They say nothingness is unstable and tends to decay into something.

In the beginning there was nothing, or was there really nothing? Was there an emptiness? What is emptiness? Can anything come out of nothing?

Spacetime is the very fabric of the universe, combining the dimensions we call space and time, and it is in spacetime that we exist. Let's first assume it all began with a vacuum, with a flat spacetime. So was it an "empty" spacetime, in all sense of the word "empty"?

Spacetime is laced with electron-positron fields (positrons are just like electrons, only positively charged), while a light wave is made up of photons (its smallest constituents). Sometimes these photons interact with and transfer energy to the electron-positron field, and a positron and electron pair is "created" in the process. These are so-called Real particles. However it is also possible for an electron and positron pair to be created WITHOUT getting any energy from a photon, and these are called Virtual particles, they "create themselves". This would seem to defeat the Law of Conservation of Energy that neither energy nor matter cannot be added to or subtracted from the Universe - and at this point some will say "It must have been a divine intervention" but, let's hold that thought for now and probably return to it.

Some of us may be familiar with a form of the HUP (Heinsenberg's Uncertainty Principle) which informs us that "it is impossible to simultaneously measure the precise momentum and precise position of a particle". However there are other forms of this principle, for instance in a force field it is impossible to precisely and simultaneously measure the value of the field and the rate at which it is changing with respect to time. The more precisely you measure one, the fuzzier the other measurement becomes.

To achieve "complete emptiness", two measurements have to be reading "zero" at the same time: i.e. PRECISELY zero value and PRECISELY zero rate of change. But HUP does not allow us to be that precise about both at the same time! Thus, we can't exactly have nothingness at the beginning, but a continuous fluctuation in values, dancing crazily around the positive and negative sides of the zero energy point so as not to BE zero. Since E=mc^2 and c (speed of light) is constant, these wobbling energy values will supply the energy required by the electron-positron fields to create tiny virtual particles.

Physics has not been able to physically detect virtual particles because they do not interfere with the physical world but they must exist, because in calculations, they affect probabilities of scattering processes (we assume alternate pathways for the scattering to have taken), and so their presence CAN be observed by comparing estimated probabilities to the actual obtained results.

These virtual particles will not live long (say, maybe not longer than 10^-43 seconds) because as a positive fluctuation rapidly creates a mass, a follow-up negative fluctuation will rapidly uncreate the same. So we have these virtual particles materializing and vaporizing in and out of existence, in our so-called "emptiness".

Back to the "violation" of the Law of Conservation of Energy, we'll see there is no violation because when teh quantum energy fluctuations produce an equivalent mass of particles, the particles will attract each other by means of gravity (thus curving spacetime). The negative gravitational pull counterbalances the positive energy in the particle mass; and the net result is zero. Then as the particles dematerialize, spacetime gets uncurved right back because the gravitational pull is lost. This instability in space-time and unpredictability of the quantum vacuum further increases the entropy in the Universe.

In a closed system like the Universe, entropy can only increase. The probability of things aligning from disorder to order is almost zero unless acted upon by another agent, and if acted upon by another agent then it's not a closed system. e.g. red balls and black balls in a partitioned box, remove the partition and shake it up till it mixes. The probability that you can unmix by shaking it again so that the balls will move in such a way as to maintain their separation is almost zero unless you manually rearrange them (in which case it's not a closed system anymore). Similarly you can try to decrease entropy in the world by washing, cleaning and sorting the garbage and recycling however entropy will continue increasing in the Universe because the physical and mental effort that you have put into the process entails ENERGY that you have now converted to a "less useful" form. You can also try to reduce entropy by doing nothing, but staying alive alone requires energy conversion. So does staying dead, with biological action on the organic matter. I digress now. With more Entropy, there is more energy fluctuation around zero, which means more virtual particles etc etc and the process gets grander, larger stakes, larger forces, weightier particles. And this process might have caused the birth of the universe, from "nothing".

So having established that something can come out of our assumed "nothing", could the Universe have popped out of non-existence into existence? Uncaused events such as this have only been observed on super-microscopic levels, but the size of that first debut of space may not have been larger than a speck (e.g. Hawking's tiny wormhole is only 10^-35 metres, in the quantum foam that makes up space-time, far below the size of subatomic particles) so we may surely be talking about the Big Ban'g on the same level of operation as obtains in quantum physics.

Well, considering the foregoing, at the Big Ban'g there was a higher probability of something existing rather than nothing, because it is more uncertain that the energy or the rate of change of energy was zero; than that it is non-zero or fluctuating around zero. And in either of the two cases, either real or virtual particles would have been brought into existence. This may answer Hawkings' question, "Why does the Universe bother existing?" but it does not answer mine, "How could rational and ordered creations have emerged from random and unordered particles?"

I'll make out time to read you morrow

ATMC: I'll make out time to read you morrow

@op here is some advise. If u want to ur thread to be flooded in the first 3 hours, write something about davido oyedepo. U could say he said all the stuff u wrote. Just kidding.
Though u have forgotten one vital thing, that religion needs no scientifical fact and that all u have written would not bother an inch of theists.

@op,Sir,I have a science magazine in my house which confirms what you are saying,it claims that the speed of light is not actually the speed of light because a vacuum is not really *empty* and therefore,the speed of light particles which are elecro-magnetic vibrations will be hampered or slowed down.The magazine said something about positrons being constantly produced in a vacuum.

ATMC: I'll make out time to read you morrow

Please do, and let me know what you think!

inurmind:


@op here is some advise. If u want to ur thread to be flooded in the first 3 hours, write something about davido oyedepo. U could say he said all the stuff u wrote. Just kidding.

LOL! No thanks, I don't want my thread to be "flooded" (shudders at the thought).

inurmind:
Though u have forgotten one vital thing, that religion needs no scientifical fact and that all u have written would not bother an inch of theists.

Hmmm I'm one of those that believe religion and scientific fact do not need to have conflicting stances. I believe they can actually work to compliment one another. Let me give an illustration.

Boy: "Mummy, Daddy, why is the water in this kettle boiling?"
Dad: "It is boiling because the combustion of hydrocarbons has generated heat, which has heated up the water until the vapour pressure is counterbalancing the atmospheric pressure. This tussle of pressures forces the water to react in a boiling manner".
Mum: "It is boiling because Aunty Layide needs hot water; she wants to have tea"

Neither the Dad nor the Mum are really wrong. The Dad has answered the "why", which was the question his son asked. But the Dad's answer will only lead to further questions like "Does water always boil in these conditions? Does it boil ONLY in these conditions? Who decides all these laws?" and many others like that. However, the Mum's answer provides not just the "Why" but also the "Who" and "How".

The Dad's answer is like the Scientific answer (most times), and the Mum's answer is like that of Religion (most times). Science is mostly concerned about the Why of the Process. Religion usually looks into the Presence and Purpose behind the Process.

Religion doesn't just want to know why the Kettle of the Universe is boiling, as science does. It wants to also know, does someone want to have tea? Is there a motive? Is it an ongoing scientific experiment, or a once interesting experiment now left to boil by itself? Is it a labour of love or of arbitrary whimsy? Was it born out of a compulsion to create? Or was someone or something lonely?

neophyte007: @op,Sir,I have a science magazine in my house which confirms what you are saying,it claims that the speed of light is not actually the speed of light because a vacuum is not really *empty* and therefore,the speed of light particles which are elecro-magnetic vibrations will be hampered or slowed down.The magazine said something about positrons being constantly produced in a vacuum.

YES! This is true!! The speed of photons in light are slowed down because they will continue to interact with the electron-positron fields that line up our spacetime surfaces, creating electrons and positrons in pairs. The "apparent" speed of light is most likely close enough as an estimation for our calculations (especially in vacuum), but yes it is not really all that accurate.

According to HUP, even if we have a precise measurement for the velocity of light, it's momentum will be p = h/λ where λ is the wavelength. And since no source of light is PURELY monochromatic but is made up of a small but finite spread of wavelengths, the momentum cannot be accurately measured while we hold on to our measurement of the velocity of travel of light.

inurmind:
Though u have forgotten one vital thing, that religion needs no scientifical fact and that all u have written would not bother an inch of theists.

And where did you learn this nonsense?

Is there a religious text(I speak as a christian) or doctrine you can reference which says that it does not need nor acknowledge science fact? Unless you produce some evidence to support your claim, then we can safely assume that this is the typical nairaland "drone mumble", and There'd be no need to further engage you in this thinking.

@OP,
You just asked the $billion question

InesQor:
How could rational and ordered creations have emerged from random and unordered particles

Everything in the universe seems to be organized and so far there's no evidence of any disorderly\uncontrolled system creating order. Even evolution only makes sense within the context of order and purpose, ie: for the purpose of survival. So the theory of evolution might be plausible if only taking place after and within life, and for preserving the same life, rather than evolution being the "creator" of life.

