the big bang theory~ how did we get here?

[cafolini]

You don't find PAP intriguing? Fair enough, no one can say what you should find intriguing. I find it slightly intriguing, mildly amusing, something to jive around with in a thread for a few minutes. I don't know if 'origin of big bang' is unsolvable. What makes you say this? Someone said it was impossible to know what the stars were made of, then a few years later someone discovered spectroscopy.

First of all, when you quote me, I'll appreciate your not being selective. Do the whole thing.
Secondly, you are talking about the evolution of science (assuming) and that might be intriguing or puzzling. But no matter how much science may evolve, and benefit us, it will never be sufficient to solve the mysterious aspect of the WHOLE. That mystery is unsolvable and you better take heed of that ultimate reality which we'll never control. May the Grace of God be with you in that genuine Mystery. Case closed.

[mal4mac]

But no matter how much science may evolve, and benefit us, it will never be sufficient to solve the mysterious aspect of the WHOLE. That mystery is unsolvable...

Even if PAP is shown to be true I guess the question of why PAP is the way things work is still there. But maybe we can answer that, and maybe we can avoid an infinite regress. I don't see how, but maybe that's just my limitation. I think there might be a solution of why this WHOLE exists, than again, there might not be.

I've taken the liberty of not quoting you whole because It's clearer, at least to me, and I think to others, when responding to a particular point, not to repeat every other point you make.

[MorpheusSandman]

You don't find PAP intriguing? Fair enough, no one can say what you should find intriguing. I find it slightly intriguing, mildly amusing, something to jive around with in a thread for a few minutes.

PAP is nonsense brought about by a fundamental misunderstanding of the observer role in quantum physics; every AP is nonsense except the weak one, and even it only amounts to a tautology. The rest just reveal what a strong anthropomorphic bias we have and how much we desperately want to think that everything exists for us.

I don't know if 'origin of big bang' is unsolvable.

It's not. See Krauss' A Universe from Nothing. Universes are an inevitable product of quantum fields, which seem to exist a part from those they create.

But no matter how much science may evolve, and benefit us, it will never be sufficient to solve the mysterious aspect of the WHOLE. That mystery is unsolvable and you better take heed of that ultimate reality which we'll never control. May the Grace of God be with you in that genuine Mystery. Case closed.

Every time in history someone has said "science will never..." science eventually has. I love how you call it an "unsolvable mystery" in one sentence and then not-so-subtly drop in your deity that man concocted to explain the "unsolvable mystery" (and which has utterly failed to where science has succeeded).

[mal4mac]

PAP is nonsense brought about by a fundamental misunderstanding of the observer role in quantum physics

Just because you don't like the Copenhagen interpretation is no reason to dismiss it as nonsense... *that's* a nonsensical thing to do.

... every AP is nonsense except the weak one, and even it only amounts to a tautology.

I don't see that, would you like to spell it out?

The rest just reveal what a strong anthropomorphic bias we have and how much we desperately want to think that everything exists for us.

I don't desperately want that, I just find the principle interesting & amusing. God knows if it's true or not, but you certainly haven't convinced me it is nonsense. Would Wheeler, and the many really bright physicists who hold it to be at least a possibility, push nonsense?

[YesNo]

PAP is nonsense brought about by a fundamental misunderstanding of the observer role in quantum physics;

What misunderstanding? As I see it many worlds is more unbelievable than PAP although I don't think PAP is true either.

I suspect PAP is based on the observation that when one looks at the electrons after they went through the double slit they behave as if they were observed prior to going through the double slit. That is, they behave as particles might behave rather than waves with interference patterns on the target wall. However, they already went through the double slit and because of that should have already got those wave interference patterns.

Because of that it looks like present observations modify what happened in the past. I think that is the experimental evidence underlying PAP although I might have it wrong.

It's not. See Krauss' A Universe from Nothing. Universes are an inevitable product of quantum fields, which seem to exist a part from those they create.

Or the product of fields of consciousness. It all depends on one's metaphysics.

The "inevitable" is hand waving, but it is needed to not involve choice, which would require consciousness of some sort which would imply purpose. The "fields" are needed so one does not have a "thing".

The ultimate metaphysical belief is that something can come from nothing by chance which is one I don't believe in.

[YSiobhan]

I vote for A) because that seems the least unlikely, but honestly I don't think we'll ever know for sure :/

[MorpheusSandman]

Just because you don't like the Copenhagen interpretation is no reason to dismiss it as nonsense... *that's* a nonsensical thing to do.

Copenhagen conflicts with pretty much everything else we know of physics and places us at the center of the universe; as opposed to MW that assumes the wavefunction is real and works just fine without us; which is more likely?

I don't see that, would you like to spell it out?

Spell out why it's a tautology? Because it's basically saying "without a universe equipped to support life, life wouldn't be there to observe it." I'm not sure what's supposed to be profound about that.

Would Wheeler, and the many really bright physicists who hold it to be at least a possibility, push nonsense?

Yes. To quote Einstein: "Do you mean to tell me the moon doesn't exist if nobody is looking at it?"

================================================== ================================================== =

As I see it many worlds is more unbelievable than PAP although I don't think PAP is true either.

