₦airaland Forum

A001:
You can crawl back into the hole you came out from and stop quoting me.

An unknown entity on Nairaland is calling a successful theoretical physicist a first-class idiots

One can only find nonentities like this on Nairaland.

Enjoy your ignorance bro.
Its your life.
Or your nothingness.

A001:
One unknown entity on Nairaland is calling a successful and multi-award-winning scientist a first-class idiot. Lols. What a silly joke!

Of course small and limited minds are prone to hero-worship: and ground their thoughts around appeals to authority.
It takes larger, freer and open minds to question even the so called acclaimed.

If Einstein and others didnt question Newtonian physics, you wouldnt be here rambling on about quantum physics would you? Is Newton not one of the most brilliant men ever?

Do people not have valid questions even against the postulations of some of the most acclaimed scientists? Do such acclaimed scientists not turn out to be wrong sometimes - oh you who know the history of science?

Lawrence Krauss' postulations on nothingness are sheer iidiocy, and if you are so star struck by him that you cannot think for yourself on something so self evident, that is your cup of tea. Do not expect that everyone else will engage in your worship of that re.tard.

A001:
It's obvious you know very little about the history of science.

And you are completely ignorant of both science and logic.

You don't even pause to contemplate what the implications of nothingness changing are.
Nor does it help that you say "whats seen as nothing" - for that only infers the seers of such nothingness to be potential psychiatric patients.
Like Lawrence Krauss.

A001:
and what's seen as nothing changes with time.

This is incoherent absurdity.
You don't even pause to contemplate what the implications of nothingness changing are.
Nor does it help that you say "whats seen as nothing" - for that only infers the seers of such nothingness to be potential psychiatric patients.
Like Lawrenece Krauss.

No worries, enjoy your Krauss inspired paradise.
I will stop quoting you, at least on this subject of nothingness.

HellVictorinho3:
Reality is more than madness .

Excusing your rambling responses, on this we must agree!

A001:
You clearly don't understand my posts on this issue you've quoting. When something appears mysterious and seem like an empty space, it's right to call it nothing until you know specifically its nature or identity (what it's).

Please, read my earlier post on the subject again, slowly:

"By nothing, I mean something that exists but that can't be seen by us or doesn't have the physical kind of existence.

You read what you have written slowly.
You say - "By nothing I mean something that exists but . . . "

If you cannot see the problem with this statement, I really am wasting my time.

We simply call such an object or particle nothing

Oh, you can call an object or particle nothing? ? ?
That's frankly comical.

This is exactly why I have no respect for the ludicrous postulations of Lawrence Krauss. Because, either as he knows or ought to know what the word "nothing" refers to in philosophical or existential discussions regarding the question "can something arise from nothing" - or "why something instead of nothing" - he comically picks a "something" - defines it and labels it as "nothing" and then proceeds from there.

Its nothing but sheer iidiocy and he has been rightly roasted in many debates and shows for just that.
In fact if you watch him discuss you will realize he is also not mentally stable.

as limited beings just as we see the space around us as empty space until it's observed under a powerful electron microscope and we discover our folly.

In spite of that, even the most powerful (electron) microscopes have their limits depending on the wavelength of an electron.

That means a scanning electron microscope, even with its ultra-high magnifying power, can't detect a particle with a wavelength smaller than electron such as a neutrino.

Thus, we call such a particle nothing."

You are just contradicting yourself.
Its time I save myself from bothering with this absurd conflation of concepts.
Enjoy.

A001:
Okay.

That's why reality is called an illusion: Some things exist which can't be seen with the naked eye and seem like what they're not (nothing) .

Well, perhaps the bold word salvages this statement.
Do remember though, that nothingness does not exist. Indeed, if it existed, then that wouldn't be nothingness. An existent thing cannot be nothingness.

A001:
This comment shows your understanding of Physics is shallow.

You need to read books written by prominent scientists on the subject of the universe arising from nothing, with Lawrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing a good example of such books.

I knew you might refer to Krauss. Well acquainted with him. He is a first class iidiot, and his book is nonsensical.
It is just not nonsensical but intellectually dishonest, disingenuous and borders on the illiterate.

Some scientists and philosophers such as Einstein and Plato who said reality is an illusion didn't state that to confuse people. It's just the truth.

Perhaps you missed the post where I said that our reality is very likely a simulation. I am well acquainted with Plato's allegory of the cave also, which hints at the nature of the reality we may be experiencing, and this is in step with a great many ancient schools of thought which hold the same - and it is frankly my personal view that not only is this world illusory, and some sort of simulation, but there might be no way to tell that every other world is not one as well.

An illusion, however, is still not nothing.

HellVictorinho3:
It's only ridiculous to those that say otherwise.

Agnosticism is not wisdom.

Assuming that if the universe had a purpose, you, little you, infinitesimal you, would know it, is beyond absurd.

A001:
I still prefer the term and will stick to it.

Feel free, especially if your intention is to conflate concepts and confuse your co-discussants.

johnydon22:
This is interesting, could you point me to some of these Civilizations so I can read up on them?

Never mind. Forget I mentioned it.

johnydon22:
This is awfully evasive. Lol

Its not just evasive, it is ridiculous.

A001:
I prefer to use the term nothing because I don't regard existence or the Universe as having a beginning and an end.

That doesnt justify the use of the word "nothing" - which tends to violently distort the conversation and the concepts at play.

johnydon22:
And about the earth under constant threat but not yet destroyed, even that is not an accident. The solar system is pretty much stabilized as opposed to its otherwise chaotic past, much like an iron cast cools and stabilizes. Presently, most meteor that make it into the system are pulled in by the gravitational influence of Gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn keeping the interior planets relatively free of meteors, not to talk of life ending collisions.

Whilst this is true, you will find that there is much on the Earth that strongly suggests many human civilizations have been wiped out in the past - and likely in several instances by natural or cosmic events. Mainstream history as currently taught leaves much to be desired.

Recorded history which does not reach beyond 6 - 10 thousand years is as a nano second in the spectrum of the total lost history of mankind.

wirinet:
That's true. The universe is a very disorganized, chaotic and wasteful place. I still fail to understand the purpose. Imagine billions and billions of desolate planets with only one or a few with life. And even the few with life always at the risk of annihilation from cosmic debris. The earth has been lucky in that even thought it is always under constant threat, no collision has at yet wiped out all of life.

You would only think this way when your opposition to the idea of God derives from the fraudulent idea of religionists that whatever entity instigated this universe or life on Earth must be benevolent or perfect. That idea has no basis in any rational thought whatsoever, and, therefore, should not form competent grounds to repudiate the rational concept of causality as a precept of creationism.

I, who believe that there is some sort of mind behind the universe, often envision that mind as being that of a prankster or even an outrightly sadistic mind.

You will find in Greek mythology, that the gods were constantly described as being involved in a great many pranks, acts of mischief, and even acts of grave wickedness.

LordReed:
In agreement so far. Does this transcendent natural something have a mind, is it a being?

I have to be agnostic as to this. Anything further will amount to presumption.

I can however say that I lean in the direction of the origin of all things being something akin to what I call an infinite field of potentialities. The way I conceive of this, is not as a conscious being, even if it may birth conscious beings.

Such an infinite field of potentialities may, in this remit, hypothetically or theoretically spawn any number of beings, dimensions, universes, realms or realities.

It is not impossible however, to my mind, that this universe is the product or work of a mind or a being or a group or set of beings. One day, at a sufficiently advanced stage of development, even humans may create universes.

wirinet:
I believe that on a more fundamental level, saying a thing is causeless and saying we don't know the cause of a thing means practically the same thing. Because on a fundamental level we don't know the cause of anything. For example we don't know the true nature of the 4 fundamental forces of nature - electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong force, before we even start talking of what caused them.

This still does not justify equating ignorance of a cause to causelessness. Consider and reflect: at some point in our development, the causes of natural phenomena like thunder and lightening were not known. Would that have justified a conclusion that such things were evidence that things may "happen" without cause? That would be absurd.

This is no different from all the examples you cite: including the famous example of virtual particles cited by many. They are simply examples of things the causes of which we either do not know yet or do not understand properly. None represents justification for the position that things may "begin" or "happen" without cause.

