I am not putting the argument that this is the ultimate necessity nor the explanation for the universe. BlueHillside is. Why nobody seems to want to disturb him on a theory he is offering and yet are on me for daring to bring it up I don't know....but it certainly makes atheists behaviourally interesting.
Is he putting that argument forward, or is he pointing out that this is another account which is viable, as counterpoint to someone else's claim?
For me it shows me he gets the jist of what I mean by ultimate necessity and how you can be your own explanation.
He might, I'm not sure that I do.
If particles have been created and broken by quantum fluctuations for ever though and quantum field fluctuations are the ultimate then it means that contingent particles have been around forever and so has their necessary explanation and cause.
No, it might mean (might) that we can fathom the proximate cause of those quantum fluctuations, but that doesn't in any way show that something was necessary for 'quantum' to be.
In other words the particles still need a necessity even though they have been around for ever. So you see contingency and necessity conceptually not dependent on time.
No, one of the requirements of quantum fluctuations like that is time; the equations do not work unless you have a time component. It may be that there is an equivalent 'dimension' or concept in extra-universal physics for an equivalent to occur, it may not, we don't know.
O.
If quantum fields however waited forever to create the universe once only That demonstrates remarkable self control.
[/quote]
