Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

[Write4U]

Your first post on this thread was no. 166, made some 6 months after the thread was opened.

Yes, as I said the theological aspect was dispensed with in post #1
There wasn't much about a possible hypothesis.
What exactly was I interrupting and consequently hijacked against the will of everybody?

It has since garnered some interesting responses aside from the occasional "critique"..

 

[Sarkus]

Then why don't you explain it to me.

Sure:
"Quantum Creation" (QC) was defined in the OP: "Quantum creationism is any happenstance or intentional creation event where a highly ordered physical reality spontaneously materializes out of nothingness" (post #1).
What you posted, and what I have said is nothing to do with QC, is a report into the discovery that complex organic compounds exist throughout the universe (post #549).
The former is about creation from nothing. The latter is about the prevalence of certain forms of matter. It speaks nothing of how they were formed, whether ex nihilo or via chemical processes, for example. I'm going to go out on a limb, however, and say that noone in the scientific community is going to claim that they (complex organic compounds) formed ex nihilo, but rather from the result of hitherto unstated processes of already-existing matter.
I.e. unless that report goes into how those compounds formed, and claims that they were formed "out of nothingness", then their prevalence throughout the universe is irrelevant to the issue of QC.
It's like saying that you know how a car works, and to support that claim you post a report of how the VW Beetle was popular throughout the world.

Barely anything you have offered as a supporting voice has been relevant to the actual thread. It is all, instead, about the universe being governed by laws that can be considered mathematical.
Get it yet? If you're not talking about the creation of the universe, from nothing, then you're not talking about the thread topic.

Sure, there may actually be snippets of relevance in the odd link, or quote, that you've offered. But the onus is on you to spell it out to the rest of us, to show what the authority has said, and, most importantly, how it supports your case. It is not good enough to simply post it as if their words are a fait accompli in terms of supporting your position.
Note that the onus is not on us to work out how what you post supports your claims. That is for you to do. We also don't need an answer to the OP to criticise the way you have gone about this. And as said before, it's not the case that being the only voice in the room means you're correct.

 

[foghorn]

If you are going to lecture me, you can start by using proper diction.

My, what great diction and grammar you have Write4U. Now all you have to do is learn some science. In that respect, there are a few on the site like you.

Then why don't you explain it to me.

Why? I will only end up reading Google quotes.

 

[Write4U]

My, what great diction and grammar you have Write4U. Now all you have to do is learn some science. In that respect, there are a few on the site like you.

English is my second language. It's not knowledge of the language I treasure. Cognition and attention to detail is what I value.

Why? I will only end up reading Google quotes.

Does it make a difference where you read science, even if it appears on Google? It depends on content. Google is as good a search engine as any.

 

[Write4U]

Sure:
"Quantum Creation" (QC) was defined in the OP: "Quantum creationism is any happenstance or intentional creation event where a highly ordered physical reality spontaneously materializes out of nothingness" (post #1).

Yes and that was it? Creation never happened after that single event? That's the Biblical version, no?

What you posted, and what I have said is nothing to do with QC, is a report into the discovery that complex organic compounds exist throughout the universe (post #549).

And how were these compounds created? Why can I use the general term "creation" in context of all (perceived) reality, as an ongoing process, like the Dance of the Wu Li masters

The former is about creation from nothing. The latter is about the prevalence of certain forms of matter. It speaks nothing of how they were formed, whether ex nihilo or via chemical processes, for example. I'm going to go out on a limb, however, and say that no one in the scientific community is going to claim that they (complex organic compounds) formed ex nihilo, but rather from the result of hitherto unstated processes of already-existing matter.
I.e. unless that report goes into how those compounds formed, and claims that they were formed "out of nothingness", then their prevalence throughout the universe is irrelevant to the issue of QC.

Why? Why not virtual matter ?

It's like saying that you know how a car works, and to support that claim you post a report of how the VW Beetle was popular throughout the world.

That may be so, but that is not what I said at all.
If I ever had mentioned VWs, I would have made a point of saying that in spite of the high heat an engine generates, VW and the racing Porsche had an air-cooled engines.

The air-cooled engine was introduced to the public with the Porsche 356, the predecessor to the Porsche 911. With wins at The 24 Hours of Le Mans and impressive reliability, the Porsche air-cooled platform certainly proved its worth, but its years were numbered.
https://www.porscheirvine.com/blog/2019/april/11/are-porsche-engines-air-cooled.htm#

Barely anything you have offered as a supporting voice has been relevant to the actual thread. It is all, instead, about the universe being governed by laws that can be considered mathematical.

And quantum creation stopped with the BB? And mathematical (regular) processes never existed?

Get it yet? If you're not talking about the creation of the universe, from nothing, then you're not talking about the thread topic.

I am talking about "continual quantum creation" since the beginning of the universe. Creation did not stop with the BB.

Sure, there may actually be snippets of relevance in the odd link, or quote, that you've offered. But the onus is on you to spell it out to the rest of us, to show what the authority has said, and, most importantly, how it supports your case. It is not good enough to simply post it as if their words are a fait accompli in terms of supporting your position.

That is why I quote peer reviewed articles.

I have told you that I do not have direct knowledge of the science involved, but I do have the ability for recognizing fundamental "common denominators" in seemingly disparate objects or processes. I believe that self-refential information sharing is one "hard fact", that identifies the self-organization in the creation of all matter from very elemental values to cosmic clouds.

