Plowing through :-).
Three chapters left :-).
"Thw laws (of nature) themselves require our universe to come into existence, to develop and evolve."
"They (Krauss and Hawking) also assume that the laws of physics cause or explain specific events, including the origin of the universe."
(I'm just gonna paraphrase this one:
If you hit a pool ball with a pool stick and it hits another ball and causes the second ball to travel?
Did the law of momentum conservation cause the second ball to travel?
Or was it because it was struck by the first ball which was hit w the pool stick?
"The law of gravity (or nay other law of physics/nature etc.) does not cause material objects or space and energy to come into existence; instead, it describes how material objects interact with each other (and with space) once they already exist...The laws of physics describe the interaction of things (matter and energy) that already exist in space and time."
Figure 18.1 p 373
(Not included)
"Matter out of math? Mathematical concepts. expressions. and equations exist in minds. That raises a profound question for quantum cosmologist. How do the mathematical expressions that they use to describe possible universes (or the early universe) cause an actual material universe to come into existence?"
(It's pretty simple. They dont. But the mind God spoke it into existence. Not these guys/gals.)
Now were getting into my wheelhouse :-).
"...mathematical Platonism asserts that mathematical concepts or ideas exist independently of the human mind. But this view in turn suggest TWO POSSIBILITIES:
"mathematical ideas exist in an abstract transcendent realm of pure ideas..."
or
"mathematical ideas reside in and issue from a transcendent intelligent mind."
(Where did the math come from? :-)
Forget where did the universe come from we already know that and the science leans heavy toward a theistic approach.
So where did the math come from?
I mean if:
"mathematical ideas exist in an abstract transcendent realm of pure ideas..."
Then why is math the only thing we would attribute to
"an abstract transcendent realm of pure ideas"?
And why is:
"mathematical ideas exist in an abstract transcendent realm of pure ideas..."
perfectly acceptable to some people?
While,
"mathematical ideas reside in and issue from a transcendent intelligent mind."
So objectionable?
And what exactly would be the difference anyway?
I know this much, I've read a lot about these issues and all these theoretical physicists? They all want a mathematical equation to solve anything. But they never, not a one, ever, in anything I have ever read want to bring up anything about where did the math come from to prove themselves right. They dont wanna discuss it's origins but they so adamantly want an equation to prove anything. So the question becomes:
Why dont they wanna talk about where did the math come from?
Worship the gift and ignore the giver much?)
"material stuff can not be conjured out of mathematical equations."
"Therefore, it seems a reasonable extrapolation from our uniform and repeated experience of "relevant similar entities" (human minds) and their casual powers to think that, if a realm of mathematical ideas and objects must pre exist the universe as quantum cosmology implies, then those ideas must have a transcendent mental source- they must reflect the contents of a preexisting mind.'
(And that is why they dont wanna talk about where did the math come from
PERIOD.)
"Yet in both cases (Vilenkin and Hawking/Hartle's versions of quantum tunneling/wave function as possible universe creation explanations) quantum cosmologist must presuppose the existence of a universe. But tha presupposes the very thing, the origin of which they are attempting to explain."
(Cart before the horse there much guys? :-)
"Moreover if the uniqueness of the present universe is to find any explanation in quantum gravity, it can only come from a restriction on the possible states available."
(From Hawking/Hartles introduction to their 1983 technical paper)
Leading critics of Hawking and Hartle's and Vilenkin's quantum cosmological models have noted the arbitrary nature of constraints they impose."
"the uniqueness of the present universe...
it can only come from a restriction on the possible states available."
(What exactly is the difference between that
and a transcendent force acting upon it (present universe) exactly?)
"Indeed even if Professor Krauss could explain the origin of matter, energy, space and time from nothing. or from nothing but the mathematically expressed laws of physics, he still could not explain the origin of the information necessary to express and solve the equations that supposedly explain the origin of the universe. Instead as we have seen, the quantum cosmological theories subtly depend upon the activity of a mind to model the origin of the universe."
"Krauss warned me not to challenge him on his cosmologiavl theories. He toldthe audience, "now ater they lost...(the argument about) biology, what I noticed is that cosmology was next. And I am hoping for his own sake that stephen doesnt try to do that while I am here, because it will be a mistake, I promise."
"...his advisory notice seemed to me to telegraph weakness. Krauss is a smart man. I suspected that he knew he couldnt explain how our universe originated from nothing, with or without quantum cosmology."
"...quantum cosmology does not explain the origin of the universe in purely materialistic terms. Instead, to the limited extent it succeeds, it attributes casual powers to abstract mathematics and depends on the intelligent inputs of information from theoretical physicist as they model the origin of the universe. Thus it does not dispense at all with intelligent design or with Theism as an explanation for the origin of the universe."
(Stephen C. Meyers conclusion after three years of study with Bruce Gordon, Arthur Fine and Brian Miller.)
Lil refresher:
Straight From
"The emphasis in bara
is not on making something from nothing
but on initiating an object or project."
No comments:
Post a Comment