The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment proves there is no God

[studiot]

14 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Theoretical physics is not concerned with utility, that's the province of engineering and we're discussing theoretical physics and its epistemological limitations and the implications this has on our ability to explain reality.

Not so.

We are (or should be) discuscussing Religion.

These are forum rules, not my opinion.

38 minutes ago, Holmes said:

A model is based on reason and reasoning is the process whereby we draw conclusions from premises, there must be premises before we can begin to reason and create models.

Incomplete.
 

I have already demonstrated models based on other factors (physical objects and observation)

Of course reason comes into it but it is not necessarily the only starting point

 

I have been reading through the entire thread and I see one common pattern in the discussion.

Many here have prefaced their comments (right the way back to page 1) with something like

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I think

Whereas @Holmes mostly states his thoughts as though they were the only gospel in town.

The above two extracts demonstrate this quite well.

 

In my opinion this debating style is the reason so many members are becomeing upset.

 

[beecee]

40 minutes ago, beecee said:

More rhetorical denial. Anything supernatural like fairies at the bottom of the garden or some magical deity is myth...no evidence and as I have shown previously is continiously being pushed back into oblivion, as science continues to explaim more and more and more.

Wasn't it Stephen Hawking who said words to the effect "Science cannot prove the existence of god, but science does make him/her/it an unnecessary entity" 

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Wasn't it Stephen Hawking who said words to the effect "Science cannot prove the existence of god, but science does make him/her/it an unnecessary entity" 

Researching a bit and found this....The phrase was from his book "The Grand Design" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)#Reactions

Actual words being, "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary"

extracts from the link critiquing the book....

Evolutionary biologist and advocate for atheism Richard Dawkins welcomed Hawking's position and said that "Darwinism kicked God out of biology but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace."[11]

Theoretical physicist Sean M. Carroll, writing in The Wall Street Journal, described the book as speculative but ambitious: "The important lesson of The Grand Design is not so much the particular theory being advocated but the sense that science may be able to answer the deep 'Why?' questions that are part of fundamental human curiosity."[12]

Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, in his article "Our Spontaneous Universe", wrote that "there are remarkable, testable arguments that provide firmer empirical evidence of the possibility that our universe arose from nothing. ... If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero. And when we measure the total energy of the universe, which could have been anything, the answer turns out to be the only one consistent with this possibility. Coincidence? Maybe. But data like this coming in from our revolutionary new tools promise to turn much of what is now metaphysics into physics. Whether God survives is anyone's guess.

 

The authors writes:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going"

Edited July 1, 2021 by beecee

[studiot]

On 10/16/2020 at 3:30 AM, VenusPrincess said:

The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment proves there is no God

According to the Copenhagen interpretation a quantum system remains in superposition until it is observed. If God was omnipotent he would be all knowing, implying that he observes all. However since the cat's state remains in superposition we can infer that it has not been observed, and therefore God is has no knowledge of the cat's state. That contradicts the initial assumption that God is omnipotent, but if God is not Omnipotent then he is not God at all, and therefore God does not exist.

"According to the Copenhagen interpretation a quantum system remains in superposition until it is observed."

Agreed, but Copenhagen is just one of several century old interpretations of quantum theory as it stood at that time. We have neither discredited it nor accepted it since then but we have definitely moved on a great deal with the quantum model.

Schrodinger's cat was never meant as an application of this model, it was meant to show how ridiculous conclusions could be drawn by misapplication.The cat and its life are not a 'quantum systems' as modelled then or now.

This was all documented by the participants at the time.

Time is also interesting because it also allows for the definite conclusion the cat is dead, if you just wait long enough before opening the box.

The appendition, by Venus Princess, who I understand has left the forum for reasons which have nothing to do with this thread) of an age old 'proof by contradiction' that God cannot exist is therefore logically unsound, regardless of the status of the appended proof itself.

 

I did not reply at the beginning of this thread because I could see no mileage in it.

If we are to continue we really ought to come to some agreement as to what substitute proposition we are debating as there seems to be several differences of opinion.
Further several other subjects and interesting ideas have been introduced, each of which really deserves a proper airing in its own right.

[exchemist]

16 hours ago, Holmes said:

Well I do not dispute that.

I dispute that because it contradicts your first point above. A model is based on reason and reasoning is the process whereby we draw conclusions from premises, there must be premises before we can begin to reason and create models.

For example in general relativity the core premises (axioms, assumptions, I use these interchangeably) are the principle of equivalence and the principle of relativity (principle of general covariance).

They are generalizations, extrapolations based on inductive reasoning, their universality is assumed not absolutely known to be true.

I do not dispute that/

Well perhaps the above answer clear this up, perhaps its clearer what I agree with and disagree with.

• All scientific explanations are models.
• All models involve reasoning from premises.
• Premises refer to material reality.

Therefore we can never explain - scientifically - the presence of material reality because we must refer to material reality in order to establish the premises we need to create that explanation for material reality.

In short we cannot explain the origin of the universe in terms of the universe, we cannot explain the origin of laws of nature (premises) in terms of those same premises.

 

 

Just a minute. Can we please first of all agree that I am not asking you to "elevate science and theories to the status of unquestioned absolute truth" ?

Secondly, are you now willing to accept what I have been saying, which is that in science all "truths" are provisional, there are  no "absolute truths" and that there is nothing that cannot be challenged? 

If we can agree this, we can proceed to the other points - if we both have the stamina.

Edited July 2, 2021 by exchemist

[Holmes]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Yet the reputable professionals say you are wrong, but you are entitled to disagree, albeit with no evidence and simply rhetoric.

There are some I'm sure who'd say I was wrong just as many (for example Prof. John Lennox) who agree with this, Besides this is an argument from authority - a fallacy.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

More rhetorical denial. Anything supernatural like fairies at the bottom of the garden or some magical deity is myth...no evidence and as I have shown previously is continiously being pushed back into oblivion, as science continues to explaim more and more and more.

You said nothing can have a property of "instability" and I said that something with such a property cannot logically be described as nothing which is so obvious I do not know how else to express this.

If you want to suggest that a model of the universe could be produced that is based on this "instability" then that's fine, that's a conventional approach, all theories in physics assume something already exists, I have no problem with this but it does not invalidate my argument.

My argument is that the presence of the universe (or in this case the presence of the instability) cannot have a scientific explanation.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

My argument is that the presence of the universe (or in this case the presence of the instability) cannot have a scientific explanation.

And the counter argument is that once you move away from scientific explanations, then any conclusions you draw are specious to the point of fiction.

Without scientific rigor or ability to falsify hypotheses, then you're sharing little more than opinions or preferences.

Doing what you propose moves us into a space where suggestions that god created the universe are functionally equivalent to suggestions that unicorns created the universe, or that the universe came from mashed potatoes, or from the wand of Harry Potter. 

Those aren't explanations. They're unfounded assertions. They perhaps make you feel better psychologically, but they "explain" nothing whatsoever if validity and accuracy are your goal. 

[Holmes]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

[1] Wrong. It follows reasonably logically, that our universe may have evolved/arose from nothing: because as inferred by quantum theory, nothing is inherently unstable.

This is not correct. Referring to a presumed medium that has "instability" as "nothing" is an improper use of English. But lets move on, if you insist on this use of "nothing" so be it, I won't let that hold us up. 

Can there be a scientific theory for the origin of the "instability"?

You may have heard of Sean Carroll a theoretical physicist and cosmologist? good, well here's a piece he wrote about this very subject, about Krauss's book.

Here's an excerpt, this is his reaction to Krauss (whom he knows) (emphasis mine)

Quote

But it doesn't, and doesn't even really try to, explain why there is something rather than nothing -- why this particular evolution of the wave function, or why even the apparatus of "wave functions" and "Hamiltonians" is the right way to think about the universe at all. And maybe you don't care about those questions, and nobody would question your right not to care; but if the subtitle of your book is "Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing," you pretty much forfeit the right to claim you don't care. Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called "the laws of physics," and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could. Sometimes physicists pretend that they are addressing these questions, which is too bad, because they are just being lazy and not thinking carefully about the problem.

 

Quote

[3] Wrong: your continued "god of the gaps"explantion doesn't hold any water.

Very well, if that's your opinion so be it.

 

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Just a minute. Can we please first of all agree that I am not asking you to "elevate science and theories to the status of unquestioned absolute truth" ?

Secondly, are you now willing to accept what I have been saying, which is that in science all "truths" are provisional, there are  no "absolute truths" and that there is nothing that cannot be challenged? 

Do you mean all claimed truths are provisional (just to be a bit clearer)? because yes I agree, and of course anything can be challenged.

Quote

 

If we can agree this, we can proceed to the other points - if we both have the stamina.

So be it.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

And the counter argument is that once you move away from scientific explanations, then any conclusions you draw are specious to the point of fiction.

