11Prompt - Multiverse
/?q=taxonomy/term/157
en
God and the Multiverse
/?q=node/582
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Below is a quote from the Mindscape presented by theoretical physicist Sean Carroll. Here, two physicists, Carroll and Leonard Susskind are discussing the fine-tuning of parameters and the existence of the multiverse.</p>
<p>//1:02:46 SC: Well, let me bring it back to sort of wrap things up, here. Let’s bring it back to where we started in string theory, because there’s another obvious set of questions about gravity and space time, which are the cosmological questions.<br />
1:02:58 LS: Oh yes.<br />
1:03:00 SC: The universe, and so forth. And you alluded cagily to the idea that we should take seriously things that we can’t, even in principle, observe, if they’re predicted by our theories. One example of that is the cosmological multiverse, which seems to be part of the string theory story. Do you still think that that’s true?<br />
1:03:16 LS: I think so. I even wrote a book about it.<br />
1:03:19 SC: Yeah, The Cosmic Landscape.<br />
1:03:21 LS: Right.<br />
1:03:21 SC: We’ll plug that book too.<br />
1:03:23 LS: Yeah. Let me put it this way, I don’t think anybody has a better idea for resolving some of the great puzzles of cosmology, the great theoretical puzzles of cosmology. In particular the very, very strange, what are called the fine-tunings, that we seem to see in nature. That parameters are extremely finely adjusted and we don’t know why. There’s of course, a lot of almost anger at this idea of a multiverse and so forth.<br />
1:03:57 SC: We’ve both felt it, yes. [chuckle]<br />
1:03:58 LS: Yeah, we both felt it. My answer is always, “Yeah, what do you have that’s better?” And the answer is never anybody has anything better. So, it’s the best idea we have right now for understanding why the parameters of nature are what they are. We don’t have a better idea. And that’s about all I would say about it with real conviction. Could it turn out to be wrong? I suppose so, but I don’t see how. To say that I think it could turn out to be wrong, is to say that I see some other possibility, and I don’t.<br />
1:04:30 SC: And so just to be clear. The “it” in this case is the idea that there are regions of space very far away…<br />
1:04:34 LS: Yes, yes.<br />
1:04:34 SC: Where the local laws of physics look different, that’s the multiverse we’re thinking about.//1 </p>
<p>Here Leonard Susskind is saying that some parameters are extremely finely adjusted and that they don't know why. And he is saying that there is no better idea for resolving this great puzzle of cosmology than the multiverse. He is also saying that the multiverse is the best idea that they have right now for understanding why the parameters of nature are what they are. </p>
<p>It is also a fact that there is no evidence for any multiverse up till now. Moreover, inflation theory was developed in the 20th-century when the prevailing view among the scientists was that space-time was fundamental. But in the 21st-century the prevailing view among them is that it is not fundamental but emergent.</p>
<p>Hyun Seok Yang in his article 'Emergent Spacetime: Reality or Illusion?' 2 has shown that in the case of emergent space-time there would be inflation, but there would be no eternal inflation. Inflation will stop after generating only one universe. So in the case of emergent space-time, there would be no multiverse.</p>
<p>That means God and the multiverse have the same status regarding evidence. Atheists claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God and scientists have also failed to provide any evidence for the multiverse. </p>
<p>So, when scientists are saying that the multiverse is the best idea that they have right now for understanding why the parameters of nature are what they are, that means here they are actually bringing in something unknown to us for explaining something known to us. </p>
<p>As per the atheists, theists’ argument for God is this: We don't know, therefore God. </p>
<p>Physicists’ argument for the multiverse is this: We don't know, therefore the multiverse.</p>
<p>Reference:<br />
1. <a href=" />
2. <a href=";
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/157" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Multiverse</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/312" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Sean Carroll</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/313" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Leonard Susskind</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/278" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Hyun Seok Yang</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-5" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/259" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spacetime</a></li></ul></div>
Thu, 19 Dec 2019 03:35:52 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
582 at
/?q=node/582#comments
Is Multiverse Real?
