but how do we rule out anything if "we don't know" what it was?

Interesting statement from you:

"I only believe what can actually be proved"

That sounds very similar to what you hear in Scientology.  Not to the extent of it, but I remember Tom Cruise had an interview and he said something very similar in reference to his belief.

---

Yes, the energy just 'pops'. There *is* no process: the events are not caused.

We can create situations where the probabilities change and that has allowed us to test this. The Casimir effect is one consequence of this quantum fluctuation.

And I notice that you only addressed the last of my rebuttals, not the first two. That P1 is false in the real world is an experimental fact. But the other two show *internal* difficulties with your axiomatic system.

Was discussing this with one of the atheists on here the other day.  Zero-point energy and the aether hypothesis.

Regardless, feel free to believe whatever you like.  Not going around in circles with mass and energy popping out of nothing and creating an expanse with an enormous amount of energy that can't be thoroughly explained.  I'll be happy to believe it if someone can demonstrate it or replicate a large scale anamoly.  Until then it's just people asserting small things and trying to assert it towards past cause and effect.  Arguing about it is the equivalent of banging your head against the wall, because nobody can make a conclusive argument for "how it happened" since we can't go into the pass and observe it.

Well, the point is that there *are* events that have no cause. That is enough to destroy your argument. The scale of them is irrelevant to that.

Now, there *are* descriptions as to how large scale fluctuations can exist in situations of high curvature (which is NOT the present universe).

Your asking 'how it happened' is equivalent to asking for a cause. And that whole point is that there *is* no cause. There *is* no 'mechanism'. But we can observe it and model it *as probabilities*. And that is precisely what quantum mechanics does. It is a local, non-realist, a causal description that works incredibly well.

Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between 'not knowing a cause' and 'knowing there is no cause'. The experiments with Bell's inequalities and Lambert's inequalities show there is no cause and no realism. There is, however, locality.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Why would I need to compare it to anything?  I'm not making the claims.  Are you saying a few little particles that may have cause themselves by some unknown process equates to our universe with insane amounts of mass/energy?

As far as your second statement, it seems as though the parts of it are disqualifying to each other.  If you say it can happen, then why can't there be a source? Your last statements supports that conclusion.  What is that pre-existing state?  I'm fine with you saying "you don't know", but how do we rule out anything if "we don't know" what it was?

Interesting statement from you:

"I only believe what can actually be proved"

That sounds very similar to what you hear in Scientology.  Not to the extent of it, but I remember Tom Cruise had an interview and he said something very similar in reference to his belief.

---

Was discussing this with one of the atheists on here the other day.  Zero-point energy and the aether hypothesis.

Regardless, feel free to believe whatever you like.  Not going around in circles with mass and energy popping out of nothing and creating an expanse with an enormous amount of energy that can't be thoroughly explained.  I'll be happy to believe it if someone can demonstrate it or replicate a large scale anamoly.  Until then it's just people asserting small things and trying to assert it towards past cause and effect.  Arguing about it is the equivalent of banging your head against the wall, because nobody can make a conclusive argument for "how it happened" since we can't go into the pass and observe it.

Well, the point is that there *are* events that have no cause. That is enough to destroy your argument. The scale of them is irrelevant to that.

Now, there *are* descriptions as to how large scale fluctuations can exist in situations of high curvature (which is NOT the present universe).

Your asking 'how it happened' is equivalent to asking for a cause. And that whole point is that there *is* no cause. There *is* no 'mechanism'. But we can observe it and model it *as probabilities*. And that is precisely what quantum mechanics does. It is a local, non-realist, a causal description that works incredibly well.

Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between 'not knowing a cause' and 'knowing there is no cause'. The experiments with Bell's inequalities and Lambert's inequalities show there is no cause and no realism. There is, however, locality.

Not at all. It actually makes the same claim. You have the particles sufficient of themselves.

I agree, the scale of them is irrelevant, because the research isn't scaling the claims.  They're just isolated observations.  Nothing more.  That doesn't mean we can't use them and draw more information, but that's the nature of scientific study.

But hey, believe whatever you like and disagree with me all you want.  It's immaterial to this discussion unless you can go from A to Z with your claims, and at best you've made it to B.  So until then, you can chalk it up as the ultimate explanation of all things, and to me it is an isolated event that people are using to create a fairy tale.  Who's right?  Who's wrong?  We don't know, which is why I reject your conclusion.

[polymath257]

Well, the point is that there *are* events that have no cause. That is enough to destroy your argument. The scale of them is irrelevant to that.

Now, there *are* descriptions as to how large scale fluctuations can exist in situations of high curvature (which is NOT the present universe).

