Disproofs of God.

[Stranger]

But if you pushed me, I'd say that energy comes pretty close to being a required entity for those explanations. Could the universe exist without energy - discuss.

Yes, it's possible (zero-energy universe hypothesis). In any case, energy isn't a something in and of itself - you have to have something (or arrangement of things) that has energy. Its conservation depends on the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics (Noether's theorem). In special relativity energy and momentum are combined into the energy-momentum 4-vestor. Both are conserved in any one frame of reference but different observers will disagree about what is energy and what is momentum. In general relativity the we have the energy-momentum-stress tensor, and energy can be said to be conserved locally but it's far from clear how to generalise that to curved space-time (Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?, Conservation of energy - Relativity).

Energy really isn't a thing (entitiy) at all, it's a property of things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apart from, as NS pointed out, the circularity, a valid deductive argument can tell us about the material world if and only if its premises can be shown to be true. If can tell us probabilistically about the material world if there is reasonably good evidence that its premises are true.

Hells bells,Never talk to strangers, neighbourhood watch for  a Natural cause for nature street, Natural cause for nature Estate, natural cause for nature town, natural cause for nature shire, The United Kingdom of the natural cause for nature........is now giving a lecture on circular argument.

[Stranger]

Hells bells,Never talk to strangers, neighbourhood watch for  a Natural cause for nature street, Natural cause for nature Estate, natural cause for nature town, natural cause for nature shire, The United Kingdom of the natural cause for nature........is now giving a lecture on circular argument.

Clearly that went over your head too. Still waiting for anything remotely like some actual reasoning from your good self....

[ProfessorDavey]

The necessary entity as far as the contingent universe is concerned is the final and full explanation for the contingent universe.

A necessary entity (in the context of the universe) is something which exists which, if it failed to exist would mean the universe could not exist. It doesn't need to be a full and final explanation for anything, merely that the universe cannot exist unless it exists.

I do not think a case has been made that a necessary entity is even required in this context.

[Nearly Sane]

A necessary entity (in the context of the universe) is something which exists which, if it failed to exist would mean the universe could not exist. It doesn't need to be a full and final explanation for anything, merely that the universe cannot exist unless it exists.

I do not think a case has been made that a necessary entity is even required in this context.

Note that isn't in line with the definition you put up which allows for multiple necessary entities.

[ProfessorDavey]

So if you say it’s energy then definitionally that is your offer of the necessary entity. But then, I can ask. Why a fixed amount of energy as suggested in the conservation of energy and why a certain amount of energy. I could also ask why does it start of maximally ordered. I could ask has it been around for ever and even , if it is the necessary entity.......How come Missus Higgins at the Duracell factory put it into tins. In other words if we examine energy it looks more like a contingent thing.

I only talked about energy, not the amount etc of energy. For something to be a necessary entity it is required to exist for the universe to exist - I don't think the definition goes beyond that into amounts of energy etc.

And indeed it may be that energy is not a necessary entity - I only posited it as the nearest thing we perhaps have for discussion and NTTS has rebutted this notion.

I'm not claiming that there is any necessary entity for the universe.

[ProfessorDavey]

Note that isn't in line with the definition you put up which allows for multiple necessary entities.

That's fine - there can be many (or no) necessary entities - the point being that any necessary entity needs to be such that if it didn't exist the universe couldn't exist. It could be that a single necessary entity is ... err ... necessary, but not sufficient and that another one or many further necessary entities are also required for sufficiency of universe existence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why don’t birds get electrocuted on power lines but a giraffe, if it sticks it’s neck out sufficiently can electrocute itself on a tramline? Answer potential difference.

And why is that in any way relevant to the discussion Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And why is that in any way relevant to the discussion Vlad?

It isnt that there is not energy it is just that in the system with the birds there is no potential difference and therefore nothing happens. So you could Potentially....get it?....potentially have all the energy in the universe going through the wires and the birds could sit quite happily.....notionally at least.

