Can there be such a thing as nothing?

[QED]

If we try to clear our minds and use them to conceive of nothingness it almost hurts. It's as if it's an impossible feat for the imagination. Logic and language fully support this notion. How can there be such a thing as nothing? Is this logical contradiction just a play on words or could it be the reason why everything exists?

[harvey1]

Show me why I can't and I won't. What exactly would this cause be to create this effect? Cause and effect are linked with spacetime.

God exists outside spacetime, correct? Yet, as a Christian, you would need to believe that God has a causal tie-in with our world.

I've shown that the conservation of energy is valid if negative gravitational energy nulls out the positive energy in the universe.

I must have missed that. I would be interested in examining this particular hypothesis if you would give me details of how this gravitational nullification works.

Here's a decent explanation of what I'm talking about.

We have evidence of inflation which shows up in the cosmic background radiation. This indicates a quantum origin to the universe which suggests that quantum fluctuations (i.e., zero point energy) are responsible for the structures in the universe.

And this leads us to intelligence how exactly???

In this scenario, physical laws are prior to the material universe. These laws are mathematical laws, and therefore, only a small representation of the truths that exist. There would be an infinite number of mathematical theorems that influence the world and bring about its evolution. Collectively speaking, these theorems make up the mind of God. Of course, this is not to say that God is only mathematical theorems. However, from the standpoint of physical science, many of God's influences in the physical world are stated in terms of equations.

What I meant is that all these virtual particles have never been shown to spontaneously exist in a medium of nothingness. The existence of such particles in this particular medium does not in any way suggest they could spontaneously exist outside this medium.

Of course it's impossible to observe particles coming to exist in a "medium of nothingness" since such an observation could only take place if there was nothing, hence the impossibility of making that observation. However, what virtual particles show in principle is that matter can pop in to exist and pop out to not exist. The key question in all of this is whether this is a property of the laws of our universe, or whether this is a property of reality which our universe happens to exist because this property exists within the bounds of reality. The argument for the uncertainty principle being a property of reality (versus only a property of our spacetime) rests on a few well-known facts:

1. The laws of quantum mechanics are the most fundamental laws known to science, and they are even required in all the known possible solutions to reconciling the four forces of nature (e.g., string theory, quantum loop theory, etc.). This indicates that our universe is a consequence of these theories, hence quantum laws reside over and above spacetime (thus, virtual particles would exist even if our spacetime did not exist).
2. Inflationary theory has a sufficient degree of evidence to suggest something along the lines of inflation occurred, and the evidence of COBE indicates that quantum fluctuations produced galaxies, etc.. These fluctuations would have occurred when the universe was very small, and this would indicate that the universe was governed entirely by quantum laws at some point in its history (versus general relativity which mostly governs the (large) structures in the universe). If our universe was a quantum object exhibiting quantum behavior in terms of an inflaton potential causing its expansion along with quantum fluctuations making that expansion possible, then it would seem consistent with this evidence that the universe itself could have been the result of a quantum theory (which also jives with some of our most promising theories of quantum gravity).
3. The uncertainty principle and Schrodinger's equation can be shown to be mathematically derivable from simple axioms, therefore this would indicate that quantum mechanics is a result of some logico-mathematical requirement. Logico-mathematical requirements can be viewed as more fundamental than a material universe since most of the current structures in our universe (e.g., galaxies, stars, planets, etc.) can be shown to be evolved from simpler states based on logico-mathematical notions. Therefore, it would seem that logico-mathematical relations are prior to our universe. If the laws themselves are derivable from the same relations, then this would indicate that our spacetime is a result of logico-mathematical relations and not vice versa.
4. The Simplicity criterion has been very effective at explaining almost all phenomena that science has come across. The ultimate goal of simplicity is deriving the world from nothing. Due to the effectiveness of this criterion, it is compelling to say the least that modern theories are zeroing in on nothing (no pun intended). That would put the world in ultimately explainable grounds, at least as much as is possible. Given the universality of this criterion, this view of the universe arising from nothing should be taken very seriously.
5. From a Christian/biblical view, the world is viewed as God making it from nothing. This "universe from nothing" view should be a view that Christendom should be immediately comfortable in accepting.

[ST88]

If these instantiations require us to eliminate many other conceivably possible states, then the state that caused these instantiations is a royal flush. My question is why the royal flush. Why didn't the hand the Universe was dealt only come up junk? For example, had the universe just been a 1D universe doing nothing interesting, there would be no structures in the universe. Why wasn't there just a 1D universe?