@okeyxyz Thanks for your comments.

Can you kindly expatiate on this:

okeyxyz: @OP,
So the theory of evolution might be plausible if only taking place after and within life, and for preserving the same life, rather than evolution being the "creator" of life.

InesQor: @okeyxyz Thanks for your comments.

Can you kindly expatiate on this:

My meaning is that life must precede evolution, That way evolution has a purpose which would be a behavioral modification\adaptation to ensure optimum quality of life or survival of life. Say for instance the earth's gravity becomes greater than what it is now, then by virtue of continued existence in this new environment, our bones would naturally grow denser & stronger, likewise we would gain more muscle mass to resist the additional burden this increased gravity has placed on us. Exactly what happens to body builders. This is just our systems responding to signals it percieves as threatening, therefore it must bolster itself to withstand the continued environmental stress. The reverse happens in less gravity by the loss of bone and muscle mass.

So evolution cannot precede life because then, there'd be no purpose for it to take place. There's no life to receive and react\adapt to signals that threaten or favours it's existence. Note that I say preservation of a life-form, not transformation into other life-forms like they teach in schools(I suppose).

okeyxyz:

My meaning is that life must precede evolution, That way evolution has a purpose which would be a behavioral modification\adaptation to ensure optimum quality of life or survival of life. Say for instance the earth's gravity becomes greater than what it is now, then by virtue of continued existence in this new environment, our bones would naturally grow denser & stronger, likewise we would gain more muscle mass to resist the additional burden this increased gravity has placed on us. Exactly what happens to body builders. This is just our systems responding to signals it percieves as threatening, therefore it must bolster itself to withstand the continued environmental stress. The reverse happens in less gravity by the loss of bone and muscle mass.

So evolution cannot precede life because then, there'd be no purpose for it to take place. There's no life to receive and react\adapt to signals that threaten or favours it's existence. Note that I say preservation of a life-form, not transformation into other life-forms like they teach in schools(I suppose).

Brilliant! Brilliant!!! I love this! Thanks so very much!

@topic, sound! You just proved d relationship between science and religion...very ok! Until science comes to terms with that, d tumult continues...by d way this is an expose.

InesQo: but it does not answer mine, "How could rational and ordered creations have emerged from random and unordered particles?"

Because there is already an underlying system of rationaliTy

nice thread

okeyxyz:

My meaning is that life must precede evolution, That way evolution has a purpose which would be a behavioral modification\adaptation to ensure optimum quality of life or survival of life. Say for instance the earth's gravity becomes greater than what it is now, then by virtue of continued existence in this new environment, our bones would naturally grow denser & stronger, likewise we would gain more muscle mass to resist the additional burden this increased gravity has placed on us. Exactly what happens to body builders. This is just our systems responding to signals it percieves as threatening, therefore it must bolster itself to withstand the continued environmental stress. The reverse happens in less gravity by the loss of bone and muscle mass.

So evolution cannot precede life because then, there'd be no purpose for it to take place. There's no life to receive and react\adapt to signals that threaten or favours it's existence. Note that I say preservation of a life-form, not transformation into other life-forms like they teach in schools(I suppose).

I might not get y'all (including you @op) correctly, but seems you're assuming this universe is orderly, etc. It's clearly not from my pov. I could bring these to back me up, (from shall we say a 'local' level, not cosmological or grand scale, affect every particle in the universe physical level, like uncertainty does, per se)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design


Abiogenesis or evolution don't have a purpose, they're just happens when certain conditions are met, like the weather. As for the universal constants, that's a tougher one. There is speculation, like this

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to-the-multiverse.html

Regardless, we don't understand != purposeful design. Someone ignorant of say large water bodies, like rivers for instance, happens upon one might be in awe at having come upon something so useful, a seemingly endless source of water. His water problems are solved. Doesn't mean the river had a purposeful designer.

There seem to very clear leanings towards the anthropic principle in your outlook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

edits

InesQor:


Hmmm I'm one of those that believe religion and scientific fact do not need to have conflicting stances. I believe they can actually work to compliment one another. Let me give an illustration.

