Are You A Quantum Creationist?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Eugene Shubert, Aug 13, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    No evidence whatsoever of any mythical divine mind.
    In fact science has pushed back into near oblivion any need for any divine mind at all, and continues to push that myth further and further back into oblivion.
    Hence the arising of bleating fools that infest science forums, spraying their anti science and fire and brimstone message for all and sundry.


    Ho hum.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Aren't you forgetting that all the Bible is, is an obscure book, obscurely written by obscure men in an obscure age, touting the myths and delusions of a still primitive species that were as a result, highly impressionable and gullible.
    You seem to be a throwback to that highly impressionable and gullible age.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    I'm delighted by all the fundamental laws of physics being entirely probabilistic and that atheistic physicists are satisfied with their confidence that, as far as they know, all events happen for no reason whatsoever.

    I quote:

    We have implied that in our experimental arrangement (or even in the best possible one) it would be impossible to predict exactly what would happen. We can only predict the odds! This would mean, if it were true, that physics has given up on the problem of trying to predict exactly what will happen in a definite circumstance. Yes! physics has given up. We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible—that the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events. It must be recognized that this is a retrenchment in our earlier ideal of understanding nature. It may be a backward step but no one has found a way to avoid it.
    No one has figured a way out of this puzzle. So at the present time we must limit ourselves to computing probabilities. We say "at the present time," but we suspect very strongly that it is something that will be with us forever—that it is impossible to beat that puzzle—that this is the way nature really is. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3, pp. 1-10,1-11.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Science is an exercise in progression, as distinct from your fairy tale bible written in an obscure age by obscure men. We are learning as we go and the further we see. That's why scientific theories remain just that. Scientists are no where near as arrogant as some nutty religious fundamentalists, that see their divine creation myth as the be all and final end all.
    We have come a long way [well most of us] since we climbed down out of the trees, and we have a way to go yet.
    In time, as we learn more, and as I have informed you, your divine mythical animal of choice will be invalidated and shown for the delusion that they are.
    That's the difference between preachers of nonsense such as yourself and scientists at the coal face, working to solve that which needs to be solved.
    What astounds me most of all is that most God botherers collectively, find it so easy to lie, twist, manipulate, and lie some more to gain further converts.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Obviously Eugene, you are a total fraud, [as well as the other "qualities" I have mentioned] just like the myth you preach about.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

    A Universe from Nothing
    by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

    Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

    Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Courtesy of AURA/NOAO/NSF.

    In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

    The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

    What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

    Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

    Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

    If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Finally my dear friend Eugene, you do realise what section you are posting in don't you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    That's obviously correct, since All Revelation is Progressive.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Agreed and as further revelations are revealed by science, your imaginary magical pixie in the sky disappears. Voila!
     
  12. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    That is correct. Furthermore, the universe exploding into existence out of nothingness happened for no reason whatsoever.
     
  13. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    How does that follow from the facts of life that I quoted from Feynman?
     
  14. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    It's pretty nutty to believe that the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness for no reason whatsoever.
     
  15. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    It would be more accurate to say that you devolved from a great height.

     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    How does it not follow from the facts of life that you quoted from Feynman?
    Simply put, as you have been told, you lie, twist, distort and lie some more, as most god botherering evangelists do.
    http://www.bayarea.net/~kins/God/Feynman_atheism.html


    Richard Feynman's Views on the Irrational Origin of Religion
    "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. "
     
    danshawen likes this.
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    No, as detailed it happened for a reason...speculative but for a reason.
    No imaginary deity needed.
     
  18. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,749
    I think it's pretty nutty to dismiss scientific ideas because you don't understand them. If you take the statement: "the universe exploded out of nothingness" to mean something literal, that's most likely your misunderstanding.

    Then holding up this misunderstanding to proclaim something about science is even nuttier. That is to say, get a clue.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    It's even more nuttier to believe that some omnipotent all powerful deity waved his hand and brought it into existence.
    And another example of either your ignorance, lack of reading ability or plain lying.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore".
    Richard Feynman:
     
  21. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Now that we know how it works Let us make some of those things
     
  22. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    I started the thread in the Physics/Math forum but it was quickly moved to Pseudoscience because my definition of a quantum creationist exposes the pseudo-scientific beliefs of mainstream pseudo-scientists.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,754
    Um, no.
    It was moved to Pseudo because your contention - along with the lies, misunderstandings and deliberate misrepresentations - made it not-science.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page