Phil Deakins

Madelaine McMasters wrote: If the "always there" idea doesn't hold any water, then the universe simply appeared from nowhere/nothing. While I'm happy to call that a creation, it eliminates the creator.. Good. I call it a creation too And in that it is a creation, it must have a creator - not necessarily an intelligent one but something (or some intelligence) caused the creation to happen - a creator. You didn't provide any alternative ways that existance might have come into being. You said you could think of many of them. Sure, I could propose that I'm imagining all this, making you the creation of my mind. That sounded pretty stupid when my philosophy professor proposed it to me 25 years ago, and I countered that if I was imagining it all, and I had free will, I'd imagine him proposing a better explanation for his own existence. I'm sure he'd heard such retorts before. I could imagine that the laws of physics change over time in a way we can't detect. I bolded the important words in that theory, as they can be grafted on to the tail end of any silly theory, rendering it unassailable and potentially pointless. This is an accusation the string theorists face. While I can imagine literally endless explanations for all we see, just like people have done for thousands of years, I wouldn't believe a single one of them. Figuring this out will be a cooperatve venture. No one of us has the wherewithall to collect the needed evidence to reject the theories we're advancing. And so, like most of humanity, I must have faith in something outside of myself. But unlike most of humanity, I won't extend my faith outside humanity. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you wrote that you can imagine many ways by which existance came into being. I can only think of one - that it was created. No matter. Excuse the purple, Phil, it's my favorite color today ;-) I like magenta (it's not purple and I sometimes colour my posts too.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: What you will see me argue is that I see no evidence that a creator is taking an active role in daily life, nor that all the intricacies of existence were mapped out by a grand planner. Maybe someday an experiment will show otherwise, but until then, I think it's more likely that people are praying to their imaginations because the "side effects" of that particular irrationality have proved evolutionarily advantageous. You haven't seen me argue that either. I've never mentioned or even hinted at an intelligent creator, and yet we seem opposed in this discussion Things like the cosmic microwave background do point towards the Big Bang, but have nothing to say about time before that point. If we are confined to witnessing only four of a potential ten or eleven dimensions, we may never know what the heck is going on. If the "always there" idea doesn't hold any water, then the universe simply appeared from nowhere/nothing. While I'm happy to call that a creation, it eliminates the creator. That's okay by me, as is the "always there" idea. That all falls into the vast pool of "things I don't know".

I think that the preference for "came into being" is because the word 'created' feels to imply an intelligence. It doesn't imply it but it feels like it does The 'bouncing' universe idea isn't new, although the work written about in that article sounds newer. There's no date on it. Even so, for the universe to 'bounce' requires existance so, although it is right in keeping with the topic of the thread, I still come back to the fact that a bouncing universe requires the existance of 'stuff', and that requires a creation (a bringing into being).

Madelaine McMasters wrote: While it may be that we ultimately can't prove the presence or absence of creation, science doesn't really care, does it? It simply seeks to find the truth, as revealed by nature. Science is done by people who may care about such things, but the overall messy process seems to be able to make progress even so. No, science doesn't care about how existance came into being, because science knows that it'll never find out. Science can only deal with existance. One might make a case for people having an interest in refuting creators that take an active role in daily human life, and can therefore be used as instruments of coercion (my God is the one true God, so I can rightfully take your stuff), but I can't see a reason for people to expend tremendous energy railing against the idea that our universe might have been "created" as a random result of physical laws we've not yet understood. And yet, when I said that the universe must have been created by someone or something, you argued against it Whether something always existed or simply popped out of nowhere is the sort of philosophical question best left to philosophers. I don't see a way to use the term "creator" without implying more than the evidence suggests... so far. It's not that I prefer a "creator" not to be the case, I think it's that most people prefer that "creator" be the case. I've seen more evidence to explain the latter than the former. But the evidence literally suggests that the universe was created. The fact that the universe exists is all the evidence necessary. The only alternative is the 'always there' idea, which doesn't hold any water. I think that most scientists prefer an 'intelligent creator' not to be the case. You didn't provide any alternative ways that existance might have come into being. You said you could think of many of them.

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: Actually, Roger Penrose said that Phil and I just quoted it. As I said, Stephen Hawking also said it - in his book, "A Brief History Of Time". I don't see any disagreement between us. You like to think that the universe started with a quantum speck of vacuum, which is fine with me. You also said that that speck was created, which is also fine with me. None of us can discuss how that speck came into being (how it was created), but we agree that it did. So we are in agreement.