Boy: "Mummy, Daddy, why is the water in this kettle boiling?"
Dad: "It is boiling because the combustion of hydrocarbons has generated heat, which has heated up the water until the vapour pressure is counterbalancing the atmospheric pressure. This tussle of pressures forces the water to react in a boiling manner".
Mum: "It is boiling because Aunty Layide needs hot water; she wants to have tea"

Neither the Dad nor the Mum are really wrong. The Dad has answered the "why", which was the question his son asked. But the Dad's answer will only lead to further questions like "Does water always boil in these conditions? Does it boil ONLY in these conditions? Who decides all these laws?" and many others like that. However, the Mum's answer provides not just the "Why" but also the "Who" and "How".

The Dad's answer is like the Scientific answer (most times), and the Mum's answer is like that of Religion (most times). Science is mostly concerned about the Why of the Process. Religion usually looks into the Presence and Purpose behind the Process.

Religion doesn't just want to know why the Kettle of the Universe is boiling, as science does. It wants to also know, does someone want to have tea? Is there a motive? Is it an ongoing scientific experiment, or a once interesting experiment now left to boil by itself? Is it a labour of love or of arbitrary whimsy? Was it born out of a compulsion to create? Or was someone or something lonely?

Don't you mean to say science is concerned with the 'how' primarily?

Either ways, science does indeed bother with the who and why (if applicable), a lot. Difference is science's concerns are with the objectively verifiable, nothing else. And that's how it should be, spirits don't power technology, or govern the laws of physics. The nice medical equipment that save lives don't run on prayer, etc.

If the evidence in a given scenario suggested there was a conscious will anywhere, then science would definitely be interested. As it stands with cosmology there isn't any reason to assume a will, at all. And if there were, science wouldn't waste its time on illogical claims that have no evidence to back them up. In fact, it has very little time for logical claims without evidence, let alone illogical ones.

So in your story for instance, supposing one didn't know who boiled the water, science wouldn't conclude it was the father without evidence. On the other hand a religion could conclude a tornado whipped in and set everything up at the behest of the grand father. Next religion comes with its own theory, and the next, and the next... Surely I don't have to point out that science shouldn't waste time indulging religion, yes?

Religions tend to make assumptions subjectively, these can greatly aid people personally. But rightfully they have absolutely no place in the realm of science. And I would argue that where science and religion clash, science will undoubtedly provide the better solution. Though of course one could use the religious one since it might be more comforting/aesthetically pleasing, etc. We rationals can only hope the religious understand their 'truth' is not objective and shouldn't be a factor when they have to deal with people who don't share their particular faith.

And now the thread is starting to get more interesting

@atmc: Thank you

@Kay 17: What's the origin or proof of this "initial order" you speak of? Is it speculative?

@wiegraf: Thanks for joining! I'll be back much later, I'm having quite a busy day...

Good day inesQ, to inquire for the cause of the initial order is also an acknowledgement of a beginningleSs rationality. If there wasn't any order in the beginning, a cause can't be connected to the effect in the first place.

Nice thread! Subscribing....

Joining

been following this thread since yesterday. I hope this thread doesn't pull me out of sniping mode and get me to start contributing regularly again. I can't afford that.

But a couple of points sha!

wiegraf:

I might not get y'all (including you @op) correctly, but seems you're assuming this universe is orderly[color=#990000][/color], etc. It's clearly not from my pov. I could bring these to back me up, (from shall we say a 'local' level, not cosmological or grand scale, affect every particle in the universe physical level, like uncertainty does, per se)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design



edits

There are a couple of stances from a religion pov. A)That of Okeyxyz that says that the universe is Ordered. Your arguments refute that satisfactorily in my opinion.

There is another and much older and venerable understanding in religion. That the universe is a dialectic between Order and Chaos. This is how I understand InesQ statement that order arose out of chaos. This interplay of Cosmos and Chaos is at the heart of many, if not all traditional religions.

Kay 17:

Because there is already an underlying system of rationaliTy

Kay17, please I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I understand your comment above as saying that there is a system of rationality at play in the universe, influencing events yet not necessarily always being manifest in the observed universe. So sometimes Chaos can have precedence and other times Order can have precedence.

Hmm!!!
So you guys threw a party in my absence abi?? with @wiegraf having the most fun..