Note that the onus is not on us to work out how what you post supports your claims. That is for you to do.

And that is what I endeavor to do. If you read what I post as pertinent to that post you will find that the total imaginary picture I paint based on current science does show where and how the self-referential system is creative in the self-formation of regular patterns, depending on the interactive relationsl values in play.

We also don't need an answer to the OP to criticise the way you have gone about this. And as said before, it's not the case that being the only voice in the room means you're correct.

So I am the bad guy for being the only voice in the room?

but rather from the result of hitherto unstated processes of already-existing matter.

IOW you propose that creation was a single instant where the universe was created.
with all the matter it contains today? And what caused all that stuff to coalesce into regular patterns that shape our reality today.

There is an undeniable mathematical aspect to reality, regardless of perspective. I am not trying to prove the why, just the method how.

I get it and I wonder if you get it. So strange that you should discredit our greatest discovery as irrelevant to what actually happens inside this spacetime geometry. Everything has a value and naturally occurring generic differential equations make it possible for humans to describe and practically "create" patterns in reality.

We got it right!!!!!
This perspective allows for solving all current mathematical mysteries of existence.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes and that was it? Creation never happened after that single event? That's the Biblical version, no?

It could be happening now, sure. But the manipulation and combination of pre-existing matter is not it. The formation, and processes thereof, of complex organic matter is nothing to do with Creationism, Quantum or otherwise.

And how were these compounds created? Why can I use the general term "creation" in context of all (perceived) reality, as an ongoing process, like the Dance of the Wu Li masters

Because the thread is about Quantum Creationism, and the definition was provided in the OP. It's about the initial creation of matter (whether all was created at the BB, or is subsequently also being created) where there was previously none, and not about the various forms that the matter might adopt, or reasons for such.

Why? Why not virtual matter ?

Discussing virtual matter would be fine, as that is creation ex-nihilo. Note the difference between virtual matter and complex organic molecules. Or are you trying to suggest that complex organic molecules are created in that form as virtual particles?? If no, and I suspect that you are not, then one has no bearing on the other.

That may be so, but that is not what I said at all.

Yes, it is. You have failed to explain the relevance of the complex organic compounds existing throughout the universe. That has nothing to do with the creation of matter but of subsequent transformations of that matter. So the analogy is fair: saying how a car works (creation of matter) by saying how popular it is (exists throughout the universe).

And quantum creation stopped with the BB?

I never said that it did. But your question is a non sequitur to the point you're addressing here. Or at least you have still failed to address the relevance.

And mathematical (regular) processes never existed

I have never said that.

I am talking about "continual quantum creation" since the beginning of the universe. Creation did not stop with the BB.

Okay, but the existence of complex organic chemicals throughout the universe is not relevant to that. Or at least you have failed to explain the relevance. Sure, both may be guided by mathematical processes... but, and here's the kicker: so what?

That is why I quote peer reviewed articles.

No, you quote peer articles from Google because you're too lazy to explain their relevance, and hope that just throwing them into the thread because you think they have a common denominator means that they're addressing the thread topic - or more accurately the topic you want to discuss.

I have told you that I do not have direct knowledge of the science involved, but I do have the ability for recognizing fundamental "common denominators" in seemingly disparate objects or processes.

Okay, but this thread is not about those common denominators. It's not an excuse for you to go on and on about "everything is mathematical" as if that addresses either this or any other thread you post such stuff in.
Using my analogy from earlier, you are seeing "VW Beetle" as a common denominator and posting articles about its popularity when the discussion is about how they work. Sure, they have a common denominator that you've identified. Well done. But if you can't tell that what you have posted is not relevant to what is being discussed then you have some intellectual blindness that needs addressing.

I believe that self-refential information sharing is one "hard fact", that identifies the self-organization in the creation of all matter from very elemental values to cosmic clouds.

That's nothing to do with creationism. You know, the thread topic. You're talking about subsequent arrangements of matter, not its creation. Sure, we use the same word to describe the creation of matter ex-nihilo and the subsequent creation of a form that matter then takes together, but they're different topics. You have committed the fallacy of equivocation by expanding the term "creation" beyond the relevance of the thread.
Please stop that.

And that is what I endeavor to do. If you read...

First: I shouldn't have to read. You should disseminate the pertinent information. You should be stating your claim and then simply referencing that which you have taken it from / that supports your claim. Posting en masse is lazy of you, and speaks to your malformed ideas, and your inability to articulate.
Second: if what you are proposing is irrelevant to the thread, what you post to support that proposition is also irrelevant. Stick to the thread topic.
Here's a rule of thumb you may want to adopt: if it's not about creation ex-nihilo then it's not about "creationism". Other meanings or uses of the word "creation" are not necessarily relevant just because they use that same word.

So I am the bad guy for being the only voice in the room?

I never said that. I said that it doesn't make you right.

IOW you propose that creation was a single instant where the universe was created.
with all the matter it contains today?

I never said that.

And what caused all that stuff to coalesce into regular patterns that shape our reality today.

Whatever it is, it's not relevant to Quantum Creationism. Ot at least you have failed to explain any relevance. And before you say "Mathematics" or some such, a reminder: the common denominator of the VW Beetle does not make its popularity relevant to discussions of how it works. And spamming the conversation about any report about the VW Beetle is unhelpful.