/?q=node/566
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In one YouTube presentation the question discussed was whether Atheism was Impervious to Evidence. The following thread is from that presentation. </p>
<p>Atheist1 </p>
<p>No, atheism is not impervious to evidence. All you have to do is provide evidence for a god, to date nobody has done that, not even once. There has never been any testable, falsifiable, repeatable, demonstrable, concrete, independently verifiable evidence presented for any deity ever.</p>
<p> Me to Atheist1 </p>
<p>Do you know one thing? Scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying unanimously that space and time are not fundamental entities at all, but epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities. Even string theorists are also saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental. Below are some relevant quotes: </p>
<p>1) While different approaches to quantum gravity are often based on rather different physical principles, many of them share an important suggestion: that in some way spacetime as we find it in our existing theories is not a fundamental ingredient of the world, but instead, like rainbows, plants or people, `emerges' from some deeper, non-spatiotemporal physics. What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach. But the idea that the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in' space and time, that these seemingly fundamental ingredients are just appearances of something more fundamental, would, if borne out, shatter our conception of the universe as profoundly as any scientific revolution before.<br />
- The emergence of spacetime in quantum theories of gravity by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthrich_ </p>
<p>2) Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, “Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by.” Fields medalist Edward Witten also thought that space and time may be “doomed.” Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton said, "I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated."<br />
- Donald D. Hoffman in The Abdication Of Space-Time (Edge.org) </p>
<p>3) “If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with¬out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex¬plain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamental¬ly spaceless and timeless physics. </p>
<p>“That insight, in turn, may help us reconcile quantum physics with that other great pillar of physics, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which describes the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of spacetime. General relativity assumes that objects have well-defined positions and never reside in more than one place at the same time—in direct contradiction with quantum physics. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the Uni¬versity of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classi¬cal spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.”<br />
- Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011 </p>
<p>4) “There aren’t many things in quantum gravity that everyone agrees on,” says Eleanor Knox, a philosopher at King’s College London who specializes in the philosophy of physics. “Yet the one thing many people seemed to agree on in quantum gravity was that we were going to have to cope with space and time not being fundamental.”<br />
- Are Space and Time Fundamental? – The nature of reality - PBS by Kate Becker, Mar 2012 </p>
<p>Now what would be the consequences if space and time are not fundamental but emergent? Here are some thoughts: </p>
<p>That space and time are emergent would have at least two implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Thus they would be spaceless and timeless. However scientists are not describing these fundamental entities as spaceless and timeless, they are describing them as non-spatiotemporal. In whichever way they are described, the truth remains the same: those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which would be an absurdity. That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However it can be shown that only one entity be there in spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that is spaceless, timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial. </p>
<p>Theistic belief has two parts. In one part theists hold that life, mind and consciousness were already there before the beginning of the universe, because before the beginning there was God and God is life, mind and consciousness itself. In the second part they hold that there was no space and time before the beginning, because before the beginning there was God and that God is spaceless and timeless. So as per the theistic belief life, mind and consciousness are fundamental, because they were already there before the beginning of anything, but space and time are not, because there was no space and time before the beginning. Up till now scientists have refused to acknowledge the first part of the theistic belief as true and they still hold that life, mind and consciousness are emergent entities only. But forced by the circumstances they have been driven to the conclusion that the second part of the theistic belief is essentially true, that space and time are not fundamental, but emergent only. </p>
<p>It may so happen that within some fifty or hundred years from now on scientists will be again driven to the conclusion, and this time also they will be forced by the circumstances only, that life, mind and consciousness are indeed fundamental and not emergent. However, only time can tell whether that will really happen or not.</p>
<p>Atheist2<br />
"Do you know one thing"<br />
I can tell you one thing: the claim you make following that is bunk.</p>
<p>Me to Atheist2<br />
Once scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, now atheists can no longer hold their position without denouncing science. And here you have just done that which is expected from a dogmatic atheist.</p>
<p>Atheist1 to Me</p>
<p>"Once scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, now atheists can no longer hold their position without denouncing science." </p>
<p>The only atheist position there is is clear in the word "atheism" it's self. That is we are without theism, "A" - without, "theism" - a belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. We lack a god belief and/or we lack a conviction in the existence in any deities whatsoever, it's nothing more than that. Explain to me how your claim that scientists "admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent" makes it so atheist denounce science by stating we don't have a god belief? Explain to me the logic in that.</p>
<p>Me to Atheist1 </p>
<p>It is not that there is only one reason due to which atheists have a lack of belief in the existence of god/gods; there are several reasons. Out of these several reasons two reasons are that as per atheists nothing can be spaceless and timeless and that nothing can be immaterial. Atheists can no longer deny the existence of god/gods on the basis of these two reasons without denouncing science. The case is closed for them forever. </p>
<p>However there are other reasons also. Does the universe need any god? No, because everything in the universe, including its origin also, can be explained by natural means without invoking any kind of god/gods. At least this has been claimed by the atheistic scientists in general. But this is not true. There are some controversial cases also. Two such cases are origin of the universe and fine-tuning problem. </p>
<p>Here atheists will say that fine-tuning problem is not at all a problem, because eternal inflation would give rise to infinite number of universes and fine-tuning problem can be solved very easily with multiverse hypothesis. But two scientists have raised serious doubt about the efficacy of multiverse hypothesis for solving the fine-tuning problem. </p>
<p>Ethan Siegel in his article Yes, The Multiverse Is Real, But It Won't Fix Physics1 has written that ‘If cosmic inflation, General Relativity, and quantum field theory are all correct, the Multiverse likely is real, and we're living in it.’ But he has also added this reminder that ‘Just don't expect it to solve your most burning questions about the Universe. For that, you need physics you can put to an experimental or observable test. Until that day arrives, the consequences of a Multiverse will likely remain in the realm of science fiction: where they presently belong…The Multiverse is real, but provides the answer to absolutely nothing.’ </p>
<p>But Hyun Seok Yang in his article Emergent Spacetime: Reality or Illusion?2 is more radical in his approach than Ethan Siegel, because as per him there would be no multiverse at all even if there would be inflation. Inflation theory was developed based on the assumption that spacetime was fundamental. But in case of emergent spacetime there would be no eternal inflation and so, there would be no multiverse. </p>
<p>If multiverse is gone forever due to emergent spacetime, how will the scientists solve the fine-tuning problem without invoking some sort of intelligence behind the beginning of everything? </p>
<p>And what will the atheists do then? Will they still cling to the multiverse hypothesis by denouncing science? </p>
<p>Atheist1 to Me </p>
<p>"It is not that there is only one reason due to which atheists have a lack of belief in the existence of god/gods; there are several reasons." </p>
<p>Well if you actually comprehended my comment I spoke of atheists positions, not reasons. The position being "That is we are without theism, "A" - without, "theism" - a belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." But since you mention it there IS only one reason, it would be the fact that atheists lack a conviction in God because of insufficient evidence. If you were to PROVE the existence of gods beyond a shadow of a doubt to an atheist then they wouldn't be an atheist anymore because belief isn't a choice. </p>
<p>The claim that you make that atheists can no longer lack the conviction in god or gods without denouncing science on the basis that "scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent" or that our universe is finely tuned is an unbridled and incredibly obvious logical fallacy. Nothing about these two claims PROVE definitively or uncover or point to or even suggest or hint in the slightest to the existence of a god or gods AT ALL, zero, nothing, nada. I challenge you to find me one legitimate piece of scientific literature that is peer reviewed and that is testable, repeatable, falsifiable, independently verifiable and has been published in a reputable scientific journal that states that deities are real, just one. Until you do so you're nothing but a snake oil salesman making logical fallacies, misrepresenting legitimate science and jumping to moronic conclusions to fit your agenda. I state this one more time, show me one piece of peer reviewed, scientific literature proving gods are real. I'll spoil it for you now, you will not be successful.</p>
<p>Me to Atheist1 </p>
<p>Suppose I put some simple questions to you. Will you please answer those questions? </p>
<p>My first question will be: if there has never been any unicorn on this Earth, then should science give any evidence in support of its existence?</p>
<p>Atheist1 to Me</p>
<p>Science has never given evidence of unicorns or Gods/deities because there is no evidence for either. What you presented and asserted was evidence for deities a WAS NOT EVIDENCE FOR DEITIES. Stop wasting my time with nonsense. Now I will ask you show me peer reviewed scientific literature of testable, falsifiable, repeatable, demonstrable, concrete, independently verifiable evidence of god published in a scientific journal. Can you do that?? No? Then you have no evidence for god and you have no reason to believe. Now go away and stop wasting my time.</p>
<p>Me to Atheist1 </p>
<p>Do you have a nervous breakdown? Are you having a previous history of hysteria? Otherwise why such a violent reaction against a very simple question from my side?</p>
<p>You have asked about some peer-reviewed evidence for God. May I ask you one question here? Are you still in your infancy that you require constant spoon-feeding from the peers? </p>
<p>Do you know one bitter truth about these peers? These peers are very good in physics, but at the same time they are very bad in philosophy; actually they are some coarse-headed bad logicians. That is why they have taken more than hundred years of time for arriving at a conclusion that they could have arrived at very easily almost hundred years earlier when Einstein has proposed his special theory of relativity. In SR it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness. As God has been called spaceless and timeless for thousands of years, so here either science was flawed, or if science could not be flawed, then definitely there was something objectively real in man’s imagination of God; God could not be purely imaginary. If they have argued like that at that time, then they could have very easily come to the conclusion that even if there was no God, still there was something spaceless and timeless in the universe for which SR had provided requisite explanation. So they could have said the same thing hundred years earlier what they are saying now that there is something non-spatiotemporal in the universe. </p>
<p>And you want to depend on these peers for scientific proof of God! I am telling you very frankly that as they have taken almost hundred years for coming to such a simple conclusion, so they will take another hundred or two hundred years for coming to the conclusion that life, mind and consciousness are indeed fundamental and not emergent.</p>
<p>Reference:<br />
1. <a href=" />
2. <a href=";
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/113" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Universe</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/157" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Multiverse</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/53" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">space</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/54" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">time</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/109" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spacelessness</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-5" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/110" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Timelessness</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-6" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/168" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Einstein</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-7" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/270" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">David Gross</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-8" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/271" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Edward Witten</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-9" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/272" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Nathan Seiberg</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-10" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/273" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Donald D. Hoffman</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-11" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/274" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Nick Huggett</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-12" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/275" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Christian Wutrich</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-13" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/96" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Stephen Hawking</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-14" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/276" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Vlatko Vedral</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-15" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/277" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Ethan Siegel</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-16" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/278" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Hyun Seok Yang</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-17" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/279" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Kate Becker</a></li></ul></div>
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 06:56:51 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
566 at
/?q=node/566#comments
On Emergent Space-Time and the Existence of God
/?q=node/563
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In one YouTube comment thread one atheist has asked this question: ‘Who created the creator? Oh, what's that? The creator doesn't need a creator?' </p>
<p>He has also written that if the creator doesn't need a creator, then that would be special pleading. He has also stated that if the creator doesn't need a creator then by extension the universe, which created us, also doesn't need one. So, why should we bother conjuring up an additional step? He has also asked: is it turtles all the way?</p>
<p>Here I enter in the thread.</p>
<p>Me to Atheist:<br />
‘'Who created the creator? Oh, what's that? The creator doesn't need a creator?' </p>
<p>‘You do not know the answer yet? Are you so backdated? </p>
<p>[Then I have given him the reference to my article If God created universe, Who created God?1] </p>
<p>‘There it has been shown that God is a bunch of several zeroes and that zero needs no creation.’</p>
<p>The Atheist then asks me as to whether I did even read what he said? He also writes that my response was already preemptively addressed, because if god doesn’t need a creator, then the universe also doesn't need a creator, so why should I bother conjuring up an additional step?</p>
<p>Me to Atheist:<br />
God does not need a creator because it can be shown and it has actually been shown that God is a bunch of several zeroes. Can anybody show that the universe is also a bunch of several zeroes and so universe would also need no creation?</p>
<p>The Atheist here replies that zeroes can't create anything, because it has been shown that anything multiplied by 0 equals 0. He also writes that if god doesn't need a creator, the same applies to the universe.</p>
<p>Me to Atheist:<br />
‘Universe would not need any creator if it can be shown that everything in this universe, including its origin also, can be explained by natural means without invoking any outside agent. But the question is: can it be explained in that way? Below is just one problem:</p>
<p>‘One person in one YouTube comment thread has written that the universe is still nothing, because there is as much energy as there is negative energy; so: Energy + - Energy = 0. So basically we still are where we started; the universe is just a more complicated state of nothing. </p>
<p>‘My reply to him was this: </p>
<p>‘If the universe is still nothing, then that will mean that initially the universe was nothing and that it has still remained nothing, because its total energy has always remained zero. </p>
<p>‘But when initially the universe was nothing, it was not that only its energy was zero. Its space, time and matter were also zero. So if the universe still remains nothing, then why should it be that only its total energy remains zero but not its total space-time? What is the logic behind that? </p>
<p>‘So, if the universe still remains nothing, then not only the total energy, but the total space-time of this ever-expanding universe must also always remain zero. </p>
<p>‘But have the scientists like Krauss, Hawking and others provided any explanation as to how this total space-time always remains zero?’</p>
<p>This time The Atheist does not reply. Not getting any reply from him I write to him again.</p>
<p>Me to Atheist:<br />
‘I have mentioned just one problem, but there are other problems also. No scientist can answer whence appeared those quantum mechanical laws without which no cosmological model is complete. In that sense quantum mechanical laws have the same status as that of the theistic God; origin of both remains unexplained and mysterious. However the question ‘who created God?’ can be answered and it has already been answered. Whereas the question ‘who created quantum mechanical laws?’ has not yet been answered. </p>
<p>‘Then there is the fine-tuning problem. There are about 30 numbers within the laws of physics that include the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces, the values of which cannot be predicted by any scientific laws. Rather scientists have to find their values from actual experiments only. If these numbers have slightly different initial values at the big bang, then the world, and life as we know it, would probably never have come into being. </p>
<p>‘The question is: why do these numbers have the values that they have? At present scientists cannot answer this question from within their known physics and they resort to multiverse hypothesis for its explanation. But up till now there is no direct experimental evidence that there are other universes beyond our universe and so at present multiverse has remained a theoretical probability only. But there are some scientists within the scientific community who think that even if multiverse is real, yet multiverse will not help us solve any single problem within our universe, because physics in each and every member of the multiverse would be the same as that of our universe. </p>
<p>‘So long scientists will not be able to solve these problems, their claim that the universe does not need any God will not be trustworthy. </p>
<p>‘You have written that zero cannot create anything. If zero does not have any power to create anything, then how has zero energy created such a vast universe?’</p>
<p>This time The Atheist gives a reply that first of all I need to actually demonstrate such a god. But as because I am saying god has been "demonstrated to be zeroes", which doesn't make any sense, so he is willing to bet that I have been duped into some hippie kool-aid. He also writes that he would suggest actually thinking for a moment who is more likely to have analyzed these things more rigorously, the guy that said god is a sequence of zeroes, who probably hasn't achieved anything in his whole life in regards to his career as a professional, or the elite scientists in the history of the world from around every country that have granted us literally every piece of technology we see around us today.</p>
<p>What follows is my final reply to The Atheist:<br />
‘I have requested you to go through the article If God created universe, Who created God?1 But you have not gone through it. So I will quote here the first paragraph of that article before proceeding further: </p>
<p>‘‘Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give the most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question.’ </p>
<p>‘The purpose of quoting this passage here is to show that the same elite scientists that have granted us literally every piece of technology we see around us today have also prepared the path for us believers so that we can argue for the existence of God. </p>
<p>‘Now let us first see what would be the attributes of a creator God. </p>
<p>[Then I have repeated the same argument here that I have given in the article One True God2 for showing how it can be concluded that a creator God would always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.]</p>
<p>‘So as per logic a creator God must necessarily have to be spaceless and timeless, because this is the one and the only one logically possible consequence of being the creator of a universe.</p>
<p>‘Now let us see how believers have described their God. About the supernatural God it has been said that he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. About the same God it has also been said that he is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.</p>
<p>‘So it can in no way be denied that God has been described as spaceless and timeless by the believers. </p>
<p>‘Now let us see what science has done here. Science has also given its full support to this logical concept of a creator God by showing as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. </p>
<p>[Then I have repeated the same argument here that I have given in the article If God created universe, Who created God?1 for showing how a spaceless and timeless state would obtain.]</p>
<p>‘So it can in no way be denied that science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. </p>