From where I'm sitting, it looks more like Two Pair than a royal flush. Humans have had to do a lot of work to make the world truly habitable enough to have the leisure time to be able to ponder questions like this. Humans can't exist outside the protection of Earth's atmosphere, so what is it about this universe that makes it ideal for existence? The only thing this shows us is that this particular corner of this particular universe is adequate for our existence.

But as to your question: To 1D beings, this is a 1D universe. Just as to 4D beings this is a 4D universe (assuming a 4D). This particular universe didn't come up junk, and here we are. Had it not come up junk we wouldn't be here to marvel at it or make up things about it. This is an argument for the absence of nothingness.

The complexity is irrelevant. A natural system can appear irredeemably complex when we don't know even just one variable. Imagine not even knowing how many variables we've yet to define.

Sure, the complex nature of our universe may be drastically overstated. I accept that. However, there's still a very large number of hands where there are no Royal Flushes, regardless how "simple" the Royal Flush turned out to be. For example, could our Royal Flush be simpler than nothing at all, or even a 1D or 2D universe? I don't see why you would allow for that.

There is a probability for the royal flush (or the two pair) that is greater than zero. All this tells us is that what we are currently existing in actually could have happened. Further reflection might inform us that there have been many hands that didn't win the pot, or come up trump or whatever cards metaphor you might want to use. If quantum physics tells us that the universe is made up of probabilities, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume a probability function for the First Cause?

[harvey1]

The only thing this shows us is that this particular corner of this particular universe is adequate for our existence. Had it not come up junk we wouldn't be here to marvel at it or make up things about it. This is an argument for the absence of nothingness.

The problem with a variant of the weak anthropic principle is that you can use it for any explanation. Let's try some:

Gravity: This link has it all wrong. Gravity exists because if it didn't then humans wouldn't be here and there would be no one to ask why is there gravity. Next question...

Electromagnetic radiation: This link is wrong again. If there were no electromagnetic radiation then there would be no humans (for a variety of reasons), and therefore the explanation for EMR is that if we didn't have there would be no one to ask why is there EMR. Next question...

Photosynthesis: Of course this link is wrong again. No photosynthesis, then had the universe "not come up [with photosynthesis] we wouldn't be here to marvel at it or make up things about it."
.
.
.
.
etc. etc.

Somehow I don't think these are valid explanations...

There is a probability for the royal flush (or the two pair) that is greater than zero. All this tells us is that what we are currently existing in actually could have happened. Further reflection might inform us that there have been many hands that didn't win the pot, or come up trump or whatever cards metaphor you might want to use. If quantum physics tells us that the universe is made up of probabilities, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume a probability function for the First Cause?

Okay, you've now cited a variant of the strong anthropic principle. The problem here is that you assume a certain level of sophistication to start off with in order for the universe to generate so many possibilities. This is where you get your probability space. The problem is what determines the rich diversity of the probability space. For example, if the universe was nothing forever and ever (i.e., no spacetimes), the probability space is nill. P(U)=0. There is no probability that event U (our universe) will happen. The same situation if the Universe is only one 1D world forever and ever. Probability for our universe is zero. There's an infinite number of these situations where P(U)=0. My question is why are atheists so willing to accept luck despite the odds are infinitesimal that we would have a universe where the probability space was not zero. It strikes me as faith. My contention is that if you're gonna depend on faith, then why not put faith in something meaningful?

[ST88]

The only thing this shows us is that this particular corner of this particular universe is adequate for our existence. Had it not come up junk we wouldn't be here to marvel at it or make up things about it. This is an argument for the absence of nothingness.

The problem with a variant of the weak anthropic principle is that you can use it for any explanation. Let's try some:

Gravity: This link has it all wrong. Gravity exists because if it didn't then humans wouldn't be here and there would be no one to ask why is there gravity. Next question...

Electromagnetic radiation: This link is wrong again. If there were no electromagnetic radiation then there would be no humans (for a variety of reasons), and therefore the explanation for EMR is that if we didn't have there would be no one to ask why is there EMR. Next question...

Photosynthesis: Of course this link is wrong again. No photosynthesis, then had the universe "not come up [with photosynthesis] we wouldn't be here to marvel at it or make up things about it."
.
.
.
.
etc. etc.

Somehow I don't think these are valid explanations...