There is an undeniable mathematical aspect to reality, regardless of perspective. I am not trying to prove the why, just the method how.

Great. And this is your common denominator. But it's simply not relevant. Or at least you have failed to explain how "it's maths" is relevant to the idea of Quantum Creationism - i.e. the creation of matter ex-nihilo at the quantum level. Maths may be involved in it, sure. But the maths of how that matter subsequently forms patterns of matter is not relevant. How do you not grasp that?

I get it and I wonder if you get it. So strange that you should discredit our greatest discovery as irrelevant...

The only thing I'm saying to be irrelevant is your incessant droning about how the universe has a mathematical aspect, as if that answers or addresses every issue. You haven't explained how it addresses Quantum Creationism. You've circled the topic and just thrown article after article about how everything is mathematics, referencing things that happen after the creation event.
Until you actually become relevant to the topic you're posting in, your proliferation of "It's the maths!" is unfortunately just misplaced enthusiasm, that comes across as trolling.

 

[Write4U]

Because the thread is about Quantum Creationism, and the definition was provided in the OP. It's about the initial creation of matter (whether all was created at the BB, or is subsequently also being created) where there was previously none, and not about the various forms that the matter might adopt, or reasons for such.

So you are talking about origins, not about creation per se. For all we know matter is being created at this very moment. Is Creation a single event? If matter falls into a black hole and reverts back to its original virtual state, subsequently being expelled from a white hole, then creation is a constant process of renewal.
(that's why I like the toroid model which constantly recycles the Universe, via quantum creation)

Ask Ethan: What are white holes, and do they really exist?
In General Relativity, white holes are just as mathematically plausible as black holes. Black holes are real; what about white holes?

Even though we don’t observe any evidence for white holes within our Universe, the fact that we had a Big Bang and the fact that we have black holes within our Universe is quite consistent with the idea that there’s a “white hole” on the other end of every black hole that’s ever been created.

In fact, going very deeply into the weeds, if you ask what happens when you fall past the outer event horizon of a rotating black hole, it turns out that what you experience looks very much like what we believe our Universe experienced just prior to the onset of the hot Big Bang: a period of exponential expansion, very much akin to what we today know as cosmic inflation.

Just as a black hole consistently produces low-energy, thermal radiation in the form of Hawking radiation outside the event horizon, an accelerating Universe with dark energy (in the form of a cosmological constant) will consistently produce radiation in a completely analogous form: Unruh radiation due to a cosmological horizon.
Credit: Andrew Hamilton, JILA, University of Colorado

more.... https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/white-holes-exist/#

 

[Sarkus]

So you are talking about origins, not about creation per se.

No, the thread is about creation of matter. From nothing. Creation. Not subsequent manipulation. Whether there was a single event that created all the matter we now have, or whether it is ongoing, does not really matter. It is the creation of matter ex-nihilo that we are concerned with here.

For all we know matter is being created at this very moment. Is Creation a single event?

It could be, it might not be.
The question in this thread is whether the idea of creation from nothing at the quantum level is science, or whether belief it happens is a religion. Even the wider discussion into whether it happens or not, and the possible science behind it, is still not where you're at in this thread. You've just latched on to the "It's maths!" and mostly just keep flying that flag. It is mostly irrelevant, and tiresome.

If matter falls into a black hole and reverts back to its original virtual state, subsequently being expelled from a white hole, then creation is a constant process of renewal.
(that's why I like the toroid model which constantly recycles the Universe, via quantum creation)

NO. FFS! This is an example of transformation of existing matter, not creation. Even you use the words "reverts back" which alludes to a change of form, not creation ex nihilo, or destruction ad nihilo.

Get with the program, Write4U. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt previously but you're almost going out of your way to show that everyone else was right about you.

 

[foghorn]

If matter falls into a black hole and reverts back to its original virtual state, subsequently being expelled from a white hole, then creation is a constant process of renewal. more.... https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/white-holes-exist/#

Did you read you own Ethan quote?

One possibility that is often considered is that the singularity might not be just a point where things “go to” after falling into an event horizon, but might equally be a point where things “emerge from” as well.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/white-holes-exist/#

So, if what goes in comes out, there is no creation of matter.
The Ethan quote did not use words like your "reverts back to its original virtual state,".
Besides, if by your way of thinking it takes matter to make matter, that is not a creation of matter.

Does it make a difference where you read science, even if it appears on Google? It depends on content. Google is as good a search engine as any.

Nothing wrong with Google quotes at all, it’s just that your use of them mostly reflects how much you misunderstand those quotes in supposedly supporting your point. Others here have pointed this out to you.
Ps. I have just seen Sarkus's post above mine, I'm looking as if I'm copying Sarkus with the black hole thing.

 

[Write4U]

Did you read you own Ethan quote?
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/white-holes-exist/#

I quoted from it. Could I have done that without reading it?

So, if what goes in comes out, there is no creation of matter.
The Ethan quote did not use words like your "reverts back to its original virtual state,".
Besides, if by your way of thinking it takes matter to make matter, that is not a creation of matter.

Actually, neither statement is correct. You must have overlooked it.

So if that’s a black hole, then what is a white hole?

