tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post1604332105280018727..comments2024-03-27T00:26:19.644+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: The Universe Is A Zero Sum GameRosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-79037201000891874212017-10-27T21:12:23.331+01:002017-10-27T21:12:23.331+01:00How embarrassing for you that you had to remain an...How embarrassing for you that you had to remain anonymous! <br /><br />But thanks for the tip. Next time I'll remember to pop forward in time 4.5 years to make sure what I write it up-to-the-future.<br /><br />Have you anything constructive to say, Manuel?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-1249597851480603422017-10-27T19:55:12.351+01:002017-10-27T19:55:12.351+01:00univerce from nothing - looks like the quantum mag...univerce from nothing - looks like the quantum magic. Read the papers of emergent quantum mechanics - 2017 Vienna about the real physics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-23864142647879375522017-02-09T10:37:32.870+00:002017-02-09T10:37:32.870+00:00I don't think anyone ever thinks what they mea...I don't think anyone ever thinks what they mean by 'nothing', let alone the idea that there was once 'nothing'. For there to have once been 'nothing', 'nothing' would have needed to exist and yet the only way to come close to a definition of 'nothing' is in terms on non-existence. For there ever to have been 'nothing' 'nothing' would need to both exist and not exist simultaneously. Clearly that can't be possible.<br /><br />The other problem is that people then take that illogical definition and project properties onto it, claiming that this or that can't come from 'nothing', yet, by definition, there is nothing to examine about which to determine anything.<br /><br />And why, despite the logically untenability of 'nothing', do people then assume that this must be the default state of existence? By why logic do people conclude that there must have been 'nothing' before there was something? It's even more preposterous to assume that anything, even 'nothing' can exist before time because existence only means anything in terms of occupying space through time.<br /><br />I'd be happy to share your belief in an intelligent designer and then look for ways in which its existence better explains the Universe if you can produce a single piece of definitive, authenticated evidence of the existence of such an entity rather than the circular assumption that some things superficially designed therefore the only explanation is the locally popular god. Meanwhile, since I see nothing wrong with the natural explanations science has and is discovering to explain the Universe, I see no reason to suppose such a thing exists. Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-72173455980305601412017-02-09T10:07:47.568+00:002017-02-09T10:07:47.568+00:00I believe in creation but I don't think that m...I believe in creation but I don't think that means you cannot ask or try to understand how things came to be from nothing. Just saying "I just did" or "It must be magic" is just something that people who don't care say. Things are "magic" to people until they are explained through science. <br /><br />Maybe I'm a unicorn though because I believe in evolution and a god. I do find the idea that the universe is actually nothing fascinating. Are we just a thought or dream or are we part of some experiment that appears to be on the quantum level to someone who's observation and consciousness makes us exist and will cause that existence to cease once the eyes look away?<br /><br />In all seriousness I do believe there is a god. But I have never been satisfied with the answer by anyone else that believes too that things are the way they are "just because". I've always wanted to know how things work and don't believe that asking questions or seeking answers is wrong. I love science but I don't push anyone to share my belief that this place is here by intelligent design. The belief in a god is not license for ignorance or arrogance. In fact it's contradictory to the belief itself. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-25668906526158644232015-06-16T09:32:14.431+01:002015-06-16T09:32:14.431+01:00Poor Craig was obviously just chanting a protectiv...Poor Craig was obviously just chanting a protective mantra he's been taught. I doubt he even knows what the big words mean.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-64292942794906653542015-06-16T00:42:05.856+01:002015-06-16T00:42:05.856+01:00It doesn't violate the 2nd law as entropy rema...It doesn't violate the 2nd law as entropy remains the same globally...Atheistxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04361853555816132812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-66331863903937854622015-03-27T00:32:24.514+00:002015-03-27T00:32:24.514+00:00I don't suppose it's even worth asking you...I don't suppose it's even worth asking you how you arrived at that conclusion and where the data you used to prove it may be seen or how the experiments were conducted, and I know you won't be able to explain what you imagine is the link between the Laws of Thermodynamics and evolution.<br /><br />But I will, just so people can laugh at your scientific illiteracy and your idiocy in posing as an expert from a position of almost complete ignorance and hoping no one will notice.<br /><br />Sorry to be so unkind but you have to learn somehow.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-77948242815581758932015-03-26T15:53:14.719+00:002015-03-26T15:53:14.719+00:00Evolution is not science. Neither is this article...Evolution is not science. Neither is this article. You can't offend the first 2 laws of thermodynamics and make up fairy tales about how information and matter arose from nothing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-75186142559082704802013-02-25T19:05:08.643+00:002013-02-25T19:05:08.643+00:00Ignoring creationists, I have always had a hard ti...Ignoring creationists, I have always had a hard time grasping the quantum physics that explained the beginning of the universe. Suddenly, your article has made it easy to understand. Well written (as usual), but in this case, an old scientist like me gets to understand something new.Skeptical Raptorhttp://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.phpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-11892432038622043332013-02-21T02:38:41.526+00:002013-02-21T02:38:41.526+00:00The problem is that talking to a creationist is th...The problem is that talking to a creationist is the equivalent of talking to a brick wall (I know; I've tried). In fact a brick wall is probably smarter and more responsive.Bill the Butcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08436195659154078021noreply@blogger.com