Please explain this, "hard to imagine that universal physical laws just pop into existence out of nowhere."
Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?
- Thread starter Alter2Ego
- Start date
They are rational mathmatical constructs underlying all of reality, and whether they just popped into existence at the moment of the big bang, or if they just always existed even outside of time and space, there is not a single brilliant physicist in human history who can give a scientific or ontological explanation for their cause and origin.
Order is not transcendent. Laws of physics are derived from experience of the world.
That's not an explanation for the cause and origin of these mathmatical relationships and properties
You are asserting there is an origin.
I'm saying it's an unanswered question.
You are asserting they just popped into existence by accident.
Holy Rollers misuse scientific uncertainty to justify the god of Abraham.
Militant atheists try to sweep scientific uncertainty under the rug fearing it gives ammunition to bible thumpers.
I am not a dues paying member of either team, and real scientists and philosophers relish uncertainty and unanswered questions. It wouldn't be any fun otherwise
To you. It is your assertion.
That team stuff is stupid. Shows you are not mature enough to debate issues.
You seem to be afraid of unanswered questions and uncertainties.
Science and metaphysics do not, and possibly cannot, answer the ultimate questions about these types of things.
It is not logically necessary that the universe is mathmatically organized for the creation and preservation of complex matter. It could have been a universe of pure plasma, pure hydrogen, or pure energy if you just tweaked some of the underlying constants.
We probably gain more wisdom by asking the right questions, than asserting we shouldn't even bother to ask, or assuming that we already know somehow. Assuming we are close to omniscient doesn't teach us anything. Understanding the boundaries of our ignorance teaches us many things.
You use ad hominems. Learn how to argue.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
1. Given the theory of multiverses, there are dead universes where your "precise relationship" premise doesn't exist. Just like there are several reasons why a cake doesn't rise, the reasons why a Universe isn't able generate stars much less life.QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that, at the time, were unknown?
2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident, considering that, by definition, an accident causes "unfortunate" results and a spontaneous event shows lack of planning?
3. As concerns the elements on the Periodic Table, provide a credible explanation for why there was no need for an Intelligent Designer/God who caused them to come into existence, considering that all of the elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW" aka Periodic Law.
The Periodic Law
The periodic law was developed independently by Dmitri Mendeleev and Lothar Meyer in 1869. Mendeleev created the first periodic table and was shortly followed by Meyer. They both arranged the …chem.libretexts.org
2. Yes on chance. It's the Thought Experiment of a million chimps on a million typewriters over a million years eventually recreating the complete works of Shakespeare without a flaw. What's required here is an infinite number of Universes and we are in the one where chance favored life.
3. IDK. For all you and I know we're inside an elaborate version of SimCity or are each little pieces of an infinite power for entertainment purposes.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Militant atheists can be fun, even entertaining, but quickly grow tedious. At best you can give him something to think about, but like MAGAts and other political/religious extremists, he isn't really here to discuss anything. He's here to shove his POV down your throat and label anything different as "stupid".
It's always a contest to either see who can blatantly abuse scientific uncertainty to justify Christian belief, versus those who try to quickly sweep scientific uncertainty under the rug so we don't have to think about it.
Most people don't think about these kind of questions. Our minds are so conditioned to the prevailing cultural mileu and our physical experience with the world, that it doesn't even occur to them to wonder about the nature of being and reality at the most fundamental level. I certainly didn't start probing the boundaries of our ignorance with respect to these questions, until I started reading some well regarded physicists and philosophers of science.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Yup.
Good.
Sounds good to me. How about we just chalk this up as a matter of faith?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed most people don't although I'm less generous than you when attributing reasons. Looking at a standard IQ Bell Curve should explain a lot of it. LOL
That said, if more people were encouraged to look at science and less at feelings, opinions or corporate/political propaganda, then our society would advance faster and be healthier.
I'm pretty sure dolphins and chimpanzees are not consciously aware of how much they don't know. An armadillo doesn't realize it does not know the quadratic equation.
While some seem to favor the hypothesis that humans are ultimately capable of omniscience about the universe, I think our primate brains have substantial limitations in what we can know, and whether we can even understand the answers if they were given to us.
The holy rollers who abuse scientific uncertainty and masquerade it as proof of a Christian god probably aren't smart enough to realize just how bad their logic is.
On the flip side, the radical physical materialists are so quick to sweep scientific uncertainty under the carpet, they don't have an opportunity to acquire the wisdom and insight from probing the outer boundaries of our ignorance.
For one who takes the agnostic position when they have insufficient evidence to make a choice it is ironic that you make a clear claim about something you have no evidence of, or any real way to know.
Navel gazing and drooling over one's own supposed "intellect" while making unevidenced claims is not a form of acquiring wisdom.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
right after you explain to me why my eternal God needs a creator, Easter Bunny.........
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed humans will never become omniscient, but that doesn't mean life can't evolve into a form that is omnicient....given a few billion years.
BTW, how homo sapiens have been around for about 300,000 years. Modern thinking man about 30,000 years. Within the last couple hundred thousand years other human cousins have gone extinct. IDK why, but driven to extinction by humans remains a strong possibility.
No one really knows how the planet went from having a myriad of archaic human species to just having one human species, although theories abound. Cannibalism ?Agreed humans will never become omniscient, but that doesn't mean life can't evolve into a form that is omnicient....given a few billion years.
BTW, how homo sapiens have been around for about 300,000 years. Modern thinking man about 30,000 years. Within the last couple hundred thousand years other human cousins have gone extinct. IDK why, but driven to extinction by humans remains a strong possibility.
But not knowing the answer is 75 percent of the fun in science.