On So-Called “Vacuum” Fluctuation
Posted in Physics, Science on | 3 minutes | 68 Comments →
I'm going to put off further development of the CCH's competitor in favor of this short post about so-called "vacuum" fluctuation.
Furthermore, the uncertainty principle implies that a particle can never be at rest, but is subject to constant fluctuations even when no measurement is taking place, and these fluctuations are assumed to have no causes at all. In other words, the quantum world is believed to be characterized by absolute indeterminism, intrinsic ambiguity, and irreducible lawlessness.
–David Pratt, Consciousness, Causality, and Quantum Physics
In recent attempts to mitigate the apparent necessity of the Unmoved Mover, D has posited creation ex nihilo as a viable alternative:
We know that vacuum fluctuation occurs. If that's the case, then Krauss' "universe from nothing" makes the most sense: given enough time, any amount of whatever can come from nothing, with the net energy of existence staying at precisely zero – existence, in aggregate, is still nothing, it's just a particularly interesting nothing. This may be refined later, and hopefully it will be further developed even in my own lifetime.
–D
Despite what I believe to be sound logical objections to the idea that "nothing + time = everything", I note that the "vacuum" part of "vacuum fluctuation" is at best a problematic assumption and at worst sheer error. I submit that ultimately, referring to the behavior of a virtual particle before the emergence of well-defined properties as "vacuum fluctuation" is just as flawed as me calling the CCH's competitor the immaterial consciousness hypothesis, as explained yesterday: it answers the question before science has even had a chance to find the answer.
Further, note how Pratt (1-3) and D (4) describe today's consensus on the uncertainty principle:
1) the uncertainty principle implies that a particle can never be at rest;
2) these fluctuations are assumed to have no causes at all;
3) the quantum world is believed to be characterized by absolute indeterminism, intrinsic ambiguity, and irreducible lawlessness;
4) This may be refined later, and hopefully it will be further developed even in my own lifetime.
Assumptions, beliefs, hope, possibilities… it all sounds so much like what atheists and skeptics usually discard as faith. In no way do I intend to denigrate physics or science when I submit that uncertainty is indeed the perfect word to describe these observations, but it should go without saying that when it comes to discussions of the cause of the universe, the person who argues "nothing + time = everything" assumes an ominous burden of proof.
As for me, I tend to side with the late physicist David Bohm on this issue, and there's something to be said for reluctance in science:
..it is quite possible that while the quantum theory, and with it the indeterminacy principle, are valid to a very high degree of approximation in a certain domain, they both cease to have relevance in new domains below that in which the current theory is applicable. Thus, the conclusion that there is no deeper level of causally determined motion is just a piece of circular reasoning, since it will follow only if we assume beforehand that no such level exists.
–David Bohm, (1984, p.95)
Jayman
says...11/20/2009 08:05:52 PM
John, Craig has published in journals about the philosophy of science. The philosophy of the mind was irrelevant to the debate. While he may not be a physical cosmologist he had no problem engaging with the scientific and mathematical data while making his argument. On the other hand, Dennett was unable to even weigh the scientific and mathematical evidence. You may try to pass Craig off as a mere theologian (as if his expertise in numerous fields is a bad thing), but he showed superior depth and breadth of knowledge relative to Dennett in that debate.
Gideon
says...Well, I don’t know about you, cl, but I’m ready to rewrite the whole English language. The day that you can get SOME-thing from NO-thing, means you have to start redefining reality, or, at least, the term.
I guess what this all boils down to, then, is that if I toss my car keys on the table and wait long enough, the matter comprising those keys will eventually reconstitute into a 1969 Mustang Boss, complete with 429 cid Cobra Jet and racing stripes! Hell, there may even be a copy of me sitting in it! Wouldn’t that be great? Great for him/it, I suppose. Of course, it would have been better if all that had happened without me there to throw the keys down to start it all off. Then you’d really have something from nothing! Oh man, this just keeps getting better every year!
I mean, why not? Do we not exist? Something obviously happened to produce what’s here now, no creationist or infidel can argue that… or can they? Is any of this real?
Seriously, folks, you can’t get something from nothing. It’s simply a contradiction in terms. If you could get something from nothing, then you need to re-evaluate what constitutes reality. If you can do that, then nothing is certain, not even evolution. You might as well kill yourself and end an illusion that serves no purpose. But, then… how would you know you were dead? How do we know we’re not already dead? How do I know that sandwich I had for lunch wasn’t me and that I’m (the guy that ate me) the sandwich? Maybe I didn’t eat at all, just imagined I did!
