What effect does the holographic principle of information storage have on implications for conservation of energy in an eternal multiverse scenario? Would the
small volume of spacetime in the early universe limit the information (and thus entropy) that the universe stores (and thus deflate a xtian argument against
inflationary mltiverse scenarios)?
0 Kudo
2 AM deep thoughts
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Rambo123UK |
2 AM deep thoughts |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 13764 (25/06/09 08:56:04) Tooth Fairy Agnostic |
"I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn`t too bad either" Harold Pinter Bible Babble 
|
||
|
skooter942OOO |
|||
|
Posts: 3 (25/06/09 09:30:49) |
-well.....-----thinking out loud (are you ready)?
......" ----______-------....TIME ----does anyone .... -----____on this board understand the concept? (-i ask in love). .........------by concept i mean the------ (commonly held view,,,,), -that the majority ALL agree on-------------- ......which then neutralizes your premise (rambo)!!!! 2AM -----musings-----will lead you into the trap (called), assuming the major premise don |
||
|
Rambo123UK |
|||
|
Posts: 13764 (07/08/09 19:01:33) Tooth Fairy Agnostic |
Ignoring dickheads, I am correct with my line of reasoning. However, I should have gone further. Victor Stenger points out that in such a volume of space the
entropy is maximum - the limits of order and entropy are the same (as in a black hole, in fact). This means the universe was entirely chaotic. This then
falsifies any suggestion that a creator could have set the conditions for the universe. The universe started without order. The expansion of the universe
allowed order to come out (naturally) from this completely chaotic initial state.
"I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn`t too bad either" Harold Pinter Bible Babble
|
||
|
WordClock |
|||
|
Posts: 2722 (07/08/09 19:20:46) |
I thought the universe didn't have a start Rambo. And why would the universe being chaotic disprove god? That's insane. Has it not ever occurred to you
that if a god created the universe he is powerful enough to do literally anything he wants? If a god didn't want to be detectable you don't think he
could figure out a way to fool us (as you say) stupid humans? You think we are so ignorant while saying that we are smarted than a creator? Silly idea. If
there is a god, everything you know if false. People like to say that evolution shows the lack of need for a god when that is completely retarded. God
couldn't possibly have used a mechanism such evolution to bring forth life? I mean it's common sense that if a being is powerful enough to create
literally everything you see that he could manipulate everything you see. Of course he'd be a dickhead for doing so but it would be possible if god did
exist.
|
||
|
Rambo123UK |
|||
|
Posts: 13764 (07/08/09 19:28:48) Tooth Fairy Agnostic |
Believing in god as well as evolution is like knowing that chemicals sensitive to certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation exposed to light in a camera
record the image on film, but also believing there are little imps inside the camera painting very fast.
"I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn`t too bad either" Harold Pinter Bible Babble
|
||
|
Max4001.wastelandofwonders |
|||
|
Posts: 125 (07/08/09 20:39:02) |
Rambo123UK wrote: I am back after imposing an additional 1 week reverse ban on BB. Your analogy is absurd. It is more like the camera contains a picture that captures a view the camera has not even been close to..evidence of intelligent intervention. The image is captured naturally but the pointing, aiming and activation was done by another. You would say..however...that picture must have been taken randomly by itself. 
Max |
||
|
WordClock |
|||
|
Posts: 2722 (07/08/09 20:42:27) |
An even worse analogy. No offense.
|
||
|
Max4001.wastelandofwonders |
|||
|
Posts: 125 (07/08/09 20:52:16) |
WordClock wrote:None taken...but grasshopper... I can see our sessions at undebunked.com have not yet been successful. You are not ready, yet, although I did see a glimmer of hope in some of your comments to Rambo. WC..no pebble yet.. Max |
||
|
tanaka.theseason |
|||
|
Posts: 437 (07/08/09 20:55:10) |
Definitely a false analogy. ):
|
||
|
Max4001.wastelandofwonders |
|||
|
Posts: 125 (07/08/09 20:58:17) |
WordClock wrote: More seriously...If we do not see some possible indication of God's hand in creation (the exact analogy, WC), the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life, DNA or whatever makes you, WC, allow for at least the possibility of God, then you have no reason at all to believe God may be real. If that's true, then shed your wishy washy "what makes sense to me" agnostic hat and drink the atheist koolade in a final Custer-like salute to Rambus. Embrace it. Become one with it. You are ready. 
A toast to your slipping into the clutches of the dark side... 
Max
Last Edited By: Max4001
07/08/09 21:04:31.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
Invunche |
|||
|
Posts: 3212 (07/08/09 21:50:35) Arch-Cynic
|
"the fine-tuning of the universe"
And that's another bullshit argument to begin with. One that Stenger destroys in his book.
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. - Victor Stenger
|
||
|
WordClock |
|||
|
Posts: 2722 (08/08/09 01:09:52) |
More seriously...If we do not see some possible indication of God's hand in creation (the exact analogy, WC), the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life, DNA or whatever makes you, WC, allow for at least the possibility of God, then you have no reason at all to believe God may be real. I do have reason to suspect that there may be a possibility of a designer. I've been talking with Rambo about it in another thread here in this forum. It won't be long before man will be able to create universes of his own in a lab, then we will be gods in our own right. Possibly the "god" of this universe was created. Possibly the Russian Doll will be proven at least partially right when our science advances in the future. If that's true, then shed your wishy washy "what makes sense to me" agnostic hat and drink the atheist koolade in a final Custer-like salute to Rambus. Embrace it. Become one with it. You are ready. I will never cross over the the dark side. Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, I mean people like Rambo only make the world a worse place because they see human life as not only a waste but as a burden. People have no value unto each other and so they preach a political message that most people aren't fit to be here. They bring about negativity which breeds negativity. If life is so pointless and people are so bad then he should blow his brains out. I can never be a Darwinian Eugenicist, brainwashed zombie. Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Thank you. It's not hard to resist. The day I call myself an atheist will be the day Invunche learns how to post more than one or two sentences at at time.
|
||
|
Ducky M |
|||
|
Posts: 221 (08/08/09 02:50:24) |
None taken...but grasshopper...Grasshopper came to an untimely end not too long ago. Rest in peace... 
Last Edited By: Ducky M
08/08/09 03:07:48.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Ducky M |
|||
|
Posts: 221 (08/08/09 03:06:41) |
Invunche wrote:There are actually two arguments: 1. The universe that we know about is fine-tuned for the evolution of higher life forms.Some physicists are not so sure that argument #1 has been disposed of. The multiverse hypothesis + the anthropic principle may account for it -- but not everybody is satisfied that that's as far as we'll ever be able to probe this mystery. 
|
||
|
Rambo123UK |
|||
|
Posts: 13764 (08/08/09 06:24:55) Tooth Fairy Agnostic |
As far as the silly accusations of "Darwinian Eugenics" go, humans are just another species and, apart from our biased viewpoint - have no more
reason or right to be around than any other. Mass extinctions have happened naturally several times in the earth's history, and we are in the midst of one
today, caused in large part by the actions of man.
But the "Kill them all Adolf!" sentiment is more of a nihilistic sentiment than Darwinian. Killing off everyone on the planet would hardly be good for this species' survival, would it? And killing off most people probably wouldn't either. Limited gene pools and inbreeding are a shortcut to hereditary diseases and other genetic maladies. Darwin espoused natural selection, not .45 calibre selection. --- I'll be back later to talk about the actual physics and cosmology issues pertinent to the thread. "I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn`t too bad either" Harold Pinter Bible Babble
|
||
|
Invunche |
|||
|
Posts: 3212 (08/08/09 09:07:55) Arch-Cynic
|
Rambo123UK wrote: That should go in the quotes thread.
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. - Victor Stenger
|
||
|
Invunche |
|||
|
Posts: 3212 (08/08/09 09:11:51) Arch-Cynic
|
Ducky M wrote: Stenger has another point. Whenever people want to show how fine tuning is evidence of a creator they always do it by changing one value at a time and then concluding that this small change makes life impossible. Stenger believes this to be dishonest and shows how if you change more values at a time some changes may cancel out each other and life would still be possible. Of course Stenger explains it better than me.
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. - Victor Stenger
|
||
|
WordClock |
|||
|
Posts: 2722 (08/08/09 09:32:00) |
As far as the silly accusations of "Darwinian Eugenics" go, humans are just another species and, apart from our biased viewpoint - have no more reason or right to be around than any other. Mass extinctions have happened naturally several times in the earth's history, and we are in the midst of one today, caused in large part by the actions of man. And? But the "Kill them all Adolf!" sentiment is more of a nihilistic sentiment than Darwinian. Killing off everyone on the planet would hardly be good for this species' survival, would it? And killing off most people probably wouldn't either. Limited gene pools and inbreeding are a shortcut to hereditary diseases and other genetic maladies. Darwin espoused natural selection, not .45 calibre selection. Okay so you're not Hitler, you're worse. Nice. |
||
|
Max4001.wastelandofwonders |
|||
|
Posts: 125 (08/08/09 14:33:28) |
WordClock wrote:I like that, WC. Great commentary.. I have hope for you...yet. Ducky is the Russian doll, I take it? Professor Alister Mcgrath's recent lectures on fine-tuning are quite interesting. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/gifford/lecture-texts/ Max PS I still can't fathom the mullet avatar.
|
||
|
Invunche |
|||
|
Posts: 3212 (08/08/09 14:47:07) Arch-Cynic
|
Not that Alister McGrath's degree in biology gives him any more insight into the fine tuning of the universe than his theological degree does. He is an
insufferable fool.
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. - Victor Stenger
|
||
|
Ducky M |
|||
|
Posts: 221 (08/08/09 15:52:57) |
Invunche wrote:In The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies makes a good case that the compatibility of the laws of physics with the emergence of higher life forms has not yet been adequately explained. Davies is not there attempting to argue for the existence of a "creator" as that term is ordinarily understood, i.e., as a concious being. In fact, in his books Davies makes it quite clear that he finds all of the traditional creation myths to be incompatible with the scientific evidence.
|
||
