How can something come from nothing?

feel better?? You certainly put me in my place with all that brilliance.

I suppose this ends your "bromance" youve had with me all these many years.

Youve got a ways to go to even get n idea what physics has to offer within its on speculations.

You've missed the point Physics can do whatever the hell they want and deem necessary except assassinate words, concepts and logic...

You've been do one pushing it not me. I've been quite polite with you all these years in spite of your snide remarks often out of context and out of place.

I don’t see any problem with your logic, but you are applying it to something that has no real definition- the ‘Classical God'.

I do not fault you for applying logic to 'God', it is the ‘Classical' part that is suspect.

If I understand what you mean, The people who defined the ‘Classical God' did not believe logic applied to him. That is the basic reason I distance myself from mainstream religion.

So my question is, where did your definition of the ‘Classical God' come from?

It is certainly miles ahead of your pal Lawrence Krauss that when confronted with abstract objects like the Laws by which the Universe came about says that the laws of Physics popped out from nothingness also...hehehe, you guys are great fun I'll give you that!

PS - I'm still waiting for a counter on the faults in the logic if you have any...please note that we are debating CONCEPTS not your shitty muddy wording within Physics!
(I'll guess you missed that also but I have the will to clarify what is and is not up for debate)

Listening to an endless bunch of Theologians from the 3 main Abrahamic religions!

That’s what I was afraid of. How can you use such an undefined factor in your logic tree? It’s like having the square root of infinity in your equation.

Now common you and everyone on the planet is well aware on the "classical" definition of God's attributes...many fall in serious contradictions that Theologians have been trying to solve for centuries. And while I don't believe in God as most people do, I do believe Nature is the measure of all things and literally embodies Reason/Ratio in itself. To that I take the point made in the video that "Ultimism" is true while the "classical" God makes no sense insofar.

Feel free to sacrifice any of God's attributtes if you want to debate further.

Not Eternal? Not Perfect? No foreknowledge of the future?
Which ones are you ditching? These days more honest Theologians are willing to ditch a lot...either that or the flock is going out the window.

That’s all I wanted, just don’t want to be tied to any of the classical characteristics other than him being 'the one who created what we observe around us (including us)'. Everything else is just hearsay, some of it might be true but if we are starting from scratch, we can’t assume any of that.

That's funny, as soon as I mentally established that scenario, there is nothing left to debate. My whole 'problem' is with all the baggage that has been loaded on 'God', all the things people say about him without any way of knowing.

Like 'perfect'. The word has no real meaning without some preexisting standard of 'perfection' to compare it to. Same with 'Eternal'. 'Time' as I understand it, did not even exist until the creation of the universe. So for us to talk about actual 'Eternal' is a futile exercise, we can’t have any real grasp of what it means. So I can’t assume that God is 'Eternal, perfect, all powerful, etc. except by comparison to us. I’m kind of with Frank on these things, we do not know and cannot know in our current circumstances. I would like to someday, but right now I don’t, so why pretend to.

This was my starting point. I satisfied myself that Something sentient made all this; Why. How does 'all this' make sense. I can’t make sense of it if I accept as brute fact all the dogma artificially applied to the 'Classical God'.

With that as a starting point, how would that change the outcome of your logic?

...lets make a pause and have some fun talking about language, confusion within statistics, thermodynamics, and Cosmology, by addressing the Boltzmann brain pseudo problem with some deep dive into Philosophy...

First a 101 video on statistics thermodynamics entropy and the possibility of Boltzmann brains:



Now lets undo it shall we?

The problem of sizing having more to do with information and not with matter is paramount to counter the idea on its head. That is to mean, not that the Boltzmann brain is not statistically possible but to unravel that if one is the case by Occam's Razor, then the complexity that we all observed and learned from History, all that happened in our lifetime, that we saw and that we been told about, the whole experience of we living in a Universe is indeed EQUIVALENT to the exact Universe we can think or did thought about!

