Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

[Write4U]

That's matter in and matter out.

"Matter in, matter out", what does that even mean? Is that science talk?
If I said something like that people would have hissy fits.

Forget it, I'm done.

 

[foghorn]

"Matter in, matter out", what does that even mean? Is that science talk?
If I said something like that people would have hissy fits.

Forget it, I'm done.

Get it right. I said "matter in and matter out."
Here's the context:

Creation of matter was the topic wasn’t it?
You said “If matter falls into a black hole and reverts back to its original virtual state, subsequently being expelled from a white hole, then creation is a constant process ‘’.
That’s not creation of matter. That's matter in and matter out. After being knocked about a bit.
So, you are corrected in your idea.

 

[Sarkus]

So we agree there was original creation Creation, a beginning. Excellent.

No, we don't. What I was correcting you on was your assessment that my logic never asserted there to be an original creation. My logic never implied that. It also never implied that there was an "original creation Creation".

If there was a Beginning, then that disqualifies religion because God existed before the beginning, yes?

Are you smoking something right now? Are you actually reading what you're typing? Honestly, are you wanting people to take you seriously?

So it is science. But what I have been trying to establish is that the beginning must have been "without form" and from that formless condition (chaos) emerged regular patterns, yes?

Which has nothing to do with the thread topic. The thread topic is about Quantum Creation, as defined in the OP. How is this to do with that?

OK, the Creation part has been solved. Now to Quantum. Any ideas what that is all about?

Excuse me???
Where has it "been solved", exactly?

This has no relation to reality at all. I have not said any of these hysterical exclamations.

Have you ever heard of an analogy, Write4U. It's a comparison, taking something different that is comparable to reality in significant ways, so as to highlight things. What I have put in quotes is not word for word what you have said, but it is comparable to how you have approached this thread. You are focusing on the common denominator when it is, frankly, irrelevant, as in the analogy.
But if you're struggling with the concept of an analogy then I guess we just add it to the list.

Why do you waste everyone's time in posting untruths?

It's certainly a waste of time if the analogy is lost on you. More so if you're not even cognisant of what an analogy is, or the purpose it serves.

 

[Write4U]

My last post in this thread.

The Big Bang: How Could Something Come From Nothing?

Simulation of quantum vacuum fluctuations in quantum chromodynamics. Credit: Wikimedia/Ahmed Neutron

Suppose we ask: where did spacetime itself arise from? Then we can go on turning the clock yet further back, into the truly ancient “Planck epoch” – a period so early in the universe’s history that our best theories of physics break down. This era occurred only one ten-millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. At this point, space and time themselves became subject to quantum fluctuations. Physicists ordinarily work separately with quantum mechanics, which rules the microworld of particles, and with general relativity, which applies on large, cosmic scales. But to truly understand the Planck epoch, we need a complete theory of quantum gravity, merging the two.

We still don’t have a perfect theory of quantum gravity, but there are attempts – like string theory and loop quantum gravity. In these attempts, ordinary space and time are typically seen as emergent, like the waves on the surface of a deep ocean. What we experience as space and time are the product of quantum processes operating at a deeper, microscopic level – processes that don’t make much sense to us as creatures rooted in the macroscopic world.

In the Planck epoch, our ordinary understanding of space and time breaks down, so we can’t any longer rely on our ordinary understanding of cause and effect either. Despite this, all candidate theories of quantum gravity describe something physical that was going on in the Planck epoch – some quantum precursor of ordinary space and time. But where did that come from?

Even if causality no longer applies in any ordinary fashion, it might still be possible to explain one component of the Planck-epoch universe in terms of another. Unfortunately, by now even our best physics fails completely to provide answers. Until we make further progress towards a “theory of everything”, we won’t be able to give any definitive answer. The most we can say with confidence at this stage is that physics has so far found no confirmed instances of something arising from nothing.

Cycles from almost nothing

To truly answer the question of how something could arise from nothing, we would need to explain the quantum state of the entire universe at the beginning of the Planck epoch. All attempts to do this remain highly speculative. Some of them appeal to supernatural forces like a designer. But other candidate explanations remain within the realm of physics – such as a multiverse, which contains an infinite number of parallel universes, or cyclical models of the universe, being born and reborn again.

The 2020 Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose has proposed one intriguing but controversial model for a cyclical universe dubbed “conformal cyclic cosmology”.

Penrose was inspired by an interesting mathematical connection between a very hot, dense, small state of the universe – as it was at the Big Bang – and an extremely cold, empty, expanded state of the universe – as it will be in the far future. His radical theory to explain this correspondence is that those states become mathematically identical when taken to their limits. Paradoxical though it might seem, a total absence of matter might have managed to give rise to all the matter we see around us in our universe.

https://scitechdaily.com/the-big-bang-how-could-something-come-from-nothing/#

This is where I am at. I don't know but it's interesting, no?

p.s. Sarkus, an analogy is only as good as the author's understanding of the context.

Equivalence is a mathematical term.

 

[Sarkus]

This is where I am at. I don't know but it's interesting, no?

So once again you post swathes of text from Google without actually linking it in any way to the thread topic. Without any analysis, commentary, or explanation as to its relevancy to this thread.

p.s. Sarkus, an analogy is only as good as the author's understanding of the context.

And it was a very good analogy as a result, thanks. That you either can't see, or don't want to see, that it describes your posting behaviour in this (and possibly other?) threads speaks only about you. And it's nothing to do with people agreeing or disagreeing with the content per se, but all about the context. I.e. the vast majority of what you post is simply irrelevant to the topic of the thread. Or, at best, you have failed miserably to provide explanation of why it is relevant.

Equivalence is a mathematical term.

So what? I haven't used the term in this thread. I can't recall anyone using the term in this thread. Are you perhaps confusing it with equivocation, which I did accuse you of doing, on the word "create"?
Or has your posting of irrelevancies now stooped to just posting random words that can be used in mathematics??

 

[origin]

My last post in this thread.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

As you will recall, I wrote:

Before I close this thread, I will allow you one more chance to attempt a rational response to the matters that have come up in our recent discussions. I don't expect you to respond to the many questions you have ignored line-by-line; there are far too many of them to make that a realistic expectation. However, I would like to see from you a coherent statement of your own position on the matters we have discussed. Importantly I want to see a post from you that is entirely in your own words. No cut-and-pastes from random internet sites. No wikipedia quotes. No dictionary definitions. Just summarise your own thoughts in your own words.

Do you think you can do that? If not, I will close the thread, since I don't think continuing this is useful or healthy for any of us.

Were you able to produce a post entirely in your own words, explaining your own position on the matters we have discussed?

Sadly, you have been unable to do that. Let's look at what you've managed:

• Post #542 contains an irrelevant cut-and-paste about "the singularity".
• Post #542 refers me to "authoritative articles" you claim to have posted, and you make the claim that other people's words prove your "posits".
• In post #543, you whine about my lack of contribution to the conversation, despite the fact that you spend most of your time here trying to lecture other people rather than trying to learn something from other people. You also claim that other people's words are "equivalent" to your own. They are not.
• In post #545, you cut-and-paste an irrelevant diagram showing world lines in spacetime.
• In post #546, you cut-and-paste irrelevant things about aerodynamics.
• In post #548, you complain about foghorn trying to engage with you.
• In post #549, you cut-and-paste an irrelevant article about organic matter found in space (not understanding what "organic" means in this context).
• In post #556, you ask Sarkus to explain something he already explained to you in detail.
• In post #557, you presume to criticise foghorn for his English expression, despite that fact that your own failings in that regard have been evidenced throughout this thread.
• In post #558, you complain that nobody else can see how everything is connected, like you can see it.
• Post #560 attempts to take me to task for some corrections I made regarding a few of your science errors. Of course, it contains more cut-and-paste. Your criticisms of what I wrote are, as usual, mostly irrelevant. Some do not refer to anything I actually wrote. I will address the content of this post in more detail, below.
• In post #561 you say that your posts have "garnered some interesting responses aside from the occasional 'critique'". In fact, the critique of your posts has been almost universal and constant. None of it has made any impact on you, sadly.
• In post #564, you try to excuse yourself on the basis that English is your second language, despite having gone to town on what you perceive to be foghorn's poor "diction" in post #557. Hypocrisy.
• Post #565 comes across as a crazy man's response to something Sarkus wrote to you. It includes an obligatory irrelevant cut-and-paste, and other madness.
• Post #567 contains an irrelevant cut-and-paste about white holes.
• Post #570 contains a pretty picture and another irrelevant cut and paste.
• Post #571 falsely ascribes a position to Sarkus that he did not take, then claims that position you claimed was false is actually compatible with your own position.
• Post #573 makes the hilarious claim that Sarkus isn't "qualified" to call you a troll. It then goes on to tell lies about what Sarkus claimed.
• Post #574 has an irrelevant cut-and-paste on something about the holographic universe.
• Post #580 criticises Sarkus for posting "untruths", while also containing untruths.
• Post #581 claims you are "done"...
• but in post #584, 7 hours later, you're back at it, cutting and pasting furiously. This, you claim, is your last post in this thread. You are correct. It is.

Amongst the usual mess of irrelevancy we have come to expect from you, there are numerous scientific errors, along with many misrepresentations of what other people wrote.

