String theory portal to another universe?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 27, 2011

Cosmology, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Skeptical mathematician Peter Woit warns us, in jest, that 11/11/11, some date coming up on which you probably have some real-world crap due, could be a “Portal to Another Universe?”:

According to World News Forecast, 11:11am on 11/11/11 could, if Uri Geller is right, be a portal to another universe. This is from Geller’s web-page on the subject:

I find this to be interesting since this theory is supposed to explain the universe! The first eleven that was noticed is that string theory has to have 11 parallel universes (discussed in the beginning of the “11.11″ article) and without including these universes, the theory does not work.

The second is that Brian Greene has 11 letters in his name.

Well, it is hard to imagine anything more convincing. And what does that say about string theory in general now that nobody found the Higgs boson?

Comments

More supporting evidence for the transcendent nature of information, and how it interacts with energy, is found in these following studies:
Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, Quantum mechanics dictates some strange things at that scale, so that bit of light could be thought of as both a particle and a wave. As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once, carrying the “shadow” of the UR with it. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
This following experiment clearly shows information is not an ‘emergent property’ of any solid material basis as is dogmatically asserted by some materialists:
Converting Quantum Bits: Physicists Transfer Information Between Matter and Light Excerpt: A team of physicists at the Georgia Institute of Technology has taken a significant step toward the development of quantum communications systems by successfully transferring quantum information from two different groups of atoms onto a single photon. http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/quantumtrans.htm
The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) are subject to teleportation:
Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,, “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts
Further reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment: That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation (separation) of its ‘infinite’ information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. (i.e. a photon ‘disappeared’ from the ‘material’ universe when the entire information content of a photon was ‘transcendently displaced’ from the material universe by the experiment, when photon “c” transcendently became transmitted photon “a”). Thus, Quantum teleportation is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. ‘transcendent’ information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, telling energy exactly what to be and do in the experiment. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed and, in information demonstrating transcendence, and dominion, of space-time and matter-energy, becomes the only known entity that can satisfactorily explain where all energy came from as far as the origination of the universe is concerned. That is transcendent information is the only known entity which can explain where all the energy came from in the Big Bang without leaving the bounds of empirical science as the postulated multiverse does. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, a photon of energy, as transcendent information does in teleportation, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities as energy does possess in the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means according to the first law). To reiterate, since information exercises dominion of energy in quantum teleportation then all information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist. Reflections on the ‘infinite transcendent information’ framework, as well as on the ‘eternal’ and ‘temporal’ frameworks: The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight.
Special Relativity – Time Dilation and Length Contraction – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY
Moreover time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/
,,,Yet, even though light has this ‘eternal’ attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned.
Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182
That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, ‘past and future folding into now’, framework of time. This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not ‘frozen within time’ yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light.
“I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.” Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12
bornagain77_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

But there is a way to arrive at first cause (God) through the scientific method: ‘Pure transcendent information’ is now shown to be ‘conserved’. (i.e. it is shown that all transcendent quantum information which can possibly exist, for all possible physical/material events, past, present, and future, already must exist.) This is since transcendent information exercises direct dominion of the foundational ‘material’ entity of this universe, energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known ‘material’ means. i.e. First Law of Thermodynamics.
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. (This experiment provides experimental proof that the teleportation of quantum information in this universe must be complete and instantaneous.) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
These following studies verified the ‘controlled’ violation of the first law of thermodynamics that I had suspected in the quantum teleportation experiment:
How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,” http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves – April 2011 Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-computing Unconditional Quantum Teleportation – abstract Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5389/706.abstract
It is also very interesting to note that the quantum state of a photon is actually defined as ‘infinite information’ in its uncollapsed/unobserved quantum wave state:
Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf
It should be noted in the preceding paper that Duwell, though he never challenges the mathematical definition of a photon qubit as infinite information, tries to refute Bennett’s interpretation of instantaneous infinite information transfer in teleportation because of what he believes are ‘time constraints’ which would prohibit teleporting ‘backwards in time’. Yet Duwell fails to realize that information is its own completely unique transcendent entity, completely separate from any energy-matter, space-time, constraints in the first place. Moreover This following recent experiment, on top of the previously listed ‘conservation of quantum information’ papers, pretty much blew a hole in Duwell’s objection to Bennett, of teleporting infinite information ‘backwards in time’, simply because he believed there was no such path, or mechanism, to do so:
Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement – January 2011 Excerpt: In “ordinary” quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it’s possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call “teleportation in time.” “To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology,” Olson told PhysOrg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-physicists-method-timelike-entanglement.html
It should also be noted that the preceding experiment pretty much dots all the i’s and crosses all the t’s as far as concretely establishing ‘transcendent information’ as its own unique entity. Its own unique entity that is completely separate from, and dominate of, space-time, matter and energy.bornagain77_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Please note, nothing means literally that: no matter, energy, space, time, or mind etc. Do you see why something coming from nothing is generally rejected?
Yes I do. It's commonly referred to as the Cosmological Argument. But I also readily admit that what seems logically plausible to human thinking is not the same as proof that reality functions as such. Do you agree?
(As a rule those who argue to something from nothing actually have a something they are smuggling in.)
Any first cause is a self-referential (scientific) paradox, and if we presume that the first cause must be God, that introduces another metaphysical assumption, and another round of argumentation. (see Cosmology and Theology) Incidentally, metaphysical assumptions are not bad and my arguments should not be construed as a criticism thereof. After all, it's the basis for faith. However Science requires us to matter-of-factly acknowledge its limits, and that's the position I have been defending. Isn't that what you want from Science in regards to the origin of life and its subsequent evolution?rhampton7_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Causality has be tested in a number of ways and been found wanting. No. What has been and can be tested are models. Scientists do not, and cannot, perform experiments to see if causality really holds in the relevant sense, or if something can come from absolute nothing. Now, you can have a result which defies current explanation given the models we're working with - even very well-tested models. This is not the same as testing causality itself. "This event took place utterly without cause" is metaphysics, even when a scientist says it. And if mingling metaphysics with science is okay, then the result is green-lighting not only ID and multiverses, but full-blown creationism.nullasalus_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