There are two ways to look at it. One is to simply recognize that General Relativity is a time-symmetric theory: if you observe a system of matter-and-energy in motion through the fabric of space over time, you cannot tell whether the clock is running forward or backward. General Relativity’s predictions are symmetric in time, meaning that objects move, accelerate, and interact according to the same laws in both cases.

This applies to even bizarre cases. Two black holes, orbiting one another in a decaying fashion and emitting gravitational waves, obey the same physical rules as two black holes that orbit one another and absorb gravitational waves from their surroundings, getting farther and farther apart over time. A cloud of contracting matter that fragments into clumps that will eventually form stars obeys the same rules as a series of expanding clumps of matter that move apart from their points-of-origin and diffuse into a large, fluffy cloud.

And matter that collapses to form an event horizon and then a singularity, i.e., a black hole, obeys exactly the same rules as a singularity from which matter-and-energy, as well as space-and-time, emerge. Considering the case of a time-reversed black hole is one powerful way to conceive of a white hole.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/white-holes-exist/#

Question: Is a singularity made of matter? If so, can you describe that matter in physical terms or only in mathematical terms?

Nothing wrong with Google quotes at all, it’s just that your use of them mostly reflects how much you misunderstand those quotes in supposedly supporting your point. Others here have pointed this out to you.

Yet no one has offered a correction. Why is that?
I like to think that my quoted passages from scientific articles are very much related. At that level, everything is related. You just fail to recognize it.

 

[Write4U]

NO. FFS! This is an example of transformation of existing matter, not creation. Even you use the words "reverts back" which alludes to a change of form, not creation ex nihilo, or destruction ad nihilo.

If creation can happen ex nihilo once, can it happen more than once?

So you see the concept of a black hole >< white hole as transformation, not a "new beginning" from a singularity?
According to your logic there never was original creation. It was always "transformation" of matter, right? If a singularity is matter, then matter must have existed before it became an original Creation singularity, no?

Now do you see my example of a toroid universe? That concept "accommodates" both POV.

W4U said: For all we know matter is being created at this very moment. Is Creation a single event?

It could be, it might not be.
The question in this thread is whether the idea of creation from nothing at the quantum level is science, or whether belief it happens is a religion.

What exactly are you comparing and in accordance with what philosophy?

Even the wider discussion into whether it happens or not, and the possible science behind it, is still not where you're at in this thread. You've just latched on to the "It's maths!" and mostly just keep flying that flag. It is mostly irrelevant, and tiresome.

And that means that I am exactly where I am supposed to be in this thread, from my POV.
And I am atheist, so rule out religion. What's left is science and science rests on mathematics.

 

[Sarkus]

If creation can happen ex nihilo once, can it happen more than once?

That would depend on any number of factors that we can't know about.
Maybe creation ex nihilo is not possible from within that which has already been created. Maybe it is.

So you see the concept of a black hole >< white hole as transformation, not a "new beginning" from a singularity?

Just as a black hole does not destroy matter ad nihilo, so a white hole does not create matter ex nihilo. That's my take on it. If you want to believe otherwise, feel free.

According to your logic there never was original creation. It was always "transformation" of matter, right?

No, that's not "according to my logic", but feel free to actually show how it is (rather than just stating it to be). Matter exists. We can trace the matter to a fraction of a second after what is commonly referred to as a Big Bang. I don't know if that was just a transformation event or a creation event.

If a singularity is matter, then matter must have existed before it became an original Creation singularity, no?

??? Is there meant to be some logic behind this thought of yours? Are you not missing the possibility of initial creation event creating the singularity, from which all else followed? If so, and if the singularityis matter, why would matter (the singularity) need to have existed before it was the singularity???

Now do you see my example of a toroid universe? That concept "accommodates" both POV.

No, it doesn't. Well, it does if you ignore what words mean, conflate transformation with creation/destruction, or just ignore whole swathes of, you know, sense.

What exactly are you comparing and in accordance with what philosophy?

I'm not sure what you're asking... why do you think I'm comparing anything?

And that means that I am exactly where I am supposed to be in this thread, from my POV.

If your POV is to just to shout out "it's all to do with mathematics" at anything and everything, then sure, you're where you think you're supposed to be. Unfortunately, as far as sensible discourse goes, you're not. You're not discussing the issue in anything but a tangential way, the only relevancy being that, yes, maths crops up a lot. But that is not an excuse to keep saying that it's all maths. If you want to use maths to prove that quantum creation occurs ex nihilo, for example, and therefore that QC is not religion then by all means go for it. If you want to show that science has been researching the matter, and thus show that it is at least considered "science" in a broad sense (even if perhaps not falsifiable etc) then by all means go for that. But you don't do either. You simply point to two things and go "oh, look, both have mathematical aspects."
You're a broken record in this regard. And unfortunately you seem to be the only person who can't see it. The broken record has also driven most of the people out of the room. And after this post there'll be one less. If you honestly think that you're where you're supposed to be in this regard then you are admitting that you're supposed to be trolling. 'Cos that's what you're doing.
You've lost all benefit of any doubt I might have had, Write4U. Get a grip, FFS.

And I am atheist, so rule out religion. What's left is science and science rests on mathematics.

So what? And so what? Seriously. So what? We get that you think, rightly or wrongly, that everything rests on mathematics. You've repeatedly stated that to be your view for page after page, and in thread after thread. SO WHAT!? It doesn't answer the question. It has never answered the question.

