Anyway, always a delight to listen to Penrose. He is someone who probably won’t be appreciated more widely until after he has gone. One of the few living legends of physics still with us - far outshone Hawkings imo! — I like sushi
if the bounce is true and the big bang happened within the space of a previous Universe then the need for a 'first cause' or god, would either be not needed at all or be so far back in time eons that it has no significance at all to the Universe we exist in. THIS Universe would therefore be a result of the bounce effect and not a creation of god(s). — universeness
↪Joshs What are you talking about? He is not a philosopher nor a psychologist. — I like sushi
Ironically, this needle also applies to a God. "What caused a God to exist?" — Philosophim
The fact that Peterson didn’t seem to get that the tiles were not actual tiles but part of a mathematical problem made me feel embarrassed for him — I like sushi
Anyway, always a delight to listen to Penrose. — I like sushi
Have you read ‘Cycles of Time’? The way he explains matrixes is utterly breathtaking! Makes something so abstract almost tangible — I like sushi
Science will never solve the God issue, because God really isn't about science. — Philosophim
But, due to the nature of a first cause, it could be a simple particle appearing. — Philosophim
If the current matter in the universe turn to photons in the future, the energy of the photons dilutes more and more. The universe will not contain any energy anymore. Time still continues but there is nothing left anymore to create a new universe from. — Haglund
I don't see what gods have to do with this. — Haglund
If they are the fundaments, there ain't something to explain them — Haglund
I don't think Penrose agrees with you here. He suggests that there can be an energy concentration that causes a new big bang — universeness
I am glad you agree that gods have nothing to do with this. — universeness
It doesn't matter what explanation you propose. It never will. Someone will always just move the needle back and say, "But what caused that?" Ironically, this needle also applies to a God. "What caused a God to exist? — Philosophim
But, due to the nature of a first cause, it could be a simple particle appearing. — Philosophim
The point is: Don't get excited and think this will change theist's minds. Theism is about far more than science and logic — Philosophim
Theism is far LESS than science and logic and of much less value, in my opinion. — universeness
But at least He is regressed to an infinite distance. — apokrisis
But theism is far MORE in giving meaning and reason for existence and life. — Haglund
But a big bang doesn't need concentrations of photonic energy. It needs concentrations of inflationary energy. — Haglund
Those come in at the cause of the unintelligent spark. What brought virtual particles into existence? — Haglund
Why can't we just call the unintelligent spark, god? — universeness
Because it's not intelligent. It needs intelligence, call it intelligent design, to create the spark. The spark can't explain itself. I think there are zillions of these sparks — Haglund
No he doesn't believe in inflation — Haglund
The problem is how to put the bang in that low entropy future. The energy balance doesn't fit. — Haglund
But it must have happened if he is correct about the 6 'Hawking points,' unless they can be successfully accounted for by other means. — universeness
I see you have a good grasp of Penrose, but nothing at all of reading between the lines.↪Joshs
What are you talking about? He is not a philosopher nor a psychologist. — I like sushi
nothing at all of reading between the lines. — L'éléphant
I wasn't responding to Joshs. I was reacting to I like sushi.Just out of interest, what do you think Joshs has missed? — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.