Message to all users:

Super Member Subscription

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, but if clicking on forum on homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
See more
See less

Meta vs Hunt

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Meta vs Hunt


    (I'm holding you to the no insult clause.)

    since I had to cut it in half you might get more out of reading it as one piece on my blog:

    [SIZE=4]Reboot Abstract:[/SIZE]

    There's a contradiction in the framework science takes to physical law as purely descriptive, the fact that the description is our perceptions, and the order and regularity we see in nature. Obviously the description is that of something ordered and organized at a certain level, but also something that contains elements of random event and uncertainty. That suggests an ordering principle but one that is of a mind.

    That's ok, I still stand behind every statement. The problem is it's always met by atheist claims that laws of physics are no longer seen as perspective, they don't 'make thing happen. They are just descriptive so they are not even laws at all in any way they are just descriptions.

    That's really the reason I said "organizing principle" instead "laws f phsyics." I knew that but I didn't realize how fastidious they would be in insisting on their terminology and their way of framing things. you can't say organizing principle because it's not scientific. We don't dare use our minds if scinece doesn't tell us we can then only in exactly the way it says to.

    I have been arguing that there had to be some kind of structure or soemthing to make the regularity that brought the universe into being. But no it's just popped up for no reason, its' all just pure description and anything can happen,. there's no regularity, no reason for it. It's just what we observe. So I then I would go the other way. If it's just observation then your observation can be incomplete, there could be miracles, nothing to stop them. O no they never happen because "we" don't see it. I say "I do." they say "no I don't' so that means 'we ' don't."

    In the final analysis they are just arguing form authority. Science says "you didn't say 'science may I' so you can't believe this." This is why I feel the need present the argument in a new way.

    Atheist is in a dilemma.


    I. The has to be a principle of ordering or organizing to account for the regularity we observe in the universe.

    A. Can't exist apart from universe it describes

    B. where is it located? Mind is the best candidate

    or, if we accept that laws are only descriptive

    II. The field is wide open, anything can happen, they open the door to God in scinece:

    A. Change naturalistic paradigm

    The paradigm of natural was based upon the idea of perspective laws of phsyics that told everything in the universe how to behave, and thus replaced God as the major explanations for the way things are.

    (1). Materailism based upon cause and effect

    Dictonary of Philosphy Anthony Flew, article on "Materialism"

    "...the belief that everything that exists is ethier matter or entirely dependent upon matter for its existence." Center For Theology and the Natural Sciences Contributed by: Dr. Christopher Southgate: God, Humanity and the Cosmos (T&T Clark, 1999) Is the Big Bang a Moment of Creation?(this source is already linked above)

    "...Beyond the Christian community there was even greater unease. One of the fundamental assumptions of modern science is that every physical event can be sufficiently explained solely in terms of preceding physical causes. Quite apart from its possible status as the moment of creation, the Big Bang singularity is an offence to this basic assumption. Thus some philosophers of science have opposed the very idea of the Big Bang as irrational and untestable."

    (2) Something from nothing contradicts materialism

    Science and The Modern World, Alfred North Whitehead.
    NY: free Press, 1925, (1953) p.76

    "We are content with superficial orderings form diverse arbitrary starting points. ... sciene which is employed in their deveopment [modern thought] is based upon a philosophy which asserts that physical casation is supreme, and which disjoins the physical cause from the final end. It is not popular to dwell upon the absolute contradiction here involved."[Whitehead was an atheist]

    (3) Causality was the basis upon which God was expelled from Modern Science

    It was La Plase's famous line "I have no need of that Hypothosis" [meaning God] Which turned the scientific world form beliving (along with Newton and assuming that order in nature proved design) to unbelief on the principle that we dont' need God to explain the univrese because we have independent naturalistic cause and effet. [Numbers, God and Nature]

    (4) Materilism Undermines Itself

    a) Big Bang contradicts causality (see quotation above)

    b) QM theory seems to contradict cause/effect relationship.

    c) Rejection of final cause

    (5) Probabilistic Justification for assumption of Cause

    We still have a huge justification for assuming causes inductively, since nothing in our experience is ever uncaused. The mere fact that we can't see or find a cause isn't a proof that there isn't one. The current paradigm will always try give a larger framework for the order in terms of "we describe as order." We can predict the order so we describe it in terms of C/e. This does point up the fact that C/e is probabilistic at it's root.