Stop trolling, please.

 

[Write4U]

That would depend on any number of factors that we can't know about.
Maybe creation ex nihilo is not possible from within that which has already been created. Maybe it is.
Just as a black hole does not destroy matter ad nihilo, so a white hole does not create matter ex nihilo. That's my take on it. If you want to believe otherwise, feel free.

So you are not qualified to call me a troll. And that makes it an ad hominem.

No, that's not "according to my logic", but feel free to actually show how it is (rather than just stating it to be). Matter exists. We can trace the matter to a fraction of a second after what is commonly referred to as a Big Bang. I don't know if that was just a transformation event or a creation event.

Right, do I claim differently?

??? Is there meant to be some logic behind this thought of yours? Are you not missing the possibility of the initial creation event creating the singularity, from which all else followed?

Did I say different?

If so, and if the singularity is matter, why would matter (the singularity) need to have existed before it was the singularity???

Now you are talking my language. I am the one who suggested that as an alternative concept.

No, it doesn't. Well, it does if you ignore what words mean, conflate transformation with creation/destruction, or just ignore whole swathes of, you know, sense.

I disagree with your use of the term "transformation" as a proven natural phenomenon. You don't know that a singularity is matter. I claim it's a value, but not necessarily matter.

I'm not sure what you're asking... why do you think I'm comparing anything?

So you entertain the possibility that a Creator God exists? Good luck with that one.

If your POV is to just to shout out "it's all to do with mathematics" at anything and everything, then sure, you're where you think you're supposed to be. Unfortunately, as far as sensible discourse goes, you're not. You're not discussing the issue in anything but a tangential way, the only relevancy being that, yes, maths crops up a lot.

Oh, my quotes demonstrate a common denominator of maths, and that disqualifies them as examples of universal maths. But thanks for the acknowledgment.

But that is not an excuse to keep saying that it's all maths. If you want to use maths to prove that quantum creation occurs ex nihilo, for example, and therefore that QC is not religion then by all means go for it.

No Tegmark makes that claim. My question is if Tegmark may be correct in saying that the Universe does not just have some mathematical properties, but has only mathematical properties. So far, except for Tegmark, I have not heard a cogent argument for or against other than calling Tegmark a charlatan.

If you want to show that science has been researching the matter, and thus show that it is at least considered "science" in a broad sense (even if perhaps not falsifiable etc) then, by all means, go for that. But you don't do either. You simply point to two things and go "oh, look, both have mathematical aspects."

A little simplistic but yes, in principle. What exactly is wrong with that?

You're a broken record in this regard. And unfortunately, you seem to be the only person who can't see it. The broken record has also driven most of the people out of the room.

False.

And after this post there'll be one less. If you honestly think that you're where you're supposed to be in this regard then you are admitting that you're supposed to be trolling. 'Cos that's what you're doing.

And that is your broken record I must suffer ad nauseam.

You've lost all benefit of any doubt I might have had, Write4U. Get a grip, FFS.

Oh, I have a firm grip on my faculties. If anything I am a reductionist.
Remember, IMO, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. What say you?

So what? And so what? Seriously. So what? We get that you think, rightly or wrongly, that everything rests on mathematics. You've repeatedly stated that to be your view for page after page, and in thread after thread. SO WHAT!? It doesn't answer the question. It has never answered the question.

And in your mind what is the question? That science is a form of religion with a God who is a living entity that requires worship?
Or perhaps a new perspective that ultimately everything rests on mathematical principles.
I think that's better than not answering the question at all. Why don't you admit your ignorance in the matter instead of hiding behind a wall of derogatory superiority?

Stop trolling, please.

Stop insulting me. Until you can prove me wrong, I have a perfect right to post on a scientific issue that is currently being debated in the larger scientific community.
You have in no way disproved anything I have said.
In fact, I seem to have teased a few acknowledgments that I may well be right in some of my observations and conclusions. That must have cost you a lot of pain.

Instead, you have wasted pages on meaningless mudslinging. Let me remind you for the last time that I post about science (along with quoted pertinent passages) and you post personal insults. At least James challenges me to explain some of the more obscure associations but with certain common denominators that show a possible linkage. I have done my best to clarify anything that may seem unrelated.
As far as the thread is concerned, I have already indicated that I have lost interest. 29 pages, not bad.

 

[Write4U]

Question: If matter can be created, can matter be uncreated?

The Energy of a Trillion Atomic Bombs in Every Cubic Centimeter of Space!
Michael Talbot and David Bohm (in quotes) in Talbot's The Holographic Universe.

Chapter 2: The Cosmos as Hologram, p.51 According to our current understanding of physics, every region of space is awash with different kinds of fields composed of waves of varying lengths. Each wave always has at least some energy. When physicists calculate the minimum amount of energy a wave can possess, they find that every cubic centimeter of empty space contains more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the known universe!

Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.

The universe is not separate from this cosmic sea of energy, it is a ripple on its surface, a comparatively small "pattern of excitation" in the midst of an unimaginably vast ocean. "This excitation pattern is relatively autonomous and gives rise to approximately recurrent, stable and separable projections into a three-dimensional explicate order of manifestation," states Bohm.[12]

In other words, despite its apparent materiality and enormous size, the universe does not exist in and of itself, but is the stepchild of something far vaster and more ineffable. More than that, it is not even a major production of this vaster something, but is only a passing shadow, a mere hiccup in the greater scheme of things.

https://jacobsm.com/deoxy/deoxy.org/h_bohm.htm

 

[Sarkus]

So you are not qualified to call me a troll. And that makes it an ad hominem.