Sound idiotic? Give it some time. After all, all you need is enough time and even the most rediculous hairbrained bullshit looks plausible.
Just ask Homer!
John Morales
says...cl, you’re referring to this David Pratt?
Funny.
John Morales
says...Don’t you believe that your deity created the universe ex nihilo?
Jayman
says...John, (many) theists believe that God created the universe while (some) atheists believe that nothing created the universe. In other words, the theists in question believe that the universe was caused while the atheists in question believe that the universe was not caused, that there is no explanation for its existence.
Coincidentally, I listened to a debate yesterday between William Lane Craig and Daniel Dennet related to cosmological arguments. Craig goes in to some depth about the universe’s beginning if anyone is interested. Dennet offered virtually nothing of substance in response.
D
says...cl:
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my meaning. First of all, I’d like to draw an analogy (and all analogies break down, so I don’t care particularly where this one does) to waves in the ocean. The ocean has, at any given moment in time, exactly the number of water molecules in it that it does in fact have (whatever that number may be). However, there can be some pretty huge waves in the ocean! Where do the waves come from? Does the water level just rise? How can it do that unless the amount of water molecules in the ocean increases?
This is more or less how scoffers at vacuum fluctuation appear to me. Regardless of whether the term “vacuum” really applies (remember, words don’t stick to reality), what we’re talking about is a fluctuation in the fabric of spacetime which we’re not really sure how it works but it seems to happen anyway, and it all balances out into nothing. Travelling disturbances, mere fluctuations like waves in the ocean (but not exactly like, so don’t bother talking about tidal forces and wind and stuff). Problematic? More like “weird.” Sheer error? Maybe, maybe not. Borne out by the math? Look for yourself. That’s the level you’ll have to meet me at if you wanna dispute it, because that’s the reason I believe it in the first place.
Also, I don’t know who this Pratt guy is, and I don’t give a shit. If you want to talk with me about what I believe or why I believe it, don’t bring in some other douche who may or may not say anything to which I’ll agree. Or, in other words, I never said I agree with everything that guy says, so I don’t know why you’re bringing him into this.
Oh, and please don’t equivocate on different meanings of the ambiguous word, “faith.” I find hope, trust, and other such things as unproblematic, insofar as I derive those things from other beliefs for which I have justification (and I drop them when I perceive cause to do so). There is exactly one sense of the word “faith” which I discard, and it is this: a fervently held belief without or despite evidence/reason (the overlap between the two terms is meant here, not both of their entire domains or what-have-you).
I don’t disagree with Bohm’s statement, and I am in fact rooting for the hidden variables interpretation; however, the closer we look for it, the worse it gets:
So! Do you have a better interpretation that accounts for the observations we’ve made, makes some testable predictions we can use to rule out competing hypotheses (as well as yours, should you be wrong!), and is borne out by the math we’ve done? In other words, do you have a contribution to make to our scientific dialogue with reality here? If so, let’s have it and do some science!
(I’ll get to these other guys later, it’s time for D&D!)
John Morales
says...Both Dennett and Craig are philosophers, but the former specialises in philosophy of mind and of science, whilst the latter is a theologian.
Neither are physical cosmologists, which is the relevant discipline to the subject at hand; metaphysical cosmology is quite a different beast.
John Morales
says...Like this? :)
The days in which I could work with tensors and solve partial differential equations are long-gone, alas. :(
MS Quixote
says...I think it’s important to keep in mind that when physicists and cosmologists invoke the term “nothing,” they don’t mean nothing in the technical sense. They have a “little something” in mind, such as a vacuum field, time/space continuum, energy, singularity, or whatever. But it’s not a true nothing.
“Don’t you believe that your deity created the universe ex nihilo?”
Well, yes. And since God was “there,” there was not “nothing.” Ex nihilo stipulates that he did not use pre-existing material to form the universe, not that there was nothing and then there was something. I think it’s safe to say that if there ever were nothing, there would still be nothing.
John Morales
says...IOW, some putative uncreated being supposedly created the universe from nothing; but Gideon said that this is “simply a contradiction in terms”.
You don’t see the problem with this? :)
(I note some theologies claim creation was not ex nihilo, but ex materia or even ex deo — however, when I was taught by Catholics the claim was definitely ex nihilo).
MS
says...“IOW, some putative uncreated being supposedly created the universe from nothing; but Gideon said that this is “simply a contradiction in terms”.