A potential difference needs to be actualised before anything happens and where we have a pd we have an example of entropy which ultimately brings us to heat death. So what we are looking for is an actualiser.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's fine - there can be many (or no) necessary entities - the point being that any necessary entity needs to be such that if it didn't exist the universe couldn't exist. It could be that a single necessary entity is ... err ... necessary, but not sufficient and that another one or many further necessary entities are also required for sufficiency of universe existence.

There certainly can be lost of abstract necessities but they dont actually do anything in, for or to the physical universe.
Therefore you could say they are necessary but not sufficient. But what they are not is contingent. When the last brain has gone one and one will still be Two.

Which brings us to whether we can have more than Plato's, the one.....or whether we have Olympus. Is it just the yun or is it yin and yang ?

Supposing there were two necessary beings? How would they have carved up the universe. To avoid a subordinate necessary being I.e.dependent on the higher being which would render one beings freedom of action to be contingent. The universe would have to be split 50:50. Which would be inevitable if they were equal. At this point both necessities are thus controlled by this third entity and or both entities become contingent on another.

Now If there are two sets of rules or laws in the universe. Would there not be a conflict for example. Supposing one necessity had dominion over women and the other had dominion over who could travel at what speed the you could envisage a world where only men were capable of interstellar travel......and other horrors.

So you see prof the idea of actual necessary entities plural is a bit of a non starter.

[ProfessorDavey]

It isnt that there is not energy it is just that in the system with the birds there is no potential difference and therefore nothing happens. So you could Potentially....get it?....potentially have all the energy in the universe going through the wires and the birds could sit quite happily.....notionally at least.

A potential difference needs to be actualised before anything happens and where we have a pd we have an example of entropy which ultimately brings us to heat death. So what we are looking for is an actualiser.

Actually the point is about current, not potential difference. The PD between the wires and the 'ground' is the same in both cases - the bird isn't electrocuted because there is no current flow through the animal due to the insulating effect of the air. And the damage caused is largely due to the energy transferred to the various organs and tissues in the animal - which involves a complex relationship between current flow and path and the resistance of the various tissues.

Hope you understand this a little better now.

However I'm still at a loss why this is relevant to potential necessary entities for the existence of the universe.

[ProfessorDavey]

Supposing there were two necessary beings? How would they have carved up the universe. To avoid a subordinate necessary being I.e.dependent on the higher being which would render one beings freedom of action to be contingent. The universe would have to be split 50:50. Which would be inevitable if they were equal. At this point both necessities are thus controlled by this third entity and or both entities become contingent on another.

Now If there are two sets of rules or laws in the universe. Would there not be a conflict for example. Supposing one necessity had dominion over women and the other had dominion over who could travel at what speed the you could envisage a world where only men were capable of interstellar travel......and other horrors.

So you see prof the idea of actual necessary entities plural is a bit of a non starter.

Nope - you are completely misunderstanding the issue. You are implying that these necessary entities are somehow in conflict - that isn't the case, typically they are completely interdependent - needing to work together.

So here is an example. Where nerve cells meet there is a structure called a synapse. For the nerve signal to travel from one nerve to another it needs to cross that synapse. To do so the first nerve cell releases a molecule, a neurotransmitter, that can cross the gap. But for the signal to move along the second neurone that cell must have receptors that bind to the neurotransmitter.

So both the neurotransmitter and the receptor are necessary for transmission of the signal - however neither is sufficient - if you have the neurotransmitter but not the receptor, no transmission. Likewise if you have the receptor but no neurotransmitter, again no signal. You need both. Neither is subordinate to the other.

So you can consider both the neurotransmitter and the receptor as being necessary entities for nerve signal transduction from one nerve cell to another. There is no conflict - quite the reverse, both entities work together and indeed are required to work together, to get the desired response.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - you are completely misunderstanding the issue. You are implying that these necessary entities are somehow in conflict - that isn't the case, typically they are completely interdependent - needing to work together.

Then they are contingent on that need and neither is the final or full explanation.  Why would they need to work together?

So here is an example. Where nerve cells meet there is a structure called a synapse. For the nerve signal to travel from one nerve to another it needs to cross that synapse. To do so the first nerve cell releases a molecule, a neurotransmitter, that can cross the gap. But for the signal to move along the second neurone that cell must have receptors that bind to the neurotransmitter.

