The WLC/SC "Something From Nothing" Cosmology Thread

[_Uncle Ed]

Existence is the totality of NOW. And NOW includes everything from Void to fecund propagation on every level, subatomic to cosmic. Literally, "To Infinity, and Beyond!" There are no spacetime constraints or definitions of NOW. So there is no beginning to Existence. But there definitely is to this universe, or "world of humans" as I like to call it. And there will be an end as well. The only constant existing within spacetime is change.

So the debates about causes and beginnings don't interest me.

[_honorentheos]

It all seems to hang on what one means by transcendent

I listened to part of it. I thought in Carroll's view it hangs on what one means by "began", and that metaphysical language like that does not or may not describe the situation.

I think you're right, Gad. My initial hearing of Carroll's argument that the KCA premise was "not-even-wrong" focused too much on the conditions before-existence and how they get described which turned out to be, well, not even wrong.

[_Roger]

*Note to self: So this is what it looks like when you start asking in-over-your-head questions! I'm starting to see why Sean Carroll recommends that I simply not ask. lol*

DrW:

Wow! Thank you for that incredibly detailed response! One of the reasons I enjoy posting here is the truly exceptional caliber of contributors.

I will need more time to digest the specifics. In the meantime - if you'll indulge me in something I'm more adept at - let's see if I can dumb the conversation down a bit. When Sean Carroll says something to the effect that "we have models" what he means is "we have equations" comprised of numbers and variables, correct? And the more successful of these equations allows us to fill in more of the variables while observing that the equation still holds.

If that much is correct, then I can see how an intelligent agent/creator/God is automatically ruled out since there is no variable in the equation that could correlate with God/creator/intelligent agent. Stated another way, there is no equation that could only hold if x = intelligent agent/designer/cause. But wouldn't such an equation at least be theoretically possible?

One of the questioners at the debate referenced a jet engine. I'm sure smart people can come up with an equation such that if x=such and such and y=such and such, then the result is a jet engine. But is there an equation for the assembly of a jet engine which would only hold true if z=the intelligent agents required to assemble the jet engine? One response might be: but the conclusion is obvious so why would we waste our time developing such an equation? Because if such an equation could be developed, then couldn't the same equation be applied to the universe?

From the perspective of the average layman like me (or perhaps below average!) it sure seems like the universe is more complicated than a jet engine.

All the best,

Roger

[_Gadianton]

Roger, just a little context here, while many might not care, Craig's argument is metaphysical - prior to physics. He's saying god is necessary, before we study the universe with physics. If you get to the point where your arguing over what physical explanation is correct, and one explanation includes a designer But open to the POSSIBILITY that a natural explanation is correct, then Craig has already lost a major point.

[_honorentheos]

For anyone interested, here is the question Roger mentioned about the jet engine model and Carroll's answer: https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8?t=5570

Two of Craig's arguments in the debate's Q&A have to do with the question of metaphysics and the universe beginning. Here are the two moments in the video:
https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8?t=6111
https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8?t=6813

He argues that Gods existence in time, and the universe's coming into being are causal but concurrent. He later argues time is progressive, and temporal movement is a fact while arguing against tense-less models of time. Carroll answers it interestingly by arguing against the concept of beginning in this context. He later notes that cosmology is a bit abstract and sounds crazy which tempers his responses to theological arguments that sound like a lot of effort spent on crazy to him, and that the difference comes down to the use of data. The point being clear that merely thinking about something does not get us to models that make great predictions about the universe which matters.

He also talked about this earlier in the debate: https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8?t=4871

[_DrW]

*Note to self: So this is what it looks like when you start asking in-over-your-head questions! I'm starting to see why Sean Carroll recommends that I simply not ask. lol*

DrW:

Wow! Thank you for that incredibly detailed response! One of the reasons I enjoy posting here is the truly exceptional caliber of contributors.

I will need more time to digest the specifics. In the meantime - if you'll indulge me in something I'm more adept at - let's see if I can dumb the conversation down a bit. When Sean Carroll says something to the effect that "we have models" what he means is "we have equations" comprised of numbers and variables, correct? And the more successful of these equations allows us to fill in more of the variables while observing that the equation still holds.

On the most fundamental level, the models Carroll is referring to have to do with how physical systems (usually particles and fields) interact with one another.

Initially, these models normally comprise sketches or graphic representations of physical systems and the accompanying equations. Instead of being described using text, the models are described using math. The calculations involved in solving these equations are often both difficult and tedious, Nowadays, computers are often used to build detailed models that can be tested and evaluated in a fraction of the time needed when the concepts were first being developed last century.

For example, a recent and "almost ToE" model (LQG) considers the interactions and contributions of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, matter and the Higgs boson, to describe the quantum field (sum of all field components).

These components are both necessary and sufficient for the model to be both explanatory and predictive. And, as you surmised, there is no "god variable" anywhere in sight.

If that much is correct, then I can see how an intelligent agent/creator/God is automatically ruled out since there is no variable in the equation that could correlate with God/creator/intelligent agent. Stated another way, there is no equation that could only hold if x = intelligent agent/designer/cause. But wouldn't such an equation at least be theoretically possible?