I am qualified to call you a troll. All I need to be able to do is understand the behaviour of a troll, and see if yours matches.
As for being an ad hominem, it's an ad hominem regardless of whether you think I'm qualified or not. Ad hominem merely means "to the person". In this case the ad hominem is warranted and not fallacious, as it speaks to your behaviour, and to your incessant posting of irrelevant material.

Right, do I claim differently?

Yes. You claimed that "according to my logic there never was original creation". I am correcting you. So, yes, you did claim differently.

Did I say different?

You claimed "according to my logic there never was original creation". I am once again explaining to you where you have erred in understanding the logic of what I had stated.

I am the one who suggested that as an alternative concept.

??? No, this concept is called "The Big Bang": the spontaneous creation of a singularity from which the universe as we know it then evolved.

I disagree with your use of the term "transformation" as a proven natural phenomenon.

You don't think transformation of matter is a proven natural phenomenon?

You don't know that a singularity is matter. I claim it's a value, but not necessarily matter.

No, I don't know that a singularity is matter. I don't know that it is not. I'm not the one making claims about it. As I said: "If so, and if the singularity is matter".

So you entertain the possibility that a Creator God exists? Good luck with that one.

I've asked you a question: "I'm not sure what you're asking... why do you think I'm comparing anything?" and your response is to conclude that I entertain the possibility that a Creator God exists??? You're not making sense, Write4U. If I ask you to clarify something, as I have clearly done here, surely your response should be to provide the clarification. Your jump to a conclusion is based on an answer that I haven't given, because I am waiting for you to clarify your previous question.

Oh, my quotes demonstrate a common denominator of maths, and that disqualifies them as examples of universal maths. But thanks for the acknowledgment.

Please get this through your obstinate head: recognising a common denominator of maths is NOT answering the thread question. If it is at all relevant to the issue, you certainly haven't explained it. You've just pointed to things and gone "Look! Maths!" So I ask again: SO WHAT?! Make your observation relevant to the thread, to the question being asked. Please. Just do that. And a reminder: things having a common denominator of maths is NOT the question or issue of this thread.

No Tegmark makes that claim.

I was being flippant. You're not saying that "it is all maths" but you're saying that maths is the common denominator. Forgive me if I've phrased it on this occasion as "it's all maths".

My question is if Tegmark may be correct in saying that the Universe does not just have some mathematical properties, but has only mathematical properties.

And that is relevant to the thread this question has asked... how? Make it relevant. Explain the relevance. How is belief in what Tegmark says, for example, not akin to religion? How is it science when it is not, as Popper would require, falsifiable? You know, address the actual topic of the thread you're otherwise trolling in! And that's even if Tegmark's position is one that concludes on QC.

So far, except for Tegmark, I have not heard a cogent argument for or against other than calling Tegmark a charlatan.

SO WHAT?! There is no need to, because this thread is NOT about Tegmark. It's about whether QC is religion or science. You haven't even shown how raising Tegmark is relevant to the discussion.
If you want to discuss Tegmark's MUH, create a thread about it. Stop hijacking other threads.

A little simplistic but yes, in principle. What exactly is wrong with that?

BECAUSE IT IS NOT ADDRESSING THE QUESTION / THREAD TOPIC.

False.

Is it? How many people were discussing this topic before you started on your irrelevant nonsense? How many are left discussing the topic?
Sure, there are some left, such as me, still replying to you, but note that we're spending all our time not addressing the topic but addressing you and trying to get you to address the topic.

And that is your broken record I must suffer ad nauseam.

Says the patient to the doctor who is telling him he's ill, moments before the patient keels over.

Oh, I have a firm grip on my faculties. If anything I am a reductionist.
Remember, IMO, there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. What say you?

I would say that your comments are non sequiturs: being a reductionist or not is irrelevant to whether you have a grip on your behaviour. If you can start posting relevantly, if you can start addressing the actual thread topic rather than the incessant "everything is about the maths!" type of posting you have bombarded this thread with, then you might demonstrate that you have a grip. Until then, though.

And in your mind what is the question?

Quantum Creation - is it science or is it religion?
Hint: it's in the title of the thread.

That science is a form of religion with a God who is a living entity that requires worship?

No. It's whether quantum creation, (as defined in the OP) any happenstance or intentional creation event where a highly ordered physical reality spontaneously materializes out of nothingness, is science or religion.
This isn't about science as a whole, or the prevalence of mathematics in the universe, but specifically about QC (as defined).
And you have yet to address that in any relevant way.

Or perhaps a new perspective that ultimately everything rests on mathematical principles.

Whether everything rests on mathematical principles or not DOES NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION BEING ASKED IN THIS THREAD. When will you understand that!

I think that's better than not answering the question at all.

You think being a troll is better than not posting? Because that's what you're doing: answering a question that was not asked, and doing so in a way that disrupts the thread. Interesting.

Why don't you admit your ignorance in the matter instead of hiding behind a wall of derogatory superiority?