So both the neurotransmitter and the receptor are necessary for transmission of the signal - however neither is sufficient - if you have the neurotransmitter but not the receptor, no transmission. Likewise if you have the receptor but no neurotransmitter, again no signal. You need both. Neither is subordinate to the other.

So you can consider both the neurotransmitter and the receptor as being necessary entities for nerve signal transduction from one nerve cell to another. There is no conflict - quite the reverse, both entities work together and indeed are required to work together, to get the desired response.

Oh fuck we are back into contingency and nature again. What we are talking about  is what is necessary for nature not what is necessary in nature. There is no conflct because they are parts of a whole and therefore are not necessary but contingent on each other. what would you say was the final explanation for why there are neurotransitters and receptors. what needs to be in place to have neurotransmitters and receptors and what of those things that are not dependent on neurotransmitters and receptors but are dependent on what everything is dependent on, that is what we are really after

What you are merely agreeing with therefore is the contention that the universe is not necessary. That it is just a souped up machine like a bicycle. for something to be necessary it has to be the final and full explanation for the universe not part of it. For example you have merely produced a perpetual motion machine.

So to sum up if they are in agreement then that is because they are parts of the same one thing and therefore not at all analogous to multiple necessary beings at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh fuck we are back into contingency and nature again.

Nope - I am providing a real example - you know something that actually exists outside of the bizarre Vlad fantasies.

[ProfessorDavey]

for something to be necessary it has to be the final and full explanation for the universe not part of it.

No it doesn't - for it to be necessary all the is required is that the universe could not exist without it - nothing more, nothing less.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - you are completely misunderstanding the issue. You are implying that these necessary entities are somehow in conflict - that isn't the case, typically they are completely interdependent - needing to work together.

Then they are contingent on that need and neither is a final or full explanation eg, Give a full explanation of how a bicycle works.........Answer, Wheel'' It doesn't work does it.  Why would they need to work together unless they were parts of the same thing?
[quote}
So here is an example. Where nerve cells meet there is a structure called a synapse. For the nerve signal to travel from one nerve to another it needs to cross that synapse. To do so the first nerve cell releases a molecule, a neurotransmitter, that can cross the gap. But for the signal to move along the second neurone that cell must have receptors that bind to the neurotransmitter.

So both the neurotransmitter and the receptor are necessary for transmission of the signal - however neither is sufficient - if you have the neurotransmitter but not the receptor, no transmission. Likewise if you have the receptor but no neurotransmitter, again no signal. You need both. Neither is subordinate to the other.

So you can consider both the neurotransmitter and the receptor as being necessary entities for nerve signal transduction from one nerve cell to another. There is no conflict - quite the reverse, both entities work together and indeed are required to work together, to get the desired response.
[/quote]
Oh fuck we are back into contingency and nature again. What we are talking about  is what is necessary for nature not what is necessary in nature. There is no conflct because they are parts of a whole and therefore are not two necessary entities but two parts of the one thing but contingent on each other. what would you say was the final explanation for why there are neurotransmitters and receptors. what needs to be in place to have neurotransmitters and receptors and what of those things that are not dependent on neurotransmitters and receptors but are dependent on what everything is dependent on, that is what we are really after

What you are merely agreeing with therefore is the contention that the universe is not necessary. That it is just a souped up machine like a bicycle. for something to be necessary it has to be the final and full explanation for the universe not part of it. For example you have merely produced a perpetual motion machine.

So to sum up if they are in agreement then that is because they are parts of the same one thing and therefore not at all analogous to multiple necessary beings at all. And this is why there is probably only one ultimate necessary entity.

What do you think then is necessary for the universe to exist. With energy I demonstrated that if all energy were potential nothing would happen since there is no energy transferrence and no potential difference even if there were potential energy.Energy cannot therefore be the necessary entity.

[ProfessorDavey]

So to sum up if they are in agreement then that is because they are parts of the same one thing and therefore not at all analogous to multiple necessary beings at all.

Rubbish - the neurotransmitter and the receptor are completely separate and distinct entities. Both are necessary for the effect (neural transmission) - if either did not exist the effect doesn't happen - they are both necessary entities according to the definition.