Make una wait small.., I dey come.

wiegraf:
I might not get y'all (including you @op) correctly, but seems you're assuming this universe is orderly, etc. It's clearly not from my pov. I could bring these to back me up, (from shall we say a 'local' level, not cosmological or grand scale, affect every particle in the universe physical level, like uncertainty does, per se)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

I had a quick look at this wikipedia page and it just dosen't make sense. How does on argue against the existence of god by citing his(god's) imperfections? It's just like @logicboy03(mehn!!! This guy will begin to think I'm obsessed with him ) saying god does not exist because god is a racist, a misogynist and a slave-monger(this is an often punchline of atheists). That argument is simply holding two opposing positions. If you determine that god is imperfect, then you aknowledge that he exists, therefore defeating your argument. I'd much rather such a person brings an alternative explanation for the phenomena which we religionists attribute to god, rather than saying: "no!!, it's imperfect, it's inhuman, therefore god does not exist". No sense at all. Even the bible does not claim that nature is perfect, as the story of genesis tells: after the fall of man came all manner of imperfections in nature, causing disasters, diseases, wars, etc ultimately leading to the fulfillment of the curse(Death): but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(notice the evil??), for when you eat of it you will surely die(Genesis 2:17).

So this begs the question: why is this "Argument_from_poor_design" trying to disprove a claim that was never made in the first place?

wiegraf:
Abiogenesis or evolution don't have a purpose, they're just happens when certain conditions are met, like the weather. As for the universal constants, that's a tougher one. There is speculation, like this

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to-the-multiverse.html

Abiogenesis is another funny phenomenon. To start with, it is all theories and hypothesis, yet many "scientists" will argue it as fact(just like they argue evolution fact ), when in fact no life has ever been created in any lab. I'm not even asking for a proof of "the evolution", as one could say that you need thousands or millions of years to demonstrate. But Abiogenesis(from the theory\hypothesis) requires just seconds or days, yet we are still waiting for this "artificial life". What scientists have been able to do is catalyze the formation of organic molecules like amino-acids which really means nothing. Amino acids are just molecules, no more no less. Amino acids are freely and naturally occuring, just like the rest of matter. I know the word "organic" in organic-chemistry can give a layman the false impression that this means "life" chemistry, but organic molecules are just as lifeless and freely occuring as H2O-molecules, carbon-molecules, Nitrogen-molecules etc. The "organic" in organic-molecules is just a label to differentiate them as hydro-carbons. Hydro-carbons are not more evolved or less evolved than non-organic molecules.

Abiogenesis is still asking how they can create an entity that has metabolism, which means such an entity would feed, grow, be intelligent, seek to preserve itself through behaviour or reproduction(not replication of molecules but of DNA\RNA).

The link above tries to talk about the big-bang-theory(notice the Theory??) and how many attempts to explain it has failed, from albert einstein to the present day. The big-bang-theory starts as an assumption, then follows attempts to hypothesize and theorize the processes that has led from there to our present state of the universe. All these theories have so far failed. What scientists simply do is to assume a phenomenon, then look for "evidences" that fit and discard the ones that don't fit and pretend they don't exist. When such misfit is too obvious to discard, they simply assume or theorize that there's a "missing link" between the theory and the "misfit" which they hope to find sometime in the future. This is how evolution and archeology propagates dogmas as facts.

wiegraf:
Regardless, we don't understand != purposeful design. Someone ignorant of say large water bodies, like rivers for instance, happens upon one might be in awe at having come upon something so useful, a seemingly endless source of water. His water problems are solved. Doesn't mean the river had a purposeful designer.

There seem to very clear leanings towards the anthropic principle in your outlook
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

It's funny that you don't apply the bolded principle to your arguments too. ie: we don't understand != it just happened. Which is how "scientists" label anything they don't understand.

Don't think I'm bashing science, No!! I love science, both from a secular and religious POV(no, i don't mean the por.n genre. dirty minds!!! ) The christian doctrine commands us to learn, harness and use the power of science. I bet that would surprise atheists, else they wouldn't continue with the mindset that christianity is ant-science, but I'm wary of scientists who pollute this discipline with their own biases, just as there are christians who pollute christianity with their own biases.

It appears @okeyxyz has already taken this one, but let me clarify where you have mentioned my point:

wiegraf:
I might not get y'all (including you @op) correctly, but seems you're assuming this universe is orderly, etc. It's clearly not from my pov. I could bring these to back me up, (from shall we say a 'local' level, not cosmological or grand scale, affect every particle in the universe physical level, like uncertainty does, per se)

No, I have not assumed the universe is orderly. In fact, my point was that there is so much randomness and chaos yet some order seems to have emerged from it DESPITE the second law of thermodynamics. I mean, Entropy is meant to be on the increase in a closed system like our universe, so if things began with random occurences, by entropy they are meant to have become much more random. What is the slightest chance of evolution having occurred, and (putting aside the term "purposeful design" for now) of symmetric or intricately beautiful designs (in some cases)? I see order emerging from the chaos at the beginning, and this is my emphasis.

