For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
It's not simple. You're now positing an effect (the BB) with no cause. You're supposing "heat" with nothing to explode or burn. And you're supposing order spontaneously being generated by a random explosion. There's not a single thing about that case that's "simple."
Alright.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 8:13 pmIf you say so...
Again, it was not an explosion. It was a rapid expansion of very dense energy.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 8:13 pmWhat exploded, then?The hydrogen, quark-gluon plasma, and other things appeared after the Big Bang when the things were cooled down enough.
Again, that was not an explosion.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:46 pmI understand that an explosion can lead to disorder. I'm unfamiliar with any, ever, that produced order. Can you give me an example of some explosion other than the alleged BB that had such a result?Well, I am claiming that the Big Bang can lead to order or disorder.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:46 pm
Whoops. That's a logical fallacy. What you're doing is called, "begging the question," there.
We can't argue that because there is order, therefore the BB caused it. The other postulate that is still very much alive is that there is order because God created order. So even if we don't know which is true, yet, we can't get a closed conclusion that the BB created order out of the mere observation that there IS order.
But we do know there is order. And we know, from every experience we ourselves have, that explosions do not create order but disorder. So we need some explanation of how the BB, contrary to every other case of random explosions, could create order.
No, it is a matter of fact rather than question-begging.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:46 pmQuestion-begging. You can't argue that because things are ordered, God couldn't have created them, and the BB could have. You need to show that the BB did, in fact, produce order.The universe is ordered therefore the second scenario is out of the table.
Different sort of orders leads to different sorts of lives. Even, if that was not the case, one can expect to find life in an infinite universe some parts are ordered, and other parts disordered.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:46 pmActually, no: as any number of scientists in multiple fields (including biology, cosmology, physics, genetics, chemistry) have repeatedy pointed out, the possible range of life-permiting and even universe-permiting variables is incredibly small. So small, in fact, that no gambler would ever invest on such astronomically remote odds.We could have an infinite number of types of orders as well.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:46 pm Actually, we CAN exclude that explanation, for a couple of reasons. One is that there didn't HAVE to be ordered areas in the universe at all. It's a massive surprise, statistically, that there are any anywhere. Disorder can mean and infinite number of types of disorder.
The order could exist in an infinite universe even if it is infinitely unlikely.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:46 pmNo. It means it's infinitely unlikely that there would be ANY order in ANY universe...although there really is only one universe that we know anything about, which is this one. We don't even know what it means to say that another universe could even exist. Where would one put it?So, the order is possible.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:46 pm You see, you're supposing that order HAD to happen. And that takes for granted that there is a limited number of alternatives. But such is obviously not the case in an infinite situation.
Let's continue the debate until we reach a firm position.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:46 pmTo early?It is too early to conclude that God made it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:46 pm So we're back to the basic problem: why is there any order at all, when, in fact, we should expect no order -- far less the extreme level of order and complexity to produce a universe, and one containing life, and one containing intelligent life, and one containing life capable of observing it and asking the question we're asking. The odds against your theory being right would be...what's the word? "Astronomical."
You're right: it is. We haven't even launched into such a proof yet. But it's not too early to conclude that randomness did not make it: the astronomical odds against it make that proposition utterly implausible.
Yes, we cannot rule it out unless it is proven to be not the case.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 8:26 pmIt's not simple. You're now positing an effect (the BB) with no cause.
It was a very hot sort of energy. Energy cannot explode or burn. But it can turn into matter when it becomes cold enough.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 8:26 pm You're supposing "heat" with nothing to explode or burn.
It was not an explosion. It was an expansion of hot energy. The pressure reduces as things expand so does the temperature. The elementary particles can be created by energy when things get cold enough.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 8:26 pm And you're supposing order spontaneously being generated by a random explosion.
It is simple. It takes you time to accustomed to it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 8:26 pm There's not a single thing about that case that's "simple."
I don't know...you seem to be wanting to claim the impossible, and you really didn't understand what "question begging" is. I think we might be at an impasse.