You don’t see the problem with this? :)”
John, if you’re saying Gideon’s untechnical formulation “you can’t get something from nothing” is at odds with God “getting something from nothing,” well, OK, but I think we all know what he meant. Otherwise, I don’t detect any logical difficulty with the way I’ve set it forth above. Do you?
John Morales
says...Yeah, I do. It presupposes God.
If you’re gonna presuppose, why not just presuppose that the universe “just is”, rather than it had to be created by something other which “just is”?
It’s equally explanatory, but simpler.
Gideon
says...Damn, but you’re an idiot, Moron-ales! I never suggested that an eternal God couldn’t produce something from His own will or power – including matter, dipshit!
YOUR assertion that absolute NOTHING could provide SOMETHING is far more ludicrous than the other scenario. Your tiny mind can’t fathom it, I know, but, God is able to routinely do what you can’t even imagine is possible. I guess that’s why He’s God, eh, witless?
I’m beginning to see a pattern in infidel ‘catch-up’ strategy, here. Over the years, as every ridiculous theory they come up with is met with reason, they have to either adjust that theory (like Dawkins did with “Common Descent”) and claim they never said what they used to say at all, or outright make up something else like “Vacuum Theory” explaining what simply can’t happen.
I, myself, prefer to stick with doctrine that is at least consistent… like scripture. It never has to change with the times or the latest fads – like intellectualism.
Gideon
says...D… now with the idiot out of the way, let me explain that waves are supposedly caused by tidal forces, wind, gravity, tectonic activity, etc. There doesn’t have to be an increase in water content. Also, my “scoffing” is directed more toward a desperation that seems increasingly less tolerant toward other thoughts or opinions, (like mine) directed by so-called “intellectuals” that have already succeeded in dominating the literature, institutions of learning, media, etc, of our time. It doesn’t translate to any attack against you or because you happen to entertain those aforementioned theories.
And, maybe you would like to tell me what is so ridiculous about my car keys analogy? Isn’t that, in fact, what the evolutionists are trying to imply? That, whatever state you find matter in, given enough time, it will eventually change into any infinite amount of shapes and realities?
So, why not a ’69 Boss? My theory is correct, is it not? Bosses do exist… do they not? From elemental matter… right?
Does intelligent planning look any better to you now?
Jayman
says...John:
A cosmological argument with true premises and valid logic proves a First Cause (it’s a deductive argument). Granted, an additional argument has to be made that the First Cause shares the properties of deity. But this takes us to a cause outside of the universe.
Because the universe is a contingent thing. Positing an infinite regress of contingent causes for the universe is problematic on both philosophical and scientific grounds. This means that the First Cause must be a necessary being.
By that logic it is equally explanatory, but simpler, to presuppose that I “just am” sitting at my desk. Why presuppose that I walked over to my desk? It is quite strange that atheists love to appeal to science (which presupposes effects have causes) in their arguments but are willing to ignore this presupposition when it leads to places they don’t want to go. At least be consistent. Either believe contingent facts have causes or believe that contingent facts need not have causes.
cl
says...Hi all. Thanks for the good issues being raised.
In general, to everyone I’d say note Quixote’s #9.
By “nothing” I refer to an absolute absence of any “thing” (MEST or otherwise). Unless we posit an eternally existing infinite regress of universes, or an eternally existing Mover capable of initiating the kinesis that is this universe, logic apparently requires that we MUST accept that MEST literally came from nothing. Recall that “nothing” refers even to a lack of potency, which makes this absurd: kinesis requires a transition from potency to act. As for which is simpler,
The way I understand it, my basic attitude is that creation ex nihilo is heresy because it’s anti-biblical, not to mention seemingly logically impossible. To create something from nothing, nothing would have to be the default state. If nothing was the default state, there is no something to create anything. For what it’s worth, I don’t believe in or advocate that idea. If we mean to suggest that God created everything out of nothing, well.. technically would God have created everything from God’s own power? IOW, something like ex deo seems logically permissible. Mind you, I’m not saying my puny logic is the measure of what is and is not logically permissible, just saying that all current knowledge suggests so. We addressed this in Pt. II:
Gideon,
I agree.
D,
No need to get mad, and why is Pratt a douche? This post wasn’t an insult or derogation and it certainly wasn’t about you. That your comments prompted the post were essentially a forethought. The post was more about the fact of presupposition in science, and also to show that the propositions you lean on require just as much “hope” or “belief” of “faith” or whatever you wanna call it. Note that I also noted Pratt’s use of “provisional language” and that such was not a derogation.
