Just a Question

[Asmodean]

I have an innocent... ...question: Do the laws of physics represent order or chaos? (I'm assuming we all agree that if something is not chaotic, then it is orderly).

The laws of physics represent ou understanding of the universe and its workings.

[Recusant]

What on earth are you talking about? They can't have any evidence to support what is purported in that video. That would be impossible. Second, do you care at all about logic? Think about the expansion of a singularity into nothingness. It necessarily must distribute uniformly and that uniform distribution could never be disturbed naturally. Just think about it.

I guess when you say later in your post that you learned about cosmology from the short video which seems to have become the focus of discussion in this thread, you weren't kidding. Again, I have trouble believing that a person who seems intelligent and inquisitive about science is as ignorant regarding these topics as you present yourself as being, but I'll play along for now.

There is a phenomenon known as "cosmic background radiation" (also known as cosmic microwave background, or CMB) which was discovered by two scientists at Bell Labs in 1965. They received the Nobel Prize, because their discovery opened up a window into the early universe. There have been satellite studies done which have given us an idea of the variations in temperature of the cosmic microwave background. The data gathered by the satellites shows that the CMB is not uniform, which is evidence that distribution of matter in the early universe was not uniform.

From nasa.gov Universe 101 | "Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background":

These cosmic microwave temperature fluctuations are believed to trace fluctuations in the density of matter in the early universe, as they were imprinted shortly after the Big Bang. This being the case, they reveal a great deal about the early universe and the origin of galaxies and large scale structure in the universe.

Excuse me, but maybe you can school me on this: how is it that chaos does not equal randomness? Or are you just changing the definition of chaos now?

From Santa Fe Institute | "What is Chaos?":

There is frequent confusion between chaos and randomness. There are some similarities in the nature of chaotic and random systems, but there are also some fundamental differences. Some of them are listed in fig. 2:



Fig. 2: Discrimination table between Order, Chaos, and Randomness. Planets used to be representations of a divine order. Chaotic signals can show spectra in the full range from pure tones to very noisy. The dimension of a dynamical system indicates the number of independent variables. An attractor determines the geometrical structure, towards which a system will evolve.

I think that you're trying on some ham-handed version of the Socratic method, Egor. Instead of asking us to believe that you're as abysmally ignorant of modern cosmology and chaos theory as your questions imply, why not come right out and state the issues you have with them?

Again with the assertions; where did you learn about cosmology, Egor?

From the video you all think is so fantastic.

Since I refer to this exchange earlier in this post, I thought I should include it.

All of the evidence that we have from the early universe points to imperfection in the distribution of matter. The ball bearing illustration is not meant to be taken literally, Egor, and I have trouble believing you're stupid enough to think otherwise. Matter was not removed in the way that the ball bearings were removed. Rather, it was never distributed uniformly in the first place.

You assume that because there are clumps of matter, but you aren't thinking logically about how that would be impossible given a singularity expanding into nothingness. Unless there was some design to it.

You have not shown why it would be impossible, Egor. I invite you to proceed to do so at your earliest convenience.

I think we need a ref. Cuz it looks like 1 point theist.

I couldn't help imagining the sound of smug cackling when I read that. If it helps you to stroke your ego by keeping an imaginary score, Egor, have at it.

[Crow]

Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

Another bald assertion. Failure at this point.

Quantum theory posites imperfection. The cosmic microwave background radiation reveals this imperfection. If there were no imperfection then there would be no structure in the universe.

You could almost say its "beautifully imperfect".

[Too Few Lions]

Look. I think the guy is probably correct in how matter clumped together in the early universe, but it didn't happen by luck or imperfection, and gravity really isn't magical. It happened by design and design in this case implies a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness, which is the Veridican definition of God.

I'd never heard of the word 'Veridican' before, so I googled it, and oh dear, it's a word Egor made up to describe his new religion based on Christianity.

Apparently the New Testament is just 'a necessary forerunner' of Egor's Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a 'revision and correction' of the biblical gospels as they lacked 'the Divine inspiration afforded its [VGJC's] authorship.'

Honestly Egor, do you seriously believe that the creator of the universe has singled you out to create a new religion (even if it is based on one already a few thousand years old). The question I am dying to ask is how many 'Veridicans' are there in the world? I get the feeling the answer is probably 'one'...

[Guardian85]

I have seen references to this new consept of his, and have tried to work out the etymology of the word "Veridician".
"Veri-" Latin Veritas=truth.
"-dican" unknown.