I know what question-begging is and I am not committing. I am just discarding options on the table to see what we are left with. I am waiting for you.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 8:53 pmI don't know...you seem to be wanting to claim the impossible, and you really didn't understand what "question begging" is. I think we might be at an impasse.
I'll have to think about how to come back to this. Clearly, I'm not getting the important point of the faults in that line of suppostion very clear to you. Maybe it's my fault, for not putting it clearly...we'll see, I guess.
But you are basing your definition of "order" on the state of affairs in this universe.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 8:00 pmNo. You were asking what the state of disorder prior to any such concept as a "universe" would be. Because once we already have a universe, we've already got considerable order...and that's without even accounting for things like planets capable of bearing life and conscious beings.Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 7:25 pmSo that is looking at our universe and saying this is the level of "order" that qualifies as a universe?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 6:02 pm
We'd have to call it a "disordered state of things," rather than a "universe."
So if we have to give an account for the very possibility of order in the universe, we can't start with, "Well, once a universe already exists..."
So then science supports the idea of the possibility of an infinite variety of states of order. There you are then, the state of order in this universe isn't remarkable at all, then.IC wrote:Exactly so.Harbal wrote:I didn't know that. So when physicists speculate about multiple universes, or a multiverse, where things may work differently to how they are in our known universe, they are thinking of multiple states of order that may be different to the order we see in our universe?
At the present time (in the days when THIS was being writtenIC wrote:Exactly so. If we want to explain how we live in a universe that has physical laws, we can't take the physical laws as a simple given, either. We need to say how they came to be established as 'laws.'Harbal wrote:But that seems to be assuming a complete absence of physical laws.
), we can't say how the physical laws came to be established. And when I say we, I am including you.
"By all probability" according to what? Are you in possession of all possible information, some of which is currently unknown to science, that would be necessary to entitle you to make such an assertion?IC wrote:It's the state that things should be in, by all probability. The great surprise is that they are not like that.Harbal wrote:And that is just one of the infinite possibilities of what a "disordered state of things" could be like, is it?
But the underlying problem remains: You are looking at it entirely from the perspective of someone whose idea of order is only based on the type of order that makes his own existence possible. It may well not be possible for human beings and planet Earths to exist in any other state of order than this one, but who is to say that what human beings perceive as disorder is not the perfect set of conditions to enable an alternative kind of existence in an alternative state of affairs?Well, the real problem with my analogy is that it posits the existence of a car, which is already an ordered entity. Perhaps a better analogy would be to say, "When was the last time you took a bunch of random energy, threw it all up in random space, and got order out of that?" That's a little far from our ordinary experience, whereas seeing things blow up is closer to home.
Without having any other universe for comparison, how can you say how "incredibly" ordered ours is?And what the Big Bang explanation says is that not only did "stuff" blow up, but it was such "stuff" as was so small as to be elemental...and yet it astonishingly "came down" in just the pattern of our incredibly-ordered universe.
You are very good at responding to him. Keep up the good job.Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 9:30 pmBut you are basing your definition of "order" on the state of affairs in this universe.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 8:00 pmNo. You were asking what the state of disorder prior to any such concept as a "universe" would be. Because once we already have a universe, we've already got considerable order...and that's without even accounting for things like planets capable of bearing life and conscious beings.
So if we have to give an account for the very possibility of order in the universe, we can't start with, "Well, once a universe already exists..."So then science supports the idea of the possibility of an infinite variety of states of order. There you are then, the state of order in this universe isn't remarkable at all, then.IC wrote:Exactly so.Harbal wrote:I didn't know that. So when physicists speculate about multiple universes, or a multiverse, where things may work differently to how they are in our known universe, they are thinking of multiple states of order that may be different to the order we see in our universe?At the present time (in the days when THIS was being writtenIC wrote:Exactly so. If we want to explain how we live in a universe that has physical laws, we can't take the physical laws as a simple given, either. We need to say how they came to be established as 'laws.'Harbal wrote:But that seems to be assuming a complete absence of physical laws.), we can't say how the physical laws came to be established. And when I say we, I am including you.
"By all probability" according to what? Are you in possession of all possible information, some of which is currently unknown to science, that would be necessary to entitle you to make such an assertion?IC wrote:It's the state that things should be in, by all probability. The great surprise is that they are not like that.Harbal wrote:And that is just one of the infinite possibilities of what a "disordered state of things" could be like, is it?
But the underlying problem remains: You are looking at it entirely from the perspective of someone whose idea of order is only based on the type of order that makes his own existence possible. It may well not be possible for human beings and planet Earths to exist in any other state of order than this one, but who is to say that what human beings perceive as disorder is not the perfect set of conditions to enable an alternative kind of existence in an alternative state of affairs?Well, the real problem with my analogy is that it posits the existence of a car, which is already an ordered entity. Perhaps a better analogy would be to say, "When was the last time you took a bunch of random energy, threw it all up in random space, and got order out of that?" That's a little far from our ordinary experience, whereas seeing things blow up is closer to home.Without having any other universe for comparison, how can you say how "incredibly" ordered ours is?And what the Big Bang explanation says is that not only did "stuff" blow up, but it was such "stuff" as was so small as to be elemental...and yet it astonishingly "came down" in just the pattern of our incredibly-ordered universe.
You are, actually. Your argument, that goes like this, essentially:
Again I am just discarding options on the table to see what we are left with. Let's say that we have two sorts of Big Bangs, one leads to order and another one to disorder. I am simply saying that the second scenario is not acceptable since the universe is ordered. So we are left with the first scenario. Am I clear now?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:22 pmYou are, actually. Your argument, that goes like this, essentially:
While it is true that random, accidental events (like the BB) don't produce order,
There is order in the universe,
therefore the BB produced it.
...is fallacious. It begs the essential question of whether or not the BB produced the order at all.
You would not let me away with trying to assume my conclusion in this way. You would -- and should- accuse me of begging the question, if I did.
Any routine definition of "order" will do. There's actually so much of it in this universe that we don't need any special definition to show how true it is.Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 9:30 pmBut you are basing your definition of "order" on the state of affairs in this universe.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 8:00 pmNo. You were asking what the state of disorder prior to any such concept as a "universe" would be. Because once we already have a universe, we've already got considerable order...and that's without even accounting for things like planets capable of bearing life and conscious beings.
So if we have to give an account for the very possibility of order in the universe, we can't start with, "Well, once a universe already exists..."
Not at all. The irony is that there's no "science" at all in the multiple universe hypothesis. And that's because, by definition, science is empirical, having to do with things in THIS universe. And THIS universe is, by definition, everything that exists in this reality, everything we can see, touch, taste, feel, do, travel in, measure, smell, investigate, and so on. If some new thing comes into our experience, then by definition, it's not part of another "universe," but only a newly-discovered feature of THIS universe.So then science supports the idea of the possibility of an infinite variety of states of order.IC wrote:Exactly so.Harbal wrote:I didn't know that. So when physicists speculate about multiple universes, or a multiverse, where things may work differently to how they are in our known universe, they are thinking of multiple states of order that may be different to the order we see in our universe?
That's kind of you. But maybe I can. Let us see.At the present time (in the days when THIS was being writtenIC wrote:Exactly so. If we want to explain how we live in a universe that has physical laws, we can't take the physical laws as a simple given, either. We need to say how they came to be established as 'laws.'Harbal wrote:But that seems to be assuming a complete absence of physical laws.
Here you go. https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/sy ... exist.html"By all probability" according to what?IC wrote:It's the state that things should be in, by all probability. The great surprise is that they are not like that.Harbal wrote:And that is just one of the infinite possibilities of what a "disordered state of things" could be like, is it?
