On 8/2/2012 5:06 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/2/2012 12:18 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Ronald,
I have a severe problem with this entire thread!
What exactly determines the particular properties, such as
charge, angular momentum, mass, etc., of this universe?
They are conserved quantities, so if they are zero now it follows that
they were zero at the origin, which suggests the universe came from
nothing.
Hi Brent,
I think that that is the consensus opinion of the members of this
list.
Why are we assuming that the choice of what went into the zero net
sum is a prior definite and constrained. The question of the universe
here is not so simple that it can be represented the same way that we
can note that 1 - 1 = 0. Even in arithmetic model, we have to offer
within our explanations what where the summands
<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/summands#English> that let to the sum
of net zero. For example, 5 - 5 = 0, 4 - 4 = 0, etc. x - x = 0. What
is x? We cannot assume without discussion what is x!
Sure we can. That's the advantage of mathematics, x-x=0 regardless of
what number is x.
But do you see my point? Anything and everything can be generated
from zero in this way. The hard question is how is it that we only
observe a tiny finite fragment of this infinity?
It seems to me that this entire thread is infected with post hoc
ergo propter hoc reasoning and we should reconsider exactly what is
being contemplated. I suggest reading of a good book on Cosmology,
such as "Principles of Physical Cosmology" by Phillip James Edwin
Peebles
<http://books.google.com/books/about/Principles_of_Physical_Cosmology.html?id=AmlEt6TJ6jAC>,
where one finds a very nice discussion of these issues of without the
nonsense of logical fallacies.
There's no logical fallacy in noting that a universe that came from
nothing should have zero net energy and other conserved quantities.
The fallacy is to assume that what is the case must always be the case.
Peebles book is pretty old, so it's not going to include knowledge of
the CMB from WMAP and COBE or the discovery that the expansion of the
universe is accelerating or the holographic principle. I'd recommend
Vic Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos", Sean Carroll's "From
Eternity to Here", or Alex Vilenkin's "Many Worlds in One".
Nah. I like Pebbles because it is hard nose empiricism and openly
so. No speculations unless labeled as such.
Brent
On 8/2/2012 2:49 PM, ronaldheld wrote:
If this universe has zero net energy charge and angular momemtum, I see no
problem being created via a chaotic inflation scenario.
--
Onward!
Stephen
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
Onward!
Stephen
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