What the hell is it supposed to mean?

[Buddy]

I'm pretty curious about this "truth unknown" religion as well.

[Too Few Lions]

I hsve seen references to this new consept of his, and have tried to work out the etymology of the word "Veridician".
"Veri-" Latin Veritas=truth.
"-dican" unknown.

What the hell is it supposed to mean?

Rather amusingly, Egor's named his new religion after the English word veridical

I love it when Christians describe modern cosmology as 'ridiculous' or 'magical thinking', because the idea that the universe was created by a 3000 year old minor western Semitic deity makes much more sense 

[Davin]

Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

What on earth are you talking about? They can't have any evidence to support what is purported in that video. That would be impossible.

In spite of the glaring contradiction in your thinking, Egor (where you make a knowledge claim, then claim that it would be impossible to have such knowledge), there is actually evidence and theory to support what Stephen Hawking explained. If you listened to the explanation. Also remember that the explanation is a demonstration, not the actual concept, to dispute the actual concept, you're going to have to learn the concept in greater detail.

So which is it, Egor? Is it impossible to have such knowledge, or do you drop your knowledge claim that the expanding early universe wouldn't have imperfection?

[Tank]

Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

Another bald assertion. Failure at this point.

Quantum theory posites imperfection. The cosmic microwave background radiation reveals this imperfection. If there were no imperfection then there would be no structure in the universe.

You could almost say its "beautifully imperfect".

[Guardian85]

I hsve seen references to this new consept of his, and have tried to work out the etymology of the word "Veridician".
"Veri-" Latin Veritas=truth.
"-dican" unknown.

What the hell is it supposed to mean?

Rather amusingly, Egor's named his new religion after the English word veridical

Right, so that's wat it means. 

[Egor]

Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

Another bald assertion. Failure at this point.

Quantum theory posites imperfection. The cosmic microwave background radiation reveals this imperfection. If there were no imperfection then there would be no structure in the universe.

That's the point, Tank.

[Egor]

Honestly Egor, do you seriously believe that the creator of the universe has singled you out to create a new religion (even if it is based on one already a few thousand years old).

Yes I do. In fact, I'm certain of it.

The question I am dying to ask is how many 'Veridicans' are there in the world? I get the feeling the answer is probably 'one'...

Well, let me ask you this, how many Christians and Muslims are there in the world?

Now, the question I'm dying to ask is this: Do you think they're right?

[Egor]

Rather amusingly, Egor's named his new religion after the English word veridical

I love it when Christians describe modern cosmology as 'ridiculous' or 'magical thinking', because the idea that the universe was created by a 3000 year old minor western Semitic deity makes much more sense 

Veridical = true
-an = a suffix meaning a follower
-ism = a suffix meaning a doctrine

Veridicanism= The doctrine of those who follow that which is true

[Egor]

So which is it, Egor? Is it impossible to have such knowledge, or do you drop your knowledge claim that the expanding early universe wouldn't have imperfection?

So, now the video isn't accurate? But you all held it up as evidence.

Besides the burden is on you. The last I knew, in Cosmology, one of the greatest mysteries was how the matter in the universe clumped together following the Big Bang. No one really knew.
Along comes a theory that says, "Hey! Nothing in the universe is perfect!" Oh great, problem solved. But that really doesn't solve anything does it? Of course, nothing in the universe is perfect now. But we're talking about the expansion of the singularity into nothingness. If parts go missing to allow gravitational effects to unbalance, then those missing parts have to be explained. And that puts us right back to the heart of the teleological argument. In other words, Stephen Hawking's theory for the atheistic masses or not, nothing has been achieved. No new knowledge is gained.

And again, we haven't even talked about gravity. Because at the start of all this was the fact that matter attracts itself based on its massiveness over distance.

What we know is that in the beginning there was gravity. In fact, before the beginning there had to be the idea of gravity and it had to be set in place. Then even before there was a singularity, there had to be the idea of mass and matter and the characteristics it would have. And even before the Big Bang, there had to be an expansion rate set in stone, and of course, there had to be missing matter and the way in which that would go missing had to have been in place before the Big Bang.

All of this makes it more rational to suppose a being that conforms to the Veridican definition of God:
The monistic entity of fundamental consciousness

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Ihateyoumike]

I, for one, welcome our new veridican overload and merely ask that in his infinite wisdom grants mercy upon myself and my fellow heathens.