You inadvertantly highlighted the main reason why I'm not drawn to putting time and money into astronomy. That is, with relatively low cost equipment (I don't mean cheap), there's not a lot to see and, once you've seen them all, then what? - other than spending more money on better equipment. I prefer to read, so I buy books. Madelaine mentioned Brian Greene. I haven't read the book she mentioned but I have his follow-up book - "The Fabric Of The Cosmos". I found a real gem (for me) in that one, which, to me, is much better than seeing Saturn's rings, for instance. He said that everything, including you and me, is in motion at the speed of light. The speed I travel through space, plus the speed of my personal time, adds up to the speed of light. A real gem. So, the quicker I move through space, the slower my time clock ticks, and vice versa. It really helps me to get a grasp of personal time. A conclusion I drew from it is that, from a photon of light's point of view, there is no time, and it is simultaneously everywhere it will ever be. I like that

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Well, we can't prove negatives, so I don't try. I can actually imagine endless alternative ways we might have come into existence, but the religious (and perhaps the string/brane/multiverse theorists ;-) are so good at it that I feel woefully outclassed. And just because a question goes around begging doesn't mean I'm gonna make up an answer for it. I have no problem with admitting I don't know. And this has seemed to be the dividing line between me and my faithful friends. They need to know "why" right now. I can wait. Nothing can be proved either way, of course, but I'd be interested to hear some of your alternative ways that existance might have come to happen - alternatives to that it was created, that is. I can only imagine one alternative - that it was always there - but I can't believe that because of the question, "How come?" I suspect that the reluctance among many to acknowledge that the universe might have a creator is simply that they prefer it not to be the case.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: The "creation" argument is really looking for a sentient creator, possibily one that looks after us. I understand the comfort that ideology can bring to some, but it brings none to me, as I like to poke and prod and ponder and I see no evidence to support that ideology. If you allow for the possibility that the dimensions of space and time we observe spring from some larger dimensional space we can't probe, then we're sorta stuck in a state of perpetual wonderment. Could it get any better than that?! ;-) At the same time, you see no evidence against that ideoligy. What you also don't see is any alternative way that existance came to exist. (Existance includes such things as our universe springing from an existing multiverse, and some existing "larger dimensional space") I see no alternative to existance having beed created. Even the 'always there' idea begs the question, "How come?", which in turn leads to the conclusion that it was created and not always there. I've been careful not to suggest a sentient creator, to the extent of writing "someone or something" and such.

Yes, what came before the Big Bang is meaningless. Even using the word 'before' is meaningless because it entails time, which also didn't exist. Stephen Hawking, a friend of Roger Penrose, said the same thing. The various theories you mentioned only apply to the realm of existance. It's meaningless to ask what it was like before existance. But we are talking about how existance came to exist. What happened after the universe came into existance is irrelevant. When the universe came into existance, it may have been comprised of only energy and contained in the tiniest point possible, but it was still the universe existing in dimensions. We can't know anything about the nothingness when the universe didn't exist. We can't even imagine it, because it isn't anything to imagine. You are talking about the existing universe (inflation, Big Bang, multiverses, etc.), which necessarily means during the time it exists. I have no heartfelt disagreement with such theories, but they apply after the universe came into being and they don't even try to address whether or not it was created. What it boils down is this. (1) the universe (or universes) always existed; i.e. existance always existed. Or (2) existance was created, and when it didn't exist there was absolute nothingness. In both cases the question arises "How come the universe exists?" and the answer must be a creator of some sort. ETA: I just re-read your post and you do seem to accept that the universe was created. You said, "when all of space and time was created in the Big Bang itself" and "Pre-big bang nothingness is absolute.", which is something I've been saying here. You suggest that the universe was created at the Big Bang, so we appear to agree that the universe had a creator of some sort, which is what I've been saying.

I've had a pair of binoculars and a small telescope for a very long time. For me to get into astronomy these days, I'd need a much better telescope and I don't feel the urge to go to those lengths.