MW is unbelievable to you because you don't understand it, as you have demonstrated repeatedly across multiple threads.

Or the product of fields of consciousness. It all depends on one's metaphysics.

No, it doesn't. We know quantum fields exist, we know how they behave, and we know because of observing the behavior of vacuum energy that they possess everything necessary to create universes. On the other hand, we have not a stitch of evidence for any consciousness besides our own which, as far as we know, can only exist because of the matter and laws the universe brought into existence. What reason is there to assume there's anything like intelligence outside of those material confines?

The "inevitable" is hand waving, but it is needed to not involve choice, which would require consciousness of some sort which would imply purpose. The "fields" are needed so one does not have a "thing".

The ultimate metaphysical belief is that something can come from nothing by chance which is one I don't believe in.

Luckily for us concerned with understanding reality, that understanding is not limited to what you believe or don't believe in. I'm sorry the facts conflict with your metaphysics. Go take it up with Krauss; you know, an actual scientist and not a message board pseudo-intellectual.

[YesNo]

No, it doesn't. We know quantum fields exist, we know how they behave, and we know because of observing the behavior of vacuum energy that they possess everything necessary to create universes. On the other hand, we have not a stitch of evidence for any consciousness besides our own which, as far as we know, can only exist because of the matter and laws the universe brought into existence. What reason is there to assume there's anything like intelligence outside of those material confines?

Quantum fields exist, but do quantum fields exist outside our space and time in order to generate our universe?

We exhibit conscious, purposeful behavior. On that alone, a reasonable anthropic principle would require the universe to allow purposeful life.

I can see that my cat is also conscious so consciousness exists outside our own species.

Luckily for us concerned with understanding reality, that understanding is not limited to what you believe or don't believe in. I'm sorry the facts conflict with your metaphysics. Go take it up with Krauss; you know, an actual scientist and not a message board pseudo-intellectual.

I've read Krauss's book. I didn't find it impressive even as a survey of science.

[MorpheusSandman]

Quantum fields exist, but do quantum fields exist outside our space and time in order to generate our universe?

They pretty much have to, at least if we're talking about spacetime as we know it. Spacetime is a product of gravity and gravity is a product of matter/mass, and spacetime in quantum vacuums is complete chaos because of the lack of sustained matters (particles popping in and out of existence). Spacetime would require some fluctuation to sustain itself long enough to exert some kind of consistent gravitational force and, because of that, spacetime as we know it.

We exhibit conscious, purposeful behavior. On that alone, a reasonable anthropic principle would require the universe to allow purposeful life.

The only thing the principle would require is for the universe to allow life that believes it has purposeful behavior, and that's something completely different than claiming the universe must've been created with a purpose.

I've read Krauss's book. I didn't find it impressive even as a survey of science.

You don't find anything impressive that conflicts with your metaphysics.

[YesNo]

You don't find anything impressive that conflicts with your metaphysics.

People in general don't give up their metaphysics easily. There's nothing wrong with that.

To expect them to do so would be like expecting them to accept an extraordinary claim (for them) based on flimsy or no evidence. It is probably a good thing that it doesn't often happen.

[Jasmine lover]

Cogito ergo sum.

[mal4mac]

People in general don't give up their metaphysics easily.

It's not that hard. Go on, you can do it! No one will mind.

To expect them to do so would be like expecting them to accept an extraordinary claim (for them) based on flimsy or no evidence. It is probably a good thing that it doesn't often happen.

I think it probably does often happen; what was the enlightenment all about? You just need not to accept anything without reasonable evidence. Isn't that easy? Isn't that a good thing? I find it a relief. Bye, bye metaphysical baggage! Good riddance...

[YesNo]

It's not that hard. Go on, you can do it! No one will mind.

I think it probably does often happen; what was the enlightenment all about? You just need not to accept anything without reasonable evidence. Isn't that easy? Isn't that a good thing? I find it a relief. Bye, bye metaphysical baggage! Good riddance...

Maybe you're right.

If I only meditate hard enough, faithfully for decades, maybe even I will finally believe there are many worlds or it really was the tooth fairy who left that quarter or no matter how fat Santa gets he can still slide through the exhaust flue.

[Cioran]

MW is unbelievable to you because you don't understand it, as you have demonstrated repeatedly across multiple threads.

BINGO.

Repeatedly misrpresenting MW is a sure sign the interlocutor doesn't know (or care) what it says. The fact that he brushed off numerous papers to which I linked him shows he doesn't care.

He doesn't care because YesNo is one of those people who has decided what the world must be like (something comfortable and comforting to him) and no amount of facts or evidence are going to interfere with his prior beliefs.

[cafolini]

BINGO.

Repeatedly misrpresenting MW is a sure sign the interlocutor doesn't know (or care) what it says. The fact that he brushed off numerous papers to which I linked him shows he doesn't care.

He doesn't care because YesNo is one of those people who has decided what the world must be like (something comfortable and comforting to him) and no amount of facts or evidence are going to interfere with his prior beliefs.

You vodka man are the one who argues from beliefs. YesNo is a very consistent skeptic and has always played that role. He argues about the validity of your drunkard's beliefs. You go drink another pood and sleep the monkey's.