Holy Coperniki, Batman, you're right. Those aren't valid explanations. Gosh, those effects would be there if we observed them or not. Just like the universe would be here if we observed it or didn't. I agree with you here. The universe got along just fine without us for a very long time. As far as the universe is concerned, we don't matter all that much. But, I'll say it again, here we are. We can deal with it as we like, I suppose.

The "junk" universes aside, the one that has us in it is the one we can see. To assume that it is because we are is more ludicrous than to assume that we are because it is.

There is a probability for the royal flush (or the two pair) that is greater than zero. All this tells us is that what we are currently existing in actually could have happened. Further reflection might inform us that there have been many hands that didn't win the pot, or come up trump or whatever cards metaphor you might want to use. If quantum physics tells us that the universe is made up of probabilities, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume a probability function for the First Cause?

Okay, you've now cited a variant of the strong anthropic principle. The problem here is that you assume a certain level of sophistication to start off with in order for the universe to generate so many possibilities. This is where you get your probability space.

Did I really? You're the one pushing the multiple universes hypothesis to try and prove that nothing really exists somewhere. Assuming that instantiations happen in your bubble example, why wouldn't we expect that they are different universes every time? You stated before that our universe is a (3+1) universe. Now, I have very little firm grasp on what that actually means, but if it's a type of universe, then I have to assume that there are other types. I also would have to assume that neither one of us knows from what sort of amorphous foam these bubbles are spit. But if we were to assume that universes are popping out all over the place, then we would have to assume a pre-existing spit function. Or dribble function, maybe. You may choose to believe that this is God's loogie. I may not.

The problem is what determines the rich diversity of the probability space. For example, if the universe was nothing forever and ever (i.e., no spacetimes), the probability space is nill. P(U)=0. There is no probability that event U (our universe) will happen. The same situation if the Universe is only one 1D world forever and ever. Probability for our universe is zero. There's an infinite number of these situations where P(U)=0. My question is why are atheists so willing to accept luck despite the odds are infinitesimal that we would have a universe where the probability space was not zero.

There is no reason to suspect that the pre-universe condition was anything we might say about it. We can say that the probability that our universe would exist is greater than zero, since, well, it exists. Bing Boom Bam. The fact that there is a probability does not define the odds for the probability. You may wish to say that the odds are infinitesimal. It certainly helps your hypothesis to do so. You may wish to define the variables for existence as astronomically low probabilities. Let me know the numbers you come up with.

But every natural effect we have observed in this universe we have observed as a natural effect. We have not encountered anything we might remotely call a cause from God. Quite the opposite. As science increases in knowledge, the God model explanations fall away like spittle from a baby's mouth.

It strikes me as faith. My contention is that if you're gonna depend on faith, then why not put faith in something meaningful?

Oh, come on now. Science as faith? Faith causes one to expect an outcome despite the evidence and expect the evidence despite the outcome. You may say that believing God is not the answer is the same kind of faith as believing He is. But I say no it isn't. I say we should exhaust all the other possible possibilities before we say that something happened because of magic. You can stand there on your magic soapbox if you like because the light is better, but I'd like to be sure that there isn't something in the penumbra that might answer it more elegantly.

And, OK, I was going to let this go, but I can't: meaningful? Objectively speaking, is existing in a TRUE God model universe any more meaningful than existing in a TRUE mechanistic universe? The meanings are different, but there is not one that is better than the other. In the God model, you have meaning thrust upon you, but in the mechanist universe, you assign your own meaning. Personally, I prefer freestyle to paint-by-numbers, but that's just me. We all have our own paths to bear.

[harvey1]

Gosh, those effects would be there if we observed them or not. Just like the universe would be here if we observed it or didn't. I agree with you here. The universe got along just fine without us for a very long time. As far as the universe is concerned, we don't matter all that much. But, I'll say it again, here we are. We can deal with it as we like, I suppose. The "junk" universes aside, the one that has us in it is the one we can see. To assume that it is because we are is more ludicrous than to assume that we are because it is.

Please note, whenever the weak anthropic principle is cited as an explanation it is "us" that is being used to justify the phenomena in question. This is my objection to the weak anthropic principle. In my view the WAP should only be cited when we have sufficient reason to suggest that the complexity of the phenomena is not the issue. So, for example, the fact that we breathe oxygen and live on dry land is an example where the WAP can be used. Obviously, if we were intelligent fish then we wouldn't breathe oxygen or live on dry land, but this does not make the fact that we do anymore special than if we didn't. The WAP can be applied since we have sufficient reason to suggest that the complexity of intelligence need not depend on oxygen and dry land. In cases where we don't have such sufficient reason to explain why a phenomena exists (e.g., gravity, EMR, photosynthesis, the universe), we have no right to slough off our explanation by depending on the WAP as an explanation for the phenomena itself.