But that isn't a counter argument, its just a belief, a proposition an unsupported unproven proposition.

Quote

Without scientific rigor or ability to falsify hypotheses, then you're sharing little more than opinions or preferences.

How can one adopt scientific rigor unless they first select their premises? (this is called being rigorous).

Quote

Doing what you propose moves us into a space where suggestions that god created the universe are functionally equivalent to suggestions that unicorns created the universe, or that the universe came from mashed potatoes, or from the wand of Harry Potter. 

Those aren't explanations. They're unfounded assertions. They perhaps make you feel better psychologically, but they "explain" nothing whatsoever if validity and accuracy are your goal. 

I did not refer to unicorns, potatoes or Harry Potter, this is a strawman argument and how I might feel is irrelevant, please critique my argument not my presumed motives, let me show you a typical definition of ad-hominem:

My feelings, race, skin color, sexual preferences, choice of diet, height, weight, taste in music, literature - have no relevance.

If you disagreed with some mathematical analysis you were shown, perhaps a ten page paper of equations and derivations, would you need to refer to the author's "feelings" and "psychology" in order to pinpoint the error of reasoning?

And you speak of "scientific rigor", the irony!

 

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Not so.

We are (or should be) discussing Religion.

The title of the thread contains the phrase "proves there is no God" and that is what I've been challenging.

Quote

These are forum rules, not my opinion.

Incomplete.

 

Quote

I have already demonstrated models based on other factors (physical objects and observation)

Of course reason comes into it but it is not necessarily the only starting point

I have been reading through the entire thread and I see one common pattern in the discussion.

Many here have prefaced their comments (right the way back to page 1) with something like

Whereas @Holmes mostly states his thoughts as though they were the only gospel in town.

The above two extracts demonstrate this quite well.

In my opinion this debating style is the reason so many members are becomeing upset.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear, another ad-hominem is born...

Edited July 2, 2021 by Holmes

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

The title of the thread contains the phrase "proves there is no God" and that is what I've been challenging.

So you agree with the result everyone else has been saying is that the original argument proves nothing about God whatsoever.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

I did not refer to unicorns, potatoes or Harry Potter, this is a strawman argument

It's not, though, since iNow specifically said his references were "functionally equivalent". He made no attempt to argue against those references. You're free to argue that they aren't equivalent, but not that he's using fallacious logic.

Quote

and how I might feel is irrelevant, please critique my argument not my presumed motives, let me show you a typical definition of ad-hominem:

Again, it's not an ad-hom to make the claim that opinions and personal feelings might influence your judgement wrt your assertions. It's a fact. It's no judgement of your character as a human. It also doesn't suggest anything about your motives, only one of the pressures that may influence you.

Quote

My feelings, race, skin color, sexual preferences, choice of diet, height, weight, taste in music, literature - have no relevance.

Now this is a strawman. Only your feelings (and the context they were in) were mentioned, the rest is a man of straw you knocked down as irrelevant.

Quote

If you disagreed with some mathematical analysis you were shown, perhaps a ten page paper of equations and derivations, would you need to refer to the author's "feelings" and "psychology" in order to pinpoint the error of reasoning?

This is a false equivalence fallacy. 

Quote

And you speak of "scientific rigor", the irony!

Your style is more argumentative than conversational, a style I would employ if I wanted to win a debate by any means rather than learning from others in discussion.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

 

Do you mean all claimed truths are provisional (just to be a bit clearer)? because yes I agree, and of course anything can be challenged.

So be it.

 

What I mean really is that in science "truths" are generally not claimed at all.   You don't find people claiming "truth" in science papers, or even in university textbooks. What you find, generally, is people claiming that such-and-such is "consistent with" some model, or with a set of observations, not that it is "true".  When I say that in science all "truth" is provisional, it is a way of saying it is not claimed as such.  Truth is much more the currency of the logician or philosopher, rather than of the empirical mindset of the scientist. 

But anyway this is good, because we seem at last to be on the same page regarding what science seeks to do.

I feel it is important to keep the idea of models (of aspects of nature) in mind. History shows that models in science are often found wanting and revised or replaced, Newtonian gravitation and mechanics being classics. What I find important to note about these, however, is that we still use them, all the time. So it not that they are "wrong", having previously thought to be "right", but that we now recognise they are incomplete and have limitations in their scope of application.

In chemistry, which is far messier than physics on account of the complexity of the multi-electron atoms of the Periodic Table, we quite commonly use more than one model for the same thing, according to circumstances. We are aware that each is a simplification or an approximation, and we're used to pulling out the best model for the job at hand, knowing that they are connected at a deeper level and what the limitations of each will be.