These are all just proposals, untested hypothesis. WLC is going with what has proven testable.
Causality has be tested in a number of ways and been found wanting. Thus Cosmology has to account for the problems uncovered by mathematical/scientific analysis, and that prompts scientists to consider these hypotheses. While general relativity, cosmic background radiation, et. al. confirm a big bang event, that should not be confused with confirmation a finite origin. As I mentioned previously, William Lane Craig prefered creation history is just as tentative (scientifically) as the objectionable hypotheses. Carl Hoefer's entry on Causal Determinism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is an excellent primer.rhampton7_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

He also cites the Big Bang theory as evidence for the second premise. Craig interprets the Big Bang as the temporal beginning of the universe, and discounts the Cyclic model, vacuum fluctuation models, and the Hartle-Hawking state model which suggest otherwise. Actually, Craig does speak about those, and other models. He does not "a priori" rule out other models - he points out what we're left with given certain arguments and axioms. Instead, he points out what has to be accepted to get some of these models off the ground: That actual infinities exist, or giving up causality, etc. He also, to his credit, points out that when people start asserting the existence of actual infinities or claiming that causality doesn't hold that these are not "findings of physics". They're metaphysical and philosophical speculations that often get passed off as physics. What seems to confuse people here is that Craig and others rely on multiple lines of evidence - some scientific, some philosophical. The Big Bang != the Kalam Cosmological argument, and Craig knows it and notes as much when he discusses these topics. Likewise, as BA77 points out, one problem with many people on the side opposite Craig is the habit of passing off as wholly 'scientific' that which is metaphysically and philosophically laced.nullasalus_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

RH7: Please note, nothing means literally that: no matter, energy, space, time, or mind etc. Do you see why something coming from nothing is generally rejected? (As a rule those who argue to something from nothing actually have a something they are smuggling in.) A much sounder approach is that if we live in a contingent cosmos, it points beyond itself to a necessary being that is its source. And BTW, quantum theory does not eliminate causality, especially when you look at NECESSARY causal factors. If you look carefully at real world quantum situations, you will see there are things that have to be in place for the phenomena to occur. Again, something does not come from nothing. Scientifically valid, and reasonable. If you wish to assert the contrary, do not merely say the opposed view is a priori, provide some actual evidence, where there is a case where something does come from nothing, nowhere, no-when. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

