That makes it more complex, but I agree the same basic problem persists.
Joel Send a noteboard - 07/10/2009 12:11:07 PM
Kinetic Energy isn't a conserved quantity, energy is (barring time zero of course) and so is momentum, but not kinetic energy. Entropy is a non-conserved quantity too, barring time zero again. Though in any steady-state model entropy over an infinite period of time does go down occassionaly. Again, in a steady-state, because if you take a deck of cards in an order and shuffle it, it's entropy will increase, but if you shuffle it enough times, it will return to it's orginal state. This principle leads a lot of us to believe, and God I hate this term, that the 'multi-verse' may be a steady state system. Even there though, you do end up back at the 'where the f did it originally come from' issue.
We can approach it on that basis, but something must still account for the transformation of potential energy into kinetic, and, once again, there's nothing to do so in the Big Bang. And yes, the "multi-verse" (which I agree is an awful term; the whole point of the term "universe" is that it's all encompassing, so there's only one, by definition) does simply dodge the issue. We can assign the Big Bang to the result of some a priori action in a larger realm, but at some point explaining THAT hypothetical realm is still reduced to an enigma.
Lot's of people play with a 'temporary quantum flux' thing as the origin reason, since energy only has to be conserved over a specific ratio of time to energy and that time is governed by the fundamental constants, which might not be the same outside our 'universe', but then you still fall into the 'so where'd that other stuff come from' issue. But it might explain our universe's origins, under the 'over an infinite period of time it shall rain snickers bars' rule of quantum mechanics.
It might, but then it's just a special case of a larger phenomenon; the Big Bang isn't as "big" as we presume. We still need a First Cause, whether in this "universe" or another of which it's only part. This is also the kind of thing that REALLY pisses me off at physicists who know better; you don't assert a COMPLETELY unobservable, unverifiable and unreproducible theorem and call it "science" just to avoid the supernatural, because it doesn't avoid the supernatural at all, nor is it science. Likewise, just because saying, "the pulled-out-of-my-button particle explains this force" resulted in that particle being experimentally observed the first few times doesn't mean it always will. Give me a better REASON than "because my theory requires it. " Or start conducing experiments in search of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; one mans conjecture is as good as anothers....
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Do you think there's some kind of spiritual substance in the universe?
14/09/2009 02:42:22 PM
- 812 Views
On a gut level, I think all substance is teleologically tied to one or more kinds of consciousness.
14/09/2009 04:03:31 PM
- 548 Views
aaah but who says we can percieve all there is to percieve in relation to our persons?
14/09/2009 04:14:08 PM
- 509 Views
But merely positing a soul (as a spiritual substance) doesn't actually explain anything.
14/09/2009 07:46:35 PM
- 487 Views
i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul"
14/09/2009 07:50:27 PM
- 545 Views
Re: i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul"
14/09/2009 08:05:41 PM
- 544 Views
I think there is definitely a spiritual force that underlies the unity of all things
14/09/2009 06:11:01 PM
- 559 Views
Rum.
14/09/2009 08:25:46 PM
- 548 Views
YES! *NM*
16/09/2009 02:10:55 PM
- 253 Views
How are we not married? *NM*
19/09/2009 04:10:13 AM
- 227 Views
Not the way I'd put it, as jh notes, but unquestionably.
15/09/2009 03:17:22 PM
- 535 Views
The material universe precludes a purely natural cause.
18/09/2009 12:04:16 PM
- 614 Views
One little correction
20/09/2009 12:34:13 AM
- 623 Views
That makes it more complex, but I agree the same basic problem persists.
07/10/2009 12:11:07 PM
- 652 Views