[ProfessorDavey]

Then they are contingent on that need and neither is a final or full explanation ...

I refer you back to reply 164 - for something to be a necessary entity it doesn't need to be a final or full explanation of anything. All it needs to be is something that were it not to exist would render the thing being considered (universe, bicycle, neural transmission) impossible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it doesn't - for it to be necessary all the is required is that the universe could not exist without it - nothing more, nothing less.

And what is that?

Rubbish - the neurotransmitter and the receptor are completely separate and distinct entities. Both are necessary for the effect (neural transmission) - if either did not exist the effect doesn't happen - they are both necessary entities according to the definition.

They are not necessary for the universe to exist nor for stars to exist. If they are interdependent i.e they do not function on there own then there is no way they can be called necessary beings since you have found the contingency in both of them. They are parts of the same thing.

[ProfessorDavey]

And what is that?They are not necessary for the universe to exist nor for stars to exist.

Indeed they are not as I was using the example of neurones, just as you are using the example of the bicycle.

But to return to the universe - a necessary entity does not need to be a final or full explanation of the universe. All it needs to be is something that were it not to exist would render the universe impossible.

[ProfessorDavey]

And what is that?

I am not claiming that such a thing even exists, let alone what it is.

You are claiming that this is god - which is therefore for you to justify. And given that there is no evidence that god even exists it is a pretty major stretch for you to argue that this (not proven entity) is, in fact, the (note you don't accept plural) necessary entity for the universe to exist.

Perhaps you shouldn't try to run before you can walk. Demonstrate that god exists, and once you have done that we can start a conversation about whether god is a or the necessary entity for the universe to exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed they are not as I was using the example of neurones, just as you are using the example of the bicycle.

But to return to the universe - a necessary entity does not need to be doesn't need to be a final or full explanation of the universe. All it needs to be is something that were it not to exist would render the universe impossible.

Yes Professor it does.
If the universe is just a sophisticated machine then you are just looking for the piece that if you removed it it would stop it. Is that the same as the explanation for why it exists in the first place or whether the whole thing has any necessity contained within it.
Right now I think we are looking for whatever is at the base of the hierarchies of dependence.

[ProfessorDavey]

If the universe is just a sophisticated machine then you are just looking for the piece that if you removed it it would stop it.

Well done - you've finally got it.

Is that the same as the explanation for why it exists in the first place ...

Classic anthropomorphic bollocks - why does the universe need to have a reason to exist. Sadly your are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and however hard we try to explain this to you, you simple continue to shout look everything it terribly, terrible, tiny - why can't you understand this.

Wake up, smell the coffee, turn the telescope the right way around and you may start to understand that the universe doesn't revolve around you - nor me, nor humans, nor the earth, nor life. The universe is completely uninterested in any of these matters. Why - because if has no consciousness (although consciousness may develop in it) and the notion of why the universe exists, if why means a conscious reason, is completely irrelevant.

[Nearly Sane]

That's fine - there can be many (or no) necessary entities - the point being that any necessary entity needs to be such that if it didn't exist the universe couldn't exist. It could be that a single necessary entity is ... err ... necessary, but not sufficient and that another one or many further necessary entities are also required for sufficiency of universe existence.

No, the definition you put up covers nothing about the necessary entity for existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well done - you've finally got it.
Classic anthropomorphic bollocks - why does the universe need to have a reason to exist. Sadly your are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and however hard we try to explain this to you, you simple continue to shout look everything it terribly, terrible, tiny - why can't you understand this.

Wake up, smell the coffee, turn the telescope the right way around and you may start to understand that the universe doesn't revolve around you - nor me, nor humans, nor the earth, nor life. The universe is completely uninterested in any of these matters. Why - because if has no consciousness (although consciousness may develop in it) and the notion of why the universe exists, if why means a conscious reason, is completely irrelevant.

Oh I see sir You need the science and technology section  this is religion and ethics.

What you need to do sir is go down the fucking corridor
Stop at the pissing lift go down to the arsholing fifth floor where you'll find the shitting general department Now go straight ahead past the ladies and gents shithouse and it's the sodding second on the farting left.