rhampton7 I have to correct this false statement of yours:
arguments like those made by those made by ~~Lane Craig~~ Neo-Darwinian materialists are built atop of metaphysical assumptions which, a priori, reject legitimate alternatives.
Now that is much better since it is truthful. And for prime example of atheists 'a priori' rejecting legitimate alternatives, I turn no further than the much ballyhooed atheistic position of methodological naturalism:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet
Materialism compared to Theism within the scientific method: The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method, by itself, makes absolutely no predictions as to what the best explanation will be prior to investigation in these question of origins. In the beginning of a investigation all answers are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed through the years to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say by limiting the answers one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology which would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc... Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins. In fact, I've heard a dogmatic atheist actually say, "Science is materialism". Yet, science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, "Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?" When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. No less than leading "New Atheist" Richard Dawkins agrees:
"The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science." Richard Dawkins
In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method.
Steps of the Scientific Method http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
For a quick overview, here are a few:
1. Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation. - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted that material has always existed, Theism predicted 'material' was created. - 'Material' was created in the Big Bang. 5. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 6. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 - 2 Timothy 1:9)- 7. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 8. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 9. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". - 10. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 11. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 12. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - 13. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. - 14. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 15. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. - references for each of the 15 predictions: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ubha8aFKlJiljnuCa98QqLihFWFwZ_nnUNhEC6m6Cys
,,,for a far more detailed list of the consistent failed predictions of neo-Darwinism see Dr. Hunter’s site here:
Darwin’s Predictions http://www.darwinspredictions.com/
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the true explanation for how reality is unified into a 'theory of everything':
Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Plausible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
Music, poem and verse:
Evanescence - "Bring Me To Life" - Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM Wake Me O Lord Wake me O Lord from this sleep of mine To the living wonders of creation that are so fine With a "Oh, that’s nice" I shall not content NO, only when You speak shall my heart be spent Others may suffice their cravings of Awe With an "Oh Well" shrug of the wonders they saw But I know You are in each piece of reality Yes, in the wind, the stars, and even the sea So this vow to You I make No rest in me my heart will take Till Your face and hands again I see In the many waters of reality For the truth be known to You indeed That if I see You not with my heart and head I’m not really born again, but instead am dead Revelation 3:20 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.'
referenced link:
Theism compared to Materialism within the scientific method: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9
bornagain77_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

rham, "Cyclic model, vacuum fluctuation models, and the Hartle-Hawking state model which suggest otherwise." These are all just proposals, untested hypothesis. WLC is going with what has proven testable. General relativity along with the evidence from cosmic microwave background radiation. All of which support his argument that the universe began to exist. And the universe beginning to exist does not prove God, rather a moment of creation simply strengthens the argument that there is a creator. It just tips the scale.junkdnaforlife_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

As I mentioned in another thread, arguments like those made by Lane Craig are built atop of metaphysical assumptions which, a priori, reject legitimate alternatives.
Craig argues that the first premise is supported most strongly by intuition, but also by experience. He asserts that it is "intuitively obvious," based on the "metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing," and doubts that anyone could sincerely deny it. Additionally, he claims it is affirmed by interaction with the physical world. If it were false, he states, it would be impossible to explain why things do not pop into existence uncaused. The second premise is often supported by philosophical arguments and scientific verification for the finitude of the past. Craig claims that the number of past events cannot be infinite, meaning that the universe must be finite and therefore must have begun to exist. He also cites the Big Bang theory as evidence for the second premise. Craig interprets the Big Bang as the temporal beginning of the universe, and discounts the Cyclic model, vacuum fluctuation models, and the Hartle-Hawking state model which suggest otherwise.
While he is correct to say we can not prove that something can come from nothing, he neglects and/or ignores the equally true counterfactual; that we can neither disprove it. I'm fond of Pope John Paul II's explanation that proofs of God's existence must be methaphysical and/or theological, and thus beyond the scope of Science. The Church is humble enough to admit that, ultimately, it's proofs of God are really an expression of faith.
However, this faith in a God who reveals himself, also finds support in the reasoning of our intelligence. When we reflect, we observe that proofs of God's existence are not lacking. These have been elaborated by thinkers under the form of philosophical demonstrations in the sense of rigorously logical deductions. But they can also take on a simpler form. As such, they are accessible to everyone who seeks to understand the meaning of the world around him. In speaking of the existence of God we should underline that we are not speaking of proofs in the sense implied by the experimental sciences. Scientific proofs in the modern sense of the word are valid only for things perceptible to the senses, since it is only on such things that scientific instruments of investigation can be used. To desire a scientific proof of God would be equivalent to lowering God to the level of the beings of our world, and we would therefore be mistaken methodologically in regard to what God is. Science must recognize its limits and its inability to reach the existence of God. It can neither affirm nor deny his existence.
And that's why basing arguments on the scientific fact rather than the metaphysical assumption of causality is doomed to fail (which doesn't even address the current uncertainty about causality's nature...)rhampton7_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

I always thought Uri Geller was already in another universe. Well when 11:11/11/11/11 comes around let's hope he thinks of going. I jest. He's probably a very nice man with some rather "mixed-up confusion."CannuckianYankee_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

OT: video report on last nights debate: Dr William Lane Craig Humiliates Professor Peter Atkins,, Again by Jason Burns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg4VofSlkX0bornagain77_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply