tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post1089364580444903986..comments2024-03-29T07:57:16.659-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: A Thought in The Mind of God: I am the Zapata of Temporal Theory part 2Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-10835713381743839512018-03-12T13:07:26.005-07:002018-03-12T13:07:26.005-07:00What I mean by no substance is no matter, no energ...<b>What I mean by no substance is no matter, no energy, and nothing that can be detected by any means. And before you start talking about the energy density of the quantum vacuum, you should be aware that that is the average energy of the virtual particles that emerge from it - not of the vacuum itself. The "quantum field" is a mathematical contrivance that explains the emergence of these particles. But there's nothing there</b><br /><br />There's nothing there the way you're defining "nothing." A common understanding of substance is "bearer of properties." A lot of what's posited at the quantum level is inferred from what can be empirically detected. the inferential chains can be indirect and long. At a small enough scale, everything physics studies and posits are just causal dispositions anyway, kinda like a "quantum field." <br /><br />You say that the quantum field is a "mathematical contrivance," but from what you've written on here, I thought you were a scientific realist of some kind, not an instrumentalist. The working hypothesis of science, imo and I take it in yours, is that it's aiming at correspondence with reality in some sense. <br /><br />I think of "nothing" as no substance, property, or event, no field, no information,...Is it conceivable that there are worlds with no "quantum field"? Is there anything self-contradictory about such a world?7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-53888584045208231132018-03-12T05:26:13.459-07:002018-03-12T05:26:13.459-07:00Tillich reads that as existence vs being.Tillich reads that as existence vs being.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-53174124377210305502018-03-11T14:27:32.310-07:002018-03-11T14:27:32.310-07:00Neither something nor nothing.....Neither something nor nothing.....Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-38363943759869342212018-03-11T14:12:26.867-07:002018-03-11T14:12:26.867-07:00I think the Veda is saying it was nothing.I think the Veda is saying it was nothing.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-77347501402116932452018-03-11T13:30:54.994-07:002018-03-11T13:30:54.994-07:00Eric Sotnak said...
Can't help thinking of thi...Eric Sotnak said...<br />Can't help thinking of this quote from the Rg Veda:<br /><br />"There was neither non-existence nor existence then.<br />There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond."<br /><br /><b>Christian Platonists such as Platinus and John of Sysiopolis say the same,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-35698206316501824252018-03-11T13:25:16.557-07:002018-03-11T13:25:16.557-07:00Skep you assert that I must be advancing the bromi...Skep you assert that I must be advancing the bromides of popular apologetic and because you have no respect for any Christian you studly assert that rather than answer my arguments. while you are busy beating up those windmills and straw men you totality miss the arguments made.<br /><br />My argument that the universe must have a cause is based upon 100% observation with 0% support for the imposing view, WE only observe things being caused by necessities not popping out of true nothing. The issue because "do Qm particles com from true nothing?" you have no proof that they do I've offered tons of evidence that they don't,most of that i is on CADRE blog. has not been developed here.<br /><br />You have not backed your position with nothing other than your own insistence that just be right, That will not cut it in debate,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34747539325312734542018-03-11T13:15:40.669-07:002018-03-11T13:15:40.669-07:00I keep telling you - it is a dogmatic philosophica... I keep telling you - it is a dogmatic philosophical position that nothing comes from nothing. <br /><br /><b>That is actually not the basis of my argument,I never advanced it in this discussion or in the one on the Cadre blog. True I believe it but it's not the basis of my argument you have not answered that.<br /><br />Moreover, yours is a dogmatic philosophical faith statement that Qm particles come out of nothing, </b><br /><br /><br />You certainly can't prove it. <br /><br /><br /><b>I don't have to prove it because my assertion has presumption since as your argument you have the BOP</b><br /><br /><br />But modern observation refutes it.<br /><br /><b>no that's what i just beat you on CADRE. you have no proof of any kind. that it is actually true nothing I demonstrated amply that it is not, you are over here begging the question</b><br /><br /> Still, those who refuse to give up their dogmatic belief just won't let it go. Those are the very same ones who laugh at Krauss (and many others, like Hawking, who you are touting as an expert right here in this thread). They insist that nothing really is something, but there;s nothing there. They say well, it's a quantum field. But the quantum field consists of equations on a chalkboard. It has NO SUBSTANCE.<br /><br /><b>physicists call something "nothing." Dr. Oddenwald says "physicists say 'nothing' they really mean vacuum flux." <br /><br />"FOR a half century, physicists have known that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness, and that the vacuum of empty space, devoid of even a single atom of matter, seethes with subtle activity. "<br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/21/science/physicists-confirm-power-of-nothing-measuring-force-of-universal-flux.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Linki</b></a></b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-37528528716740044952018-03-11T12:35:45.385-07:002018-03-11T12:35:45.385-07:00What I mean by no substance is no matter, no energ...What I mean by no substance is no matter, no energy, and nothing that can be detected by any means. And before you start talking about the energy density of the quantum vacuum, you should be aware that that is the average energy of the virtual particles that emerge from it - not of the vacuum itself. The "quantum field" is a mathematical contrivance that explains the emergence of these particles. But there's nothing there.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-16044805035039450522018-03-11T11:28:28.368-07:002018-03-11T11:28:28.368-07:00Can't help thinking of this quote from the Rg ...Can't help thinking of this quote from the Rg Veda:<br /><br />"There was neither non-existence nor existence then.<br />There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond."Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34391457173091197432018-03-11T10:34:28.733-07:002018-03-11T10:34:28.733-07:00What do you mean by "substance"? Doesn&#...What do you mean by "substance"? Doesn't that term become slippery at the quantum level?7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72698221913383325462018-03-11T10:11:06.333-07:002018-03-11T10:11:06.333-07:00check out y post on CADRE Monday morning I will qu...<i>check out y post on CADRE Monday morning I will quote scientists research scientists saying so and laughing at Krauss</i><br /><br />- I keep telling you - it is a dogmatic philosophical position that nothing comes from nothing. You certainly can't prove it. But modern observation refutes it. Still, those who refuse to give up their dogmatic belief just won't let it go. Those are the very same ones who laugh at Krauss (and many others, like Hawking, who you are touting as an expert right here in this thread). They insist that nothing really is something, but there;s nothing there. They say well, it's a quantum field. But the quantum field consists of equations on a chalkboard. It has NO SUBSTANCE. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-66974374181508294772018-03-11T07:44:58.773-07:002018-03-11T07:44:58.773-07:00"what better to do that than the mind that wr..."what better to do that than the mind that wrote the rule?"<br /><br />This answer only works if a mind wrote the rule to begin with. Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-31462723460739145502018-03-11T07:43:52.927-07:002018-03-11T07:43:52.927-07:00"Quantum events only happen in time."
A..."Quantum events only happen in time."<br /><br />Actually, maybe not. The problem here is that our standard conception of time includes the presumption that there are absolute relations of temporal priority or simultaneity for events. But We already know that this is false under special relativity. Another problem is created by the fact that temporal priority tracks the thermodynamic arrow. So when we rewind things all the way to the Big Bang, we also reach the limit of the thermodynamic arrow. Beyond that, we cannot make meaningful judgments of temporal priority (that's one of the points Hawking makes). So, in particular, when we reach the BB, we can't say that it was preceded by a fluctuation within the quantum vacuum, nor that it was simultaneous with it.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-55463906202265922662018-03-11T01:14:11.968-08:002018-03-11T01:14:11.968-08:00Joe Hinman said...