The difference between material things and immaterial things is our perception. Things we can perceive with our senses and instruments, we term material, things we cannot we term immaterial.

If you insist on this, then we might as well class perception as the determinant of everything - and on a certain level perhaps it is, to be fair. But on closer consideration what really are we talking about here? Is it not only natural that matter can perceive only matter? Your physical senses are made of matter, so whats the problem if they only perceive matter? This does nothing to suggest that the immaterial does not exist. Many things which evidently exist and are part of our reality are immaterial. Time is immaterial. Thoughts are immaterial. Ideas are immaterial. Dreams are immaterial. The past is immaterial. Things like Hope and Faith are immaterial. Information is immaterial. There are too many interjections of immaterial things in our daily existence for the immaterial to be denied.

Many of us even experience the immaterial via astral travel and cosmic projection, even if this is a private and subjective thing.

there is little difference between the agnostic and the atheist.

Indeed there ought to be little difference but for the modern aggressive specie of atheist who positively asserts that there is no God or gods and that there never has been and never will be and indeed there cannot be. This is a statement of positive knowledge and the agnostic distances himself from any such positive knowledge.

A theist makes the proposition that his God - Thor, Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, olodumare, etc is the one true God and creator of the universe.

It amounts to making a caricature of all Theism if you claim that Theists always assert one particular God to be the only true God. Many theists believe that while God exists, the different names and characteristics attributed to God are strands of culture only. Furthermore, there are polytheists, deists, autotheists, dystheists, maltheists and many more.

Note that the theist God's are always created in the image of it's creator's. Jewish people create Jewish looking gids, Greek people create Greek Gods and Yoruba people create Yoruba Gods. If Dogs were to believe in God, that God will be in the image (and language) of of the breed of Dog that created it.

Generally, but not always true: Jews for example insist on the invisibility and ineffability of God so much that they even strive not to mention his name. Muslims similarly ban any imagery of God.

Everyone is speculating. We don't know the true nature of matter or the universe. We can only speculate. We don't actually know what gravity is, what electricity is, what electron is, etc. I was surprised just recently to learn that the energy that lights up your light bulb or drive your appliances don't flow inside the wire but in a field perpendicular to the wires.

This just justifies agnosticism further.

Existence itself is magic

Touché.

LordReed:
What if the first cause is a natural process?

It could only be natural, my friend.

You see, the problem rests with the distinction people have made between the natural and the supposed "supernatural." When people dont understand a thing, they call it supernatural. However all things are natural.

This takes nothing away from the transcendence of a thing. Transcendence here, as I have repeatedly said, simply refers to the quality of being beyond this realm. Standing beyond it. Therefore transcending it. This does not mean that such a thing is not natural. In truth, all things that exist are only natural.

PS: Let me hasten to be clear however, that this is only one sense of the word "natural." I do not here use the word in the sense in which people use it when they distinguish between a natural or unnatural act - e.g: Someone might say that Heterosexuality is natural and Homosexuality is unnatural. That is a value based and potentially moral assessment, whereas I use the word in an existential sense - not natural vs unnatural, but natural vs supernatural: whereat I say that all existent things can only be natural. I hope this comes across.

wirinet:
You my friend is engaging in what is called Fallacy of False Cause. We don't know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Even in our real everyday world, we don't know what causes an atom to disintegrate. We don't know what causes the half life of a radioactive element to remain constant. We also don't know what causes a particular atom to decide to disintegrate out of the other billions of atoms.

Saying that we do not know the cause of something is different from saying that therefore, things may be causeless.

There are indeed "things" that are causeless, but those are infinite and eternal "things." Self-existent "things." They are immaterial "things." They are not the "things" of this finite material realm.

We don't know the beginning of existence.

Hence I have striven in this thread to advocate agnosticism. I don't know if you have been following the thread: but I came in at at point where a poster was stridently criticizing the agnostic position which simply declares " I don't know." I have been striving in this thread to justify that position as the most honest position we can take. That poster, on the contrary, seeks to assert that while we can be agnostic on existence generally, once it comes to God or gods, we must be positively certain that they do not and cannot exist. I am simply telling him that we must remain agnostic on that too. I have allowed the exception that some religious notions of God can be discountenanced as they are ontologically contradictory.