Yet, we’ve both already agreed that precision with language is of paramount importance in these types of discussions. Are you using “vacuum” and “nothing” synonymously? Let’s sort this out. Recall that you retracted your previous agreement that I’d “laid out the options” sufficiently well. I need to know where you stand now that you’ve done that.
John Morales,
That’s vague, John; why?
No, it’s actually a matter of both: unless of course we’re literally only considering one option, as suggested by your phrase “the relevant.”
That’s vague, and even potentially duplicitous: if there’s no Mover, we’re not talking about “the universe” just existing as a brute fact. We’re talking about an eternally existing infinite regress of universes existing, and today’s best data suggests this current iteration will be the last iteration (entropy). If by simpler you mean “requires the least amount of additional explanation,” I wholeheartedly disagree. Because you were specifically pointed to it on previous occasions, unless you have a rebuttal you’re currently withholding for some unknown reason, it’s potentially disingenuous for you to just assert that your position is “simpler” without address of what I already wrote on these matters. If you have said rebuttal, by all means let’s hear it.
Jayman,
Thanks for the tidbits and the link to that debate. Are you familiar with Luke Muelhauser at all? He has a catalog of over 400 WLC debates.
I agree, and if you ever have the time, I’d be really interested in hearing
your opinion of where the weaknesses are in parts I and II, easily accessible from the “Recommended Posts” link. Specifically, on whether my explanation of Aristotle’s argument from kinesis in Pt. I is sound; and if you think the argument that the First Cause shares the properties of deity in Pt. II is sound.
You were apparently leaving that comment as I was writing the very same thing in mine.
MS Quixote,
Hola. Good contributions.
[META] As you and I know, the real question of the moment is – that is still unanswered might I add – is what to call the atheist version of the GOTG argument. [/META]
I agree that Gideon’s formulation was both sufficiently clear, and cogent, and I attempted to show that it was in fact John being unclear because the choices aren’t between an eternally existing Mover and an eternally existing universe, but an eternally existing infinite regress of universes existing, and today’s best data suggests this current iteration will be the last iteration (entropy). To me, that by definition requires an infinite regress of causal explanations, which by definition is not simple.
MS
says...META: The Quixote philological branch has failed thus far, but is still working on it.
“To me, that by definition requires an infinite regress of causal explanations, which by definition is not simple.”
I agree: infinite regresses are more complex, many worlds hypotheses are more complex, etc. But there’s at least two other points to add: a disembodied mind is itself less complex than the existing universe, and, besides all that, an explanation itself does not need to be explained to serve as an explanation.
Congratualtions, cl. Your blog has really turned out to be something else.
John Morales
says...I’ve made no such assertion.
John Morales
says...What is your basis for accepting the premises as true?
What is your basis for this contention?
Not very explanatory, is it? :)
It’s why I keep my presuppositions to the minimum (and some are needed, else the only option is solipsism).
Once again, I state the entirety of my metaphysical assumptions:
(1) there is an external reality; and
(2) I only have access to it via my senses.
John Morales
says...Then, definitionally, there’s no such thing in the universe.
Take a look at the page I linked to.
cl
says...MS Quixote,
Hey thanks. As John Evo said, “quite the cast of characters.”
John Morales,
For someone who likes to keep their presuppositions to a minimum, why presuppose I hadn’t? I had taken a look before I wrote this post or before you even linked.
Why do you find it funny that I referred to Pratt?
Jayman
says...Basically, because we observe that contingent facts have causes or explanations. In fact, your metaphysical assumption that your senses give you access to an external reality is an assumption that your perceptions have explanations. In a world where contingent facts may have no explanation at all it would be possible for your perceptions to occur for no reason. In order for your worldview to be coherent you would at least have to admit that contingent facts have causes or explanations in the vast majority of cases.
The fact that, according to both philosophical and scientific arguments, the universe has not always existed. If any of those philosophical or scientific arguments are correct then the universe is, by definition, a contingent thing.
The problem is bigger than that. On the one hand, if you are going to believe that a contingent fact can have no explanation, then you will be hard pressed to explain why the best explanation (whatever that is) is better than no explanation. On the other hand, if you are going to believe that contingent facts have explanations, then positing that the First Cause is a necessary entity provides more explanatory power than the alternative.
Gideon
says...“I’ve made no such assertion.”