Ignorance in what matter? The irrelevant issues you're coming up with? If you want to find out how ignorant I am or not on those, ask them in a thread where those topics are relevant, and I may or may not discuss them. But until then, don't confuse telling you that they're irrelevant to this thread with ignorance of those topics.

Stop insulting me.

Then stop being a troll. Start being relevant to the thread you're posting in.

Until you can prove me wrong, I have a perfect right to post on a scientific issue that is currently being debated in the larger scientific community.

Not in any thread that takes your fancy! Create a thread to discuss those topics, if that's what you want to do. But by raising those issues in any and every thread, without making them relevant to the thread, is trolling. And that's what you're doing. Why can't you see that?

You have in no way disproved anything I have said.

I don't need to, Write4U.

A: "So, who would win: a hippo or an elephant?"
B: "All life is made of cells!"
A: "Um, this thread is about whether a hippo can beat an elephant in a fight."
B: "Yeah, but the common denominator is cells. All life is made of cells."
A: "Please be relevant and address the question: who would win, an elephant or a hippo?"
B: "It's all about the cells, though. All life is made of cells."
A: "Please stop trolling!"
B: "You have in no way disproved anything I have said!"

Hopefully there's no need to explain to you whether you're more like person A or person B.

In fact, I seem to have teased a few acknowledgments that I may well be right in some of my observations and conclusions. That must have cost you a lot of pain.

Seriously, Write4U, just stop. If you were person B above, you're now confusing person's A desire for you to be relevant to the discussion with them disagreeing with your assertion that all life is made of cells. Note the fallacious logic of that thinking.

Instead, you have wasted pages on meaningless mudslinging. Let me remind you for the last time that I post about science (along with quoted pertinent passages) and you post personal insults. At least James challenges me to explain some of the more obscure associations but with certain common denominators that show a possible linkage. I have done my best to clarify anything that may seem unrelated.

I have gone out of my way to engage with you honestly and fairly, or maybe you have forgotten. But you simply refuse to be relevant to this discussion/thread. You have tried to make it all about what you see as the common denominator, without showing the relevancy of that to the question asked in the title.
The only personal insult I have thrown is that you're a troll. And that is not personal but rather reasonably concluded from your continued disregard for relevance in this thread, while being repeatedly advised of your behaviour.

As far as the thread is concerned, I have already indicated that I have lost interest. 29 pages, not bad.

At least you'll stop trolling here, I guess.

 

[Sarkus]

Question: If matter can be created, can matter be uncreated?

The Energy of a Trillion Atomic Bombs in Every Cubic Centimeter of Space!
Michael Talbot and David Bohm (in quotes) in Talbot's The Holographic Universe.
https://jacobsm.com/deoxy/deoxy.org/h_bohm.htm

And this is relevant to the question of whether QC is a science or religion... how, exactly?

 

[exchemist]

I am qualified to call you a troll. All I need to be able to do is understand the behaviour of a troll, and see if yours matches.
As for being an ad hominem, it's an ad hominem regardless of whether you think I'm qualified or not. Ad hominem merely means "to the person". In this case the ad hominem is warranted and not fallacious, as it speaks to your behaviour, and to your incessant posting of irrelevant material.
Yes. You claimed that "according to my logic there never was original creation". I am correcting you. So, yes, you did claim differently.
You claimed "according to my logic there never was original creation". I am once again explaining to you where you have erred in understanding the logic of what I had stated.
??? No, this concept is called "The Big Bang": the spontaneous creation of a singularity from which the universe as we know it then evolved.
You don't think transformation of matter is a proven natural phenomenon?
No, I don't know that a singularity is matter. I don't know that it is not. I'm not the one making claims about it. As I said: "If so, and if the singularity is matter".
I've asked you a question: "I'm not sure what you're asking... why do you think I'm comparing anything?" and your response is to conclude that I entertain the possibility that a Creator God exists??? You're not making sense, Write4U. If I ask you to clarify something, as I have clearly done here, surely your response should be to provide the clarification. Your jump to a conclusion is based on an answer that I haven't given, because I am waiting for you to clarify your previous question.
Please get this through your obstinate head: recognising a common denominator of maths is NOT answering the thread question. If it is at all relevant to the issue, you certainly haven't explained it. You've just pointed to things and gone "Look! Maths!" So I ask again: SO WHAT?! Make your observation relevant to the thread, to the question being asked. Please. Just do that. And a reminder: things having a common denominator of maths is NOT the question or issue of this thread.
I was being flippant. You're not saying that "it is all maths" but you're saying that maths is the common denominator. Forgive me if I've phrased it on this occasion as "it's all maths".
And that is relevant to the thread this question has asked... how? Make it relevant. Explain the relevance. How is belief in what Tegmark says, for example, not akin to religion? How is it science when it is not, as Popper would require, falsifiable? You know, address the actual topic of the thread you're otherwise trolling in! And that's even if Tegmark's position is one that concludes on QC.
SO WHAT?! There is no need to, because this thread is NOT about Tegmark. It's about whether QC is religion or science. You haven't even shown how raising Tegmark is relevant to the discussion.
If you want to discuss Tegmark's MUH, create a thread about it. Stop hijacking other threads.
BECAUSE IT IS NOT ADDRESSING THE QUESTION / THREAD TOPIC.
Is it? How many people were discussing this topic before you started on your irrelevant nonsense? How many are left discussing the topic?
Sure, there are some left, such as me, still replying to you, but note that we're spending all our time not addressing the topic but addressing you and trying to get you to address the topic.
Says the patient to the doctor who is telling him he's ill, moments before the patient keels over.
I would say that your comments are non sequiturs: being a reductionist or not is irrelevant to whether you have a grip on your behaviour. If you can start posting relevantly, if you can start addressing the actual thread topic rather than the incessant "everything is about the maths!" type of posting you have bombarded this thread with, then you might demonstrate that you have a grip. Until then, though.
Quantum Creation - is it science or is it religion?
Hint: it's in the title of the thread.
No. It's whether quantum creation, (as defined in the OP) any happenstance or intentional creation event where a highly ordered physical reality spontaneously materializes out of nothingness, is science or religion.
This isn't about science as a whole, or the prevalence of mathematics in the universe, but specifically about QC (as defined).
And you have yet to address that in any relevant way.
Whether everything rests on mathematical principles or not DOES NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION BEING ASKED IN THIS THREAD. When will you understand that!
You think being a troll is better than not posting? Because that's what you're doing: answering a question that was not asked, and doing so in a way that disrupts the thread. Interesting.
Ignorance in what matter? The irrelevant issues you're coming up with? If you want to find out how ignorant I am or not on those, ask them in a thread where those topics are relevant, and I may or may not discuss them. But until then, don't confuse telling you that they're irrelevant to this thread with ignorance of those topics.
Then stop being a troll. Start being relevant to the thread you're posting in.
Not in any thread that takes your fancy! Create a thread to discuss those topics, if that's what you want to do. But by raising those issues in any and every thread, without making them relevant to the thread, is trolling. And that's what you're doing. Why can't you see that?
I don't need to, Write4U.

