The Argument Against Creation

if the view that light is emitted from a source goes through the eye and is perceived is wrong...

and the answer is quantum mechanical...
what is light?

I have been intrigued by the idea is that the universe is a hologram and light is what brings it to life for us.

here was exgoper article. the quote is from the last column.


http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/436029a[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
stu said:
I'm not so sure. Quantum events occur all the time naturally and spontaneously without cause.
More...

That is a good point.

I'm just unsure, but my interpretation according to Stoic physics would be: "The quantum movement by itself is a Cause, representing the ongoing change of the state of Matter."




* Quantum movement of electrons in atomic layers shows potential of ...
https://phys.org/.../2017-03-quantum-movement-electrons-atomic-layers.html - Cached - Similar
15 Mar 2017 ... Illustration of laser beam triggering quantum movement of electrons between top and bottom layers, bypassing middle layer. The new tri-layer material from KU's Ultrafast Laser Lab material someday could lead to next-generation electronics. Credit: Frank Ceballos, University of Kansas. Common sense ...

* Orbital motion (quantum) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_motion_(quantum) - Cached - Similar
Quantum orbital motion involves the quantum mechanical motion of rigid particles (such as electrons) about some other mass, or about themselves. Typically, orbital motion in classical motion is characterized by orbital angular momentum (the orbital motion of the center of mass) and spin, which is the motion about the ...

* Quantum movement of electrons between atomic layers shows ...
https://news.ku.edu/.../quantum-mov...ic-layers-shows-potential-application-van-der - Cached - Similar
Quantum movement of electrons between atomic layers shows potential application of van der Waals materials for electronics and photonics. Tue, 03/14/ 2017. LAWRENCE – Common sense might dictate that for an object to move from one point to another, it must go through all the points on the path. “Imagine someone ...

* Researchers chart the 'secret' movement of quantum particles ...
www.cam.ac.uk/.../researchers-chart-the-secret-movement-of-quantum-particles - Cached
22 Dec 2017 ... Researchers from the University of Cambridge have taken a peek into the secretive domain of quantum mechanics. In a theoretical paper published in the journal Physical Review A, they have shown that the way that particles interact with their environment can be used to track quantum particles when ...
More...
 
exGOPer said:
"We [as humans] can decide to do something, we can wait for a certain time before acting, we can wonder about our future actions; but such possibilities cannot arise for [an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent] God. In his case there is no gap between desire and action, nothing stands in the way of his activity; and yet we are told by al-Ghazali that God suddenly created the world. What differentiates one time from another for God? What could motivate him to create the world at one particular time as opposed to another? For us, different times are different because they have different qualitative aspects, yet before the creation of the world, when there was nothing around to characterize one time as distinct from another, there is nothing to characterize one time over another as the time for creation to take place."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes#cite_note-muslim_encyclopedia-63
More...
The flaw in your thought process is that you presume time exists independently of god or creation, as a fabric onto which creation was imposed and then recorded.
 



So what is dark energy? Well, the simple answer is that we don't know. It seems to contradict many of our understandings about the way the universe works.

We all know that light waves, also called radiation, carry energy. You feel that energy the moment you step outside on a hot summer day.

Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2, teaches us that matter and energy are interchangeable, merely different forms of the same thing. We have a giant example of that in our sky: the Sun. The Sun is powered by the conversion of mass to energy.


http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-what_is_dark_energy.php

darkenergy_what_is_subatomic_large_scale.jpg


Something from Nothing

Could dark energy show a link between the physics of the very small and the physics of the large?

But energy is supposed to have a source — either matter or radiation. The notion here is that space, even when devoid of all matter and radiation, has a residual energy. That "energy of space," when considered on a cosmic scale, leads to a force that increases the expansion of the universe.

Perhaps dark energy results from weird behavior on scales smaller than atoms. The physics of the very small, called quantum mechanics, allows energy and matter to appear out of nothingness, although only for the tiniest instant. The constant brief appearance and disappearance of matter could be giving energy to otherwise empty space.