In fact, I wonder sometimes if the chemist is even more consciously aware than the physicist of the idea that theories are just models.

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by exchemist

[Holmes]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

So you agree with the result everyone else has been saying is that the original argument proves nothing about God whatsoever.

I am of the opinion that the original argument or one or more of its premises are wrong.

[studiot]

18 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I am of the opinion that the original argument or one or more of its premises are wrong.

Yup that's what I said before.

And of course, although a proposition can be true or false neither can be proved from false premises.

[Holmes]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's not, though, since iNow specifically said his references were "functionally equivalent". He made no attempt to argue against those references. You're free to argue that they aren't equivalent, but not that he's using fallacious logic.

It is a strawman argument because it does not attack the premises or reasoning of my case but of other cases, attack my argument not the arguments of others not arguments that I did not present.

Quote

Again, it's not an ad-hom to make the claim that opinions and personal feelings might influence your judgement wrt your assertions.

That's not correct, a counter argument that relies on my personal traits is an ad-hominem argument.

Quote

It's a fact. It's no judgement of your character as a human. It also doesn't suggest anything about your motives, only one of the pressures that may influence you.

Of course it refers to my motives, it said "they perhaps make you feel better psychologically" the motive for my argument is therefore to make myself feel better, even if that were true it does not serve to invalidate my argument, it is irrelevant.

Consider what I said about identifying a flaw in a mathematical paper, it would be unacceptable to claim an analysis was flawed on the basis of some trait or motive presumably possessed by the writer.

You would not say "You selected that integral because it perhaps makes you feel better" but one might say "That function cannot be used in that integration rule because of the imaginary exponent here" and so on.

An argument is flawed if and only if either the reasoning is flawed or one or or more premises are wrong do you disagree with this?

Quote

Now this is a strawman. Only your feelings (and the context they were in) were mentioned, the rest is a man of straw you knocked down as irrelevant.

Yes you're correct, your criticism is accepted.

Quote

This is a false equivalence fallacy. 

Your style is more argumentative than conversational, a style I would employ if I wanted to win a debate by any means rather than learning from others in discussion.

My "style" (which is subjective anyway and could simply reflect your own biases) is irrelevant, stick to the premises and reasoning.

Perhaps this may help, this is not something normally covered in science or mathematics degrees but is core in logic and philosophy, one needs to have a sound grasp of this if one is to engage in rigorous reasoning:

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Holmes

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Holmes said:

You said nothing can have a property of "instability" and I said that something with such a property cannot logically be described as nothing which is so obvious I do not know how else to express this.

If you want to suggest that a model of the universe could be produced that is based on this "instability" then that's fine, that's a conventional approach, all theories in physics assume something already exists, I have no problem with this but it does not invalidate my argument.

My argument is that the presence of the universe (or in this case the presence of the instability) cannot have a scientific explanation.

It is far far far more sensible to scientifically speculate then to step outside the realms of science and use fairy tails or myth as an argument. All scientific theories and models start off as speculative. And the instability of the "quantum foam" is certainly within reasonable speculative range, while we do not as yet have a complete picture of quantum mechanics. And again, it is far far more likely that quantum foam possibly may be the real "nothingness" that we generally infer as nothingness. Far more simplisitc then some complicated entity sitting up in a cloud. I wonder what he/she/it did in the eternity that existed before the BB.

My argument, as opposed to yours, is that while science does not yet know everything, it is progressing day by day, and possibly one day be able to explain the big questions. The other point worth emphasising is that strangely enough, you seem to see the fact that while scientific theories are always open for review/addition/modification/invalidation as a disadvanatage or hindrance, it is in reality what makes science in general superior to everything else and why the scientific methodology will always prevail. The more observational data we have, the better and more complete and more certain our theories become..eg: SR/GR, the BB are overwhelmingly supported, up to the theory of evolution which has become established fact.

Edited July 2, 2021 by beecee

[Holmes]

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

It is far far far more sensible to scientifically speculate then to step outside the realms of science and use fairy tails or myth as an argument.

I completely agree.

Quote

All scientific theories and models start off as speculative. And the instability of the "quantum foam" is certainly within reasonable speculative range, while we do not as yet have a complete picture of quantum mechanics. And again, it is far far more likely that quantum foam possibly may be the real "nothingness" that we generally infer as nothingness.