You're the one pushing the multiple universes hypothesis to try and prove that nothing really exists somewhere. Assuming that instantiations happen in your bubble example, why wouldn't we expect that they are different universes every time?

I have no problem with that expectation. In fact, I think if sufficient complexity exists to allow such bubbles this would be a warranted expectation.

But if we were to assume that universes are popping out all over the place, then we would have to assume a pre-existing spit function. Or dribble function, maybe. You may choose to believe that this is God's loogie. I may not.

Before you consider the alternatives you first have to carefully consider the materialist one. The question is, why not nothing at all? Or, why not just a 1D world? It makes sense to me. If it just happened to be an inflationary spit function, then we were exceedingly lucky. Now, why would you settle for a view where you have to have a Royal Flush in getting this inflationary spit function to work properly right off the bat (i.e., if it didn't work right off the bat there would be no spit and hence P(U)=0).

There is no reason to suspect that the pre-universe condition was anything we might say about it. We can say that the probability that our universe would exist is greater than zero, since, well, it exists. Bing Boom Bam. The fact that there is a probability does not define the odds for the probability.

This is not the way in which we should approach this problem. We know we are here, but that doesn't mean there was a probability function available in which a spit function to work its charms. There might not be a spit function, so you would be fooling yourself in thinking that there's a probability for a spit function.

The appropriate means to address this issue is to ask the simple question, what in the atheist scheme would require there to be something other than nothing? If you cannot answer this question without appealing to extreme luck, then why believe in atheism?? It should be dumped. It's wrong. It's wishful thinking to believe in extreme luck!

You may wish to define the variables for existence as astronomically low probabilities. Let me know the numbers you come up with.

I'm not a big believer in luck, perhaps because I have so little of it when I go to Vegas. I know that if you put a coin in a slot machine on your first visit, first bet at Vegas, chances are you are not going to get a million dollar return. It just doesn't happen to most people. So, do I need to know the odds to rule it out as being remotely realistic? No. I can easily conceive of putting a coin in the slot and getting little or nothing in return. That's how I see this spit function. I know that if there was a spit function in this pre-universe condition that it wouldn't produce something more than what a few lines of algorithm code could describe. So, atheism is a no brainer to rule out. We have to look for another explanation, one that doesn't depend on luck.

But every natural effect we have observed in this universe we have observed as a natural effect. We have not encountered anything we might remotely call a cause from God. Quite the opposite. As science increases in knowledge, the God model explanations fall away like spittle from a baby's mouth.

This just isn't the case. Einstein, for example, was an avid pantheist. He believed that the laws of nature (God) existed and that's why there is a universe of lawful order. And, the history of science has been one of seeing this God as more required in fields outside of physics. That's why we are seeing physicists employed in biology, economics, ecology, etc..

Oh, come on now. Science as faith? Faith causes one to expect an outcome despite the evidence and expect the evidence despite the outcome. You may say that believing God is not the answer is the same kind of faith as believing He is. But I say no it isn't. I say we should exhaust all the other possible possibilities before we say that something happened because of magic. You can stand there on your magic soapbox if you like because the light is better, but I'd like to be sure that there isn't something in the penumbra that might answer it more elegantly.

No, science doesn't have faith, those who believe in the Great Slot Machine in the Sky (GSMS) are those who have faith. I don't believe in GSMS, I believe in a God of order and law that exists to impose order in the world. This is the scientific view and I think the GSMS is actually an irrational view.

And, OK, I was going to let this go, but I can't: meaningful? Objectively speaking, is existing in a TRUE God model universe any more meaningful than existing in a TRUE mechanistic universe? The meanings are different, but there is not one that is better than the other. In the God model, you have meaning thrust upon you, but in the mechanist universe, you assign your own meaning. Personally, I prefer freestyle to paint-by-numbers, but that's just me. We all have our own paths to bear.