A: "So, who would win: a hippo or an elephant?"
B: "All life is made of cells!"
A: "Um, this thread is about whether a hippo can beat an elephant in a fight."
B: "Yeah, but the common denominator is cells. All life is made of cells."
A: "Please be relevant and address the question: who would win, an elephant or a hippo?"
B: "It's all about the cells, though. All life is made of cells."
A: "Please stop trolling!"
B: "You have in no way disproved anything I have said!"

Hopefully there's no need to explain to you whether you're more like person A or person B.
Seriously, Write4U, just stop. If you were person B above, you're now confusing person's A desire for you to be relevant to the discussion with them disagreeing with your assertion that all life is made of cells. Note the fallacious logic of that thinking.
I have gone out of my way to engage with you honestly and fairly, or maybe you have forgotten. But you simply refuse to be relevant to this discussion/thread. You have tried to make it all about what you see as the common denominator, without showing the relevancy of that to the question asked in the title.
The only personal insult I have thrown is that you're a troll. And that is not personal but rather reasonably concluded from your continued disregard for relevance in this thread, while being repeatedly advised of your behaviour.
At least you'll stop trolling here, I guess.

Welcome to the club of those who have had it with Write4U.

I'm going to try to confine any further response to him to correcting obvious errors of science that other readers might be confused by. There's just no point in trying to have a discussion with him. He's too far gone.

 

[foghorn]

Yet no one has offered a correction. Why is that?
I like to think that my quoted passages from scientific articles are very much related. At that level, everything is related. You just fail to recognize it.

Creation of matter was the topic wasn’t it?
You said “If matter falls into a black hole and reverts back to its original virtual state, subsequently being expelled from a white hole, then creation is a constant process ‘’.
That’s not creation of matter. That's matter in and matter out. After being knocked about a bit.
So, you are corrected in your idea.

 

[origin]

I thought this thread was going to be closed if write4u continued to be write4u. Please close this absurd thread, it is an embarrassment.
(Do you think write4u is going to post the definition of embarrassment?)

 

[Write4U]

And this is relevant to the question of whether QC is a science or religion... how, exactly?

Yes. You claimed that "according to my logic there never was original creation". I am correcting you. So, yes, you did claim differently.

So we agree there was original creation Creation, a beginning. Excellent.
If there was a Beginning, then that disqualifies religion because God existed before the beginning, yes?

So it is science. But what I have been trying to establish is that the beginning must have been "without form" and from that formless condition (chaos) emerged regular patterns, yes?

OK, the Creation part has been solved. Now to Quantum. Any ideas what that is all about?

A: "So, who would win: a hippo or an elephant?"
B: "All life is made of cells!"
A: "Um, this thread is about whether a hippo can beat an elephant in a fight."
B: "Yeah, but the common denominator is cells. All life is made of cells."
A: "Please be relevant and address the question: who would win, an elephant or a hippo?"
B: "It's all about the cells, though. All life is made of cells."
A: "Please stop trolling!"
B: "You have in no way disproved anything I have said!"

This has no relation to reality at all. I have not said any of these hysterical exclamations.
Why do you waste everyone's time in posting untruths?

Welcome to the club of those who have had it with Write4U.

I'm going to try to confine any further response to him to correcting obvious errors of science that other readers might be confused by. There's just no point in trying to have a discussion with him. He's too far gone.

And exactly where have you corrected me, other than saying I am wrong? That not correction, that's denial.

Obviously there is no intent of researching the subject, so I am done. Happy now?