Not really a problem. It's the only universe we have, or can know of.But the underlying problem remains: You are looking at it entirely from the perspective of someone whose idea of order is only based on the type of order that makes his own existence possible.Well, the real problem with my analogy is that it posits the existence of a car, which is already an ordered entity. Perhaps a better analogy would be to say, "When was the last time you took a bunch of random energy, threw it all up in random space, and got order out of that?" That's a little far from our ordinary experience, whereas seeing things blow up is closer to home.
That's question-begging. You can't deduce from the observation of order that the BB created that order. You actually can't know WHAT created it, unless you'd already eliminated every other possible alternative explanation. All you can say is, "I see order."bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:27 pmLet's say that we have two sorts of Big Bangs, one leads to order and another one to disorder. I am simply saying that the second scenario is not acceptable since the universe is ordered. So we are left with the first scenario. Am I clear now?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:22 pmYou are, actually. Your argument, that goes like this, essentially:
While it is true that random, accidental events (like the BB) don't produce order,
There is order in the universe,
therefore the BB produced it.
...is fallacious. It begs the essential question of whether or not the BB produced the order at all.
You would not let me away with trying to assume my conclusion in this way. You would -- and should- accuse me of begging the question, if I did.
But your only frame of reference is this universe. You can only see things in terms of what makes sense in this universe as we know it. How can you know that this universe isn't remarkably low in order in relation to what was potentially possible, or even likely? You seem to be starting from the assumption that what we observe in this universe is some sort of ideal; that human beings and planet Earth had to exist, and the universe designed itself around that imperative.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:34 pmAny routine definition of "order" will do. There's actually so much of it in this universe that we don't need any special definition to show how true it is.Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 9:30 pmBut you are basing your definition of "order" on the state of affairs in this universe.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 8:00 pm
No. You were asking what the state of disorder prior to any such concept as a "universe" would be. Because once we already have a universe, we've already got considerable order...and that's without even accounting for things like planets capable of bearing life and conscious beings.
So if we have to give an account for the very possibility of order in the universe, we can't start with, "Well, once a universe already exists..."
As long as there is matter, and laws that govern it, something is going to happen, and whatever happens under those principles in this universe, you have decided to call "order". Had the nature of matter and the laws of physics been even slightly different, human beings would probably never have existed, but lots of things that don't exist in our world would have existed instead, which may well have included some creature/being/entity with the capacity to perceive "order" in his world because the conditions there allowed for his existence.We could point to the "order" manifest in the relations of planets,
But, apparently, it is considered theoretically possible by mainstream science, and even inevitable by some main stream scientists. That does not, of course, mean they are right, but I think their opinion carries more weight than yours.IC wrote:Not at all. The irony is that there's no "science" at all in the multiple universe hypothesis.Harbal wrote:]So then science supports the idea of the possibility of an infinite variety of states of order.
There's no test for God, either, so if other universes are out of the question because of that, then so must God be.That's why there's no such thing as a "test for other universes."
Like God.Their very existence is just an imagining
Like God.a theoretical hope on the part of speculators
Like God.We have no reason at all to believe any such exist.
At last, a dictionary definition that you are content to leave be.The Oxford Dictionary definition of "universe" is as follows:
u·ni·verse
/ˈyo͞onəvərs/
noun
noun: universe; noun: the universe
all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
That means everything that exists. Everything. That's what the term "universe" actually refers to.
I won't argue with that, but lets not claim to know more of it than we actually do.IC wrote:Not really a problem. It's the only universe we have, or can know of.Harbal wrote:But the underlying problem remains: You are looking at it entirely from the perspective of someone whose idea of order is only based on the type of order that makes his own existence possible.
Speaking of God and the universe, consider...bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:27 pmAgain I am just discarding options on the table to see what we are left with. Let's say that we have two sorts of Big Bangs, one leads to order and another one to disorder. I am simply saying that the second scenario is not acceptable since the universe is ordered. So we are left with the first scenario. Am I clear now?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:22 pmYou are, actually. Your argument, that goes like this, essentially:
While it is true that random, accidental events (like the BB) don't produce order,
There is order in the universe,
therefore the BB produced it.