Quantum events only happen in t...Joe Hinman said...<br />Quantum events only happen in time. Vacuum flux is in time not beyond time.<br /><br />3:28 PM Delete<br />Blogger im-skeptical said...<br />when they say that they are not talking about real actual nothing, they are talking about field which is what used be called Vacuum flux<br /><br />- Call it whatever you like. It's still just a math equation. There's nothing there until particles come out of it.<br /><br /><b>that's silly, you are trying to parle the fictionalization of one concept into the actuality of another based upon word play revolving around the term:"nothing,?<br /><br />that's like saying superman is real because the idea of him exists,</b><br /><br /><br />it was not that long ago that it was BB cosmology swaying no change in timeless void, Hawking say it in brief history<br />- A Brief History of Time is outdated. Hawking has revised some of his views since then.<br /><br /><b>no it;s not. you are trying blur the distinction between two totally different things. I;ve already quoted experts saying QM does not ply to mega structures like the universe as a whole. One reason is because QM events take place in space/time and the nothingness that can't be violated is the nothing that is beyond space/time,</b><br /><br /><br />Quantum events only happen in time. Vacuum flux is in time not beyond time.<br /><br />- Events that happen in our universe are in our time. Current cosmological theory posits that a quantum event initiated the universe itself.<br /><br /><b>NO it doesn't, It's not a scientific theory it's atheist psycho babble, it's an atheist statement of faith a statement of the cultus affirming its faith,<br /><br />check out y post on CADRE Monday morning I will quote scientists research scientists saying so and laughing at Krauss,</b><br /><br /> Obviously, that couldn't have happened in our time, which didn't begin until the universe began to exist. The thing is, time is not some absolute thing. Time is relative to the observer. Our time began with the universe. From a perspective outside our universe, there could still be time - just not the same time that we experience.<br /><br /><b>more psychobabble, you re speaking in slogans now,</b><br /><br />5:21 PM DeleteJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-9125071007393691282018-03-10T17:21:41.907-08:002018-03-10T17:21:41.907-08:00when they say that they are not talking about real...<i>when they say that they are not talking about real actual nothing, they are talking about field which is what used be called Vacuum flux</i><br />- Call it whatever you like. It's still just a math equation. There's nothing there until particles come out of it.<br /><br /><br /><i>it was not that long ago that it was BB cosmology swaying no change in timeless void, Hawking say it in brief history</i><br />- A Brief History of Time is outdated. Hawking has revised some of his views since then.<br /><br /><br /><i>Quantum events only happen in time. Vacuum flux is in time not beyond time.</i><br />- Events that happen in our universe are in our time. Current cosmological theory posits that a quantum event initiated the universe itself. Obviously, that couldn't have happened in our time, which didn't begin until the universe began to exist. The thing is, time is not some absolute thing. Time is relative to the observer. Our time began with the universe. From a perspective outside our universe, there could still be time - just not the same time that we experience.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-65256970096630941592018-03-10T15:28:02.365-08:002018-03-10T15:28:02.365-08:00Quantum events only happen in time. Vacuum flux is...Quantum events only happen in time. Vacuum flux is in time not beyond time.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72807058563282312932018-03-10T15:24:37.090-08:002018-03-10T15:24:37.090-08:00I did not say God is impersonal and personal,I sai...I did not say God is impersonal and personal,I said i don't like the term "personal" i prefer to call it something else. I did say God's form of consciousness is beyond our understanding that is not the same as being impersonal. I said God has will and volition.<br /><br />Nor did did I say that God is changing Being dynamic does not mean essential change.God can alter his behavior without changing his essence.<br /><br />- OK. I must have misinterpreted what you said. It now appears that you believe in a dynamic, personal God whose ESSENCE is unchanging. This later post does make it more clear. But what you said earlier did seem contradictory.<br /><br /><b>sometimes i forget most people don;t know the socialized jargon I deal in during my seminary years,I forget to explain things.</b><br /><br /><br />(1) There is no change in a timeless void<br />- Why should you assume that? Physics tells us that "nothing" is unstable. It's where universes come from.<br /><br /><b>when they say that they are not talking about real actual nothing, they are talking about field which is what used be called Vacuum flux. it was not that long ago that it was BB cosmology swaying no change in timeless void, Hawking say it in brief history,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49799585009015827462018-03-10T09:03:40.946-08:002018-03-10T09:03:40.946-08:00I did not say God is impersonal and personal,I sai...