    That should knock the fortress of facts mentality on it's you know what.

    B. Opens door to miracles

    Not so much becuase there's nothing to stop them happening, being no law to violate, although there is that, as it is that being descriptive, and descriptions being the product human observation, not description is ever going to be complete. So those who rule out miracles are merely asserting that their limited relative descriptions are absolute and they are ignoring and poo pooing the the observations of others (which include miracles) for ideolgoical reasons. It really forms a pattern of circular reasoning that the current dismissal of new evidence is based upon the previous unbari biased ignoring of prior observations of miracles, that get's taken as presumption or "fact." When they say "we just don't see this happening" its usually because they are closing their eyes.

    III. Contradiction between regularity and Quantum uncertainty

    A. This is the obvious reason they don't' talk about prescriptive laws.

    a poster on Physics Forums tells us at the popular level why scientifically minded people see it this way. This is the immanent poster "droog." you would expect to find someone like Alan Sokal explaining it but I really can't find anyone like that talking about.

    "From time to time Mathematicians, physicists and philosophers give us reasons to believe that the world operates according to Platonic laws. Loop Quantum Gravity is just one recent example. For me though, this seems counter-intuitive. It seems more reasonable to expect laws to emerge from some underlying material framework -- after all, historically speaking, this is what we mostly observe of the world. Each time we successfully codify some emergent phenomena of nature we generally find ourselves describing some previously unrecognized material construct. Granted the classical materialistic view has been transformed almost beyond recognition by the 'new physics' of the 20th Century, but with no single conclusive Quantum interpretation at hand it seems prudent to reflect on past experience and assume that some as yet unrecognized material framework exists to explain all the Quantum phenomena as well."

    I think what he's saying is--and this is just something so basic no "big gun" bothers to explain it--prescriptive laws changed to descriptive because they could not explain Quantum phsyics through law-like statements. That is a paradigm shift.

    here's an established physicist and mathematician who writes text books, he hints at the very thing:

    march 9, 2011, by Santo D'Agostino

    "If you really believe that a scientific law tells a physical system how to behave, what happens when there is a historic change of perspective (a “scientific revolution”)? One can end up tied up in mental knots. Imagine saying in the 19th century that a physical system “obeys” Newton’s laws of motions, only to have to revise your opinion in the 20th century in light of Einstein’s theory of relativity. Do you now say that the same system “obeys” the equations of relativistic mechanics, and only approximately “obeys” Newton’s laws? Or do you say that you were wrong in your earlier statement, but now you’ve got it right; this is problematic, because how do you know you’re right? What if there is yet another revolutionary change in perspective? I find this awkward.

    Consider the following passage from the work of Isaac Asimov, the great expositor of science and science-fiction writer:

    Consider some of what the history of science teaches. First, since science originated as the product of men and not as a revelation, it may develop further as the continuing product of men. If a scientific law is not an eternal truth but merely a generalization which, to some man or group of men, conveniently described a set of observations, then to some other man or group of men, another generalization might seem even more convenient. Once it is grasped that scientific truth is limited and not absolute, scientific truth becomes capable of further refinement. Until that is understood, scientific research has no meaning.

    For me, the key word is describe. A scientific law is a convenient description of observations. The law of science does not tell the world how to be, the world just is; science is a human attempt to engage with the mysteries of the world, and to attempt to understand them."

    The point being that descriptive laws are the word of humans, the paradigm of physical law as non-legally binding description of the universe's behavior is a paradigm shift that took place from a more law-like paradigm due to the anomalies of Quantum theory. Meaning, scinece is a human work, a social construct, and is based upon limited observations and nothing more.
    Lord what fools these mortals be.
    Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

    President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

  • #2
    B. Just because science doesn't frame laws of physics in a prescriptive fashion doesn't mean that there isn't some form of organizing principle behind things.