You were implying it. Your demonstrated hostility toward Christianity would naturally lend itself to embracing this vacuum theory. In fact, you’d probably embrace the tooth fairy legend if it contradicted ID.
The Cheshire Cat hasn’t got a thing over you, Moron-ales!
John Morales
says...Fair enough.
I note, however, that ’causes’ and ‘explanations’ are not synonymous in this context. The former refers to an event of which the fact is an effect, whilst the latter refers to the process whereby the cause leads to the effect.
Factual claims about nature are addressed by science, not by philosophy.
Do you have a (scientific) citation that there was a time that the universe did not exist?
Science can trace the universe back to an initial state, but no further. Work continues on this (cf. How Did the Universe Start?).
John Morales
says...cl,
Mainly, because I find theosophy risible.
John Morales
says...No, I wasn’t, but I do give you credit for admitting I did not assert it, as you first contended.
cl
says...Okay then, why do you find theosophy funny?
John Morales
says...Because it’s religious: Theosophy.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Gideon
says...“No, I wasn’t, but I do give you credit for admitting I did not assert it, as you first contended.”
And, thank you for admitting you’re a fucking liar, Moron-ales. You REEK dishonesty.
“Factual claims about nature are addressed by science, not by philosophy.”
Then I guess you’ll be emailing Richard Dawkins and setting him straight on his ASSERTIONS that evolution has been proven by science, bonehead! To date, science has proven fuck-all that evolution is how we came about.
You’re just another one of those ‘wounded soul’ whiners that had a bad experience with religion and now seek to paint all faiths with the same brush. I trip over one of you bozos every day, you’re a dime a dozen. Pseudo-intellectuals that have an answer for everything, right, Moron-ales?
Time to pony up, genius. Stop playing games and commit yourself. Let’s have your take on origins or STFU! Otherwise, we’ll make our own assumptions about your honesty like I already have.
Jayman
says...Science is only useful if the philosophy underpinning it is sound. In other words, science is subservient to philosophy. If a philosophical argument shows that an infinite universe is logically impossible then the matter is settled.
Your question is wrong-headed as it assumes that time (as we know it) existed before the universe began to exist. All that is necessary for my argument is that the universe has a beginning, which you seem to believe it does by your reference to an “initial state.” It is my understanding that the Big Bang occurred at a finite time in the past (NASA link if you really need it).
Gideon
says...And, Theosophy isn’t Christianity, dimwit. Atheism is religion, too. How come you’re into that?
Is it because you’re stupid?
John Morales
says...Your (metaphorical) frothing-at-the-mouth, spittle-laden, invective-rich projective opinion is noted.
John Morales
says...I draw your attention to the progress science has made since the scientific method was adopted, marking the transition from natural philosophy.
Apparently, its philosophical underpinning is sound, if one judges matters pragmatically. It’s nice to have the internet with which to interact, is it not? ;)
You seem confused. You are the one who wrote “The fact that […] the universe has not always existed.”, wherein the assumption that “that time (as we know it) existed before the universe began to exist” is embedded.
That is why I asked “Do you have a (scientific) citation that there was a time that the universe did not exist?”.
Consider the semantics of “the universe has not always existed”.
Gideon
says...Oh, so you admit you’re a fucking liar, eh, Moron-ales? No answers, no honesty. Where’s your proof in science that the THEORY of Evolution is fact? Let’s have it, son!
Come on, Moron-ales… we’re waiting! What’s your take on origins? Is Dawkins a lying sack of shit like you when he makes ASSERTIONS of things that haven’t been proven scientifically?
Are you, in fact, just a pseudo-intellectual with a thesaurus in one hand and your knob in the other?
John Morales
says...I did not say it was.
So you think baldness is a hair-style? :)
Gideon
says...“That is why I asked “Do you have a (scientific) citation that there was a time that the universe did not exist?”.”
You’re not the one asking the questions, Moron-ales. You need to answer some questions, yourself, before you get to play Alex Trebek, son.
Gideon
says...John Moron-ales = liar.
(The Theory of Everything)
John Morales
says...You are confused by polysemy.
You might find this post informative.
Actually, I have a facility for language and an extensive lexicon, hence I have little need for recourse to a thesaurus.
I am amused that you think I consider myself an intellectual, pseudo or otherwise. I don’t.
John Morales
says...Well, I’m not the only one asking questions, but (quite evidently) I have indeed asked questions. :)
Gideon
says...“You might find this post informative.
Oh… wow. Another lying sack of shit stating that yet another lying sack of shit (Dawkins) says it’s okay to think that evolution is fact. I guess I should be ashamed of myself, eh, Moron-ales? You really are a dipshit, aren’t you?