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: I wouldn't say that. Scientist may not have all the answers but certainly have many explanations and the overwhelming evidence is for the Big Bang theory. However, it is still a theory. To say that nobody has any concept of how there was 'nothing' and then there was 'something' is not quite correct. Although unproven, the inflationary theory offers one possible answer for example and I like this explanation. You have a vacuum with zero energy and zero mass. Quantum mechanics however says that entities are not exactly any number, not even exactly zero. So the amount of mass fluctuates around zero, with bits and particles fleeting into existence for the briefest of moments here and there with most flipping instantly back into nothingness. However, the bit of mass (or field of energy as mass and energy are equivalent) that started our universe came attached to an inflationery field and this field has an antigravitional force (negative energy) causing it to expand at an immense rate. So, you have a huge field of negative energy coupled with the sudden appearance of greater than zero mass but mass and energy are equivalent so when added together you still have zero total mass and energy. If you add up all the energy and mass in the universe, it may still come to zero. So the question "How did something come from nothing?" ceases to be an issue because there is no 'something'. We live in a universe exactly equivalent to the 'nothing' that came before the Big Bang. The problem with all of that is that it entirely misses the point. It's impossible to imagine absolute nothingness - no space, however tiny, no matter, no vacuum, no energy - nothing whatsover. The Big Bang theory requires something to bang, however tiny the something is. It also requires somewhere (dimensions) for the bang to occur in, however tiny that somewhere is. The Big Bang theory describes what may or may not have happened when something already existed. It doesn't describe anything about how that something came into being. The inflationary theory needs something to inflate, of course. It's not possible to imagine absolute nothingness - no place, no matter, no energy, no vacuum - absolute nothingness. But, unless the universe was always 'there', there had to be absolute nothingness, and then there was something. The something had to be created, since there is nothing in absolute nothingness that could cause it to happen. Alternatively, the universe may always have been there. Both cases beg the question, "How come?". And the only answer is a creator of some sort. Your post started when something already existed but where did that something come from?

Madelaine. I have to say that I found your lengthy second reply to me to be very persuasive. Apart from the fact that the estimated number of stars in our galaxy seems to fluctuate wildly all the time - from 100 million not many years ago to the 300 million of your post - the reply was equation-free, which made it much more interesting to me, and much easier to follow. My first thought was to say that the combined starlight of galaxies is irrelevant, because we'd still see the light of a single star that is in that location, but, as I read further, I did away with that thought. Most persuasive. Thank you. Madelaine McMasters wrote: Welcome to astronomy, Phil! ;-) I've always found astronomy to be very interesting and, when I was a young man, it was a hobby that I would have liked to take up. Unfortunately, the lack of time and money prevented it. Also, there were other things to do. Now that I have the time, and money isn't a barrier, it doesn't draw me enough to get into it. I still find it very interesting but not interesting enough to invest time and money on. Apart from that, I live in a light-polluted city, so doing it wouldn't be very good where I am.

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: Does science need a deity, an intelligence that created everything? Many would say no, we have the scientific explanations to dispel any notion of a deity. And many would be wrong. We don't have the scientific explanations at all. The best minds on the planet have found it impossible to do away with a 'creator' and still explain how the universe/matter exists at all, including the space for it to exist in. Remember, there was absolutely nothing - no space, no matter, nothing - and then there was something. Nobody has any concept of how that could have happened other than it was arbitrarily created by someone or something. The more you ponder "How come it exists?", the more you are forced towards the idea of 'it must have been created'. The steady-state idea raises the same question - "How come?" - which leads to the same conclusion.

Peggy. The word 'bandwidth' is used for both speed (amount per second) and quantity (e.g. n gigs per month or you have to pay more). Judging by the posts in this thread, there is a real problem that was recently introduced, so it's better to discuss that than quibble about a word.

Thank you for your long and detailed explanation, Madelaine. The maths is beyond me, of course, so I can't really comprehend the detail. Regardless of that, it doesn't change my view, which applies to a star that is millions or billions of light years away and not just a mere hundred light years away. I can't accept that such a star could perpetually emit sufficient particles (light), spreading outward from the star, that I can see at all points on earth - and even at all points in the universe. I should add that I can't really see how waves in a medium could survive over such distances either. Mainly because of all the other waves interfering with it. But I like the waves idea better than the idea of the perpetual emission of sufficient particles so that, from billions of light years away, I can see the light from the star at all points on earth and in the universe.