It could be that dark energy creates a new, fundamental force in the universe, something that only starts to show an effect when the universe reaches a certain size. Scientific theories allow for the possibility of such forces. The force might even be temporary, causing the universe to accelerate for some billions of years before it weakens and essentially disappears.

Or perhaps the answer lies within another long-standing unsolved problem, how to reconcile the physics of the large with the physics of the very small. Einstein's theory of gravity, called general relativity, can explain everything from the movements of planets to the physics of black holes, but it simply doesn't seem to apply on the scale of the particles that make up atoms. To predict how particles will behave, we need the theory of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics explains the way particles function, but it simply doesn't apply on any scale larger than an atom. The elusive solution for combining the two theories might yield a natural explanation for dark energy.
More...
 
OddTrader said:
That is a good point.

I'm just unsure, but my interpretation according to Stoic physics would be: "The quantum movement by itself is a Cause, representing the ongoing change of the state of Matter."
More...

It'd be also possible that the quantum movement we an see is actually the particles are moved/ pushed/ impacted by dark energy which has continuous movement with much much faster speed than light speed.

As it'd be possible that the whole universe would be 100% dark energy, anything including light and human life-cycle that we can see is just a sort of simulation models that are projected in the space/ universe of dark energy.

As all things (including light) being simulation models that we can see are just outliers in the universe, existing only temporarily with limited life-/time-span.

Completely contrary to the convention that the things we can see are normal, other things we cannot see are outliers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen,[1] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter,[2][3] describing what came to be known as the EPR paradox. Einstein and others considered such behavior to be impossible, as it violated the local realist view of causality (Einstein referring to it as "spooky action at a distance")[4] and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete. Later, however, the counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were verified experimentally.[5] Experiments have been performed involving measuring the polarization or spin of entangled particles in different directions, which—by producing violations of Bell's inequality—demonstrate statistically that the local realist view cannot be correct. This has been shown to occur even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there is no lightspeed or slower influence that can pass between the entangled particles.[6] Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one hundredth of a percent of the travel time of light between them.[7] According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly.[8][9] It is not possible, however, to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds[10] (see Faster-than-light § Quantum mechanics).
More...

I doubt it. I'd think that it'd be possible when transmitting information through using dark energy/matter.



Since the Universe has been expanding for 13.8 billion years, the comoving distance (radius) is now about 46.6 billion light years. Thus, volume (43πr3) equals3.58×1080 m3 and the mass of ordinary matter equals density (4.08×10−28 kg/m3) times volume (3.58×1080 m3) or1.46×1053 kg.

Observable universe - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Size
Hubble Ultra-Deep Field image of a region of the observable universe (equivalent sky area size shown in bottom left corner), near the constellation Fornax. Each spot is a galaxy, consisting of billions of stars. The light from the smallest, most red-shifted galaxies originated nearly 14 billion years ago.

The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.26 gigaparsecs (46.5 billion light years or 4.40×1026 meters) in any direction. The observable universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 28.5 gigaparsecs[30] (93 Gly or 8.8×1026 m).[31] Assuming that space is roughly flat, this size corresponds to a comoving volume of about 1.22×104 Gpc3 (4.22×105 Gly3 or 3.57×1080 m3).[32]
More...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Most distant objects

The most distant astronomical object yet announced as of January 2011 is a galaxy candidate classified UDFj-39546284. In 2009, a gamma ray burst, GRB 090423, was found to have a redshift of 8.2, which indicates that the collapsing star that caused it exploded when the Universe was only 630 million years old.[69] The burst happened approximately 13 billion years ago,[70] so a distance of about 13 billion light years was widely quoted in the media (or sometimes a more precise figure of 13.035 billion light years),[69] though this would be the "light travel distance" (see Distance measures (cosmology)) rather than the "proper distance" used in both Hubble's law and in defining the size of the observable universe (cosmologist Ned Wright argues against the common use of light travel distance in astronomical press releases on this page, and at the bottom of the page offers online calculators that can be used to calculate the current proper distance to a distant object in a flat universe based on either the redshift z or the light travel time). The proper distance for a redshift of 8.2 would be about 9.2 Gpc,[71] or about 30 billion light years. Another record-holder for most distant object is a galaxy observed through and located beyond Abell 2218, also with a light travel distance of approximately 13 billion light years from Earth, with observations from the Hubble telescope indicating a redshift between 6.6 and 7.1, and observations from Keck telescopes indicating a redshift towards the upper end of this range, around 7.[72] The galaxy's light now observable on Earth would have begun to emanate from its source about 750 million years after the Big Bang.[73]
More...
 