The name you use for the speculative material is unimportant, what's central here is the means at our disposal to scientifically explain its origin.

It seems you want it both ways, you want nothing to have no properties so that you can call it nothing yet you also want it to have properties so that you can them show how things with properties came to exist.

Quote

Far more simplistic then some complicated entity sitting up in a cloud. I wonder what he/she/it did in the eternity that existed before the BB.

Is this a thinly disguised attempt at a strawman argument?

Quote

My argument, as opposed to yours, is that while science does not yet know everything, it is progressing day by day, and possibly one day be able to explain the big questions.

I asked earlier (and nobody ventured a reply) do you think we might "one day" find a proof that π is a rational number? surely we should just keep looking? 

Quote

The other point worth emphasizing is that strangely enough, you seem to see the fact that while scientific theories are always open for review/addition/modification/invalidation as a disadvantage or hindrance, it is in reality what makes science in general superior to everything else and why the scientific methodology will always prevail.

I did not ever suggest that "review/addition/modification/invalidation" was a "disadvantage" or "hindrance" you are in error to claim I made such a suggestion.

Quote

The more observational data we have, the better and more complete and more certain our theories become..eg: SR/GR, the BB are overwhelmingly supported, up to the theory of evolution which has become established fact.

Reaffirming things that are largely not contentious and that I largely do not disagree with does not seem to be much a rebuttal to what I did say.

Do you even recall what my argument is? have you read what I actually wrote?

Edited July 2, 2021 by Holmes

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Holmes said:

You may have heard of Sean Carroll a theoretical physicist and cosmologist? good, well here's a piece he wrote about this very subject, about Krauss's book.

Here's an excerpt, this is his reaction to Krauss (whom he knows) (emphasis mine)

Sure I have heard of Sean Carroll, and I see him as reputable...he also says this....

"Theoretical physicist Sean M. Carroll, writing in The Wall Street Journal, described the book as speculative but ambitious: "The important lesson of The Grand Design is not so much the particular theory being advocated but the sense that science may be able to answer the deep 'Why?' questions that are part of fundamental human curiosity." 

Professor Lawrence Krauss also predictably drew the ire of many philosophers and their supporters in his critique of them. I also see much of that ire as more sour grapes and believe Krauss made a good point. 

[Holmes]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sure I have heard of Sean Carroll, and I see him as reputable...he also says this....

"Theoretical physicist Sean M. Carroll, writing in The Wall Street Journal, described the book as speculative but ambitious: "The important lesson of The Grand Design is not so much the particular theory being advocated but the sense that science may be able to answer the deep 'Why?' questions that are part of fundamental human curiosity." 

Professor Lawrence Krauss also predictably drew the ire of many philosophers and their supporters in his critique of them. I also see much of that ire as more sour grapes and believe Krauss made a good point. 

How very interesting, I was berated in this thread only yesterday for asking "why" there are laws of physics, I was told that "science doesn't deal with why" and here we have a reputable physicist pointing out how science seeks to answer "deep 'why' question" shall we dismiss Carroll completely for making such a fundamental error?

Edited July 2, 2021 by Holmes

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, Holmes said:

The name you use for the speculative material is unimportant, what's central here is the means at our disposal to scientifically explain its origin.

And the means are substantial. eg: GR and quantum mechanics.

5 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Is this a thinly disguised attempt at a strawman argument?

Not really. It simply stems from the point you are making that something beyond science and the scientific methodology maybe responsible. eg; god/or whatever

8 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I asked earlier (and nobody ventured a reply) do you think we might "one day" find a proof that π is a rational number?

Probably because it is a strawman?

10 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I did not ever suggest that "review/addition/modification/invalidation" was a "disadvantage" or "hindrance" you are in error to claim I made such a suggestion.

Hmm, is that so. I'had thought you did, but anyway, I'm too lazy to go back checking through your rhetoric. I'll take your word for it at this time.

12 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Reaffirming things that are largely not contentious and that I largely do not disagree with does not seem to be much a rebuttal to what I did say.

Do you even recall what my argument is? have you read what I actually wrote?

Reaffirming things simply reaffirms the science and scientific method. Nice to see you agree though.

Your argument? Sure, and I see it as totally subjective and personal, and you are entitled to those opinions, but again essentially wrong.

9 minutes ago, Holmes said:

How very interesting, I was berated in this thread only yesterday for asking "why" there are laws of physics, I was told that "science doesn't deal with why" and here we have a reputable physicist pointing out how science seeks to answer "deep 'why' question" shall we dismiss Carroll completely for making such a fundamental error?