What this means is that the wording Universe or Reality and a Boltzmann brain are for all practical purposes interchangeable as far as we can observe.
It is thus meaningless to postulate for one or the other as the amount of complexity we can observe about the Universe must equal the amount of complexity of a Universe made up in our mind. The two are for all practical purposes indistinguishable as whatever we observe in our lifetime is not bigger nor smaller of what we can account as "real" out of ourselves...

The idea gets even more problematic when we try to distinguish "actual reality" from a "fake reality" in a Boltzmann brain. As I usually explained in other occasions we are confusing domains of Reality not Reality itself. After all dreams are real dreams if you have them...

You see, the problem with Science is that it cannot ever get rid of concepts, and the wording of what we observe is filtered by concepts that matured within our Anthropological development as a species through History.

Our observations of the natural world are as good as our concepts, as what they mean is more or less matured in layers of abstract thinking at a given X point in History...

Which in turn devolves Physics back to Metaphysics and Science back to Philosophy and pure Logic.

...this is well know in advance Maths. The meaning of patterns is constrained to the level of understanding your languaging among a culture allows you to grasp. To cognize a pattern and make sense of it your are bound to "l'air du temp" when it comes to conceptual complexity.

It is the job of Philosophy to inspect as close as possible where do concepts break and what can replace them or if there is any meaningful replacement within our anthropological species specific cognitive boundaries.

You welcome ...have a nice day you all! (Boy am I special...)

I printed that last post out twice...and shredded the sheets into pieces...which I will mix into the soil around my rose bushes.

I expect major league roses to result.

It was the product of an electronic salad maker.

You see? I am not at fault when I say you are a bit dumb!
Read again slowly this time around!
(And again push a counter not a pot shot old man)

Let me rephrase word by word the central point because dumbness...

The business of sizing which is which or witch fits in which has more to do with the volume of information then it has to do with actual matter!

YOU CANNOT DISTINGUISH ONE FROM THE OTHER!
Thus the Reality of a mind grasping a world or the Reality of a world inside a mind ARE the SAME!

(Hope that helps the slow readers)

OHHH, well that clears it all up. Time for tea.

Since Entropy is a measure of disorder, do you think our mislabeling of entropy's natural direction affects the way we think?

Why should something going from highly ordered to a low level of order be called 'higher entropy'. I think they were trying to confuse us.

...boy another pot shot not a counter...common Farma grow a pair of balls and do a bit of rhetoric and counter...with your fancy English trumping my Portuguenglish you surely can counter me on the spot savy an all as you are!

Its is a problem of combinations of patterns and probabilities of repeating those patterns comparatively with the lack of patterns as we UNDERSTAND there are patterns...and yes from there it follows that it is also a problem of languaging going on.

You see from the after match of the Big Bang heat keeps dissipating and tends to thermal equilibrium, homogeneity, which in Physics languaging equates to maximum entropy because there is nothing we can make much sense off in a thermal equilibrium. No Stars, no planets, no people, no microbes, nor even atoms... Just energy and virtual particles flying around "randomly", or, if one prefers, fluctuations in the quantum foam are more likely to produce "disorder" then anything "ordered" patterned, at least as we understand patterns. But the second Law which states that entropy always increases is not entirely true as the amount of energy/heat in the Universe never goes to actual zero and it can spring back up matter from energy in complex forms. A brain in information size is smaller then a complete person, smaller then a planet, a solar system, a galaxy and so on, and that was Boltzmann point...the likelihood of having a brain with memories is way more probable than having an ordered big Universe with complex phenomena everywhere...Now where I turned the argument around was by making the case that all that we have for Reality as observers is what fits in our brain...so regarding information size Reality in the brain or the brain in Reality are equivalent from our POV. In the end is just a word game going on...what makes me mad is that these monkeys actually believe they are saying something profound... the fracking idea is as old as Philosophy itself...it is called solipsism!