Scientist have been able to speculate the beginning of this universe, but we have no way of speculating the beginning of everything. The same scientists tell us that this present universe might be just one of a continuous cycle of big bangs and big crunches. And there might even a multiverse (many other universeses)

All this is speculation - and speculation without any grounds for that matter.

So your assumption that whatever begins to exist has a cause is pure speculation and might not be true. Therefore your conclusion based on that assumption also might not be true.

That whatever begins to exist has a cause (or trigger) only stands to reason. Anything else will amount to advocating magic.

A001:
It's expanding into nothing, just as the expansion started from nothing.-

There is nothing like nothing.
By definition, nothingness does not exist and as such cannot be the recipient of any material expansion.

Space and time are mental constructs and don't exist in reality.

Then it is contradictory to say that the expansion of space is a proven scientific fact.

LordReed:
And what if the cause is another natural process so the natural process is transcendental?

I should point out that I refer to what may be described as the ultimate or first cause in relation to the existence of all universes/ realms/ dimensions. Such will naturally have to be beyond :or (transcend) all realms/ universes/ dimensions.

A001:
No, I don't have to acknowledge it just like I don't have to acknowledge gravity exists. That the Universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating are well-established scientific facts with lots of evidence.

Good. Next question is - into what is the universe expanding?
I ask this because you asserted that there is no space outside the universe.

A001:
This post is an insightful take on the Kalam Cosmological Argument: https://www.nairaland.com/6690123/all-science-key-facts-researches/1#107300391

Thanks for this - I have gone through it and its genuinely well considered stuff.
There was however, only one point that truly came across therein, for me - and that was the point about halving time or space and never arriving at a true zero - thus supposedly debunking the idea that the universe had a beginning.

While this is an interesting point, my view is that material things cannot be eternal in the past because only self-existing things can be eternal in the past. Matter, in my view, is not self existent, and the key pointer to this is its changeability. Self-existent things are immutable and matter is mutable. This is a delicate philosophical point which I have rarely been able to pass across to other people, but its a very valid one in my view. In light of this consideration I lean towards the view that we live in an open system in which there was an infusion of energy of a transcendental nature which led to the expansion of our universe (or universes).

A001:
We might really never be able to know if the Universe has a cause for sure, at least in this realm.

Personally, I hold the notion that the Universe is self-created or come from an earlier universe that's self-created, and that space and time exist only within our Universe, but our Universe doesn't occupy any space.

That means space is inside the Universe, not outside it, implying our Universe really has no beginning since it doesn't occupy any space.

Do you acknowledge that our universe is expanding?

Pr0ton, thank you for taking the time to give a detailed and reasoned response. Many are so flippant in discussions concerning these serious existential matters these days, that it is always refreshing when one comes across a person who accords such discourses the seriousness they deserve.

Pr0ton:
First, let me point out that contrary to what your posts suggest, I do not hold or know the absolute truth of the workings of the universe. Even in science, and to a great extent, nothing can be regarded as absolute truth concerning our reality. With that, I agree with some part of your response like the problem of consciousness and science not answering the questions of why. On that front, and strictly by the definition of the word agnosticism, I am agnostic. Everyone is agnostic about something as no one is an island or fountain of knowledge.

Fair enough, and most appreciated.

Where I draw the line as regards agnosticism is where the topics of God/gods are being introduced.

My dear friend, I doubt that we little human beings are in any position to draw this line with respect to what we can or should be agnostic on. The mere twin facts of our own existence and the size of the universe are enough to strike us with silent wonder with respect to what else or who else may be out there. Most cosmological scientists these days believe that given the size of the universe and the abundant presence of carbon therein, it is extremely unlikely that we are the only life - intelligent or otherwise - in the universe. And if we can hold out that possibility, it is not unreasonable to fall into even greater and more silent wonder when faced with the question as to what may exist beyond our universe. There is no reason for you to peremptorily foreclose or delimit the conversation in that regard, and you are too limited - too vastly limited to decree that no one may reasonably envisage the subject of the existence of God or gods.