<p>‘Now let us ask ourselves this question: why has science done this? If God is purely imaginary and non-existent, then why is it that science has provided such explanations for the attributes of a purely imaginary and non-existent God? What shall we have to conclude from this? Shall we have to conclude that those highly intelligent persons who have provided these explanations were not intelligent at all and that that was the reason as to why they failed to distinguish between what was actually real and what was purely imaginary? Or shall we have to conclude that this God is objectively real?</p>
<p>‘Not only that. Phenomenon of quantum entanglement has compelled the scientists to conclude that space and time are not fundamental at all and that space and time have emerged from something more fundamental that is spaceless and timeless. Here are two relevant quotes:</p>
<p>‘“If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics…Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classical spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.” (Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011) </p>
<p>‘“Indeed, a number of serious physicists have for some time by now stated that our usual perception of TIME is wrong, due to the fact that TIME, as much as SPACE, are NOT fundamental entities in Physics, but ONLY ... epiphenomena arising from OTHER yet more fundamental entities ...” (Personal e-mail to me) </p>
<p>‘We have already seen that God is described as spaceless and timeless. And we now see that scientists are also saying that space and time have somehow emerged from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. </p>
<p>‘So, if there is indeed a God, then at the beginning of everything there would be an entity that would be spaceless and timeless. Scientists have not yet admitted that there is a God. But they have at least admitted this much that space and time are not fundamental entities at all and that the more fundamental entity from which they have emerged is indeed spaceless and timeless.’</p>
<p>Addendum: Has anybody ever thought that if it is true that space and time are not fundamental entities in Physics, but only epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities, then at the same time it might not be true that the universe has originated from nothing? If space and time are emergent entities only (epiphenomena) arising from other yet more fundamental entities, then were they emergent also when they made their first appearance at the beginning of the universe? Or, were they fundamental entities at that time? If we claim that they have originated from nothing at the beginning of the universe, then they were fundamental entities at the beginning, simply because they have originated from nothing and not from those yet more fundamental entities. If they were fundamental entities at the beginning, then how and when did they become emergent by losing their fundamental nature? However, if they were emergent at the beginning also, then would they not require the prior presence of those fundamental entities from which only they could arise? Being epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities, was it possible for them to arise from nothing? </p>
<p>If my above argument is correct, then it cannot be the case that the universe has originated from nothing, but from those fundamental entities from which only space and time can emerge. That means all those hypotheses that try to explain the origin of the universe from nothing are all false hypotheses only.</p>
<p>That space and time are emergent would also have two more implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which is an absurdity. </p>
<p>However it has already been shown that there can be only one single entity in spaceless and timeless condition.3 It means that the entity from which the universe has originated is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.</p>
<p>Theistic belief has two parts. In one part theists hold that life, mind and consciousness were already there before the beginning of the universe, because before the beginning there was God and God is life, mind and consciousness itself. In the second part they hold that there was no space and time before the beginning, because before the beginning there was God and that God is spaceless and timeless. So as per the theistic belief life, mind and consciousness are fundamental, because they were already there before the beginning of anything, but space and time are not, because there was no space and time before the beginning. Up till now scientists have refused to acknowledge that the first part of the religious belief is true and they still hold that life, mind and consciousness are emergent entities only. But forced by the circumstances scientists have been driven to the conclusion that the second part of the religious belief is essentially true, that space and time are not fundamental, but emergent only. </p>
<p>I hope within some fifty or hundred years from now on scientists will be again driven to the conclusion, and this time also they will be forced by the circumstances only, that life, mind and consciousness are indeed fundamental and not emergent.</p>
<p>Once it is admitted by the scientists that space-time is not fundamental, but emergent, now all the atheistic nonsenses can be very easily countered.</p>
<p>Reference:<br />
1. <a href=" />
2. <a href=" />
3. <a href=";