<i>I did not say God is impersonal and personal,I said i don't like the term "personal" i prefer to call it something else. I did say God's form of consciousness is beyond our understanding that is not the same as being impersonal. I said God has will and volition.<br /><br />Nor did did I say that God is changing Being dynamic does not mean essential change.God can alter his behavior without changing his essence.</i><br />- OK. I must have misinterpreted what you said. It now appears that you believe in a dynamic, personal God whose ESSENCE is unchanging. This later post does make it more clear. But what you said earlier did seem contradictory.<br /><br /><br /><i>(1) There is no change in a timeless void</i><br />- Why should you assume that? Physics tells us that "nothing" is unstable. It's where universes come from.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-90525381812339454242018-03-09T22:49:38.611-08:002018-03-09T22:49:38.611-08:00- Joe, I urge you to read my article again, and th...- Joe, I urge you to read my article again, and this time, try to understand what I'm saying. I said that the conflict is not between OUR time and God's time. Those two things are independent. But the issue I raised is your claim that God is both impersonal/unchanging and personal/dynamic. Those two things are logically inconsistent. It's the same as saying A is true and A is not true. It's a contradiction.<br /><br /><b>I did not say God is impersonal and personal,I said i don't like the term "personal" i prefer to call it something else. I did say God's form of consciousness is beyond our understanding that is not the same as being impersonal. I said God has will and volition.<br /><br />Nor did did I say that God is changing Being dynamic does not mean essential change.God can alter his behavior without changing his essence.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-59745538872354602742018-03-09T22:43:35.859-08:002018-03-09T22:43:35.859-08:00Eric Sotnak said...
"The most reasonable answ...Eric Sotnak said...<br />"The most reasonable answer is that universal mind can alter the rules at will. That is the only answer that makes sense given the rules we know and the assumptions we must make."<br /><br />I don't see how this follows.<br />What rules are changed? How, exactly, does a mind (any mind) change them? Does the change take place in time or not?<br /><br /><b>(1) There is no change in a timeless void<br /><br />(2) the universe emerged out of as timelessvoid<br /><br />(3)If 1 is true then then 2 should not have happened;no change in timeless void, we start with timeless void there should be no change thus no universe,<br /><br />that rule is violated so the best answer as to how is that something changed the rule,what better to do that than the mind that wrote the rule?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89997986287574181832018-03-09T13:26:04.285-08:002018-03-09T13:26:04.285-08:00"The most reasonable answer is that universal..."The most reasonable answer is that universal mind can alter the rules at will. That is the only answer that makes sense given the rules we know and the assumptions we must make."<br /><br />I don't see how this follows.<br />What rules are changed? How, exactly, does a mind (any mind) change them? Does the change take place in time or not?Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-25211639453359827952018-03-08T13:41:23.659-08:002018-03-08T13:41:23.659-08:00OK. So in his essence, God is round. But in his ...OK. So in his essence, God is round. But in his properties, he is square. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43161127120873525442018-03-08T12:49:54.716-08:002018-03-08T12:49:54.716-08:00God in one aspect could be impersonal/unchanging w...God in one aspect could be impersonal/unchanging while being personal and dynamic in his energies/properties. Like I've been saying, it all depends on the context of what we're talking about. As Moslems believe, God has many attributes and characteristics but is at the same time one.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-70488176045366633442018-03-07T15:51:49.441-08:002018-03-07T15:51:49.441-08:00Link is ---> here. <--- (do you see the li...Link is ---> <a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2018/03/on-timelessness-of-god.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <--- (do you see the link?)im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-88104149012623719372018-03-07T15:43:36.285-08:002018-03-07T15:43:36.285-08:00As to the swede question how could God possibly be...<i>As to the swede question how could God possibly be in both worlds. We assume God creates time then obviously God is beyond time ... It is not a matter of having it both ways it;s a matter of realizing what it would mean for God to be being itself, for mind to be the basis of reality.</i><br /><br />- Joe, I urge you to read my article again, and this time, try to understand what I'm saying. I said that the conflict is not between OUR time and God's time. Those two things are independent. But the issue I raised is your claim that God is both impersonal/unchanging and personal/dynamic. Those two things are logically inconsistent. It's the same as saying A is true and A is not true. It's a contradiction.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com