Where I agree with @okeyxyz is that this seemingly random flux of order and disorder may not be altogether so random but may partly depend on initial conditions and the slightest variations in parameters of the universe. You may refer to these initial conditions as "purpose", like evolution has a "scientific purpose" in preserving lifeforms, and I can say this purpose is based on initial conditions that have been preset into the lifeforms at their original instantiation, to ensure their survival by modification if necessary. More on that shortly.

wiegraf:

Don't you mean to say science is concerned with the 'how' primarily?

Either ways, science does indeed bother with the who and why (if applicable), a lot. Difference is science's concerns are with the objectively verifiable, nothing else. And that's how it should be, spirits don't power technology, or govern the laws of physics. The nice medical equipment that save lives don't run on prayer, etc.

If the evidence in a given scenario suggested there was a conscious will anywhere, then science would definitely be interested. As it stands with cosmology there isn't any reason to assume a will, at all. And if there were, science wouldn't waste its time on illogical claims that have no evidence to back them up. In fact, it has very little time for logical claims without evidence, let alone illogical ones.

I maintain that Science is concerned with the "why" primarily, because it begins with an enquiry (we won't even enquire how a process works if we don't know why it works). The "how" is revealed along the way. Oftentimes, the "how" in observational science is entailed in the "why". This is because to a scientific mind, answers to the "why" question would associate the process with previously known scientific processes, thus we also know the "how".

"Objectively verifiable" or "logical", agreed, this is the domain of science. But who is to say that is the final limit of observation? What if, let's just say, science has not yet caught up in its enquiries, and in the future we'll realize that the "religious guesses" were closer on target, howbeit primitive and assuming in its enquiry? Only time could tell for sure.

wiegraf:
So in your story for instance, supposing one didn't know who boiled the water, science wouldn't conclude it was the father without evidence. On the other hand a religion could conclude a tornado whipped in and set everything up at the behest of the grand father. Next religion comes with its own theory, and the next, and the next... Surely I don't have to point out that science shouldn't waste time indulging religion, yes?

Yes, again, because the scientific process uses methods that are verifiable by current methods of observation, science cannot conclude it was the father, unless it experienced the father putting the kettle on. "Without evidence", you say, but now do not forget that even science employs circumstancial evidence in its build-up of hypotheses (which are also assumptions). Likewise, religion's assumptions may appear to be spurious but it's just religious hypothesis based on its own circumstancial evidence.

And yes, just like you said, religion comes up with its next theory and the next and the next. This is the scientific process of eliminating hypothesis via refining circumstancial evidence until you have absolutely direct evidence! I will not be so quick as to say any religion did not have circumstancial evidence of some sort before they produced their hypothesis. Some science and some religion have both been proven wrong at some time or the other due to hasty assumptions based on half-baked circumstancial evidence.

Evidence is whatever is used to determine the truth of an assertion that is presumed to be true, and this applies to science as well as to religion. One only needs to look closer, what is the domain in which this "presumption to be true" lies? If the domain supposedly is a non-physical one (assuming for a moment that such exist), then definitely science cannot be expected to observe it. The religious evidence can only be observed WHEN it's effects cascade over into the observable domain. As M_nwankwo once said on this forum (I paraphrase), if a spiritual healer claims that he can heal a sickness, science need not decry his process because it is non-physical; however the outcome of the process is a physical one that can be tested by science; the cross-over to a scientific domain of evidence is now complete and can be ratified.

wiegraf:
Religions tend to make assumptions subjectively, these can greatly aid people personally. But rightfully they have absolutely no place in the realm of science. And I would argue that where science and religion clash, science will undoubtedly provide the better solution. Though of course one could use the religious one since it might be more comforting/aesthetically pleasing, etc. We rationals can only hope the religious understand their 'truth' is not objective and shouldn't be a factor when they have to deal with people who don't share their particular faith.

Yes, religious assertions have no place in science except where there has been a cross-over (as I said above). Likewise scientific assertions have no place in religion. But both have places in our everyday lives whether we believe them or not, because as long as some other person that we share experiences with believes in either of them, scientific and religious decisions will be made that influence our own decisions adversely or not. I digress.

"Truth is not objective", you say, but once again remember to specify a domain. "Objective" means based on observable phenomena, and who are we to decide that physically observable phenomena entail the complete picture? We can't know for sure.

