Complexity? Really?

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

No you didn’t go to the thread and show me where you answer the question about how do atheists decide if something is or is not evidence for God.

There is no answer, you’d show me if there was.

I have answered this several times, and I invite anyone to read the threads and see that I have. I am done wasting time looking back through threads only for you to either hand wave them away, or ignore them completely when I have done so.

I will note however that you have not offered any explanation despite being asked repeatedly to do so, what your OBJECTIVE criteria is for disbelieving all the deities I do, except for one. Again I invite anyone reading, to read the entire discourse if they are minded to see whether this assertion is true.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Calilasseia

You have yet to provide genuine evidence that this entity even exists, let alone poofed an entire universe into existence by waving its magic todger about.

What would convince you?

Sufficient objective evidence, as you were told on your first post 7 months ago. Or failing that I asked you present what you thought was your most compelling reason or “evidence” a deity exists outside of the human imagination.

[Sheldon]

@Cognostic

So the argument goes, “Gee, but the universe is so damn complex! It must have been created by a God.”

My question… How do we know the universe is complex?

Given we have only one example we can objectively scrutinised, I see exactly what you’re saying. I also don’t accept that complexity infers design, sufficient objective evidence is what demonstrates design, and the unerring fact that designed things don’t occur naturally. It’s also a dishonest argument, as theists who use it believe everything is designed, so complexity is a false criteria they use because they assume complex things are harder to understand, and if you don’t understand something then humans have always had a propensity to invoked superstition.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Calilasseia

However, it so happens that the late Stephen Hawking was working on such a model, about which I’ve posted in another thread. So that’s another of your assertions flushed down the toilet.

No he wasn’t, if you care to challenge me on this feel free.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Kevin_Levites

I’ve said this several times, but just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean we should automatically invoke God.

I agree.

@Kevin_Levites

If, however, we decide to invoke God every time we don’t understand something, then we would still have women dying from childbed fever after giving birth.

I agree.

@Kevin_Levites

Invoking God accomplishes nothing.

What leads you that conclusion?

[Calilasseia]

@Sherlock-Holmes

No he wasn’t, if you care to challenge me on this feel free

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

You make this so easy.

Oh wait, I posted explicitly about the late Stephen Hawking’s work on this, which is being continued by his Ph.D student Thomas Hertog, in this detailed post.

You can’t even exert the diligence required to use the forum search function.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Calilasseia

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

You make this so easy.

Oh wait, I posted explicitly about the late Stephen Hawking’s work on this, which is being continued by his Ph.D student Thomas Hertog, in this detailed post .

You can’t even exert the diligence required to use the forum search function.

No sir, pointing me at a post you made, that embodies your own interpretation of something is not what I asked for. I asked for a reference, a website, a PDF thesis etc untainted by your own biases, something written by Hawking.

I really do not think my request is unreasonable, do you?

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

No he wasn’t, if you care to challenge me on this feel free.

To be honest at this stage I’d be disinclined to believe you even if you said the sun was coming up tomorrow, given how relentlessly dishonest you’ve been.

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Kevin_Levites

I’ve said this several times, but just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean we should automatically invoke God.

I agree.

These threads are littered with you invoking argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, to insert your deity into gaps in our knowledge, so that is an hilarious and mendacious about turn.

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Kevin_Levites

Invoking God accomplishes nothing.

What leads you that conclusion?

It has no explanatory powers.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Sheldon

These threads are littered with you invoking argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, to insert your deity into gaps in our knowledge, so that is an hilarious and mendacious about turn.

This is nothing more than your interpretation of some of the things I’ve said. I could easily make comparable disparaging sweeping dismissive statements about your posts. But that is juvenility and I have no time for such a pointless activity.

[Calilasseia]

@Sherlock-Holmes

I could easily make comparable disparaging sweeping dismissive statements about your posts. But that is juvenility and I have no time for such a pointless activity.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Oh wait, YOU’VE ALREADY DONE THIS REPEATEDLY!!!

Do you have any self-awareness?

[Calilasseia]

@Sherlock-Holmes

No sir, pointing me at a post you made, that embodies your own interpretation of something is not what I asked for. I asked for a reference, a website, a PDF thesis etc untainted by your own biases, something written by Hawking.

If you had bothered to READ that post, you would have learned that I not only supplied a link to the science journalism article informing of the work in question, but that I quoted extensively therefrom Hertog’s own exposition of the work he collaborated upon with Hawking. Indeed, the entire article was WRITTEN BY THOMAS HERTOG HIMSELF. Who was Hawking’s chief collaborator on the scientific research in question.

Do you even bother checking the most elementary details before posting your excremental drivel?

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Calilasseia

If you had bothered to READ that post, you would have learned that I not only supplied a link to the science journalism article informing of the work in question, but that I quoted extensively therefrom Hertog’s own exposition of the work he collaborated upon with Hawking. Indeed, the entire article was WRITTEN BY THOMAS HERTOG HIMSELF. Who was Hawking’s chief collaborator on the scientific research in question.

I apologize, I did not notice the URL.

I took a look at the articles and found (as I fully expected to) this:

@Thomas Hertog

Hawking and I view time and causality as “emergent qualities,” having no prior existence but arising from the interactions between countless quantum particles.

Note the emphasis I added. The hypothesis presupposes the existence of “quantum particles” their reasoning based on the presumption of something with material properties already existing.

So why do you regard that as being a naturalistic models for the origin of the laws of nature?

It presumes laws already, laws that govern the interactions between particles which it also presumes to have existed.

This not an explanation for the origin of material quantities, laws and so on, it is a theory that describes our currently perceived laws in terms of a pre existing material world.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

These threads are littered with you invoking argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, to insert your deity into gaps in our knowledge, so that is an hilarious and mendacious about turn.

This is nothing more than your interpretation of some of the things I’ve said.

Correct, what’s your point?

@Sherlock-Holmes

I could easily make comparable disparaging sweeping dismissive statements about your posts.

Crack on, again your point escapes me?

@Sherlock-Holmes

But that is juvenility and I have no time for such a pointless activity.

You think highlighting the irrationality of your arguments by pointing out your relentless use of known logical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies is juvenile? I can only strongly disagree. Your claim that your arguments are rational has been demonstrated as false, all anyone need do is read them. If it’s an example you want here is one:

@Sherlock-Holmes

The universe is evidence of creative intelligence, it can’t be evidence for anything else I think.

This is an argument from personal incredulity fallacy, and it is your very first post. You’re welcome, if you want more I am happy to oblige.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Sheldon

This is an argument from personal incredulity fallacy, and it is your very first post. You’re welcome, if you want more I am happy to oblige.

Speculate what might the universe be evidence of?

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

This is an argument from personal incredulity fallacy, and it is your very first post. You’re welcome, if you want more I am happy to oblige.

Speculate what might the universe be evidence of?

Pointless as a) I made no claims relating to that, and b) you did, and c) I highlighted your claim was a personal incredulity fallacy, and thus demonstrated your claim was irrational, which is the point as you claimed pointing out your irrational claims and arguments was juvenile. You also claimed you arguments for a deity were rational, and they demonstrably are not. Though the hilarity of you thinking to can roll past posts exposing this, and then use hand waving to dismiss the claim later, is palpably hilarious.

Almost as hilarious as you trying to handwave evidence away that your argument was irrational, by using yet another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, by demanding I offer an alternative to your fallacious claim, here:

“Speculate what might the universe be evidence of?”

[Calilasseia]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Note the emphasis I added. The hypothesis presupposes the existence of “quantum particles” their reasoning based on the presumption of something with material properties already existing.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

You make this so fucking easy.

Guess what, Looby Loo? Quantum particles aren’t “presupposed” to exist, they DO EXIST. Heard of electrons have you? Which are quantum particles. Likewise, so are protons and neutrons, along with the vast panoply of particles that have been generated in particle accelerators.

Did you have even basic science classes to attend as a child?

Keep digging that hole, it’s amusing to watch.

@Sherlock-Holmes

It presumes laws already, laws that govern the interactions between particles which it also presumes to have existed.

Once again, total and utter poppycock.

We know that revelant interactions exist between particles such as electrons, because, wait for it, the interactions have been subject to precise measurements.

In the case of electrons, we’re able to manipulate them in devices such as electron microscopes. And able to manupulate them therein with exquisite precision.

Likewise, the people at CERN are able to synthesise particles ranging from charmed quarks to the Higgs Boson. It won’t take the diligent long to find relevant information pertaining to these results.

@Sherlock-Holmes

This not an explanation for the origin of material quantities, laws and so on, it is a theory that describes our currently perceived laws in terms of a pre existing material world.

Except that oops, Hertog himself stated that this work is an attempt to explain the current state of physical laws, as a result of their evolution from past states and their superpositions, which is encapsulated succinctly in one of his papers as “sum over histories”. Indeed, a relevant paper is this one, namely:

Populating The Landscape: A Top Down Approach by S. W. Hawking and Thomas Hertog, Physical Review Letters D, 73: 123527 (2006)

From that paper, we have:

@Hawking and Hertog (2006)

Here we put forward a different approach to cosmology in the string landscape, based not on the classical idea of a single history for the universe but on the quantum sum over histories [12]. We argue that the quantum origin of the universe naturally leads to a framework for cosmology where amplitudes for alternative histories of the universe are computed with boundary conditions at late times only. We thus envision a set of alternative universes in the landscape, with amplitudes given by the no boundary path integral [13].

