First law of thermodynamics vs God vs Big Bang (page 5)

Viviane

Check out this post I found, another school of thought that challenges any believed absolute authority.

No so much "school" as "random crackpot you found".

I'll try to answer them to the best of my abilities.

CL, Fisherman has admitted he isn't here to learn. He is trying to talk about God and the Bible being a science book.

Hi Coded,
First, I want to thank you for kindly taking the time to answer my questions. I know how much time it takes me to think about what you are saying and to follow the logic and to try to understand the concepts that are being presented. I understand that the concepts are not your own but that you are only presenting them. In all objectivity, I remind you that all derivatives from them that you believe or want to use to support or establish any other theory are only your opinion ( I must admit though that I enjoy your logic). Every objective person knows that understanding a theory does not mean believing it. (but in all fairness, one has to at least understand it first before forming an opinion, unless of course one has the factual truth beforehand that invalidates the theory, nevertheless even in such a case does it mean that such theory presented is understood.) Also neither believing or rejecting a theory affects its validity. For example, if a person was to say: "that is some crackpot theory," such a remark would not invalidate the theory but it would reveal "something" about the thinking of the person making such a remark. I know you know this, but for others following our dialogue.

"Something" didn't change. But nothing did. It became more complicated.

Coded that is a funny way of putting it. Seems to me you have a grasp on this thing.

1) define "nothing" in this matter. (Is it a concept or a value)

2) define "something" also as it applies to this substance.

Also I watched the video you linked and the statement is made that "nothing" is the same as something

or x=0 and x>0 ( if o = nothing)

Problem A man had 10 Eels and his wife ate them. How many eels would he have left? (E=eels)

Solution: 10 Eels- 10 Eels= 0 Eels or 0E or E=0 or 0 or nothing.

Problem A man had 50 Eggs ( no one can eat 50 eggs ) and ate them in about an hours time, How many eggs would he have left?

Answer: nothing

Question: does 0 Eels = 0 Eggs

It became more complicated.

I do not understand it. Explain what you mean.

snare&racket

End of mysteries, NATURE and the universe is FULL of things we know to be true that 100% don't make logical sense to us.

First of all, you won't find a human on earth that can define, give evidence of or an example of a physical 'nothing'. It's easy to just say 'nothing is nothing!' But that's just a human concept, an empty void. We have no example of that anywhere, there is no evidence that nothing in the human sense of nothing is a physical state or that it ever existed. Try to give an example of what nothing is..... You can't. Physicists today are working on defining what 'nothing' means in the actual universe, basically what the most simple status of the universe was. Watch this......

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UemhCsaeGgc

Despite this, we seek to understand these things. Your question is no small matter and if you spent a year reading up on it, then maybe you would start to appreciate the issues involved. I'm not being patronising, it's physics! You wouldn't expect an average person to understand rocket science without a lot of reading first!

i think the most honest answer is, if you really want to restrict yourself to the laws of thermodynamics (rightly so) then you have to explain where God came from too. It is no different to asking how did 'x' come from nothing 'x' being anything from the Big Bang to a deity.

Also, you can't really bring God into science, the second we do people start inducing magic. How did God make Angels if the laws of thermodynamics exist? ...."Erm well he can do anything!" ...... When you can induce magic to explain anything, then it's not a conversation, it is opinion and valueless to knowledge.

Lastly, read "A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, there are answers out there.

Fisherman

Snare great link, thanks. In this context, He is simply saying that nothing is non existence of anything at all.

Fisherman

Coded,

According to the video posted by snare, Isn't it something that regardless how "nothing" as you say "becomes more complicated", its change is always a "universe" or form having the same components (space time,energy, matter and different laws)

Coded Logic

.

Hey Fisherman,

1) define "nothing" in this matter.

"Nothing" is a lack of something.

Is it a concept or a value?

Both.

2) define "something" also as it applies to this substance.

"Something" are things which are measurable/demonstrable/verifiable/etc or that are in principle able to be measured/demonstrated/verified/etc.

Question: does 0 Eels = 0 Eggs

Yes, they are equal. If you put zero eels into a box and you put zero eggs into a box the two box's will be identical.

its change is always a "universe" or form having the same components (space time,energy, matter and different laws)

We don't know if "nothing" will always create a universe with space/time, energy, etc. There could be an infinite amount of combinations of different systems - some existing as other universes and others being things that would go well beyond our conception of what we would ever think to label as a "universe". This idea, once again, is the Multiverse. There could be infinite universes.

Or, the opposite could be true. Systems always seek to get to the lowest energy state possible. It's quite plausible that our universe is the only possible outcome of "nothing" because our universe is the process of any given system as it tries to reach zero entropy. Who knows.

And the truth is we don't yet know the origins of our universe. But, for the first time in human history, we are able to start asking the right questions.