I can only grant that you may reasonably reject the existence of the sort of God or gods described by religions - some of which can be shown to be ontologically inconsistent and therefore either impossible or improbable. But as I pointed out to you earlier, many people have different perceptions of "God" or "gods" - and you would be wise therefore not to generalize in this matter. There are so many different persuasions on the matter that in fact you simply cannot reasonably generalize. Where do you want to place the Deist? The Pantheist? The Panentheist? The Autotheist? The Dystheist? The Maltheist?

To put this in context I am forced to repeat myself with respect to the size of the universe: Imagine a grain of sand. Just a single grain of sand at the beach. Imagine that within that grain of sand a solar system exists and in that solar system a planet exists and on that planet, 7 billion people dwell. Now none of these 7 billion people have ever stepped out of this grain of sand and not only do they make presumptions as to what may exist at the other end of the beach, they are so bold as to "draw the line" with respect to the existence of beings on other continents far away from that beach, and even other worlds outside the planet on which that beach is situated, the beach where that grain of sand is.

This only represents a faint clue as to what you are doing by presumptuously "drawing line(s)" against the existence of this or that beyond our universe. When you consider it carefully it must become out-rightly ridiculous even in your own sight that you do so.

And I want to have your clear and explicit intention when you use the word God. The way I see God, and the way it is defined as, is as a conscious supreme being. If you do not mean God in that sense then I do not have a problem with you. The only little problem would be why you would choose the word God and not some other term like force or energy.

Sincerely, I personally have no idea as to the consciousness of God or gods - I only know that it is a matter well above our pay grade. My private philosophy regarding the existence of God has become a little complex: and perhaps this is not the place to delve into it properly as it is bound to raise too many complex, mysterious and puzzling questions.

Nevertheless I cannot imagine that you are in a position to insist that all definitions of God require the factor of consciousness (and in this I trust you refer to the sense of a self-conscious personality). I can conceive of, and I certainly know of many theistic persuasions that do not quite see "God" this way - some perceiving "IT" more as a neutral all-pervading force. Nor does this mean they are dis-entitled to the application of the word "God" - as the principal common factor for the definition of "God" is its role as the origin, and to a lesser extent, sustainer, of all things.

This is like stubbornly (I mean no offense) subtly forcing the idea of a spiritual possibility.

What is wrong with the possibility of spirituality? What does spirituality mean to you?
For me, the spiritual is inevitably real.

There is no such thing as existence outside time and space. Every existence must be within time and space. To cause denotes motion and you can't have motion without time. If the universe has a cause at all the cause must be within space and the action itself would reflect time. It is intuitively impossible to have an action without space and time. A cause outside space and time does not and can not exist.

You have a point here, and to be honest, I had feared you would bring it up. I had held back my more thorough view on this subject, on account of my fear that it would muddy the waters before we even understand one another. However, as you have been astute enough to point this out, I will take the plunge.

In truth, when I use the words "time and space" here, I have only used them in the way materialists and scientists like to use them. I have used them simply in a casual and convenient way. However if you go through my posts on this forum spanning a decade, you will see that I do not believe in this type of materialistic time and space. However, for the sake of clarity, and on account of the limitations of language, let us call this type of materialistic/ scientific time and space "finite time" and "finite space". And let us say that our words above refer to this finite time and finite space.

Because in truth, I believe in infinite time and infinite space - both of which are self-existent and cannot be created, cannot "start" - cannot "begin" - cannot "end" - cannot "expand" and so forth. This self-existent infinite time and space, in my worldview, are components of what I call God. Indeed, this is a good juncture at which to tell you that I have once described "God" as I see IT, on this forum, as "the sum of all self-existent laws."

Therefore again, please be wary of generalizing and drawing lines on what people may perceive of as "God."

Moving back to your point - it is in that infinite time and space, which transcends our finite realm, that I assert there remains the open possibility of causes which transcend our realm.

I should let you know that I do not regard this theory as truth or scientific (in the way science works) My original point was that I would consider the talks of it over the talks of God. The reason being the multiverse hypothesis uses some scientific language while the idea of God is just a thought. Its credence over God is also such that top scientists (like Neil Tyson, Brian Greene and Stephen Hawkins himself) consider it. The only flaw being that it is not falsifiable or available for testing but it does draw inspiration from science. And that I would give more credence over a mere thought.