Your “facility” for language is the ability to deliver uncoordinated and incoherent gobs of drivel designed to (hopefully) impress people that you’re not the imbecile you’re afraid everyone else is sure you are. So, yeah, I’m sure you don’t think you’re an intellectual, son…
You’re just banking on everyone else thinking so.
John Morales
says...Well, yes, if you have a functional conscience and possess scruples.
The evidence indicates otherwise.
Gideon
says...Right. No answers.
Well, here’s a link for you. Dawkins doing one of his famous back-pedaling acts, again.
Enjoy!
John Morales
says...Why do you conflate atheism with evolutionary biology?
What is this obsession you have with Richard Dawkins?
He’s an atheist, and a scientist. So what?
Ever heard of Francis Collins?
He’s a theist, and a scientist. So what?
Are you unaware that theistic evolution is the norm amongst Christians?
Gideon
says...“Well, yes, if you have a functional conscience and possess scruples. The evidence indicates otherwise.”
Hey, I’m not the one lying my ass off, here, Moron-ales! Or the one with the cum-stained thesaurus, either!
:)
cl
says...Gideon,
I find John’s reluctance to clearly state his position(s) equally frustrating. I also find it odd that this reluctance comes in such close proximity to John’s complaints that the terms I use are vague to the point of lacking usefulness. I find that particularly odd because other commenters – both atheist and theist – appeared to have no problems with those terms whatsoever. I perceive that John is concerned with avoiding faulty presuppositions at any cost – which is certainly commendable – but the usefulness of this constant quibbling over words seems unclear.
OTOH…
Now you’re waist-deep in Philly and jim’s territory. Doesn’t that bother you at all? Even if we were to grant that all the demeaning things you say about John were true – which I am not granting despite my inability to clearly discern John’s motives – allow me to ask: can you recall a time in your life when God dealt with you over pride, or any other issue? If so, what was it that ultimately brought about the change? The words of another? Or the power of God to see the ugliness and utter non-teachability of pride? I’m willing to bet that upon reflection, you’d agree that although God often speaks to us through others, that only the power of God can properly restore our spiritual vision. If that is the case, the usefulness of constantly insulting John seems unclear, and I’m curious to hear what you think it accomplishes.
I ask these things not to judge or put the spotlight on you, but of genuine curiosity to understand: do you really believe that insulting John will sway his opinion in any direction other than towards the conclusion that it’s actually you who needs God’s restorative work?
For what it’s worth, I think John brings a lot these conversations, despite any real or imagined shortcomings, or despite the fact that most of the time I feel as though he’s just “talking down to us dumb theists.”
John Morales,
That you find religion “funny” can’t get any more tautological, and what does your opinion of religion have to do with Pratt’s statement about vacuum fluctuation?
John Morales
says...I give you credit for practicing what you espouse: “After all, all you need is enough time and even the most rediculous hairbrained bullshit looks plausible.”
In passing, I note that, as a school-child, those with wit would attempt to insult me by calling me “Moral-less”. You might consider this if you seek variety — it’s far more euphonious.
Just a friendly suggestion. :)
Gideon
says...“In passing, I note that, as a school-child, those with wit would attempt to insult me by calling me “Moral-less”. You might consider this if you seek variety…”
No, I think I like your name the way it is, Moron-ales. The fact your classmates had you pegged doesn’t really enter into matters. I’m very objective that way. Here’s a smiley-face to prove it…
:)
Oh, and cl? Don’t worry about me and Moron-ales, here. We’re just “conflating”. We’re really best buddies. Here’s another smiley-face to prove that I’m not a disingenuous lying asshole…
:)
Nite-nite, best buddy!
:)
John Morales
says...Ask, and I will state my position.
E.g.:
—
I repeat, De gustibus non est disputandum: what any given person finds funny is idiosyncratic and needs no justification.
You put forward a woomeister whose opinions are counter to science as an authority, and I find that amusing.
John Morales
says...No, we’re not.
Emoticons prove nothing of the sort, and your attempt at jocularity is as heavy-handed as your attempt at vilification.
Good night, self-professed Christian.
Gideon
says...“Good night, self-professed Christian.”
Yeah… at least I’ve got the balls to stand for something, not hide in the shadows like a pussy… a Cheshire pussy, that is!
I guess that’s what you expect when you deal with someone that lives in a place originally founded as a penal colony.
