Posted: Aug 20, 2018 11:26 pm
Ah, entertainment time again I see ...
Well first of all, you'll have to take this up with the requisite physicists. My understanding is that the 1LT certainly holds for the currently observable universe, and that this is the current consensus in physics. Whether or not the 1LT holds outside the currently observable universe, on the other hand, is one of those postulates awaiting test. I'm not aware of any physicist who claims otherwise, but, that isn't a problem. The reason it isn't a problem is because, as I've already stated, E=mc2 enjoys a large body of empirical support.
As a corollary, physicists were already aware some time ago, that in order for the energy tied up in observable matter to be available, that energy had to come from somewhere, and one of the postulates under consideration in physics, is the existence of quantum vacuum states. The transition from a higher-energy quantum vacuum state to a lower-energy quantum vacuum state, is postulated to provide the requisite energy in some cosmological models. Other models have their own energy mechanisms, such as the braneworld collision model of Steinhardt & Turok, on which I've dwelt at length elsewhere.
In short, the 1LT isn't a problem for actual trained physicists.
Ah, the comedy begins in earnest.
Well first of all, as I stated previously, physicists don't consider creation ex nihilo to have happened. That notion is the product of religious apologetics. Though even Augustine of Hippo, handicapped by being alive in the 4th century CE, when science as we know it barely existed, was still moved to issue his now-famous proclamation (emphasis mine):
More recently, one Father Stanley Jaki, wrote the following:
Consequently, if you want to assert that creation ex nihilo constitutes a "wicked lie", then the principal perpetrators thereof would appear to be, oh wait, creationists. For example, Ken Ham and Arsewater in Genesis are particularly fond of this notion, as expounded in Basic Assumption C4 on AiG's "Basic Assumptions of Creationism" page, viz:
Genesis is a work of theology. It explains the relationship between God and Nature, not the mechanisms by which the natural world was created.[/quote]
So why do so many creationists treat it as a work of scientific and historical fact?
Wortfish wrote:Calilasseia wrote:
Third, what Krauss is proposing isn't creation ex nihilo, what he's proposing is that there exists a testable natural process for converting vacuum energy into matter. On this basis, he has a nice, safe precedent to build upon, in the form of E=mc2. An equation which underpins the operation of such diverse technologies as particle accelerators (which convert collision and kinetic energy into matter) and the various uses of nuclear fission (converting mass into energy via the release of nuclear binding energy, which is itself a contributor to the mass of the atomic nucleus). All those atmospheric nuclear tests conducted by the superpowers, provide ample empirical evidence that this equation is not only sound, but real world applicable. Indeed, the view of modern cosmologists is that the vacuum is itself a physical entity, a point that is totally lost on the various pedlars of apologetics who continue misrepresenting cosmological physics.
I am a little curious. If the first law of thermodynamics has always held, then the energy within the universe must have been the same as in this pre-Bang vacuum. Right?
Well first of all, you'll have to take this up with the requisite physicists. My understanding is that the 1LT certainly holds for the currently observable universe, and that this is the current consensus in physics. Whether or not the 1LT holds outside the currently observable universe, on the other hand, is one of those postulates awaiting test. I'm not aware of any physicist who claims otherwise, but, that isn't a problem. The reason it isn't a problem is because, as I've already stated, E=mc2 enjoys a large body of empirical support.
As a corollary, physicists were already aware some time ago, that in order for the energy tied up in observable matter to be available, that energy had to come from somewhere, and one of the postulates under consideration in physics, is the existence of quantum vacuum states. The transition from a higher-energy quantum vacuum state to a lower-energy quantum vacuum state, is postulated to provide the requisite energy in some cosmological models. Other models have their own energy mechanisms, such as the braneworld collision model of Steinhardt & Turok, on which I've dwelt at length elsewhere.
In short, the 1LT isn't a problem for actual trained physicists.
Wortfish wrote:Clearly, to say the universe came from "nothing" is either a misnomer or a wicked lie.
Ah, the comedy begins in earnest.
Well first of all, as I stated previously, physicists don't consider creation ex nihilo to have happened. That notion is the product of religious apologetics. Though even Augustine of Hippo, handicapped by being alive in the 4th century CE, when science as we know it barely existed, was still moved to issue his now-famous proclamation (emphasis mine):
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
More recently, one Father Stanley Jaki, wrote the following:
Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fueled literalism ... Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley's description of 'bibliolaters.' They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers.
Consequently, if you want to assert that creation ex nihilo constitutes a "wicked lie", then the principal perpetrators thereof would appear to be, oh wait, creationists. For example, Ken Ham and Arsewater in Genesis are particularly fond of this notion, as expounded in Basic Assumption C4 on AiG's "Basic Assumptions of Creationism" page, viz:
C4: The matter of the entire universe has been created without the use of previously existing matter. This basic principle is formulated in Hebrews 11:3: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”
But that's the whole problem with mythology - it's the epistemological equivalent of quicksand, and trying to extract genuinely substantive knowledge from it is like trying to plough the Mediterranean Sea.
Genesis is a work of theology. It explains the relationship between God and Nature, not the mechanisms by which the natural world was created.[/quote]
So why do so many creationists treat it as a work of scientific and historical fact?