ON THE ORIGIN OF TIME TALKS WITH HOUSE RAYMUNDO
Dear Raymond,
This is definitely a very hard problem, but it is still a pleasure to exchange views rationally with you. We can disagree on the content of ideas, but on a common basis of reason, it is possible a fruitful exchange. First 
think you have to dissect the problem is the parts to see if they are less arduous. 1. The problem of the universe and that there is not nothing. The problem is current and not necessarily before the threshold of plank.
note that there is a universe. What I am saying only one explanation I think is a reflection or a perplexity on the scare of his life.
The universe is possible. Proof of this is that it is. (It would be absurd that the universe is impossible and yet it were).
Then we have that the universe is possible. It is not absurd or inconsistent that I had.
Now imagine that the universe had not (the question that there is a universe and not only alludes to believe may not be any), good if there was anything, it would be unusual for having been able to have a universe that did not exist.
imagine anything I think instead of the universe is impossible, (Eye impossible to think not to be) we restricted the limits of our thinking. I think not only should not issue any opinion on the unthinkable, but we can not.
2 .- Another problem is the state of the cosmos before the time of plank. On this at least we had time, the threshold plank is not the beginning of time but a point after a very tiny segment of time.
On the other hand is the inflationary theory, which is the most accepted and so far the most consistent with experimental evidence, in her first time would actually be imaginary time (root of -1) would be not only time back but a projection of time to a lower size.
According to the strings (not yet accepted theory) perhaps there is a plank before the time would not be infinitely divisible and plank time would that limit. An atom or temporal terms. There would be no earlier.
3 .- A third problem is the "before the origin of time." (This is a stage before the threshold of plank) but you can not talk about before temporarily or causally.
Here are two possibilities, one that can be a being or something without time or space. Then the universe could be in a timeless state only a "change of status" would realize their "origin" U
another possibility is that this is not possible.
I think that since the three-dimensional objects have an edge and are finite, but aya which are no longer an object of 4 dimensions (time) is also finite and can have an edge and that is the origin of the universe and the other end. Strange, difficult to conceive that there was anything serious infinite
When I referred to other universes, universes born I was referring rather to the multiple universe theories as scientific hypotheses rather than the old idea of \u200b\u200ba universe will tell and expands.
On this there is a beautiful article. Proof of the nature of scientific vagary. Helene et Le Meur
Daninos Franck. Notre Univers est-il unique? 1.Les Scenarios Paralleles des Mondes. 2. Quatre formes multiverse. 3.Dieu-il avait le choix in Creant l'Univers?. 4. Aurelien Barrau: Les Lois de Physique Menent aux the multiverse? The Recherche Setembre 2009 No 433 pp 38-53
4 .- The problem of the laws of the universe. It is good the distinction made by thermodynamic chaos chaos as the absence of laws. I think that is why there are laws in nature and this happens not just in chaos. Another problem is that if such a universe would be chaotic. Or that in the course of history of the universe this way a period of no laws to other laws.
On this I think all we know is that after there are laws plank. Before we know whether or not there. We can not say his absence or lack, just stop any trial. 5 .-
the existence of god, this is another problem too.
I do not think as Bertrand Russell, what to refute deism deism claim that those who believe. Whoever claims to support. If I said that descend directly from Nailamp, nobody could deny. But to accept that it is true that I depend on proof that nobody can deny.
do not think the existence of laws that Deimos discuss possible natural laws are not regulations, but findings.
If I see a stone that encounter on the road is green. I can not think that the fact that color means that someone has painted it and gave it the color. I accept that a stone should have some property. Natural laws are characteristic of being in the universe. It is impossible not to take them.
addition, some laws such as thermodynamics seem to be possible otherwise to be what they are. The laws of evolution may not be either. In the sense that given the inertia of matter, its lack of will, is expected to occur as is happening, and thus account for the majority of natural laws. Here the problem is that the universe is so coherent and absurd.
Here the matter is split into more trouble, perhaps we have evolved to understand the universe, and not that the universe is coherent in itself.
Even more, here is the problem that anyone could believe possible an absurd universe. In this case I think is something you can say but not thinking. And if I could be a universe. We could not examine it. or meditate on it. So we're trapped somehow restricted to the limits of coherent and indispensable. We do not know if the universe or just fit there.