Whose meaning in the universe is better if meaning is subjective? For example, is Hitler's view that certain races hold no value to the human race equal to a view that all races are equal? If meaning is assigned to circumstances like faces are assigned to the shape of clouds, then why even talk in terms of meaning? Afterall, there are no real faces in the clouds, that's just called imagination. Is that what meaning is then, our imagination?

[Curious]

Show me why I can't and I won't. What exactly would this cause be to create this effect? Cause and effect are linked with spacetime.

God exists outside spacetime, correct? Yet, as a Christian, you would need to believe that God has a causal tie-in with our world.

I tend to think more that God exists within space-time but is unrestricted by our linear perspective. I also lean strongly towards space-time being eternal and that the perception of manifest time is dependent upon manifest space.

I must have missed that. I would be interested in examining this particular hypothesis if you would give me details of how this gravitational nullification works.

Here's a decent explanation of what I'm talking about.

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

Just a few points here. For gravitational attraction to work there must be mass, which indicates that the particles themselves must contain energy, not just the potential or kinetic energy involved, but energy equivalent to their mass times the speed of light squared. Without this mass energy, there would be no gravitational attraction. Now the writer of this seems to believe that somehow the total energy is equal to non-mass energy rather than the sum of mass energy plus non-mass energy. This can be demonstrated by once more using kinetic energy. Given that a 1kg ball travelling at 10 m/s has a EK of 0.5 mvv or 50J hitting a stationary 1kg ball then amounts to a 2kg ball travelling at 5m/s and has a EK of only 25J where would this additional 25J of energy go if both were in a closed system? The total energy is not just the EK but EK + mass energy. In the above example it discounts the fact that the gravitational attraction is a product of the mass energy of the particles involved. That the total energy remains unchanged does not amount to the energy equalling zero, only that the total energy change is zero. The distance of the particles from one another or the potential or kinetic energy of each does not alter the fact that they still contain mass energy themselves. Potential energy plus kinetic energy does indeed remain constant in the earth/ball example but this does not mean that either ball or earth do not themselves contain energy equal to mcc.

What I meant is that all these virtual particles have never been shown to spontaneously exist in a medium of nothingness. The existence of such particles in this particular medium does not in any way suggest they could spontaneously exist outside this medium.

Of course it's impossible to observe particles coming to exist in a "medium of nothingness" since such an observation could only take place if there was nothing, hence the impossibility of making that observation. However, what virtual particles show in principle is that matter can pop in to exist and pop out to not exist. The key question in all of this is whether this is a property of the laws of our universe, or whether this is a property of reality which our universe happens to exist because this property exists within the bounds of reality....

In an energy rich system we can see, if we use harmonics as an example, that particular frequencies can and do resonate to form other signatures which correspond to different forms, particles or waves. Due to the wave nature that we now see in sub-atomic "particles" is it not far more likely that the "virtual particles" could in fact be signatures of harmonic resonance between existing frequencies.It would seem unlikely, that since there is this observable wave nature in the sub-atomic domain, that we should never see such wave interaction? The more unstable the resonance, the higher the degree of entropy and the more violent the energy release. What is found on observation is that the higher the apparent energy, the faster the "payback" of the energy. This again does not suggest that the energy or the "particle" comes into existence from nothing but may be created due to the energy fluctuations that surround it.
It could also be suggested that these particles might also be evidence of universal creation and that the input energy is assimilated quickly into the present universe to power expansion of the universe. This is however beyond our investigative expertise at the present time as the rules that would apply for this to happen may be unknown, although if this was the case, then it is conceivable that particles from our own universe may disappear and reappear to power other universes, which might account for the fact that the energy shows such a speedy assimilation into our own universe, as the energy gradient would support the greater energy = faster assimilation theory..

[ST88]

Please note, whenever the weak anthropic principle is cited as an explanation it is "us" that is being used to justify the phenomena in question. This is my objection to the weak anthropic principle. In my view the WAP should only be cited when we have sufficient reason to suggest that the complexity of the phenomena is not the issue. So, for example, the fact that we breathe oxygen and live on dry land is an example where the WAP can be used. Obviously, if we were intelligent fish then we wouldn't breathe oxygen or live on dry land, but this does not make the fact that we do anymore special than if we didn't. The WAP can be applied since we have sufficient reason to suggest that the complexity of intelligence need not depend on oxygen and dry land. In cases where we don't have such sufficient reason to explain why a phenomena exists (e.g., gravity, EMR, photosynthesis, the universe), we have no right to slough off our explanation by depending on the WAP as an explanation for the phenomena itself.