What Madelaine said But seriously... remember how long it took String Theory to gain a good degree of acceptance. It was coceived in the 60s, became a failure, and was then resurrected in the late 80 and 90s. Even if your ideas have been considered and rejected by people who are able to realistically evaluate them, don't lose heart - that's what happened to string theory for a long time. However, theories come and fail. E.g. Lee Smolin, a respected theoretical physicist, came up with a good one ("cosmological natural selection") in the 90s, but it wasn't accepted by his peers. It failed - so far. Personally, I dislike the particularity of light idea for one simple reason. If if stand and look at a star in the cloudless night sky, I see light from it, if I move a fraction to the right, I still see light from it. If I move a fraction more, I still the light. I can move to an infinite number of points in any direction and I always see the light from the star. For that to happen, either the star must emit an infinite amount of light all the time, which is impossible, or what it does emit must cause spreading waves in some medium - like the waves of water when a pebble is dropped into a pond. The pebble doesn't spread - the medium does. So, for decades, I've been of the opinion that space is such a medium, that photons are the waves in that medium that are caused by the star, and that it is those waves that hit my retinas rather than some substance that was originally emitted by the star. I can't account for the experimental results that Madelaine mentioned, but there is a lot of physics that can't yet be accounted for, or that is re-evaluated in the future. So I was well pleased when I first heard of the Higgs Ocean idea. It suited my thinking down to the ground

Oops. I hadn't noticed that Serena's "No it's not" was a reply to Innula. My mistake :smileysurprised:

I don't agree that most SL users are odd (I prefer 'unusual') but some certainly are. A number of people have said it of themselves in the forum, stating that SL is a great help to them. I met one person who told me that she was in a mental home, and she was. We talked on voice and I could hear other obvious patients in the background. But it doesn't matter. A person I am communicating with is what I perceive them to be. If s/he appears 'normal' then s/he is normal to me, regardless of how s/he is in the real world. The opposite is also true.

Since the OP has received all the answers, I thought I'd chip in with a comment on a small dialog that occured in the thread. In answer to the OP's question "Is spying legal?", Serena correctly answered, "No it's not", 16 replied to Serena with, "Yes it is", which is the wrong answer, and Serena accepted the correction. Serena's first reply was correct, 16 misunderstood the reply and erroneously corrected Serena, whereupon Serena accepted the erroneous correction but still understood the correct answer. Life's weird, init?

Sorry to interupt this discussion but I just have to express my pleasure at your picture finally being back :matte-motes-big-grin: Back to the topic... Report it. It may not do any good but it won't do any harm and it may do some good.

That was last year

That's good to know, Qie. I encountered it with the security device that I made and sell. A customer reprted it to me and I was over there checking it when I was suddenly in an earthquake, so I remember it very well .

Qie Niangao wrote: There have been some very odd glitches in sensors that span a sim border, such that reports may come from across the wrong sim border. That can be pretty mystifying, the first time it's encountered. But for a security system, it hardly matters, since they pretty much always use llOverMyLand() to stay within ToS. There is or was a flaw so that llOverMyLand() didn't stop people who were in the next sim, but in range, from being sent the 'leave or be removed' message, and a workaround is or was needed. I discovered it when a customer IMed to tell me that people on the adjacent sim were receiving the messages, even though the device didn't (couldn't) remove them from the parcel they were on. The customer's parcel was on the sim border. It shouldn't have happened at all and I was so mystified by it that I had to ask about it in the Scripting forum. It turned out to be a known flaw and someone suggested a workaround that worked. I've no idea whether or not the flaw still exists. Getting all avs in the sim and checking distances, rather than getting all avs in range, will avoid that flaw - and allow for >96m ranges, of course.

Qie Niangao wrote: Mostly llGetAgentList(). That's a modest improvement for fixed-sensor scripts (things that don't try to "secure" beyond a 96m radius of the device itself). It's a massive win compared to rezzing multiple moving sensor probes. Cheers Qie. The one I sell is fixed-sensor so, if it's only a modest improvement on script time, it doesn't seem worth it, but I could make use of it to do away the 96m limit. It would also do away with the workaround that's needed to prevent the SL system from thinking that in-range avs on an adjoining sim are actually on the parcel - if that flaw still exists, that is.

Qie Niangao wrote: (Also, any scripts of this type that haven't been updated in the past year are several times more laggy than they need to be. But bad settings will still be bad settings, however shiny the scripts.) How come? What's changed that would reduce any lag caused by security devices? I can only think of a device's regular scans. Has LL changed things so that an event need only be generated when there's a 'hit'?