This is one of my all time favorite videos. I think it does a great job of putting our knowledge about our universe into perspective. I think you'll really enjoy it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaMM2lAo2C8

MisterP

Have you heard what Fermilab are up to, they have come up with an experiment that will test whether we live in a holographic simulation , it sounds like the matrix, but if this is successful then it will put a whole new perspective in this question

http://holometer.fnal.gov/

Coded Logic

they have come up with an experiment that will test whether we live in a holographic simulation
- MisterP

Umm, not quite. The Holometer can only falsify the holographic hypothesis. It can't verify it.

A good analogy for this would be if you were wondering if a coffee can had quarters in it. If you shook the coffee can and you didn't hear anything rattling around - you would know there were no quarters in the coffee can. However, if you did you hear something rattling around, you would only know that there was something in the coffee can. You wouldn't know it was quarters. The rattling could be pennies, dimes, nickels, nuts, bolts, keys, etc.

The same is true of the Holometer. If they don't detect fluctuations at the planck scale - then we will know the holographic universe is not real. But if we do detect fluctuations at the planck scale - then all their work is ahead of them. Because these fluctuations are also consistent with other competing hypothesis - like the Matrix degrees of freedom in M theory.

"Even if it turns out that the mysterious noise is the same at high frequencies as at the lower ones, this will not constitute proof for Hogan’s hypothesis (holographic universe). It would, however, provide a strong motivation for further study."

- Press Office: Max Planck Institute for Gravitation Physics

Fisherman

Code,

Thanks for your time and research.

0 is cool.

Some years ago a lot of shows were aired about the universe. They were interesting to watch. I did not do much research but I did a lot of thinking because it provoked my mind. It seemed to me that most scientists at that time believed in the "singularity". And the way it was explained on tv was that a singularity is a substance( "something" may be a better word) of infinite density existing in an infinitely small space that exploded (big bang) and produced our universe. I had a problem understanding that teaching because I thought that if something physical existed as a singularity as astronomical its size nevertheless it was finite of limited size, it had some definite measurement( although impossible to measure) I also had a problem understanding the laws of the singularity and how and why it changed and exploded. I also had a problem understanding that the singularity existed before time. It is very disturbing not being able to understand it when I gave it thought. For some reason, I was afraid to consider anything before the singularity. But this is what I did. I considered taking the universe and compressing everything together back in the negative direction until it was the big bang and compressed it some more until it was the singularity and then I reasoned, why is the singularity the the limit, Suppose to compress it some more. I figured that at some point "it" became a negative singularity then maybe imploded and and became a negative universe. But I figured that is not what happened to it, since It exploded not imploded, I began to conclude that if you compress the universe together at some point it does not implode what happens is that puuufff) it does not exist anymore. This seemed to me what would happen if the universe would go back. . I cannot understand how anything physical can be infinite, unformed(uncreated) What does not make sense to me is that since zero is very stable and sterile that zero became something. It disturbs me very much trying to understand it.. Correct my thinking..

Fisherman

Is Krauss preaching or is he teaching science? Some use the universe to support belief in God others use it to support belief in Atheism. Something to consider but ultimately the conclusion is personal regardless of what a person seems to profess.

First law of thermodynamics vs God vs Big Bang

"Something" didn't change. But nothing did. It became more complicated.

Coded that is a funny way of putting it. Seems to me you have a grasp on this thing.

1) define "nothing" in this matter. (Is it a concept or a value)

2) define "something" also as it applies to this substance.

Also I watched the video you linked and the statement is made that "nothing" is the same as something

or x=0 and x>0 ( if o = nothing)

Problem A man had 10 Eels and his wife ate them. How many eels would he have left? (E=eels)

Solution: 10 Eels- 10 Eels= 0 Eels or 0E or E=0 or 0 or nothing.

Problem A man had 50 Eggs ( no one can eat 50 eggs ) and ate them in about an hours time, How many eggs would he have left?

Answer: nothing

Question: does 0 Eels = 0 Eggs

It became more complicated.

I do not understand it. Explain what you mean.

"Nothing" is a lack of something.

Both.

"Something" are things which are measurable/demonstrable/verifiable/etc or that are in principle able to be measured/demonstrated/verified/etc.

Yes, they are equal. If you put zero eels into a box and you put zero eggs into a box the two box's will be identical.

Or, the opposite could be true. Systems always seek to get to the lowest energy state possible. It's quite plausible that our universe is the only possible outcome of "nothing" because our universe is the process of any given system as it tries to reach zero entropy. Who knows.

And the truth is we don't yet know the origins of our universe. But, for the first time in human history, we are able to start asking the right questions.

This is one of my all time favorite videos. I think it does a great job of putting our knowledge about our universe into perspective. I think you'll really enjoy it.

Share this