4
sinclairjd
January 15, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Vilenkin has not had a change of heart. He still holds to a a ‘tunneling from nothing’ view, and a Level II Tegmark multiverse. I believe his work in showing that the universe has a beginning is in keeping arguing for the continued relevancy of his original research.
He seems to take no side with regard to who or what is responsible for creation. In his popular level book “Many Worlds from One”, he suggests that creation is an unsolvable paradox.
5
Axel
January 15, 2012 at 7:29 pm
“He seems to take no side with regard to who or what is responsible for creation. In his popular level book “Many Worlds from One”, he suggests that creation is an unsolvable paradox.”
What other side – other than an omnipotent God – is there to take, with regard to who or what is responsible for Creation, sinclairjd? He seems to be just eschewing metaphysics, perhaps for fear of offending against the secular-fundamentalist, scientism zeitgeist.
Moreover, Creation is an unsolvable paradox from the sole viewpoint of the analytical intelligence. The more fundamental spiritual truths, like their empirical counterparts, are paradoxes, which latter, by definition, are all absolutely imponderable, whatever the sphere of knowledge. If they were untrue, of course, they would be simply oxymorons.
The primary means of accessing spiritual truths was described by Aldous Huxley in his essay on comparative religion, as the ‘unitive intelligence’, in some measure, achievable by modifying ones goals and behaviour.
I doubt, however, its applicability, at least proximately, to the paradoxes of physics, which physicists are nevertheless able to accept as part of their world-view in relation to their field, using them as staging posts towards further discoveries.
From here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/cosmology/a-real-beginning-to-the-universe-cosmologist-vilenkin-didnt-always-give-the-worst-birthday-gifts-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-415033
-------------------------------------------------
This (by Axel) is what really jumps out at me:
"What other side – other than an omnipotent God – is there to take, with regard to who or what is responsible for Creation, sinclairjd?"
It's the very old and totally lame 'Unless you can prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the universe and everything in it came about by some other process, then my chosen imaginary god must be the omnipotent creator of the universe and everything in it.' assertion.
God zombies think that whatever version of their religious insanity they believe in is THE default. They think that everything else, including scientific evidence and theories, must be compared to their beliefs and can only be considered credible if there's mountains of detailed scientific evidence about everything on Earth and in the rest of the universe that PROVES their non-evidential, non-scientific, fantasy-based religious beliefs to be wrong.
Hey Axel, how do you know that Fifi the pink unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or an alien named Fred from another universe didn't create this universe? There's just as much evidence for them being responsible for alleged "Creation" as there is for your chosen god.