@ pastor AIO

No. Rationality is Order$

Kay 17:
Good day inesQ, to inquire for the cause of the initial order is also an acknowledgement of a beginningleSs rationality. If there wasn't any order in the beginning, a cause can't be connected to the effect in the first place.

Good day Kay! Really interesting point, now I think it's clearer thanks to Pastor AIO's response. This "underlying system of rationality" that you speak of is just like my view on initial conditions preset in the universe. More on that shortly.

=============================================

Pastor AIO:
been following this thread since yesterday. I hope this thread doesn't pull me out of sniping mode and get me to start contributing regularly again. I can't afford that.
But a couple of points sha!

LOL! You're heartily welcome bro

Pastor AIO:
There are a couple of stances from a religion pov. A)That of Okeyxyz that says that the universe is Ordered. Your arguments refute that satisfactorily in my opinion.

There is another and much older and venerable understanding in religion. That the universe is a dialectic between Order and Chaos. This is how I understand InesQ statement that order arose out of chaos. This interplay of Cosmos and Chaos is at the heart of many, if not all traditional religions.

Nice. I personally believe that there's a little difference between the two stances above. I think you're right that Okeyxyz sees the universe as ordered, and I see it as a dialogue between Order and Chaos.
However, what does it mean to be ordered? Does that mean Chaos does not have a solid place in the worldview (A) that you described above? To be ordered means to have a systematic arrangement.
For lack of a better example we have ordered numbers in Mathematics and there are negative numbers as well as positive ones, and they all interplay accordingly on the ordered system! We have the "positive" numbers, which we use everyday like 2 apples and 5 dogs (we won't be relating often to -100 items except maybe an account balance in the negative ) and the same way we are accustomed to seeing abstractions of natural numbers is how we "expect to see" order in an ordered system. This does not mean that Chaos will not show up when it is required by the systematic balances of Order and Chaos.

But I believe an ordered (ordered as in systematic) Chaos underlies everything because that's where it all began, order gradullay emerging from chaos so sometimes we can still see the background of chaos peeping in from beneath the scene. As Joseph Ford said, "For sequences, as in nature, order is the exception, chaos the norm. The number of definable patterns is countable. The number of possibilites is not".

Pastor AIO:
Kay17, please I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I understand your comment above as saying that there is a system of rationality at play in the universe, influencing events yet not necessarily always being manifest in the observed universe. So sometimes Chaos can have precedence and other times Order can have precedence.

YES! Clear and succinct. I think (or I hope?) that's what he meant. It was your comment above that clarified it to me. I refer to these as initial conditions of the Universe, and I will get to my point in my next post.

==============================================

Okeyxyz:
Hmm!!!
So you guys threw a party in my absence abi?? with @wiegraf having the most fun..

Make una wait small.., I dey come.

LOL! Nice one!!

@Mr_anony @seriallink @kslib Welcome. Looking forward to your input!

First off, let us discard the "can't study it, so it can't exist" mentality, and the ""reality is only what we can know, or what is useful to us" menality.

Since the Isaac Newton days, scientists believed the Universe entails predictable systems and that soon we'll have reduced everything to such systems. Till date some scientists like Hawkings encourage similar hopes that everything in the universe is predictable, well, give or take modifications to allow for quantum uncertainty (like the HUP) and few random faults.
However science recently realizes that the predictable system is the exception and not the rule even in areas that hitherto seemed dependable such as Newtonian Dynamics. Also, within the plenty observed chaos, some ordered patterns are being found!

Chaos science studies randomness, e.g. in weather or a turbulent sea; the way smoke eddies or a flag waves, how liquid flows and a heart/brain oscillates; changes in wildlife population and how galaxies cluster. Joseph Ford, leading American physicist scholar in Chaos, says while unveiling chaos, "we see that nature's dice are slightly, nonetheless, purposefully loaded. Our scientific task is thus to determine the loading and the purpose". Chaos, simply, is a state of randomness.

Part of the scientific process inculdes finding patterns in observed data, compressing an experience into a mentally coded form of cause and effect, which are then condensed into easy formulas for describing or predicting these changes. e.g. Newton's laws.