Your asking 'how it happened' is equivalent to asking for a cause. And that whole point is that there *is* no cause. There *is* no 'mechanism'. But we can observe it and model it *as probabilities*. And that is precisely what quantum mechanics does. It is a local, non-realist, a causal description that works incredibly well.

Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between 'not knowing a cause' and 'knowing there is no cause'. The experiments with Bell's inequalities and Lambert's inequalities show there is no cause and no realism. There is, however, locality.

Not at all. It actually makes the same claim. You have the particles sufficient of themselves.

I agree, the scale of them is irrelevant, because the research isn't scaling the claims.  They're just isolated observations.  Nothing more.  That doesn't mean we can't use them and draw more information, but that's the nature of scientific study.

But hey, believe whatever you like and disagree with me all you want.  It's immaterial to this discussion unless you can go from A to Z with your claims, and at best you've made it to B.  So until then, you can chalk it up as the ultimate explanation of all things, and to me it is an isolated event that people are using to create a fairy tale.  Who's right?  Who's wrong?  We don't know, which is why I reject your conclusion.

So what if they are small and 'isolated' observations? They show that not all events have causes.

And that is enough to break your syllogism.

I'm not the one going from A to Z. I am the one showing you cannot go backwards from Z to A because the chain breaks at C.

There are several questions.

One is whether your axiom system applies to the real world. I have given an argument to show that it does not. You seem fixated by this one objection while ignoring the following ones.

Then there is the question of whether the axioms you have chosen are justified by what we know. I have given an argument to show that your P1 is way too strong even in an idealized world where there are always causes. We only have justification to say that finite events have causes, not that infinite events do. In particular, there is no reason to suspect that infinite regresses have causes. So you need a *separate* argument to deal with them.

Finally, there is the problem of your actual 'proof' where you use a system V with no justification on how it is constructed. We *know* that systems of set theory that allow 'large' sets are inconsistent, so you need to show your axioms for system construction. You *may* be able to fix this with an appropriate set theory, but naive set theory is problematic (and there are contradictions other than just Russell's paradox).

It isn't a matter of *my belief*, but whether you have demonstrated your claims. And the fact of the matter is that you are quite far from having done so.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Not at all. It actually makes the same claim. You have the particles sufficient of themselves.

I agree, the scale of them is irrelevant, because the research isn't scaling the claims.  They're just isolated observations.  Nothing more.  That doesn't mean we can't use them and draw more information, but that's the nature of scientific study.

But hey, believe whatever you like and disagree with me all you want.  It's immaterial to this discussion unless you can go from A to Z with your claims, and at best you've made it to B.  So until then, you can chalk it up as the ultimate explanation of all things, and to me it is an isolated event that people are using to create a fairy tale.  Who's right?  Who's wrong?  We don't know, which is why I reject your conclusion.

So what if they are small and 'isolated' observations? They show that not all events have causes.

And that is enough to break your syllogism.

I'm not the one going from A to Z. I am the one showing you cannot go backwards from Z to A because the chain breaks at C.

There are several questions.

One is whether your axiom system applies to the real world. I have given an argument to show that it does not. You seem fixated by this one objection while ignoring the following ones.

Then there is the question of whether the axioms you have chosen are justified by what we know. I have given an argument to show that your P1 is way too strong even in an idealized world where there are always causes. We only have justification to say that finite events have causes, not that infinite events do. In particular, there is no reason to suspect that infinite regresses have causes. So you need a *separate* argument to deal with them.

Finally, there is the problem of your actual 'proof' where you use a system V with no justification on how it is constructed. We *know* that systems of set theory that allow 'large' sets are inconsistent, so you need to show your axioms for system construction. You *may* be able to fix this with an appropriate set theory, but naive set theory is problematic (and there are contradictions other than just Russell's paradox).

It isn't a matter of *my belief*, but whether you have demonstrated your claims. And the fact of the matter is that you are quite far from having done so.,

I already addressed that. If they didn't need a cause, then they are self sufficient, which was one of the options.  But really, they may not be.  If I'm not mistaken, they used a vacuum and light, so they could've been dependent on those things to cause them.  Either way, the argument doesn't demonstrate that it was an isolated anomaly that created the universe.

Your "chain breaks at C" comment doesn't make sense.  There's no justification for saying it interrupted anything.

Also, there are no claims that I would need to demonstrate. It would be on you to demonstrate your fairy tale so that it has real world implications, especially on a large scale. If, and when, you can do that, then you will have something and I will agree with you, but as long as it's just blind conjecture on your part, I'm going to have to pass.

When someone reports something doing a study using the scientific method, there is always a conclusion that gives a brief explanation of the findings and discusses the potential for future expansive study. So on the study you are citing, did the scientists suggest it had to have been what caused the universe to *poof* into existence?