    Clearly there is some form of organizing principle and there is an obvious contradiction bewteen the two sides. The old paradigm of prescriptive laws becomes an anomaly in the new paradigm but that anamorphic is still there and we see the contradictions all the time.

    .....(1) Anomalies

    ...........(a) The D'Agostino article hints at anomaly of unexplained order:

    "Today I’d like to discuss a pet peeve of mine. In many physics textbooks, one reads phrases such as:

    a certain physical system obeys a certain law of physics

    Here’s an example taken from page 147 of Chemical Principles, by Steven S. Zumdahl, Cengage, 2009 (although I am not trying to single out this author … examples are numerous, and this just happens to be the first one that was handy):

    It is important to recognize that the ideal gas law is an empirical equation—it is based on experimental measurements of the properties of gases. A gas that obeys this equation is said to behave ideally. That is, this equation defines the behavior of an ideal gas, which is a hypothetical substance. The ideal gas equation is best regarded as a limiting law—it expresses behavior that real gases approach at low pressures and high temperatures. Most gases obey this equation closely enough at pressures below 1 atm that only minimal errors result from assuming ideal behavior.

    What bothers me is that such statements might be misconstrued to mean that the equation tells the gas how to behave. And then the gas goes out and obeys and behaves properly, just the way any law-abiding citizen does when he or she obeys the laws of the land."

    D'Agostino is telling us why the guy is wrong. the question is the guy is qualified to write textbooks too. Why does he say if if it's wrong? We could write it off as habit, a hold over form education that is still under the sway of the old paradigm. No doubt that's true, but it might also be true that there's' anomaly there that is still operative and so that's why people still speak that way.

    ...............(b) things never fall up.

    Of cousre my entry astronomy class taught me that thins move toward the center of mass. They always do. They never run away form the center of mass. They never don't do it, unless you are in a special environment like an air place simulating weightless conditions. Why is there is order and regularity? It's written off as "it's just part of the description" as though that explain it. There's something handing, there's an implication unsaid, they are afraid to say it, that somewhere something does make things happen a certain way.

    After all the flip side to "it's a description" is what's being described? Order?

    .................(b) some physicists do recognize prior laws that determine things.

    Fritz Schaefer, Universlity of Gerogia, Quantum Chemistry.
    "Steven Hawking, The Big Bang,and God." lecture

    "I want to quote from a book that I don't recommend. It is by a brilliant physicist, Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner. It is called The God Particle and although the title sounds very appealing, the good information is all in the first paragraph. The rest of it is just a case for the building of the SSC, the Super Conducting-Super Collider, which we now know is not going to be built. Therefore the book is a bit of a Rip Van-Winkle sort of experience! But the first paragraph is wonderful; it's a great summary of what I have said so far:

    In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.

    That is about all that Lederman has to say about God--in the first paragraph--and that's the end of it. The thing that has made Hawking's book so popular is that he is talking about God from beginning to end."

    we can see from the things Davies says below that he is one of these.

    Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA IMAGE/POETRY Education and Public Outreach program

    Q:Which came first, matter or physical laws?

    "We do not know, but matter is derivative from energy, and energy is derivative from 'field' so in some sense, the physical laws that determine the quantum dynamics of fields must have been primary, with matter as we know it coming much later."

    ...................(c) Determinsm would not be possible.

    How can some scientists be deterministic if they don't believe in a degree of prescription?

    Paul Davies

    "Some scientists have tried to argue that if only we knew enough about the laws of physics, if we were to discover a final theory that united all the fundamental forces and particles of nature into a single mathematical scheme, then we would find that this superlaw, or theory of everything, would describe the only logically consistent world. In other words, the nature of the physical world would be entirely a consequence of logical and mhathematical necessity. There would be no choice about it. I think this is demonstrably wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality." First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address (1999)

    ....................(d) natural world is contingent

    Karl Popper:

    quoted in Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.

    "Empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something."

    Paul Davies (ibid)

    "There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary."