Talking about prediction, in science we have observed many phenomena and "scientific constants" such as the size of an electron, it's charge, the mass of a hydrogen atom etc but none of these scientific constants have a "reason". What I mean is, they are not in any way related to some fixed constant that is associated with planet earth. If an alien came from a neighbouring galaxy to Earth, there is no way it can predetermine all these "natural constants" or "derive" them using a formula that is unique to planet Earth. These values, as much as they are constants, are fixed random values that we have managed to obtain in this order / chaos we call our Universe. They are most probably preset initial condition values FOR our planet within the Universe; assuming the Universe started out with some fixed initial conditions at the Big Ban'g. More on initial conditions in a bit.

Meterologists have long had suspicions that very small causes in weather change can have devastating effects. In 1961, American meterological scientist Edward Lorenz was studying the weather using computer simulations. His discovery was fundamental to the principles of Mathematical Chaos: small events have enormous consequences.

Someone (I can't remember who) coined the term "the Butterfly effect", saying a movement of a butterfly wing in Asia affects the weather in New York a few days or weeks later. The scientific name for this effect is "sensitive dependence on initial conditions".

According to this effect, tiny differences in conditions cannot be expected to simply cancel each other out. This means that in any system that is sensitively dependent on initial conditions (and these systems are the rule and not the exception, in nature), perfect prediction is not humanly possible. This is because no matter how many points of observation are employed, we can't see all the details at any given moment.

James Clark Maxwell, British scientist, almost 100 years before Lorenz, had said

When the state of things is such that an infinitely small variation of the present state will alter only by an infinitely small quantity the state at some future time, the condition of the system . . . is said to be stable; but when an infinitely small variation in the present state may bring about a finite difference in the state of the system in a finite time, the condition of the system is said to be unstable. It is manifest that the existence of unstable conditions renders impossible the prediction of future events, if our knowledge of the present state is only approximate, and not accurate . . . It is a metaphysical doctrine that from the same antecedents follow the same consequents. No-one can gainsay this. But it is not of much use in a world like this, in which the same antecedents never again occur, and nothing ever happens twice.

Which is similar to what Steve Jobs also said "You can't connect the dots looking forward you can only connect them looking backwards"

We won't have the luxury of repeating an event (in space and time) so as to catch the information that we previously missed. This means no matter how deterministic our equations are we, perfect prediction is beyond us. As Ford said "The source of Chaos is missing information".

18th century French Mathematician Simon de la Place theorized that an omniscient being with unlimited powers of memory and mental calculation, knowing the exact state of everything in the universe at any given moment, and knowing the (discovered and undiscovered by man) laws of nature, could extrapolate from that exact state of everything in the Universe, to any other given moment. This makes sense because that current position would be taken as initial value conditions.

The problem we have as human beings (even if armed with the elusive Theory of Everything) is that we can never know the exact state of things. Systems which exhibit extreme dependence on initial conditions also exhibit extreme sensitivity to the smallest inaccuracies or omissions in the form of equation used to evaluate future states.

Assuming La Place is right, and there is an Omniscient being with such knowledge of everything,would such predictions then be possible? There is after all, SOME degree of precision and accuracy of knowledge of initial conditions that can produce accurate predictions.

If so, then some hitherto seemingly senseless things in religion may make sense. e.g. could an omniscient being called God have known the initial conditions? If this being had infinite knowledge of everything in the Universe at a particular given moment, and knew the correct forms of the equations, could he predict everything? (Of course if he didn't know all of that, he wouldn't be termed omniscient in the first case). To know all real numbers, every molecule with infinite precision is impossible for humans and the best way for us to predict the future is to observe some chill and wait for it to happen; but for an omniscient being (if such exists) then it is surely possible.

Which also brings to mind that it will be possible for such an omniscient being to cause major changes by planting infinitely tiny variations in the initial conditions e.g. at the Big Ban'g. Even "Miraculous events in the Bible" could have been present using infinitely tiny changes and values in creation.

Was the Midrash right in saying,
"The Almighty entered into an agreement with all that was created in the Six Days of Creation . . . that the waters should split before the children of Israel . . . the sun and moon should stand before Joshua . . . the fish should vomit Jonah . . the fire should not harm Hannaniah,Mishael and Azariah . . .’"

I wonder, could all the initial conditions have been contrived such that every event, miraculous or not, would happen based on their precise fine tuning at the beginning of everything, and their interaction with other changes such as human decisions?

Of course a problem with this view is, it can be argued that those deterministic initial conditions were not set up by God, but were random initial conditions that JUST HAPPENED to work out this way.
On the second hand, Chaos and Complexity knowledge cannot tell us if God has infinite foreknowledge (not just knowledge) or if he stands outside time such that all knowledge is present knowledge to Him.