6 .- Finally on my book, sorry to disappoint, it contains no argument against theism. Simply ignores God. There is a god because I believe that there is no reason to suppose. From what I know not of any book that has strong arguments in favor of theism. (If you have or there, an atheist would be an act of stubbornness or ignorance)
what I propose to continue (if continuous) of this nice chat dissenting, a couple of rules of conversation.
1 .- argue and do not qualify (can be called without argument, for example say that 1 +1 = 2 or E = MC2 are stupid and false ideas)
2 .- To adhere to written or said (not considered contained in the another, it is impossible to talk if the other would put words in his mouth to one.)
These things have landed among us, but not over anticipate and recommend to other meditators in this fascinating subject. Greetings
Lucho,
laberintum ile A typical mundum, sed redeuti Largus intranti nimius artus.
(The world is like a labyrinth, it seems too big to enter, too young to go.)
Dear Raymond.
understand that the two reasons plausible that you created the idea of \u200b\u200bGod are: 1 .-
the universe is full of symmetries, a phrase that reminds me of Einstein, who said the most incomprehensible of the universe is that it is understandable. Meaning
astonishment or perplexity that there is order in the universe. But say, if the nervous systems evolved in the universe as a means of adaptation to the environment, it is normal that we can understand.
On the other hand is a very beautiful sentence, I can not remember the author, an epistemologist that if, read:
science is to explain the complexity of the visible through the simplicity of the visible. Simplex veri sigillum ["Simplicity is the hallmark of truth"]
Well, apparently the natural laws of the universe are simple attributes that bear fruit with very complex interacting phenomena. Well
. This only allows us to be so surprised. The universe has laws. But it has to do with god. Why it is necessary for you god because of there natural laws? As I said before these laws are conventions or decisions (with the author or authors as human laws), but findings, to be expressions of the cosmos. There is another difference, human laws may be violated, we must strive to perform or an authority must monitor the exercise.
But natural law is inviolable, no one could testify that they accurately violated.
As a third difference, human laws are artificial and natural, well, are natural
From this we can deduce that if you believe that there are laws which alludes to the existence of a legislator is abusing the scope of an analogy. The word, laws have different meanings in the case of human or natural. As a legislator could have and others do not.
These laws rather than properties of the universe are the same universe. That somehow has to be. I see no need for god to exist natural laws. Moreover, the miracles are violations of natural law. So the finding that natural laws are inviolable in the world observed nowadays contradicts the existence of miracles or supernatural phenomena. As necessary to perform miracles in God, then the laws of God rather than speak deny it,
2 .- the anthropic principle
The existence of the universe allow the existence of man, not necessarily just possibly.
here the cause is the universe and its consequence (not required) is the man
not reverse the causal order we think that man is causing the universe to be like. And anyway, what's wonderful about the man that his existence is proof of a divine will?
If we see an oxide formed on a metal bar old should not think that the iron had the will to exist to produce oxide The oxide was simply
. Finally
disagreement with someone as smart and prepared as you always a pleasure and an enriching experience, I congratulate an opponent on your level. I ask permission to reproduce part of our conversation on my blog.
Sincerely, Lucho
Dear Luis, again express their views seem pretty reasonable and do not really think I can refute them. In fact, I am not a Deist, but I keep deism sympathy to the extent that has a strong heuristic: allows advance knowledge of the universe. If I throw the dice and get two six, and this is repeated 66 times, if there is no trick, worthy of awe, very difficult to explain by chance. However, it can be said as Democritus argued that everything is governed by chance and necessity. However, the theistic hypothesis states that the abundant symmetries of the universe can be explained in terms of a very thin, as if the universe were a computer. If you have a single principle that can explain the whole cosmos (so-called theories of everything that both dazzle Hawking), I do not think deism is tested, but quite plausible, it could not refuse like a stupidity.
I, Lucho, do you consider worthy of discussion only the weak anthropic principle, and not strong. Some argue that the strong principle is a tautology. I think it is a metaphysical idea (in the sense of Popper) that has tremendous heuristic value. I only say that (I think I approach each Kiko) well taken deism can do more for science than atheism that trashy, conceited, despises all search which starts from the dogma of non-belief.
Sincerely, Raymundo Casas
0 comments:
Post a Comment