    "You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity. Our own universe is poised exquisitely between these unpalatable alternatives, offering a potent mix of freedom and discipline, a sort of restrained creativity. The laws do not tie down physical systems so rigidly that they can accomplish little, but neither are they a recipe for cosmic anarchy. Instead, they encourage matter and energy to develop along pathways of evolution that lead to novel variety-what Freeman Dyson has called the principle of maximum diversity: that in some sense we live in the most interesting possible universe."

    These are not contradictions. Contingency and determinism are not contradictions. The non deterministic contingency of Davies still allows for causes to determine their effects, there's just grater latitude of diversity in outcomes because there are more variables. In both cases we are talking about things controlling other things.

    ......................(e) C/e still accepted and used

    James Franklin (mathematician, History of Ideas)
    What Science Knows and How it Knows it.
    Encounter books 2009, 64-65

    "The notion of Cause remains crucial to science, even though the most general physical laws do not mention causes. No physical laws or interpretations of those laws call into question such facts as that some diseases are caused by viruses...every technological application of scinece requires the notion of an intervention that will effect change..."

    (2) framed in descriptive terms

    Franklin (ibid)

    "That physical laws are descriptive does not undermine the notion of causality. The motion of billiar balls in interaction is described and predicted by purely descriptive of conservation of momentum and energy, for example. That does not in any way supersede our understanding that one ball hit another and caused it to go flying off." The laws just describe the course of the causal interaction." It's a description complete in one way but partial in another, in the same way as a complete description of a person's actions without reference to their motivations..."

    In this last quote he's pointing to the dichotomy. The problem is glossed over by framing it in terms of "description of a prescription." Descriptive laws describe cuase/effect which is in a sens a prescription. The anomaly is almost showing. The effects of it as an anomaly are absorbed into the paradigm, and Kuhn tells us they will be. Yet that doesn't change the fact that there is a contradiction hovering below the surface.

    IV. God was taken out of science on the assumption of prescriptive laws of physics, with those Gone God should be welcomed back.

    A. Order within Descriptive framework that allows for random event

    There seems to halves of a single unified system; one side reflects order and organization and the other reflects uncertainty and random event. Order, regularity, cause, necessity all tuck away under the framework "descriptions" but it's celary a description fo a prescriptive principle. Yet there are elements o f unexplainable disorder such as Qm theory.

    B. Implies a mind at work.

    clear implication is that a mind is at work in the ordering principle; only a mind could keep up with the proper application of principles of order and principles of randomness. A mind would know to let go, so to speak, at certain points.

    C. Science is human

    the descriptions are not those of some sacred priesthood handing down truth from on high. Scientist are just humans trying to figure out what the observe, no different than philosophers, excepts philosophers are more free to play and speculate. Atheists abhor speculation but it's often what' needed.

    This is reflected the analysis of Stephan Barr (In First Things)

    "The laws of physics are proposed by some, as brought out by Furgesson, as constituting a "final cause" in place of God. This view is actually suggestive of an inversion and can be turned around into an argument for the exist of God. Barr states "The more serious problem with this idea of laws of physics as necessary first cause is that it is based on an elementary confusion. At most the laws of physics could be said to be the 'formal cause' of the physical universe, whereas by first casue is meant efficient cause, the cause of its very existence. Hawking himself asked precisely the right question when he wrote 'even if there is only one possible unified theory is it just a set of rules and equations? What is it that breaths fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science constituting a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.' That is decisive--crushing...." (in First Things)
    Lord what fools these mortals be.
    Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

    President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."


    • #3


      • #4
        that's not debating. what a coward this guy is.

        first he jumps me when I'm in a 1x1 with someone else. I told him "when I Finnish this one I'll do it with you." so promptly the next day starts a thread attack my argument so he can have his little pals to help him.

        then I put this up he imply he might debate but then puts up a link that goes back to to the main board where it's title hacking hatchet job protectors keep him safe from my arguments.


        the only argument he ever makes is "I am the voice of authority I am the big Ph.D. man."

        so he reuses to answer answers and refuses to think about ideas he refuses to debate.

        but they still admire him because he's not those letters that's real good pr for the cult.

        the cult bosses tell them "like this guy" so they do.
        Last edited by Metacrock; 09-23-11, 05:15 PM.
        Lord what fools these mortals be.
        Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

        President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."


