rationalskepticism.org

hackenslash wrote:that fucks your argument up the arse with a cheese-covered stick

Meanwhile, this is what apparently passes as acceptable dialogue in this forum; hackenslash please keep your personal pastimes and hobbies out of the debate, speaking for myself at least, I have no interest.

hackenslash: I've only talked about what we actually know

OK, but then you make statements like:

hackenslash: The uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of the universe and doesn't require observations. the uncertainty principle exists without observation.

BTW, How do you know without making any observations? It would be by definition unempirical and unscientific speculation or interpretation hence my reference to a verity of published opinion on the subject; And I know you continue to be hung up on a fairly obvious misapprehension (or perhaps you feign ignorance) of that quote I cited, in which "fundamental property of the universe" simply means the observer cannot help interacting with any observed system. You seem to think it is the "blur" itself that is fundamental to the universe. No! the blur results from the physical act of observation.

With regard to universes.

hackenslash: I suggest you go and have a look at the implications for that in your questions, as you may want to reformulate them to take that into account.

The causality clause in my definition is to distinguish this physical universe, which may well extend beyond both visible and particle horizons and encompass all that Max Tegmark defines as a level 1 universe, should it even be infinite in extent.

hackenslash: For my part, in light of this almost very rigorous definition, I think the concept of 'before' or 'creation' is entirely meaningless

If you posit a universe that had no begining, and you presumably accept the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then you must accept a past universe of an ever increasingly higher ordered state extending backwards in time, forever. It is hard to imagine, given such ever mounting complexity, that the material of the universe wouldn't eventually at some point encompass something along the lines of the cosmic mind envisioned by Tipler.

My counter to Dawkins' so-called "747 Gambit" is that Dawkins submits that a less random or more complex state is rarer than a less complex or more random state. Entropy is a measure of randomness. However, if entropy of a system can only increase with time, can never be decreased, whatever force which gave rise to the universe must have had an even lower state of entropy; meaning even more rare or improbable state. In other words Dawkins logic goes nowhere towards resolving the cosmic origin question. Both theist and atheist must acknowledge a higher order or even less probable state of affairs. This even renders speculated multi-verses irrelevant. However big the meta-verse is, it is a physical system which according to the 2nd Law could only have arisen from an even higher state of order.

Oldskeptic: That is a pathetic response to a well thought out explanation of what you do not understand.

Yeah you are right, I don't understand your rank speculation which totally lacks proper theoretical foundation; what am I supposed to say about it? Humour you? Why don't you submit your idea to any kind of peer reviewed scientific publication and see what they do with your "well thought out exlplanation"?

Here is what I take away from your reasoning process:

Oldskeptic: So, where does this increase of potential energy come from if it is not being added from outside the isolated system that is our universe? Heat loss.

Then you go on to say,

Oldskeptic: Your question would make sense if the dissipation of heat was what was driving expansion, but it is not. The dilution of thermal energy is a result of expansion not the cause.

You try to construct your idea around a supposed need to preserve the 1st Law of Thermodynamics above all else; so it is "heat loss" that drives the inflation? No you say it is the result of expansion not the cause. But what is the cause of the expansion? and what is losing losing heat?

Oldskeptic: I didn’t say heat loss from matter. It is heat loss from the surrounding environment, and the surrounding environment of new empty space is previously existing empty space

As with hackenslash above you totally misunderstand a basic physical concept here. Heat, the transfer of energy from matter, can only be emitted from material objects. So when you make statements like "I didn’t say heat loss from matter" you are making no sense. Where else does "heat" come from? Matter emits heat in the form of black-body radiation so the EM field itself can have a temperature associated with it. An object in a vacuum can thus radiate its thermal energy into space in the form of light, but empty space itself does not radiate heat. If you are referring to the vacuum energy it already exists at the lowest energy state so thermal energy is not being transferred anywhere so it doesn't even qualify as "heat" which is defined as the transfer of energy. And besides what gives rise to this increasing vacuum energy, which overpowers gravity, in the first place? Your are confusing your supposed cause and effect.