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/53" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">space</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/54" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">time</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/121" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spaceless</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/122" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Timeless</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-5" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/145" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Big Bang</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-6" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/257" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Phenomenon of Quantum Entanglement</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-7" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/113" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Universe</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-8" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/157" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Multiverse</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-9" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/220" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Lawrence Krauss</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-10" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/96" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Stephen Hawking</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-11" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/258" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Vlatko Verdal</a></li></ul></div>
Fri, 04 May 2018 13:42:25 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
563 at
/?q=node/563#comments
How Atheists Suppress Their Opponent’s Voice
/?q=node/553
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In an earlier article1 I have shown how an atheist tries to suppress his opponent’s voice. Recently I have come across another instance of this. </p>
<p>In one YouTube video comment section one person has written that theists are hilarious because they demand evidence for a multiverse, although they cannot provide any evidence for their God. He has also written that at least multiverse has intensely strong mathematical support behind it. </p>
<p>In reply I have to write to him that if multiverse has mathematical support behind it, then God also has mathematical support behind him, because two equations of SR have already shown how it is possible to be spaceless, timeless and immortal. I also write to him that scientists are heavily biased and partial in their search for truth, because they consider multiverse as highly probable based on the mathematics of inflation theory, but these same scientists totally ignore God as probable, although there is mathematical support behind God also. </p>
<p>Here comes another person saying that I am kidding and that there is no math that even hints at the existence of my particular God and that a fair amount of shoehorning is going on there.</p>
<p>As he has commented that there is no math that hints at the existence of my particular God, so I have to explain to him in detail that the two equations of SR shows how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. As God is called spaceless and timeless and as SR has also shown how a state of spacelessness and timelessness can obtain, so from this it can be said that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable there is a God.</p>
<p>But this fails to convince him and he sticks to his opinion that I am shoehorning God into science. He also says that if I claim the probable existence of my God in this way, then in a similar way one can also claim the probable existence of other gods like the Greek Primordial Entity Chaos or the Hindu gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, or the Egyptian god Atum, any of which could be this Universe's creator instead of my particular God. </p>
<p>So I have to write to him that in the whole history of mankind only one God has been described as spaceless and timeless and that this God is the traditional God of almost all the religions all over the world. I also mention that even mystics have described their God as spaceless and timeless. I also write to him that if one wants to put all the other mythical gods in the same bracket with this traditional God, then one will definitely be mistaken. I also request him to mention one single god other than the traditional God of the religions who has been described as spaceless and timeless.</p>
<p>But he does not comply. Rather he asks me to point to the text in my Bible that contains the terms 'timeless' and 'spaceless'. </p>
<p>Below are the two replies of mine that have been deleted:</p>
<p>Reply one: Perhaps you are not much educated. That is why you think that every person who believes in God is a Christian and that the Bible is his/her religious text. I am a Hindu, but I do not depend on any religious text for my belief. </p>
<p>Here is a quote from Dr. William Lane Craig who is well known as a Christian apologist and a good debater: </p>
<p>“And then on the rest of the page it’s fairly obvious how I deduce the remainder of these attributes which form the central core of the theistic notion of God: a personal Creator, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and intelligent. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, this is what everybody means by God.”1 </p>
<p>Ref:<br />
1. <a href="; </p>
<p>In the above quote it has been mentioned that God is spaceless and timeless.</p>
<p>Reply 2: You can also read the book ‘Mysticism and Philosophy’ by W. T. Stace, Chapter 2, Section 11: Conclusions, pages 131-132, by google search. </p>
<p>Ref: WT Stace: Mysticism and Philosophy-wudhi.com</p>
<p>As the above two replies of mine have been deleted, so the impression one will get after going through the whole dialogue is that I have failed to establish my point because I could not produce the required text from the Bible which will further imply that the atheist has the last laugh here.</p>
<p>The truth is that atheists cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that one scientific theory (SR) has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless and that at the same time religions have also described their God as spaceless and timeless. So either they try to show that SR is not a valid scientific theory2, or they try to show that mystics’ timelessness and scientists’ timelessness are not the same3, or when they cannot do anything of these, they directly suppress their opponent’s voice.</p>
<p>Reference:<br />
1. <a href=" />
2. <a href=" />
3. <a href=";