        • #5
          If I thought that you wouldn't dismiss every single explanation I gave as "not answering your question" I might be tempted. If you didn't insult me at every opportunity then I might be tempted. If I genuinely thought that you were interested in a to and fro exchange of ideas then I might be tempted, if I thought you knew enough about the topic to have a conversation then I might be tempted. However you are none of these and from the discussion boards you have shown that you are even unwilling to even try and comprehend another persons arguments and so I don't see that having a debate with you will accomplish anything than stoke your own ego.

          I notice that you are crowing over my credentials, can I point out that I do not have a PhD but in the process of gaining one in the area of fluid mechanics and you have brought out your qualifications on may occasions as part of your arguments so I see quite a great deal hypercritical stuff in your post.


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mat Hunt View Post
            If I thought that you wouldn't dismiss every single explanation I gave as "not answering your question" I might be tempted. If you didn't insult me at every opportunity then I might be tempted. If I genuinely thought that you were interested in a to and fro exchange of ideas then I might be tempted, if I thought you knew enough about the topic to have a conversation then I might be tempted. However you are none of these and from the discussion boards you have shown that you are even unwilling to even try and comprehend another persons arguments and so I don't see that having a debate with you will accomplish anything than stoke your own ego.

            I notice that you are crowing over my credentials, can I point out that I do not have a PhD but in the process of gaining one in the area of fluid mechanics and you have brought out your qualifications on may occasions as part of your arguments so I see quite a great deal hypercritical stuff in your post.

            yet you keep making irrelevant comments and hiding behind trolls on the regular board. this is so obviously a cowardly act. a real 1x1 debate would put us both on the spot face to face and you would have to answer the question. that's obviously what you don't want to do.
            Lord what fools these mortals be.
            Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

            President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."


            • #7
              he's still evoking credentials and making argument from authority. he hasn't answered anything.
              Lord what fools these mortals be.
              Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

              President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."


              • #8
                Originally posted by Metacrock View Post
                he's still evoking credentials and making argument from authority. he hasn't answered anything.
                This is why I believe a debate with you would be a waste of time, you will refuse to accept my answers.


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mat Hunt View Post
                  This is why I believe a debate with you would be a waste of time, you will refuse to accept my answers.
                  yea sure after you clownishly pretend to agree then don't show up, then come over an put a link back to the trolls defneding you on the toxic board. then say little chidlish thigns to evade the fact that you are running away.

                  I just might be a little bit irraited after that.

                  you got you *** kicked there and here no wnoder you want to hide.

                  you just saw me kick the snot Blondies little ineffectual stupid arguments, so you don't' want no part of debating me. I would fly you. you now it!

                  Lord what fools these mortals be.
                  Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

                  President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."


                  • #10
                    I think that you're like Matt Slick where you believe that you have never lost a debate. All I see from our exchange is that you ignoring everything I say and then crowing that I haven't answered a single thing.


                    • #11
                      still not debating. I haven't lost to you and I never will becasue you are chicken and wont risk.
                      Lord what fools these mortals be.
                      Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

                      President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."


                      • #12

                        man that was a really bad first constructive Mat gave. here's my second affirmatie.

                        Here are my responses to the alleged answers tot he seven questions I asked in the first thread on Fire in the equations. We can see from this that he did not really answer anything.

                        First my position: I understand that science frames laws of physics as descriptive. I overemphasizes the law-like idea without making it clear what I was doing. In the new version I don't do that. The point I'm making is just because they put the laws in a descriptive frame doesn't mean there is no higher organizing principle behind them.

                        what we see when we looks at the laws of phsyics is an order and a regularity that just saying "laws are descriptive" doesn't answer: it's a description but of what? Of order and regularity, or prescription.

                        my argument is this:

                        it's evidence of a mind at work behind the universe that it seems to be a combination of random open ended accident and order and regularity. Only a mind could sort it out.