Hmmm.. Do I believe in the Weak Anthropic Principle? Not really. Though I must concede that the carbon atom has some unique properties that allow for life-style chemicals, something that is not true of, say, silicon. I have a hard time accepting any Anthropic principle, as I don't believe that humans (or even life) are necessary in the grand scheme of things. Stuff happens.

You're the one pushing the multiple universes hypothesis to try and prove that nothing really exists somewhere. Assuming that instantiations happen in your bubble example, why wouldn't we expect that they are different universes every time?

I have no problem with that expectation. In fact, I think if sufficient complexity exists to allow such bubbles this would be a warranted expectation.

My original point with this is that there could have been innumerable other universe bubbles, whose numberlesse infinities would have satisfied the probability of your Royal Flush (1 in 2,598,960). In such a view, this universe, though not inevitable, had just enough of the right stuff to cause us to come into being.

Before you consider the alternatives you first have to carefully consider the materialist one. The question is, why not nothing at all? Or, why not just a 1D world? It makes sense to me. If it just happened to be an inflationary spit function, then we were exceedingly lucky.

Luck is not a valid assumption. "Luck" is the perception of a probability function. George Halas said that luck is the result of hard work. We may look at all the variables there are in the universe and say, if one of those things was just off just a little bit, nothing would have been the same. And I suppose that's true. But there are a couple of problems with this: 1) it may be that there are other universe bubbles out there that have some of those things just off just a little bit, and there are no anthropoids in them. 2) it may be that the values we observe for those just-so things are just-so because that's how they're supposed to behave.

Now, why would you settle for a view where you have to have a Royal Flush in getting this inflationary spit function to work properly right off the bat (i.e., if it didn't work right off the bat there would be no spit and hence P(U)=0).

In the multiple-universe-bubble view, there is no "right off the bat".

The appropriate means to address this issue is to ask the simple question, what in the atheist scheme would require there to be something other than nothing? If you cannot answer this question without appealing to extreme luck, then why believe in atheism?? It should be dumped. It's wrong. It's wishful thinking to believe in extreme luck!

You're asking the why question again. Why is there something other than nothing? Because there is something. Your "luck" goes only so far. It sounds completely bizarre to me that Atheism could be dismissed because of a probability function whose variables and odds we know nothing about. Please, dismiss it with the rational philosophical explanation that it is exclusionary, dismissive, and just as irrational as theism. The fact is, this universe is capable of sustaining this kind of life in a very very very very very very very narrow set of conditions. And that's about all we can say about it.

You may wish to define the variables for existence as astronomically low probabilities. Let me know the numbers you come up with.

I'm not a big believer in luck, perhaps because I have so little of it when I go to Vegas. I know that if you put a coin in a slot machine on your first visit, first bet at Vegas, chances are you are not going to get a million dollar return. It just doesn't happen to most people. So, do I need to know the odds to rule it out as being remotely realistic? No. I can easily conceive of putting a coin in the slot and getting little or nothing in return. That's how I see this spit function.

Now picture 3,000,000 people with 3,000,000 coins. Does anyone get the Royal Flush?

I know that if there was a spit function in this pre-universe condition that it wouldn't produce something more than what a few lines of algorithm code could describe.

Is that so? You know this? how many lines of code would we need for a unified field theory?

But every natural effect we have observed in this universe we have observed as a natural effect. We have not encountered anything we might remotely call a cause from God. Quite the opposite. As science increases in knowledge, the God model explanations fall away like spittle from a baby's mouth.

This just isn't the case. Einstein, for example, was an avid pantheist. He believed that the laws of nature (God) existed and that's why there is a universe of lawful order. And, the history of science has been one of seeing this God as more required in fields outside of physics. That's why we are seeing physicists employed in biology, economics, ecology, etc..

Einstein also denied quantum physics. But this isn't just about one person and what he believed. I am somewhat puzzled by your statement that God is required in other fields. I'm sure that some branches of ethics require the existence of religion, and economics also requires religion -- who would keep the economy going if not the people who purchase plates depicting the big-eyed, Anglo-Saxon Jesus?