Last edited:
exGOPer said:
OddTrader said:
The real problem perhaps would be, after solving/ finding a solvable "foreseeable First cause", there should be always "another First cause that causes the currently already resolved First cause" to be resolved, whether it is a solvable or unsolvable one, simply a never-ending process!

lol
More...

Exactly, infinite regress, logic is collapsing there.
More...

Another view to look at the issue is, imo:

There might be a set of several first causes that are interacting internally with each other including many many feedback loops to be appearing as One first cause externally.

Why the number of first cause must be just One, instead of Many?

lol

Furthermore, is it possible after the very First first-cause for creation, there would be potentially a Future first-cause for elimination/ destruction Suddenly or eternally expanding forever indefinitely, rather than gradually diminishing/ dying Naturally over time according to conventional scientific thinking?

lol

How do we know there will be No any Future first-cause???

Or even a Huge Big Bang to be happened in the future, that can be much much bigger than the (theoretically-)known Big Bang?



* BBC - Earth - How will the universe end, and could anything survive?
www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150602-how-will-the-universe-end - Cached - Similar
2 Jun 2015 ... Science has outlined four ways that our universe could meet its doom. They're called the Big Freeze, the Big Crunch, the Big Change and the Big Rip.

* Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe - Cached - Similar
The fate of the universe is determined by its density. The preponderance of evidence to date, based on measurements of the rate of expansion and the mass density, favors a universe that will continue to expand indefinitely, resulting in the "Big Freeze" scenario ...
‎Shape of the universe - ‎Phantom energy - ‎Zero-energy universe

* Big Freeze, Big Rip or Big Crunch: how will the Universe end ...
www.wired.co.uk/article/how-will-universe-end - Cached - Similar
10 Oct 2016 ... The Universe and our solar system started with a Big Bang - now WIRED looks at the theories that could reveal how the Universe ends.

* How Will The Universe End? | IFLScience
www.iflscience.com/space/how-will-the-universe-end-/ - Cached
17 Nov 2017 ... What will happen to the universe? And more importantly, how will it all end? Well, T.S. Elliot was probably right in suggesting that the way the world ends is with a whimper rather than a bang. The leading cosmological and physical theories all suggest that it will be a long drawn out death. Let's look at a few ...

* When will the universe end? Not for at least 2.8 billion years | New ...
https://www.newscientist.com/.../20...verse-end-not-for-at-least-2-8-billion-years/ - Cached - Similar
25 Feb 2016 ... For those of you only now discovering that such an end was a possibility, here's a little background. Observations of stars and galaxies indicate that the universe is expanding, and at an increasing rate. Assuming that acceleration stays constant, eventually the stars will die out, everything will drift apart, and ...

* Time Will End in Five Billion Years, Physicists Predict - Latest Stories
https://news.nationalgeographic.com...ce-universe-end-of-time-multiverse-inflation/ - Cached - Similar
29 Oct 2010 ... The universe will cease to exist around the same time our sun is slated to die, according to new predictions based on the multiverse theory.
More...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

The Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately causing the cosmic scale factor to reach zero or causing a reformation of the universe starting with another Big Bang.
More...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Freeze

Future of an expanding universe

Observations suggest that the expansion of the universe will continue forever. If so, then a popular theory is that the universe will cool as it expands, eventually becoming too cold to sustain life. For this reason, this future scenario once popularly called heat death is now known as the Big Freeze.[1]
More...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top