Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee
Creation can be established...
|
You might want to define more clearly what you mean by "creation"....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee
... on current quantum theory where everything happens for no reason whatsoever.
|
Be careful: just because quantum mechanics supports random effects does not mean that you can avoid the predictability of the convergent systems within which quantum matter exists.
You might want to explain a bit more about what you're getting at with the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee
As all physicists believe, in conventional quantum mechanics, all the laws of physics are controlled by a supervising probability amplitude. I merely postulate that out of the infinity of time, matter can permanently pop into existence finitely many times.
|
According to conventional cosmology of course, the Universe has existed for a finite amount of time, but ignoring that and just looking at the issue as a problem in local application of quantum mechanics and mathematics, it would be worthwhile to try to explain why you believe that the number of those "pops" (and you might want to define that word as well) is *finite* over an *infinite* time span. Since I'm not sure I understand your terms, I see no specific reason to question this other than the fact that in general probability is time bounded, and as time goes to infinity on any probability that is non-zero, then the number of occurrences should be unbounded as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee
Conceivably therefore, there is a probability amplitude that allowed for the initial creation of the universe in a single big bang.
|
Please define "probability amplitude." There's a "probability" that the folks who believe in a single big bang are right, and a probability that the folks who believe in a cyclic, multi-bang universe are right and also a probability that our Universe is steady-state. There are also probabilities for multiple universes existing, as well as probabilities that those multiple universes were created in different ways. Which one of these (or some other) are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee
Subsequently, there could have been a finite series of creation processes in the neighborhood of a warm watery planet for six days and then none on the seventh day. You get the idea.
|
Actually, I really don't! Are you referring to the probability that an Earth could be formed in seven days versus 4.5 Billion years? According to most phyisics, the latter is far more likely, although if you want to say its *possible* that an earth could be made to form in 7 days (well, six I guess) then I won't argue against there being a really, really small probability of that! You might though find that the requirements for such an occurrence with very specific parameters (meaning *exactly* like the forms we see in evidence here) would require forces that do not occur in our own Universe, although it might in some other!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee
Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of man, but this is science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.
|
So, sure, why not?
David Hilbert was a really smart guy. I think he agreed that it was worthwhile for Bertrand Russell to spend all those pages to prove that 1+1=2, because as the quote in your linked paper says, you have to consider "all logically possible theories" if your view of the world is to be complete.
OTOH, he'd probably tell you that once proven (using a minimum number of axioms of course!), you don't need to waste too much time reproving it.
If one were to bring ten of the wisest men in the world together and ask them what was the most stupid thing in existence, they would not be able to discover anything so stupid as astrology,
Buffy