But really, now. The term "god" when applied to scientific, or social-scientific, theories is a metaphor for the unknown unifying force. This is a variant on the god-of-the-gaps. Instead of filling in the missing information, the "god" argument seeks to assert a forced control over an entire system because it appears just "too chaotic" for it to make any sense. My own personal view of this is that this is the result of people thinking their fields of study exist in a vacuum. Economics without history and politics looks like a giant game board. Chemistry without physics looks "spooky". Biology without chemistry appears mystical. The functions behind these systems appear intelligent when looked at from a good enough distance because we are trained to recognize patterns. Your version of God is simply not necessary for these systems to work. Why do you apply the superfluous function to these systems?

those who believe in the Great Slot Machine in the Sky (GSMS) are those who have faith. I don't believe in GSMS, I believe in a God of order and law that exists to impose order in the world. This is the scientific view and I think the GSMS is actually an irrational view.

You may want to re-stuff your slot machine anthropoid, because the straw is leaking out.

Whose meaning in the universe is better if meaning is subjective? For example, is Hitler's view that certain races hold no value to the human race equal to a view that all races are equal? If meaning is assigned to circumstances like faces are assigned to the shape of clouds, then why even talk in terms of meaning? Afterall, there are no real faces in the clouds, that's just called imagination. Is that what meaning is then, our imagination?

In the future, I suggest the use of Jean Calvin just to shake things up.

You're assuming that "meaning" must have a pejorative connotation. Naturally, all views are equal in the sense that they are all views. But since humans have general common characteristics -- self-preservation, pleasure seeking/pain avoidance, etc. -- we can all give either validation or invalidation to specific views when we encounter them. If enough people choose to invalidate a view, then it becomes socially undesirable. An aggregate subjective is unwieldy and difficult to control. Yet there it is. But "Better" and "Worse" do not apply. Or should not apply. History is filled with examples of the kind of "betters"-and-"worsers" thinking that keeps people in the dark and hating each other.

[harvey1]

My original point with this is that there could have been innumerable other universe bubbles, whose numberlesse infinities would have satisfied the probability of your Royal Flush (1 in 2,598,960). In such a view, this universe, though not inevitable, had just enough of the right stuff to cause us to come into being.

This is using the strong anthropic principle argument.

Luck is not a valid assumption. "Luck" is the perception of a probability function... We may look at all the variables there are in the universe and say, if one of those things was just off just a little bit, nothing would have been the same. And I suppose that's true. But there are a couple of problems with this: 1) it may be that there are other universe bubbles out there that have some of those things just off just a little bit, and there are no anthropoids in them.

Would you agree that in order for there to be other universe bubbles that this is a more complex structure than if there were nothing at all? If you agree, then are we lucky that there were nothing at all?

In the multiple-universe-bubble view, there is no "right off the bat".

Sure there is. If there is a state of nothingness, then there is no "right off the bat." However, anything more than a state of nothingness requires a structure that has to be "right off the bat" by the fact that there is something.

You're asking the why question again. Why is there something other than nothing? Because there is something.

But, you're asking us to be atheists because atheism explains the universe better. In other words, it has a better answer for the why question than theism. When we look at the atheist answer and it is "because there is," that would be no different than the theist saying there is a God because there is. However, atheists don't like that answer. Okay, I'm giving you an answer and I'm now asking the atheist to respond to the same question. It is not good enough for you to say because there is. That's a statement of faith. I want a possibility that is reasonable so that I can consider atheism to be a valid way of looking at things. If the answer is that atheism cannot provide a reasonable answer, then it should be dumped as a reasonable possibility. At the barest minimum, theism should be given equal weight as a reasonable possibility. Atheists won't do that, which only leads one to believe that atheists just won't be open-minded. This is the reason why so many theists believe that atheism is an emotional rejection of God and not based on reasons.

Your "luck" goes only so far. It sounds completely bizarre to me that Atheism could be dismissed because of a probability function whose variables and odds we know nothing about.

Ah, but we do know about conceivable other possibilities. Ultimately, this is all we can deal with when addressing the issue of whether there is a God or not. We have to base our beliefs on the best known information at our hands. At the present time, the best we can say is that there is a real possibility that our universe could pop into existence from nothing. This is established based on a consistency in what we know about virtual particles in current quantum theory, observation of what appear to be quantum fluctuations in the COBE observations, and theories such as string theory.

Please, dismiss it with the rational philosophical explanation that it is exclusionary, dismissive, and just as irrational as theism. The fact is, this universe is capable of sustaining this kind of life in a very very very very very very very narrow set of conditions. And that's about all we can say about it.

Of course, I'm not talking about this facet of what is peculiar of the universe. It is an interesting facet in its own right that deserves a detail discussion in itself, but the fact that there is any structure in the universe at all must be dealt with at a more primitive level.