                        here are my answers to show he did not answer my seven questions n a valid way:

                        Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
                        7 questions Mat wont answer

                        (1) how can it be that nothing comes into being in life that we see but that it has a naturalistic cause. If something happens and we say it doesn't have a cause scientist say "O that's silly of course it does, everything has a natural cause."

                        Simple, because nothing is unstable quantum mechanically, "nothing" (and you have to be precise on what you mean by nothing, as nothing isn't necessarily nothing, Krauss pointed this out in a lecture which is available on you tube) violates the uncertainty principle (which is something we have observed)
                        at this point his answer doesn't' even apply. I said "nothing comes int being I meant there's a regular seeming "law" that says things dont' pop into existence out of nothing because we never see that.

                        he starts talking about the primordial state of nothingness which is not what I said. Even so his answer is wrong:

                        I already said "noting" to a physicists means Vacuum flux not true nothing. you are not talking about real noting you know are you not tha'ts admonishment answer.

                        I quote Odenwald as proof:


                        "How can 'nothing' do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe?

                        "When physicists say 'nothing' they are being playful with the English language, because we often think of the vacuum as being 'empty' or 'nothing' when in fact physicists know full well that the vacuum is far from empty.

                        The primordial 'state' at the Big Bang was far from being the kind of 'nothingness' you might have in mind. We don't have a full mathematical theory for describing this 'state' yet, but it was probably 'multi-dimensional', it was probably a superposition of many different 'fields', and these fields, or whatever they were, were undergoing 'quantum fluctuations'.

                        Space and time were not the things we know them to be today because our world is a lot colder than the way it started out.

                        Nothingness was not nothing, but it was not anything like the kinds of 'somethings' we know about today. We have no words to describe it, and the ones we borrow (that are listed in the Oxford English Dictionary) are based on the wrong physical insight."

                        you are deliberately misleading. this answer has been given before you have not answered it.

                        yet if it happens in space, then it's QM and you it doesn't need a cause. Yet you can't show me QM particles that pop into existence without vacuum flux. the closer to the singularity the less popping because they need time. so why is phiscal not a barrier?

                        How about virtual particles? Or am I missing the point here?
                        virtual particles come from the er zots "nothing" of physics but not real nothing.

                        that's not even what I was talking about so his alleged answer on no 1 is false to begin with. it's not applicable.


                        the universe just comes to be without a case how do you know people cant' just raise form the dead without a cause? Just becuase you haven't seen it.
                        Mat look at the contradiction! when people say they have seen it you go "O that can't be the cause it doesn't happen." how do you know their description isn't just better than yours? if there's no causes for things then there's no reason to think it couldn't happen.

                        I have answered this, you are (conveniently) ignoring the different length scales that I have been mentioning. The nuclear/quantum scales and the length scale for classical physics.

                        that is not an answer. that has nothing to do with different observations or biased view points.

                        his second alleged answer is meaningless. They don't indicate that the order isn't real nor do they even hint at an answer to the second question, which was why don't things pop into existence? all his answer really means is becasue "Quantum level is real little bitty and we are on the bigger scale." that's not really germaine I asked why we don't see other stuff popping. he believed the univeres popped up doesn't he?

                        why don't we see news in my tea cup or my bath tub?


                        why would Hawking say gravity caused everything if physical laws aren't needed for causes?
                        It seems he's saying there has to be cause for the universe.

                        I am not too sure,
                        that really answers it. his answer s I don't know. not sure. so that is not much of an answer.

                        I am guessing that gravity acts over long distances and acts on everything with mass regardless. So even if the big bang of the universe was a transitioning event there would still be gravity before the big bang. This is just a conjecture of mine though, I haven't read the (scientific papers) that Hawking wrote on the matter.
                        how does that explain the order and regularity we see? Hawking says Gravity made everything that is. Gravity stands in for God as creator. that means it must have some law like ability to make things happen. Law-like is the wrong image, not a law it's a cause. It's like a falling dominoes of causation.

                        why do you say "before the big bang?" surely you know better.


                        why should we think there's no cause for the universe when nothing else we ever see just happens without a cause?

