PDA

View Full Version : Something from Nothing



Ernie Nemeth
21st April 2013, 23:36
I thought I'd start this thread after watching a video Q & A with Richard Dawkins and Andrew Kraus, pre-eminent scholars with impecable credentials, debunking Religion, theology and to a great extent philosophy.

here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXGyesfHzew

CXGyesfHzew



Ever notice that whenever a scientific book writen for the layman appears it begins with a historical recounting of the main proponents of the standard model?

They usually start with the Greeks:
Leucippus, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Thales,
perhaps Anaximenes, Heraclitus and Empedocles

From there they usually jump forward about 1,500 years and take up the tale with the likes of:
Boyle, Proust, Berthollet, Berzilius,
spend a great deal of time with Dalton,
then proceed with Brown, Maxwell, Svedberg, and a few others...

Then comes the modern era:
Einstein, Perrin, Ostwald, Mueller et al.

Before continuing they often backtrack to point out the flaws in the early Greeks to highlight our modern logic and the success of the Standard Model.

Then they pick up the story in the 17th century to espouse the work of Avogadro, Canizzaro, Stas, Richards and often end with Mendeleev or Rutherford or Curie.

And that is only for the work with the understanding of the atom.

If it is a comprehensive volume they might backtrack again and include Newton, Grimaldi, Huygens, Young, Bartholin, Fresnel, Roemer, Thales, Peregrinus, Coulomb, Faraday,Gilbert, Dufay, Franklin, Oersted, Arago, Ampere, Sturgeon, Henry, Herschel, Nobili, Meloni, Sala, Scheele, Hertz, Helmholtz, Watt, Boltzman, Thomson, Thompson, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Rayleigh (I am skipping through them now, 'cause this is getting boring) Planck and Wien. These emminent scientists are evoked in support of the dual nature of light.

If it is a tome, others may be mentioned like Volta, Geissler, Compton, de Broglie, Fermi and many others.


By the time the history lesson is over the average reader has been lulled into the proper state of confusion and uncertainty and belittled to the point that whatever is now proposed as yet another proof of some monumental discovery will be accepted without question.


Well, if I have not yet bored my readers to death then let me propose a very simple point.

The idea that something came from nothing and that there is no reason to invoke the mysterious quality we call God or Creator in order for this to be understood misses one key element: there was also no consciousness.

Since there was no consciousness one cannot propose anything about the absolute state of nothingness. Since there is nothing, there cannot be a "thought experiment" to go back to that place and "see" it. There is no eyes to see it with. There is just NOTHING. No space, no time, no energy, no matter, no "isness".

These scientist wish to convince us that there was something in that nothingness. What they do not understand is that what they are proposing is that in that nothingness there was their EGO, that intellectual superiority that is their birthright due to the fact that their minds encompass and ride atop other great minds from ages past. We are not privy to these thought experiments because we do not have their prestige, qualifications and tenure.

Poor men of science. Their egos are so large they do not realize they have usurped the Creator's role. They are blind to their own arrogance. They cannot comprehend that it is from the black hole of their own minds that creation sprung into being. And that that creation is devoid of spirit and therefore dead and lifeless.

Nothing is nothing. It cannot weigh something and from it the entire universe could not spring forth. Nothing is everything only if the Creator made it so.

Whatdaya think? Any validity to this line of logic?

donk
21st April 2013, 23:51
Heh, I spent yesterday listening to blowhard acedemics so outa touch with reality, it was frightening. Philosophy professors with no clear understanding of free will, somehow taking it out of decisions we make...not able to think outside of an already published school of thought.

I smell what you're cooking Ernie. I'd like to subscribe to the newsletter.

Tesseract
22nd April 2013, 01:13
I don't quite understand what your accusation is. You seem to be saying that scientists believe that there is something in the nothingness.. but are you also saying that scientists are proposing nothingness (without the something) also?

The only certainty is uncertainty - I might be wrong but I suspect that most scientists, at least those worthy of that title, would subscribe to this aphorism.

If there is a creator, who created the creator? How can you create without time already being present? Does change not need a deltaT? I doubt we will ever be able to answer these questions to our satisfaction.

The contemplation of abstract concepts such as absolute nothingness is not an unhealthy exercise, for it might inspire some new insight or idea, it doesn't have to be held onto as a faith in itself.

You also appear to think that scientists are arrogant, belittling, egotistic and incapable of consistent analysis. I think you're guilty of stereotyping and generalising, because I know scientists who are open minded and humble but who still have very capable minds.

Ernie Nemeth
22nd April 2013, 03:47
Hey there Tesseract, thanks for responding.

I believe we are all susceptible to inconsistent analysis to one degree or another due to the way we have been indoctrinated in our schools and by life in this society. This has a lot to do with not understanding that there are levels to logic just as there are levels to truth. A consistent approach to any topic must involve adhering to one level of logic.

For instance:
infinity minus any number, N, equals infinity (sorry, do not know how to print an infinity sign) This mathematical expression is true. But it is not true because infinity is so large that any finite number subtracted from will not change its state. Instead, it is true because if you have infinity there is nothing left to subtract from it, leaving you zero. Therefore, the expression could be more acurately written as:
infinity minus zero equals infinity. In this case, although two different levels of logic were used, the truth just happens to be transferred regardless. Lucky for us, since that one mathematical equation is used in so many areas of science. Of course, since it is flawed logic it is also responsible for so many hidden truths that are unavailable to us, inaccessable due to the inconsistent use of logic.

If the only certainty was uncertainty we'd be in big trouble as a species. For instance, I am very much certain I love my daughter. There is as of yet no mathematical representation of this principal in science. So just from this simple statement it is clear science is still incomplete. Yet love is one of if not the most important topics in our world.

Did you listen to the vid? Within the first ten minutes they they talk of the nothingness that preceeded our universe. They proclaim that although there was no energy or matter, this nothing has weight. And not only did it weigh something, it had infinite weight. In other words, this nothingness contained within it everything that would ever be in the form of a certain potential somethingness. That is not nothing. That is One, the totality. Again they crossed a logical threshold inappropriately.

If there is a Creator, is the correct question to ask who created the Creator? Would it not make sense to ask instead why we cannot allow for the Creator to have a function? Why must we erradicate the notion of a Creator? By the way, science is equally off-handed about many other topics it cannot explain or assign a mathematical expression for. Does that make them figments of our imagination? Or can it be that it is science that has somehow failed us?

As for time, well, there is time and then there is Time. I won't go into that here, though. Science itself has no time arrow, what with virtual particles, instantaneous interactions across vast distances and other esoteric ideas involved with higher dimensions of string theory, quatum mechanics and the concept of universal membranes. I like to consider our science as rudimentary, at best, a sort of two-dimensional thinking that will one day be supplanted by a third dimension and perhaps beyond.

The greatest scientists, I agree, are not arrogant because they understand how little we actually know.
We use 10% of our brains and our science accounts for 4% of the observable universe. What else can a venerable scientist conclude but that we are barely scratching the surface of comprehension?

Ernie Nemeth
27th July 2015, 00:54
If a logical stance need be held, it must adhere to its own internal precepts from start to finish.

If ETs exist then all earth history is suspect. If FE is possible then it is the future we must look to, not the past. The epochs of bygone days with or without either ETs or FE must be widely dissimilar.

The work of men held in esteem is only useful to the extent their legacy allows those that come after to reap the fruit of their bounty. Lies , half-truths and deceit bear rotten fruit.