Jayman
says...John, I wasn’t trying to denigrate the scientific method. I was saying that good science and good philosophy are both avenues to the truth and we can’t just dismiss something because it can’t be labeled as “science.”
Regarding time, I don’t expect scientists to make statements about time except for in the sense that we experience it and thus I don’t expect to find a quote about time before the Big Bang (which may be time in a sense different from our universe). You’re still stuck with either accepting a First Cause or trying to find some middle ground where some contingent facts have explanations and others don’t.
Gideon
says...“I repeat, De gustibus non est disputandum: what any given person finds funny is idiosyncratic and needs no justification.”
LOL! Hey, Moron-ales… try this:
Ouyay areway away umbday-uckfay assholeway, Oronmay-alesway!
“You put forward a ‘woomeister’ whose opinions are counter to science as an authority, and I find that amusing.”
Oooops! Careful, there, Moron-ales… I don’t think that one’s in the thesaurus, buddy! Better check again!
Gideon
says...Moron-ales isn’t using science, Jayman, he’s passing off speculation as science. The ‘science’ he quotes doesn’t explain what happened, unobserved, zillions of years ago, so he, like his evolutionary gurus, have to speculate and THEORIZE as to what might have happened.
They actually don’t have a clue what happened… straight from the ass’s mouth, too!
D
says...Thanks for explaining! And for the record: “D is cussing” doesn’t mean “D is angry.” If I’m angry, I’ll be sure to let you know by saying, “You’re starting to make me angry,” or something like that. Unless I say otherwise, my mood is consistently one of laughing – I just cuss a lot, ‘cuz if you remember, dirty words were my first words. I started slinging mud just to distance myself from the guy, not because I was upset.
Silly cl, you can’t upset me! After all the shit I’ve been through, you really think I’ll let something on the internet get me angry? Really? That’s awful cute. I’m almost flattered to think you believe I could still be that sensitive. In truth, I’m a heartless, bitter old cunt in a 25-year-old body, who has simply learned to cultivate an attitude of happiness. My heart died, in a way, so I brought it back together and re-made it in a way I liked better. This is why when Gideon goes on about the rebelliousness of youth or some noise, I don’t bother pointing out that he’s just taken up in the set-in-his-ways-ness of old age. It cuts both ways, he just seems to want to lecture me on what he wants me to believe, rather than teach me anything of value, so I just try to coax it out of him by steeling my heart against his insults and general foolishness. Doesn’t seem like there’s anything to coax out, though.
I do get bored easily, though; and I’m bored now. At the end of the day, I’ve got like all the scientific literature on my side (and, for the last time, that’s all I believe: a provisional endorsement of the scientific literature, phrased vaguely in terms of levels of confidence that approach but never reach 100%, and only taken exactly as far as it goes, so you have to make God a part of that if you want me to believe in God), and you guys have the sloppily codified and heavily modified ravings of superstitious goat-herds from the Bronze Age which are fundamentally indistinguishable from the superstitious traditions of any other culture. So, I guess this is goodbye. I originally wasn’t gonna say this here because I think parting shots are largely silly, but then I don’t mind being silly from time to time and it’s polite to say goodbye, anyhow. Also, I figured I probably shouldn’t only talk about y’all from behind your backs, but yeah, this is goodbye for now.
Although, nothing is forever, so if you can solve the problem of doubt or otherwise convince me to make that leap – with evidence that I should make the leap, which I can test repeatedly – then we can pick this back up. But ta-ta for now!
Oh, and John, it was very nice to meet you, even though we didn’t talk much. I just didn’t see a need to correct you, and it looked like you were handling Gideon just fine on your own, so I let well enough alone. That bit on QFT is well-written so far, did you write that yourself? E-mail me or something, my addy’s on my blogger profile.
Gideon
says...LOL! Took you long enough, D!
And, we also managed to get another sob story out of you before you leave, will wonders never cease! Of course, after the first performance, the agenda was pretty clear… that, and the painfully obvious ruse of wanting to dialogue offline, etc. Sorry, hon, been over the road too many times and seen that same act too often.
Well, Moron-ales will be happy to get you, as you can sit there and listen to him blather on and on and on and on… and on… and pretend you’re interested in him for his mind and his ability to use a thesaurus! You both can sit by the fire with a portrait of Richard Dawkins hanging over the mantle and drink a toast to your monkey ancestors and their microbe/pond scum predecessors.