There's no point going through it all point by point, because you won't take in any of the correct information anyway. In a little while, you'll be posting the same rubbish again, no doubt.

I'll settle for responding to just one post, #560, since it is fairly representative of the descent into madness throughout. So...

There are lots of falling bodies.
Keyword "landing".

This was in response to my pointing out that Mars rovers do not occur naturally. A bizarre and completely irrelevant response.

You're not very good at relativity, are you?

This is an insult you directed at me, after I posted something about spider webs. Which, of course, have nothing to do with relativity.

In your most recent string of posts, you have directly tried to insult at least three different people. All of your insults have been based on your imaginings, or seemingly on irrelevant matters in your own mind. Not a good way to win friends.

How spider webs achieve their strength
David L. Chandler, MIT News Office
Publication Date: February 2, 2012
https://news.mit.edu/2012/spider-web-strength-0202
Are we clear now?

Nothing in this cut-and-paste refutes what I wrote about spider webs.

"We" are not clear, because you didn't understand or address the criticism I put to you about your position. I am beginning to doubt that you will ever be "clear".

What are common patterns in the universe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature#

This cut-and-paste in response to my question "Where did those patterns exist before humans used them?", which referred to a specific statement you made about specific patterns. I did not ask "What are common patterns in the universe?" You did not answer my question. As usual.

But evolution does not stop at inefficiency.

I wrote "Lots of things are very inefficient in evolution". You have not refuted my statement. Indeed, you have not addressed it. Instead, you just tried to pretend that I was wrong, then you tried to change the topic, as you so often do.

Are you going to tell me I am wrong?

This, in response to my asking "Are you willing to learning anything new about evolution, or are you going to tell me I'm wrong? Or will you just ignore this and keep right on believing what you believe?"

You did not answer my question. Instead, you tried to reflect my question back at me. I already told you about a couple of specific mistakes you made about evolution.

The actual answer to the question I asked here is: you were just going to ignore what I said and keep right on believing. That is the answer because your behaviour shows that this is what you, in fact, did.

Oh, James, yes I understood the process, it's part of mathematics, remember? The question is if you understand the probabilistic relationship between self-organization and spaces, raw materials, and time.

This madness, in response to my asking you whether you understand what a differential equation is.

You do not understand that, and your subsequent attempt to redirect the "question" into word salad is, frankly, unhinged.

Naahh... it's all about "differential equations" and the function applies lies between.

I asked you whether you had learned anything from previous discussions about what a differential equation is. This is your crazy response.

Clearly, the actual answer is: no, you didn't learn anything about differential equations.

Yes [birds] are doing maths. We call it "applied mathematics".

I explained why they aren't doing maths. Rather than addressing what I wrote, you simply repeated your false claim.

Also, add "applied mathematics" to the list of terms whose meanings you don't understand. There is no "we" who defines that term the way you want to define it. There's only you.

Anything that relates and influences something else in a regular way is a pattern. Patterns are mathematical objects.

You asked me "Isn't the evolutionary process of increasing adaptation to the environment itself a mathematical function?" I told you "It is not."

Why did you ask me the question, if you had already decided you were going to reject any answer that didn't match the one you wanted to hear?

Your attempt to define your own meaning of "pattern" is typical of you, and your claim that "patterns are mathematical objects" is, for the most part, an emptu or meaningless claim.

Then I asked "Do you recall previous discussions on what a mathematical function is? Or did you ignore those, to go on believing what you believe?"
This was your response:

No, I decided that my perspective is more expansive than yours.

Is that no, you don't recall our previous discussions about what a function is?

It sounds like a loud and clear "yes" to you ignoring those discussions, to go on believing what you want to believe.

Unless I'm the one who is right, from my perspective.

There is no "right, from my perspective". There is right, and there is wrong.

You don't get to have your own facts, Write4U.

If you're wrong about something, it doesn't matter how firmly you want to believe the wrong thing, or how far you're willing to go to ignore disconfirming evidence. It will never make the wrong thing the right thing.

This thread was approaching 600 posts, and you have apparently learned nothing from it.

 

[James R]

Moderator note:

This train wreck of a thread is now closed.

Most of the discussion here, driven by Write4U's provocations, is clearly way off whatever the topic was actually intended to be in the first place (and even that was never very clear).

Write4U has proven himself mostly unable to concentrate on a single line of thought long enough to learn anything new from anybody else. Attempting to converse with him seems largely pointless, as there is no meaningful back-and-forth to be had with him.

It seems likely that it will be necessary to carefully corral Write4U's postings from now on, to ensure that his obsessions do not continue to pollute unrelated threads. One or two Write4U ghettos are probably tolerable on this forum, but we can't let the whole neighbourhood go to pot just to humour him. That way lies madness.