Putting religious fantasies aside, the pure concept of God as an eternal source-point of existence also has both philosophical and logical credence.

My introduction of this concept isn't an argument about whether a quatum vacuum is empty or not (of course, it isn't) I brought it up to show an example of untriggered movements that you alleged don't happen. Virtual particles pop in and out of a quantum vacuum but they do not have a cause. I would like to know if you have gone beyond current science knowledge and let the world know what causes virtual "particles" to come in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum (where no real particle can exist)

So long as the vacuum is not a perfect vacuum, it is presumptuous to say that virtual particles have no cause. Indeed the only reason they refer to a quantum vacuum is in a bid to demonstrate that something can emerge from nothing - which fails straightaway, because the alleged quantum vacuum, as we have agreed, is not "nothing" or empty either. It is absurd to observe anything whatsoever emerging from something else and conclude that it is causeless. The very fact that it emerges from something else is enough to strike that thought away - even if the particulars - the specific scientific details - as to how it emerges remain unknown!

Now when you add to this the fact that virtual particles are not in fact a "thing" per se - but only a transient quantum fluctuation - then this line of reasoning must be put firmly away from discussions about causality. Because once we acknowledge that such alleged quantum vacuums are not "empty" then it becomes both mischievous and duplicitous to use fluctuations therein as proof that causality is not required in order to instigate movement. Those alleged vacuums contain low gaseous pressure, and thus a (very rough) example would be to say that this is like alleging that ripples in the wind are causeless, if one does not know how such ripples come about.

This is cast iron logic, and this will not change no matter how many scientists swoon over the false idea that virtual particles disprove causality.

Who said anything about not getting frightened by quantum mechanics I said the fact that strange things happen in the quantum world shows us that we do not know the absolute truth about the universe. And questions as to its origin should be answered with a short simple "I do not know" instead of "a God could have done it".

Good. Hence my recommendation of agnosticism as wise and honest.

LordReed:
Beginning of space and time as we know it, beyond that it is unknown so how does that give you license to assume a transcendental something? On what basis does that idea subsist?

Fairly straightforward logic good sir: and in this I draw from the premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which asserts that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Not only is this intuitively true, it is also self evidently true. A thing which commences, or begins, necessarily is prompted or triggered. And it could not be so prompted or triggered by itself: hence we deduce that it is so prompted or triggered by something beyond itself.

This is all that transcendence here refers to. Something beyond the thing which commences or begins.

Pr0ton, LordReed, Chrystyano,
Travelling cross country interstate two days and will revert tomorrow.
Thanks for your comments.

wirinet:
My brother, it's not easy o. You actually feel the pain of your children, especially mothers.

You can say that again.
How your side?

wirinet:
Understand what? You can only understand if the victim is not your son. If you watched how the boy died, you will be traumatised for life as a mother.
If na my wife believe me she go burn down that school. Ordinary flog wey dem flog my daugher (who by the way is asthmatic), she almost closed the whole school. You think say to carry pickin for belle for 9 months and then to train them through primary school na beans or na yams.

There is something scary about parenthood.

Crystyano:
Life doesn't make sense!!!
. . . . Call this whatever you want to call it!

This sounds like some pain.
Just to be clear - I have not said life makes sense. Personally, I often consider this world the mischievous prank of a sadist.
However I am clear that that takes nothing away from the philosophical questions at play concerning existence - a la: why something instead of nothing.

By the way, I sent you an email.

Crystyano:
Existence has no bedrock.....

Things just exist. ....

Have you considered this carefully?
Are you certain it makes sense?

"Things just exist?"
Is this not worse than proposing magic?

KnownUnknown:
Smart and concise.
Do you still hold unto the extraphysical plane

That there are non physical aspects to reality is for me a fact.

and the oneness of infinity

However clumsily I expressed my thoughts back then, I still view the default state of reality ("the original state" if you like) as being both singular and infinite/ eternal.

or have you admitted that it was just your definition of heaven/god(ultimate source or origin of existence)

Of course it always was simply my own rendition of things. I will not say of "heaven" though. I dont know what that word means.

PS: That you refer to the oneness of infinity indicates you are a real old-timer here. I hail oh.