                        I have answered this one before, several times. Either you have ignored my answers or are trying to win points by saying I haven't answered this question when I have.
                        you may have in the context of the cosmological argument that would be why I missed because I don't bother with that now days. you need to answer it in this context. no answer yet on no 4.

                        do you see that? he answered that by saying he answered it before. so he didn't answer it! he says he answered all seven but obviously he didn't.we are up to no four now no one he misunderstood and said something totally off topic, 3 he says "I don't know" no 4 he says he answered before and then doesn't answer it now. So really he's only attempted to answer one in the first four.


                        why do they still teach Newtonian laws?

                        Simple, they approximate what is going on very well in the classical world when the speeds are considerable less than the speed of light. I was talking to paulomycin about this, he didn't get this point either.
                        so you really think nature cares about your charts? that's an obvious contradiction. calling it "Newtonian" doesn't keep it from contradicting. it would still be laws that have to have a pace to be when there's no universe. and still aren't explained in terms of how they work.

                        what I mean his answer is like saying "that's a description"

                        what's it a description of?

                        "Prescription." He's basically admitting that the order I talk about is present on some level they put it into a larger framework that subsumes and hides the law-like aspects.

                        that distinction is made I have a hunch becuase the reason for abandoning descriptive is to explain QM. If you dropped it you couldn't explain Newtonian. so when people ask about the contradiction you go "don't answer questions. we aer the priest of knowledge you dare not question us."

                        I got that analysis from an article by a mathematician and physicist who writes textbooks named D'Agistino. That's a official priesthood of scinece answer.

                        I understand that natural laws aren't passed by legislatures or that they don't exist on books, that the natural cause doesn't tell the effect how to behave. That doesn't mean it's as simple as just things happen for no reason when we describe that's what we are calling law.

                        Go an read the wikipedia article on physical laws.
                        that's not an answer it's not going to disprove the things I talk about.

                        stop mystifying knowledge to avoid contradictions. I have read that article a million times you fail to answer real obvious things. If I can find these problems then a science stunted could find more. you want control more than truth. stop the mystification gag.


                        Laplase took God out of science on the basis that natural law explains everything we don't need God. Yet this basis for atheism is now obsolete so the new basis is that everything description of meaningless behavior that happens to be consistent for no particular reason

                        On a classical level, yes.
                        there we go with the framework again. he's admitted to my argument on some level but becasue they set that level in a higher framework of descriptive laws then it's hidden as a Law-like set of rules. That's doesn't' explain it's presence in nature.

                        However the basis of atheism has always been (as far as I am aware) that there is no evidence for a deity.
                        nature doesn't care about your degree or your chapters. It's not sitting around saying 'this would be a contradiction but since they call it Newtonian it's ok. Newtonian laws still must have a mind to be in.

                        Isn't that less reasonable and more arbitrary? how can you say that your description is better than those that include miracles?

                        Miracles that happen on a classical scale? Of course not, we still have causality. Again you are confusing the quantum and classical worlds and think that the rule of one apply to the other which they don't
                        it seems God doesn't care about your charts either.

                        I am not confusing them he is. he thinks that setting the "Newtonian level order" in the larger QM level framework makes it appear to be descriptive but if we ask what it's describing it's describing prescription.

                        it's real obvious at this point we are talking about a paradigm. he's defending the paradigm as Kuhn says he will do, as though it were a political regime in trouble. I am pointing out the anomalies that he's trying adsorb into the paradigm.


                        how can determinists exist if there is no basis for the idea that causes are prescriptive?

                        Be careful with the term prescriptive, it doesn't apply to the laws of physics.

                        that's begging the question. you did not answer the question. what is it that determines are talking about if its not prescriptivism laws? how are things determined if laws don't' mandate what happens?

                        yes it does. It doesn't apply your paradigm. obvious it applies to phsyics becuase that' just the trick of the paradigmatic framework. that frame was imposed because without it the old materialist paradigm would be rumpus and scinece would lose control becasue you couldn't explain it

                        so his first four answers, three of them are not applicable and aren't even answer and the other one is inadequate of the last three they are ideological propaganda given to reinforce the paradigm.
                        Lord what fools these mortals be.
                        Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

                        President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."