/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13740254

691KiB, 1000x667, sean.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 18:32:33 2021 No.13740254 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13740300 >>13740334

Did he mischaracterize the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem? I watched his debate with William Lane Craig and as a layman it sounded like he btfoed Craig but after reading this article I'm not so sure but I have 0 knowledge on the topic to know who is right.

https://freethinkingministries.com/sean-carrolls-dishonesty-the-debate-of-2014/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 18:53:57 No.13740300 Report

Quoted By: >>13740328 >>13740334

>>13740254
he is a science-ist through and through
now william lane craig is an absolute CLOWN, but that doesnt excuse sean carroll

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 19:06:41 No.13740328 Report

Quoted By: >>13740332

>>13740300
to add to this, here are some litmus tests for BS science-ists:
1- claiming physics can explain "why is there something rather than nothing"
2- "universe was the size of a grapefruit" THE OBSERVABLE universe was the size of a grapefruit, not the whole universe

anyone who claims these, has lost his philosophical credibility

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 19:08:13 No.13740332 Report

Quoted By: >>13740609

>>13740328
>nothing
There is no such thing. There is no reason to believe there ever was such thing. It's a retarded wordplay. Anyone who unironically ever talks about the concept of nothing as some possibility loses philosophical credibility.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 414164A1-3168-4BF3-83F7-50B9D06E (...).jpg, 46KiB, 491x625

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 19:09:41 No.13740334 Report

Quoted By: >>13740391 >>13740683

>>13740254
>atheist lying about losing a debate
News at 11.

You need to learn and accept the completely blatant and obvious reality that atheists are not capable of engaging in rational discussion of any topic. Atheists are emotion based people who just live in the moment and make up whatever lie sounds best then and there, some people are just like that. Atheists are that way because they have no faith, the don't believe in anything, they trust nothing and their lack of trust is a projection of their own personal dishonesty. Freedom from truth is a large part of the attraction of atheism. You might believe that being honest is necessarily good, but that doesn't mean that other people are bound to live up to your example. Those people will always go with whatever fallacy the biggest voice is pushing, thats the safest and easiest thing to do.

You can't convince them with reasoned arguments of any kind, they are not subject to rationality. You gotta be louder than facebook, reddit, twitter, and all the rest of the MSM combined to convince the atheists that they're wrong about anything. They don't think for themselves, they turned off critical thinking in order to enjoy self serving fallacies.

>>13740300
>He's a clown because... because he hurt my feelings!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 19:30:40 No.13740391 Report

Quoted By:

>>13740334
Christians aren't honest people, not just because they're not honest, they are also not people.
The only reason people listen to you at all is because of cultural dominance, for the moment. The minute the dominating religion in the region changes, you'll be considered a retarded cult (much like you consider other religions aside from yours).
Scientific knowledge, however, is maintained throughout these changes. Besides circle-jerking threads here or other such echo-chambers, no one will ever respect your schizo babble, and I think deep down most subhumans like you understand that.
But by all means post more of your basedjak folder. Tell me all about those subreddits you've been lurking on. Pretend like anything you say holds any rational or intellectual value. Maybe if you lie enough you'll convince some retard out there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 20:46:41 No.13740609 Report

Quoted By:

>>13740332
of course nothing was not a possibility, the problem is that braindead atheistic science-ists like Lawrence Krauss pretends like he can answer that question.

El Arcón

El Arcón Mon 11 Oct 2021 21:11:25 No.13740667 Report

Quoted By:

>Consider observations made by O at times ?1 and ?2 = ?1 + ?? , as shown in Fig. 1, where ?? is infinitesimal.
I take an issue with the supposition that two observations might be separated by less than a finite amount of time. Nice theorem though. I will think about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Oct 2021 21:17:04 No.13740683 Report

Quoted By:

>>13740334
>>He's a clown because... because he hurt my feelings!
peter van inwagen is not a clown for example. craig is a different breed of clown. in fact, he is probably disapproved of by actual philosophers of religion, like how not every atheist is fond of dawkins

El Arcón

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO TIMESAND___7NKe6QfghjJyy7NKfrtru (...).jpg, 141KiB, 422x365

El Arcón Mon 11 Oct 2021 21:28:06 No.13740708 Report

Quoted By: >>13740715

This is a very nice theorem they have here. I will discuss the simple case of the null geodesic, pic related. Since the affine parameter is clearly finite for monotonic increasing a(t), we can assume that there is a "quantum nucleation event" back there somewhere. For that event to conserve 4-momentum, there has to be a universe on the other side of it where time has a minus sign on it. Namely, the ADM theorem proves that the universe must have positive-definite P^0=E. If there's not another universe on the other side of the quantum nucleation event, then it didn't conserve 4-momentum. (There is some wiggle room in the ADM theorem to allow either positive-definite or negative-definite P^0. The main result is that is it non-zero.) If the energy of the other universe is negative-definite, then binding energy is positive there and eventually we get a minus sign attached to "d tau" on the other side of the nucleation event. I think you can use that other "d tau" with the minus sign on it to smoothly continue the geodesic through the nucleation event, thus restoring past completeness for null geodesics. Since the whole BGV theorem is a generalization of pic related, the completeness I suggest should also generalize.

At the end of the BGV paper, they criticize the cyclic cosmology of Steinhardt and Turok as not avoiding the past incompleteness they have demonstrated. However, Steinhardt and Turok have conjured an anomalous increment of 4-momentum from somewhere. Putting two universes at each bounce fixes this momentum problem. Steinhardt and Turok also make some nonsense remark about expansion "diluting" the entropy accumulated in one bounce so that the next bounce resumes at the low entropy state. The issue that fixes the problem with 4-momentum also fixes the entropy problem the increase in the entropy of the forward time universe is exactly offset by the decrease of entropy in the universe whose "d tau" has a minus sign on it.

El Arcón

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO TIMESAND___7NKe6QfghjJyy7NKfrtru (...).jpg, 647KiB, 902x832

El Arcón Mon 11 Oct 2021 21:31:43 No.13740715 Report

Quoted By:

>>13740708
Rather than forcing past incompleteness, the BGV theorem forces piecewise structure onto the affine parameterization of geodesics longer than some scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Oct 2021 15:09:56 No.13743073 Report

Quoted By:

b**p

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches