Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "How Did The Universe Come Into Existence? Brian Greene on The Multiverse u0026 The Fine Tuning Argument" video.

i've heard that the modern concept of spacetime with the quantum fields is something like a superfluid superconducting ether but idk how that works really
3
notice that he said "could be true" but that God isn't a good hypothesis for physical events. imho God is totally true but there is no way to demonstrate it by science, because science is about HOW God does stuff not WHO does it.
2
yes, important point
2
@AlmostEthical I kinda like the multiverse idea, since it is similar to the Sum over Histories that Feyman developed as a way to do quantum mechanics. I figure what a great way to create a universe! Spacetime itself is 'creative' in a way. Animals have 'wills' in a way. God doesn't have to run every detail, They designed it to be self directed and creative ...
1
@AlmostEthical Ok, compare 'eternal inflation' to an infinite single universe. The first is a sea of bubbles and the second is a single infinite bubble. Most of the bubbles in the sea are isolated from each other, but the single bubble is all connected... sorta. It's a metaphor.
1
@AlmostEthical Yes kinda. Eternal inflation theory begins with a universe that is inflating super fast everywhere, and then random spots stop inflating. Each of these slow-downs becomes a bubble universe (or sub-universe perhaps we should say). Lenny Susskind calls the end of inflation a "big bang" -- there would be an infinite number of them (but possibly only one creation event; the theory does not address the origin of existence). It's funny to call a slowdown a bang, but it is hot, and it expands rapidly at first, due to the energy and momentum of the end of inflation.
1
@robvangessel3766 God may vary because people vary. People tend to use their own experiences to construct philosophy. I was trained in biology and so I see a theistic God in nature -- a God without presumption of goals or characteristics except "God created nature" so nature reflects God's will.
1
@therick363 Ok, so take an atom. It started from a neutron and then became an atom. There's no atom that started from zilch. Thus, the idea that the big bang came out of nothing doesn't match the way things work in the universe today. The big bang is still a good theory, but it says nothing about where things came from originally.
1
@therick363 Good points, agreed. I'm just saying that the question of original cause hasn't been solved. It may be the type of question that has no possible answer, by the way it is constructed. When there's a question that science cannot answer, it's properly open to philosophy and belief.
1
@therick363 According to NOM (and Kant?) there can be no proof or disproof of a theistic God concept in physics. But we can see hints perhaps. For example the concept of infinity... it is unreachable, but it is super useful in teh equations...
1
@therick363 I agree! A theistic concept is compatible with any observation of reality. This makes it untestable, but does not make it untrue. When it comes to science, I regard religion as a frame around the Mona Lisa which represents science -- a frame may make the picture 'pop' but it doesn't change the paint. When it comes to religion, science is the frame, and the painting is the experience of living. Scientific knowledge will help keep life from falling on the floor, but it is not life itself.
1
@SimonBrisbane yeah I like SJ Gould's NOM, where science and religion each have their own methods and uses, and don't conflict
1