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/121" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spaceless</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/122" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Timeless</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/148" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Immortal</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/208" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Uncaused</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-5" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/209" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Beginningless</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-6" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/147" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Changeless</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-7" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/149" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Immaterial</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-8" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/210" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Intelligent</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-9" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/109" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spacelessness</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-10" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/110" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Timelessness</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-11" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/157" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Multiverse</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-12" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/198" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Inflation Theory</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-13" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/116" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Special theory of relativity</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-14" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/211" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Dr. William Lanr Craig</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-15" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/212" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">W. T. Stace</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-16" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/213" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Thomas Aquinas</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-17" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/214" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Greek Primordial Entity Chaos</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-18" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/215" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Brahma</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-19" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/216" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Vishnu</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-20" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/217" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Shiva</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-21" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/218" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Atum</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-22" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/219" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Mysticism and Philosophy</a></li></ul></div>
Sun, 02 Apr 2017 13:15:17 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
553 at
/?q=node/553#comments
Are Scientists Biased?
/?q=node/549
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Mathematical equations of SR and their implications are very simple to understand; one’s limited intelligence is sufficient for that purpose and not much help from the big peers is required in this case. These equations show that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. For light this universe is zero millimeters long and light takes zero time for traversing the entire span of the universe, starting from its one end to the other end. If certain portion of space is filled up with light only, then due to these properties of light volume of that space will be zero and time will also stop there. As zero volume means no space, so in this way a spaceless and timeless state will obtain. If the entire universe is filled up with light only, then in that case the volume of the entire universe will also be zero. That is why it can be said that SR has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. As God is called spaceless and timeless and as SR has also shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, so from this it can also be said that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable that there is a God. Here we are not at all claiming that mathematics of SR shows that there is a God; rather we are merely saying that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable that there is a God. So nobody should misunderstand us here, either intentionally or unintentionally. </p>
<p>This case is exactly similar to the case of the multiverse. Up till now there is no demonstrable evidence that there are other universes beyond our universe. But there is the inflation theory and its mathematical equations. Here scientists claim that the equations of inflation theory suggest that it is highly probable that there are other universes. If equations of inflation theory can suggest that probably there are other universes, then following the path taken by the scientists we can also equally claim here that equations of SR suggest that probably there is a God. </p>
<p>Scientists consider multiverse as highly probable, because mathematics of inflation theory suggests there may be other universes. But these same scientists refuse to consider God as probable, although in this case also there is the mathematical support of SR behind this God. This shows that scientists are heavily biased and partial in their search for truth. </p>
<p>If one supports the claim made by the scientists about the probable existence of the multiverse, then how will he/she oppose our claim about the probable existence of God, without being pa