The short response is 'No'. There is no such variable in the equations because no such variable is needed, and I doubt that anyone could force such a variable or factor in if they tried. To use Carroll's words, such a concept is "not even wrong".

If I recall correctly, even WLC stated (or at least agreed) at some point in the debate that it would not be useful to propose God if natural explanations were sufficient.

If you really do not understand why this is the case, and would like to become a bit more familiar with reality (relativity, QFT, cosmology etc.), without the math, please allow me to suggest a series of short articles available online through PBS.

These are posts on The Nature of Reality blog and are written by the likes of Lee Smolin, Don Lincoln and other guest authors. The blog is hosted by Kate Becker, who formerly did research for NOVA. These are topical, short, well written, and often entertaining.

This one, on quantum field theory, should get you off to a good start in becoming more familiar with the basic concepts.

One of the questioners at the debate referenced a jet engine. I'm sure smart people can come up with an equation such that if x=such and such and y=such and such, then the result is a jet engine. But is there an equation for the assembly of a jet engine which would only hold true if z=the intelligent agents required to assemble the jet engine? One response might be: but the conclusion is obvious so why would we waste our time developing such an equation? Because if such an equation could be developed, then couldn't the same equation be applied to the universe?

Please see my response above. Please see Honor's post regarding the jet engine question immediately above as well.

From the perspective of the average layman like me (or perhaps below average!) it sure seems like the universe is more complicated than a jet engine.

One would certainly hope so.

Seriously, as Maks noted on the other thread, you seem like a thoughtful individual who enjoys understanding stuff. And it is really not that difficult to gain a lay working knowledge if you drop the math. If one wants to really appreciate it, however, some calculus is required. If one wants to experience the transcendental (so to speak), then its tensor calculus - or so I'm told.
___________________

Remember, Einstein had worked out the concepts of general relativity a long time before he was able to publish. Before he could do so, he needed to learn the math required - tensor calculus.

He sought the help of a brilliant mathematician, David Hilbert, who worked with Einstein for about 8 years, and ended up competing with him in the end to come up with proper equations for the descriptions of gravity and space-time.

Hilbert became well known in his own right for development of the definitions, notations, and equations for "Hilbert space" - a generalization of Euclidian space to infinite dimensions, and one in which general relativity calculations are carried out.

[_orangganjil]

Craig essentially makes two prime arguments in that debate:

1) His "Kalam Principle" or whatever he called it, which is wholly dependent on our concept of cause and effect;
2) That many aspects of our universe appear to be "tuned" to providing life. If they were slightly different, then life couldn't exist.

Carroll's argument against #1 is that cause and effect are time dependent, and since there was no time prior to the Big Bang, we cannot speak to whether there was a cause. That concept didn't exist. The Big Bang just was. So, since we cannot state that there was a cause, we cannot reliably say there even was a prime mover. There are multiple theories that account for this, such as Carroll's multiverse theory, or the oscillating universe theory, but the fact is that Craig's claim that there must have been a cause (and thus that cause is God), fails because the very concept of a cause is irrelevant prior to the Big Bang.

Carroll's argument against #2 was primarily two-fold: 1) That we have no idea whether life could have evolved under differently tuned parameters. We have no data whatsoever on this front. What is life? Can someone definitively state all of the conditions under which any type of life could arise? No, so we cannot state that our parameters are even tuned. 2) That evidence of tuning is actually not that compelling, since our parameters seem to be the result of randomness. He gives several examples of parameters that seem not at all to have been tuned. So, can we really say that our tuned parameters are actually tuned?

What I like about Carroll is that he is evidence-driven. His approach seems to be that we cannot claim to know what we do not know. I appreciate such an approach.

[_Roger]

DrW:

Thanks again for your very informative posts. If you'll indulge me, I have a number of questions. If my questions become an annoyance just let me know and I'll back off.

The consequence of these quanta is that space and matter are not infinitely divisible. There is a limit as to the extent that space, time and matter can be chopped up. This quantization of the fields gives rise to a number of non-intuitive phenomena.

Are the non-intuitive consequences of quantization due to an actual physical reality or the theoretical/virtual limitations of quantization?

If one were to take a box and remove every particle, creating a perfect vacuum (i.e. 'nothing' inside the box), that box would still be filled with quantum fields. Because of the waves propagating along these fields, particles "pop" into and out of existence. These particles - the effects of vibrations or excitations in quantized fields - can be detected with experimental apparatus properly set up to demonstrate the Casmir effect. Something from nothing.

I've heard of this phenomenon before, as being a part of normal or at least observed "behavior" at the quantum level. Seems really strange and certainly counter-intuitive. Is it really something from nothing or is that just the way it appears? Did the particle really "pop" into existence from nothing or did it, perhaps, instantly travel from one location to another?

One consequence of the well known Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is that properties of a quantum particle (such as the spin, and position in space of an electron) are probabilistic. At the quantum level, one can view the world as being in constant random uncaused motion. Observed phenomena at the quantum level that are void of cause, or cause and effect, include quantum entanglement and radioactive decay.