Then, you can diddle yourself while Moron-ales reads from the unholy scriptures, (The God Delusion) and you’ll get yours while he gets to run his mouth off once again! I can’t see any losers in that scenario, can you?
All the best, D. Don’t worry about us Christians none. We’re still the clear majority on this rock, with infidels on the decline. There’s some interesting times a-coming, girl, but, I’ll leave those as a surprise for you. I’d tell you now, but, you’ve got science and Moron-ales and his thesaurus to guide you along, so, adios!
;-)
Gideon
says...And… don’t go away mad…
:)
XPK
says...Gideon, are you the Christian version of Christopher Hitchens? (That is not a compliment, by the way.)
cl
says...Alas! Just when I thought it was over.
John Morales
says...You did claim that it is a fact that according to scientific arguments, the universe has not always existed; now you cannot adduce evidence for this putative fact?
It was the basis for your
claim, which you have yet to sustain.
John Morales
says...“So often in life, we get no less than what we give. That’s exactly why I’ve been enjoying watching Gideon go off at SI’s. It’s karmic retribution at its finest.”
cl
says...You say that if I ask you’ll answer, yet, I’ve now asked three times how the fact that you find religion funny relates to the so-called vacuum fluctuation, and you’ve not answered.
Jayman supplied the evidence for his claim, and you essentially agreed when you conceded that the universe had an initial state. According to our best data, the universe has not always existed. To reply as I’ve seen you do before with the question, “Was there ever a time when the universe did not exist,” is sophistry.
Why beat around the bush? Why not just say outright that which you intend to imply?
Gideon
says...“Why beat around the bush? Why not just say outright that which you intend to imply?”
cl, you’re taking away every legitimate reason the troll has for being here! He doesn’t have a position! Oh, unless causing trouble qualifies as a position, otherwise…
Invoke Eastern philosophy much, Moron-ales? What’s this thing with karma? Isn’t that superstition, boy? I thought you were the epitome of cold hard logic? Which troll were you over at SI’s? I don’t recall any thesaurus-users over there, or do you change persona’s like a woman changes her mind?
Is all of this “karma” you’re inflicting, payback for what happened to little Johnny in school?
:)
Gideon
says...cl, the fact that Moron-ales, et al, keep skirting is that there is no science supporting evolution, or this goofy “Vacuum Fluctuation” nonsense that is clearly another desperate attempt on top of many others to meet creationist assertions of the only logical explanation for origins.
The links I’ve provided to videos of their own gurus admitting as much, have consistently been ignored. Theirs (except for Moron-ales, he’s only here to troll) is not a fact-based assertion, but, instead, a faith-based position. In fact, it’s even less than that, as all they have to go on is supposition and speculation, whereas Christianity is a time-honored, science-backed institution.
Just going with what Dawkins, Hitchens, and other New Age gurus cannot explain is enough evidence by itself to shut down the whole debate. Evolution is a forgery and a fraud designed to undermine and destroy the institution that God designed for the benefit and continued existence of mankind. The enemy, Satan, has all of those of like mind duped, just like Eve in Eden, that they will somehow enter into some higher awareness of understanding if they adopt a contentious position against God.
What they are, in fact, engaged in is a suicide mission. The sophistry increases with every generation of infidel, yet the clear word of God always and successfully debunks whatever they can dream up, teamed with true science of the unbiased observation and study of the world that God created.
Gideon
says...Oh… and XPK?
If you can’t see past my rough handling of the troll to his true intentions, then I don’t have anything complimentary to offer you in terms of your discernment.
cl
says...Gideon,
Not sure if you realized or not, but the “karmic retribution” statement was mine, not John’s.
Although I believe humanity was in fact God’s handiwork, and I realize the extent to which evolutionary theory rests on inference, you are simply being inaccurate at best when you say that. I realize we’ve covered that ground, and I don’t seek to change your mind.
John Morales
says...Hm. I composed a longish response, but just before posting I changed my mind.
Good luck with your blog, cl; I find I lack motivation to continue posting here.
Gideon
says...“Good luck with your blog, cl; I find I lack motivation to continue posting here.”
That, and the mental acumen, I suppose? Lose your thesaurus? Maybe D has it, and is boning up on her vocabulary?
Anyway, I expect you’ll be headed over there for a visit, so you can pick it up when you arrive.
Good luck… don’t hit any roos on your way over, savvy? In other words, keep the dirty side down, son!
cl
says...I’m interested in reading the “longish response” in case you’d like to post it here or email it to me.
If not, take care, and you’re welcomed back if and when the motivation returns.