The measure on the landscape provided by no boundary initial conditions allows one to derive predictions for observations. This is done by evaluating probabilities for alternative histories that obey a set of constraints at late times. The constraints provide information that is supplementary to the fundamental laws and act as a selection principle. In particular, they select the subclass of histories that contribute to the amplitude of interest. One then identifies alternatives within this subclass that have probabilities near one. These include, in particular, predictions of future observations. The framework we propose is thus more like a top down approach to cosmology, where the histories of the universe depend on the precise question asked.

We illustrate our framework in a model landscape that admits several distinct classes of inflationary histories for the universe. In this model, we predict several properties of the subclass of histories that are three-dimensional, expanding and approximately flat at late times. We also discuss in general terms the predictions of top down cosmology in more complicated models like the string landscape.

While I’m the first to admit that this work is pretty abstract, the correctness thereof has numerous serious implications for the history of the universe, implications that utterly destroy mythological assertions. But I digress. The paper continues with:

@Hawking and Hertog (2006)

In fact, the quantum state of the universe at late times is likely to be independent of the state on the initial surface. This is because there are geometries in which the initial surface is in one universe and the final surface in a separate disconnected universe. Such metrics exist in the Euclidean regime, and correspond to the quantum annihilation of one universe and the quantum creation of another. Moreover, because there are so many different possible universes, these geometries dominate the path integral. Therefore even if the path integral had an initial boundary in the infinite past, the state on a surface S at late times would be independent of the state on the initial surface. It would be given by a path integral over all metric and matter field configurations whose only boundary is the final surface S. But this is precisely the no boundary quantum state [13]

See integral (2) immediately beneath the above paragraph in the paper.

Immediately this continues as follows:

@Hawking and Hertog (2006)

where the integral is taken over all regular geometries bounded only by the compact three-geometry S with induced metric g³_ij and matter field configuration φ. The Euclidean action S_E is given by⁵

at which point we have another integral expression. The paper continues with:

@Hawking and Hertog (2006)

One expects that the dominant contributions to the path integral will come from saddle points in the action. These correspond to solutions of the Einstein equations with the prescribed final boundary condition. If their curvature is bounded away from the Planck value, the saddle point metric will be in the semi-classical regime and can be regarded as the most probable history of the universe. Saddle point geometries of particular interest include geometries where a Lorentzian metric is rounded off smoothly in the past on a compact Euclidean instanton. Well known examples of such geometries are the Hawking–Moss (HM) instanton [17] which matches to Lorentzian de Sitter space, and the Coleman–De Luccia (CdL) instanton [18], which continues to an open FLRW universe.

Then we have this:

@Hawking and Hertog (2006)

The usual interpretation of these geometries is that they describe the decay of a false vacuum in de Sitter space. However, they have a different interpretation in the no boundary proposal [19]. Here they describe the beginning of a new, independent universe with a completely self-contained ‘no boundary’ description⁶. By this we mean, in particular, that the expectation values of observables that are relevant to local observers within the universe can be unambiguously computed from the no boundary path integral, without the need for assumptions regarding the pre-bubble era. The original de Sitter universe may continue to exist, but it is irrelevant for observers inside the new universe. The no boundary proposal indicates, therefore, that the pre-bubble inflating universe is a redundant theoretical construction.

There is of course, much more to explore in that paper, but I’ll settle for the above for now.

Oh, and by the way, virtual particles are popping in and out of existence in the vacuum all the time. Indeed, several features of the Standard Model of Particle Physics relies upon this to perform precise calculations of various particle masses. Furthermore, the Casimir Experiment provides a reasonably direct experimental test of the phenomenon.

I’ll await the usual apologetic fabrications erected to try and peddle the notion that you know more than actual tenured cosmological physicists.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

[Sherlock-Holmes]

[Calilasseia]

Once again, you’re in no position to lecture anyone on discoursive conduct.

[Sheldon]

1. So what memories are you claiming you were born with?

2. What is your OBJECTIVE criteria for disbelieving all the deities I do, except for one.

3. Give at least one of the “many good examples” you claimed there are for believing the origin of the gospels was supernatural magic?

4. What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

5. Explain in detail with objective evidence how you believe your deity used magic to create everything.

There are of course innumerably more questions you’ve dodged, but this will do to be going on to highlight your relentless dishonesty.