It is at this level - at the fine grained quantum level of the Planck distance- that our intuition as to cause and effect, as Carroll says, fails us. The point being that we can understand the evolution of the universe back in time until it it enters the dimensional realm where our equations break down. This is another way of saying that we do not yet have a fully functional Theory of Everything.

As Carroll stated in the debate, the path forward in cosmology is to develop cosmological models that appear feasible, and then determine if they are mathematically consistent and whether they can be tested through observation or experimentation. Postulating a supernatural God is of no value whatsoever in this endeavor.

Yes, if you're simply looking at how the system works I can see how scientists can try to understand how it works without the need or desire to determine who or what got the system in place in the first place. There is value in understanding the system regardless of how it got to its present state. But I would think it would also be of value, if possible, to determine how and even why the system came to be what it is. If that much is true, then isn't it at least valid to ask whether the system in question appears to have originated and come to be at its present state by purely natural processes or by some type of intelligent cause or some combination thereof? Why is the variable of an intelligent cause ruled out a priori?

Since you're indulging me, let me throw this one out... is there purpose to the universe?

All the best,

Roger

[_DrW]

Hello Roger,

Glad to see you haven't thrown up your hands in frustration. It's a matter of mindset. Doing some unhurried, contemplative reading of materials such as the PBS blog series I mentioned can really help, assuming you want to understand our best concepts of reality.

DrW:
Thanks again for your very informative posts. If you'll indulge me, I have a number of questions. If my questions become an annoyance just let me know and I'll back off.

The consequence of these quanta is that space and matter are not infinitely divisible. There is a limit as to the extent that space, time and matter can be chopped up. This quantization of the fields gives rise to a number of non-intuitive phenomena.

Are the non-intuitive consequences of quantization due to an actual physical reality or the theoretical/virtual limitations of quantization?

Physical reality - strange as it may seem. The blog post I referred to upthread by Don Lincoln is short and provides a good explanation.

If one were to take a box and remove every particle, creating a perfect vacuum (i.e. 'nothing' inside the box), that box would still be filled with quantum fields. Because of the waves propagating along these fields, particles "pop" into and out of existence. These particles - the effects of vibrations or excitations in quantized fields - can be detected with experimental apparatus properly set up to demonstrate the Casmir effect. Something from nothing.

I've heard of this phenomenon before, as being a part of normal or at least observed "behavior" at the quantum level. Seems really strange and certainly counter-intuitive. Is it really something from nothing or is that just the way it appears? Did the particle really "pop" into existence from nothing or did it, perhaps, instantly travel from one location to another?

The particles constitute a physical something from 'nothing'. More specifically, the particles are short lived particle / anti-particle pairs that are created and annihilated as a consequence of vibrations or excitations in the quantum field. The physical force exerted by these short lived particles, on thin strips of metal for example, can be measured, as you will note if you look up 'Casimir Effect'.

One consequence of the well known Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is that properties of a quantum particle (such as the spin, and position in space of an electron) are probabilistic. At the quantum level, one can view the world as being in constant random uncaused motion. Observed phenomena at the quantum level that are void of cause, or cause and effect, include quantum entanglement and radioactive decay.

It is at this level - at the fine grained quantum level of the Planck distance- that our intuition as to cause and effect, as Carroll says, fails us. The point being that we can understand the evolution of the universe back in time until it it enters the dimensional realm where our equations break down. This is another way of saying that we do not yet have a fully functional Theory of Everything.

As Carroll stated in the debate, the path forward in cosmology is to develop cosmological models that appear feasible, and then determine if they are mathematically consistent and whether they can be tested through observation or experimentation. Postulating a supernatural God is of no value whatsoever in this endeavor.

Yes, if you're simply looking at how the system works I can see how scientists can try to understand how it works without the need or desire to determine who or what got the system in place in the first place. There is value in understanding the system regardless of how it got to its present state. But I would think it would also be of value, if possible, to determine how and even why the system came to be what it is. If that much is true, then isn't it at least valid to ask whether the system in question appears to have originated and come to be at its present state by purely natural processes or by some type of intelligent cause or some combination thereof? Why is the variable of an intelligent cause ruled out a priori?

In the first place, consideration of an intelligent designer would not be a 'variable' in a ToE equation. It would be an unwarranted assumption about physical reality. If the assumption were valid, then there would be no reason to continue to work on the equation. The answer would simply be 'goddidit', or perhaps more appropriately, 'magic'. As a hypothesis,"goddidit" is not falsifiable and has no further explanatory or predictive value. It is therefore an absolutely worthless hypothesis.

So, with Sean Carroll, I would claim that the language you are choosing to use qualifies as "not even wrong". ID is not "ruled out a priori" any more than one would rule out the price of gasoline. Like the price of gasoline, ID simply does not enter into the set of equations needed to describe the quantum field - and reality.

Since you're indulging me, let me throw this one out... is there purpose to the universe?

No, of course not. To my mind, and to science, this would be a completely irrelevant 'price of gasoline' type question born of primitive philosophy and unfounded belief.

[Guest]