Now picture 3,000,000 people with 3,000,000 coins. Does anyone get the Royal Flush?

Sure, if you want me to give you that much leeway to get a Royal Flush, then you could possibly get a Royal Flush. But, I don't give you this much leeway. In order to justify your atheism you have to show why it is that there exists this high order of structure to make the universe a likely outcome (i.e., why we get a Royal Flush right from the get go). If you can't do that, then why consider atheism as a reasonable possibility? I don't think there is such a reason, and if others cannot produce it, then we should all be theists. That includes you, Spetey, QED, and everyone else. Why everyone here hasn't already changed their position over to theism is really beyond me to explain. The only thing I can think of is the emotional attachment that people have to atheism.

Is that so? You know this? how many lines of code would we need for a unified field theory?

Well, people have been writing cellular automata programs for quite some time, and no universe bubbles vaguely close to the ones that inflationary models require have been produced. This should be enough evidence to show that atheism is wishful thinking.

Einstein also denied quantum physics.

That's not correct. Einstein is largely responsible for quantum physics. What Einstein held was that local realism was valid and therefore any interpretation of quantum physics that denied local realism was incorrect. That doesn't mean he denied quantum physics. There's still a few quantum physicists who believe Einstein was right.

Your version of God is simply not necessary for these systems to work. Why do you apply the superfluous function to these systems?

God is necessary for science to work. If there are no physical laws, then there is no order to study in the universe.

You're assuming that "meaning" must have a pejorative connotation. Naturally, all views are equal in the sense that they are all views. But since humans have general common characteristics -- self-preservation, pleasure seeking/pain avoidance, etc. -- we can all give either validation or invalidation to specific views when we encounter them. If enough people choose to invalidate a view, then it becomes socially undesirable.

So, if you eliminate the races that oppose your view, then the surviving race has found meaning? If you take a subjective stance on an issue, then you must accept the subjective consequences of that position. If meaning is subjective, then the winners decide what meaning is.

[QED]

Either this is the only universe or we are part of an ensemble of universes called a multiverse. If the latter is the case then I think it's reasonable to say that harvey1's argument completely falls apart... and here is the clincher... regardless of the question of the luck involved. I say this because harvey1's account of god is fully satisfied with a universe in which we eventually flourish. A multiverse containing no communication between its members is not a requirement of this satisfaction.

But why should we expect to be part of a multiverse? We would be in very good company for one thing. Leading cosmologists like Stephen Hawking accept the likelihood of this outcome. But we also have other hints like the existence of singularities at the heart of black holes and the fractal nature of the cosmos. It also helps to remember that just because the universe looks big and heavy and seems to have been around a long time, this is a purely subjective, human, assessment. It would all fade into insignificance compared to the totality of the multiverse. In other words everything might look rather special to us now but by applying the countless lessons already learnt from studying nature, the probability is that this universe is somewhat mediocre.

[harvey1]

But why should we expect to be part of a multiverse? We would be in very good company for one thing. Leading cosmologists like Stephen Hawking accept the likelihood of this outcome.

We both know, QED, that Hawking is a pantheist and believes in the existence of God. Hawking has no problem in a multiverse because he believes that a mathematical order exists which instantiates that multiverse. When you take an atheist perspective, then you have to provide a reason why we should expect a sophisticated structure such as a multiverse which doesn't also depend on a pantheist/theist notion of mathematical order reigning supreme in the Universe.

It would all fade into insignificance compared to the totality of the multiverse. In other words everything might look rather special to us now but by applying the countless lessons already learnt from studying nature, the probability is that this universe is somewhat mediocre.

Let's take note of the key words here. You are basically saying that atheism might possibly be correct, but this is not what the atheist is in fact saying. The atheist is saying that it is unreasonable not to believe in this fantasy. That's the heart of the problem as far as I see it. There's a good reason to believe like Hawking that the Universe has a mathematical order behind it, and atheists are unfairly and unjustifiably saying it is unreasonable to believe this. They do so on might's and would be's but nothing substantiated whatsoever. In terms of what we can conceive, there is no reason to expect a multiverse over nothing at all. So, on what basis does the atheist ask us to take for granted that a multiverse is more primitive than Hawking's mathematical order? The answer: atheist faith. I'm sorry, I find such empty faith to be of little incentive to become a strong fundamentalist believer of atheism.