This is imo and Krauss' opinion, where science and philosophy converge and is at the core of Krauss' critique of philosophers. And I certainly do not dismiss Professor Carroll.  

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Holmes said:

I did not refer to unicorns, potatoes or Harry Potter, this is a strawman argument

Unless you’re intentionally misreading me, then this suggests likely challenges with reading comprehension. 
 

7 hours ago, Holmes said:

another ad-hominem is born

I do not think that word means what you think it means. The assertion about that being an ad hom is about as valid as when you claimed this was your thread. 

[MigL]

You guys have spent pages aruing about each other's discussion styles, rather than addressing the question.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Holmes said:

An argument is flawed if and only if either the reasoning is flawed or one or or more premises are wrong do you disagree with this?

And I see your argument as flawed as it steps outside the scientific method.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X

Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo:

Abstract:

Questions regarding the formation of the Universe and ‘what was there’ before it came to existence have been of great interest to mankind at all times. Several suggestions have been presented during the ages – mostly assuming a preliminary state prior to creation. Nevertheless, theories that require initial conditions are not considered complete, since they lack an explanation of what created such conditions. We therefore propose the ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN) theory, aimed at describing the origin of the Universe from ‘nothing’ in information terms. The suggested framework does not require amendments to the laws of physics: but rather provides a new scenario to the Universe initiation process, and from that point merges with state-of-the-art cosmological models. The paper is aimed at providing a first step towards a more complete model of the Universe creation – proving that creation Ex Nihilo is feasible. Further adjustments, elaborations, formalisms and experiments are required to formulate and support the theory.

 

Discussion and future work:

This paper presents a model for the Universe creation ‘Ex Nihilo.’ The proposed theory's main advantage is that it does not require any explanations of the physics prior to the Universe creation. This stream of research can also provide an explanation to several unexplained phenomena, such as the second law of thermodynamics, the existence of virtual particles in vacuum, the source of symmetry in the Universe, the evolution of matter and anti-matter, and non-local influences in quantum mechanics.

The paper provides a first step towards a more complete model of the Universe creation – proving that creation Ex Nihilo is feasible. Further adjustments, elaborations, formalisms and experiments are required to formulate and support the theory. Two of such elaborations include: (1) formulating the mathematics of the dynamicity laws in the Universe platform; and (2) modeling specific mechanisms responsible for the evolvement of observed phenomena in the Universe, and in particular life itself. Such future research could demonstrate how complex and unpredictable phenomena can be generated from a small set of rules, and how it is possible to simulate dynamic life and other computational processes from a small amount of initial information. Possible directions for such future research may be based on the discovery of information structures that maintain ‘life’ properties such as ‘survival,’ ‘growth,’ and ‘duplication’ during changes in the Universe; or representing the evolvement of information in the Universe either as an extended case of a cellular automaton, or as an artificial neuron network.

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You guys have spent pages aruing about each other's discussion styles, rather than addressing the question.

Remind me never to buy a cliffs notes summary that you’ve authored. That’s a bit like saying Huckleberry Finn is a book mostly about boats. 😂 

[studiot]

12 hours ago, Holmes said:

I asked earlier (and nobody ventured a reply) do you think we might "one day" find a proof that π is a rational number? surely we should just keep looking? 

I missed that.

We have several different perfectly good mathematical proofs that it is irrational, bearing in mind the full and complete definition of a rational number.

Proof is the in the realm of mathematics and logic, not Science.

Of course proof in those instances is clearly defined and means something different from the corresponding idea in Science, validation, which is why we have different words for them.

[joigus]

Inspired by one of @beecee's previous posts:

Here's a very interesting piece of interview in which Sagan explains my "semantic" point very eloquently, I think:

I'll let Sagan do the talking and take a break from the conversation.

Another thing.

On 6/29/2021 at 3:52 PM, Holmes said:

You now cite Krauss of all people? "A universe from nothing"? this is pop-science and Krauss has been rightly dragged over the coals for his shenanigans.

You've filed some ad-hominem-attack complaints here --If I'm not mistaken @iNow was to blame.

iNow takes no prisoners, granted, but let's be fair...

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by joigus
minor stylistic correction

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

You guys have spent pages aruing about each other's discussion styles, rather than addressing the question.

The question is murdered by poor reasoning, bad-faith arguments, and fallacious logic, and somebody should care about justice for the victim. Questioning shady argument styles is like wearing a bodycam. Keeps things a bit more honest.