...is fallacious. It begs the essential question of whether or not the BB produced the order at all.
You would not let me away with trying to assume my conclusion in this way. You would -- and should- accuse me of begging the question, if I did.
Really, what was God thinking when He created this? Or did the universe itself "somehow" provide Him with the blueprints?Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.
The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.
So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.
To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.
Or consider this:
"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"
The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.
There is no other, so far as we know, so far as science knows, and so far as anybody CAN know. Everything else is merely speculative. That's what most people don't understand about the "alternate universes hypothesis": that it's nothing but a hypothesis, with not one scratch of evidence for it.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 12:03 amBut your only frame of reference is this universe.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:34 pmAny routine definition of "order" will do. There's actually so much of it in this universe that we don't need any special definition to show how true it is.
You can't use order to explain order. "Laws" mean that things have already been ordered. You've now assumed what you're trying to prove...not proved it.As long as there is matter, and laws that govern it, something is going to happen,We could point to the "order" manifest in the relations of planets,
It's a mere hypothesis. A totally unfounded guess or mental construct. No evidence for it exists, or, by definition, ever could exist.But, apparently, it is considered theoretically possible by mainstream science,IC wrote:Not at all. The irony is that there's no "science" at all in the multiple universe hypothesis.Harbal wrote:]So then science supports the idea of the possibility of an infinite variety of states of order.
Oh, but there certainly is.There's no test for God, either,That's why there's no such thing as a "test for other universes."
What an excellent axiom! Would that proponents of the alternate-universes hypothesis would observe it!lets not claim to know more of it than we actually do.
I don't think the hypothesis can be dismissed as easily as you suggest, but I have no investment in the idea, and it makes no difference to what is being discussed. You are still left with nothing to compare the "order" in our universe with, so you can't really say whether it is at a high or low level. Matter is what it is, and the laws of physics are what they are, and no scientist or super computer can work out all the permutations for the alternative outcomes if either had been different in any way. But I still stick to what I said: something would have happened, and whatever that something would have ended up being, it would be no less entitled to be called order that what did end up being.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 12:30 amThere is no other, so far as we know, so far as science knows, and so far as anybody CAN know. Everything else is merely speculative. That's what most people don't understand about the "alternate universes hypothesis": that it's nothing but a hypothesis, with not one scratch of evidence for it.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 12:03 amBut your only frame of reference is this universe.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:34 pm
Any routine definition of "order" will do. There's actually so much of it in this universe that we don't need any special definition to show how true it is.
We know there is matter, and we know there are laws that govern how it behaves, so given that, how can something not happen? We don't know what determines the laws of physics, so we don't know if they had to be the way they are, or whether they could have been different, but if they had been different to the way they are, something would still have happened. What am I assuming that I shouldn't be?IC wrote:You can't use order to explain order. "Laws" mean that things have already been ordered. You've now assumed what you're trying to prove...not proved it.Harbal wrote:As long as there is matter, and laws that govern it, something is going to happen,
A mere hypothesis that obviously has unwelcome implications, Bible wise. One can always tell.IC wrote:It's a mere hypothesis. A totally unfounded guess or mental construct. No evidence for it exists, or, by definition, ever could exist.Harbal wrote:But, apparently, it is considered theoretically possible by mainstream science,
IC wrote:Oh, but there certainly is.Harbal wrote:There's no test for God, either,
If God had no impact on THIS universe, his existence would be, at the very least, irrelevant, if even possible.
But He exists. And He has an impact on this universe. So that's a null objection.
I'll leave that for someone smarter than me to make sense of.
Okay, let all mention of the alternate-universes hypothesis be stricken from the record. I have nothing to gain by causing you to suffer that particular bee in your bonnet.IC wrote:What an excellent axiom! Would that proponents of the alternate-universes hypothesis would observe it!Harbal wrote:lets not claim to know more of it than we actually do.
