Alex Jones Exposes Atheists

[GostHacked]

Wow. It's tough when somebody you believed in lets you down like that. Well, sorry to hear that.

I got over it quickly. The other communities I am involved with are really good because we don't allow the drama and trolling ect. As soon as that hit went out, we had a couple hundred members join in less than a week. A good number were troublemakers and we dealt with them accordingly with immediate bans. But overall the hit did us a favour as it increased our membership drastically. So in the end turned out to be a very positive thing for us.

[Guest Manny]

Like as if he wasn't already marginalized to the realm of fruitcake anyway?

[bush_cheney2004]

Wow. It's tough when somebody you believed in lets you down like that. Well, sorry to hear that.

But not surprising.....anybody with knowledge of Jone's antics as a local cable access host in Texas could have predicted this. He was nuts 15 years ago.

[GostHacked]

Like as if he wasn't already marginalized to the realm of fruitcake anyway?

There are many shows I had listened to him where he does not rant at all. He can actually be respectable on air and be civil. But this ... this was just dumb and really showed his true colours. I think he is loosing his mind, because the rants are more common.

[Bonam]

Bahaha, just watched the Alex Jones video.

[dre]

That's contentious. A true A-theist says 'nothing' otherwise what distinguishes him from an a-gnostic (not-knowing) ? If you think they're the same thing, then we agree anyway.

Well your question was "whats outside the known universe?".

Both the atheist and the agnostic would answer "the unknown universe" or "I dont know". The only difference is the atheist would be sure its not god, and the agnostic wouldnt.

It seems you are suggesting that atheists reject the idea of the unknown, and so they would say "nothing", but I dont know of any aspect of atheism that would suggest this. Theres no reason an atheist would not have an open mind to "something" being outside our "known universe", or even a trillion other unknown universes. They just think that what IS there a diety (as defined by humanity) didnt make it, and does not exist.

[dre]

Technically speaking, the "known universe" refers to that region of the universe which we can directly observe with telescopes. However, because the far reaches of the universe are causally disconnected and thus receding from each other faster than the speed of light, we cannot actually see the entirety of the universe. The oldest light is ~13.7 billion years old and thus we can see 13.7 billion light years around us. But the size of the universe is much larger than that, estimated to be perhaps somewhere around 150 billion light years across. If that estimate is anywhere close to right, then the "known universe" is less than 1% of the volume of the entire universe, and we will never see more of it than that (unless we develop faster-than-light technology of some sort). In fact, as the universe continues to expand, the portion of its volume that will be visible to us will continue to shrink. Therefore, what lies outside the known universe is just a lot more space, most likely not much different than the space inside the known universe.

Sounds right to me... your above my paygrade on this stuff. But thats just our universe as well. I think prevailing quantum mechanics view is that theres a whole shitload of universes similar to ours all with the same laws of physics that are extremely far apart and that inflation is local not global... some parts are expanding and some arent, and because of the rate the space in between universes in the multiverse are expanding light from those other universes cant ever reach us. I dont claim to understand it all

In any case as I said I dont know of any aspect of atheism that would make an atheist think theres "nothing" outside our observable or known universe.

Edited January 11, 2013 by dre

[Bonam]

Sounds right to me... your above my paygrade on this stuff. But thats just our universe as well. I think prevailing quantum mechanics view is that theres a whole shitload of universes similar to ours all with the same laws of physics that are extremely far apart and that inflation is local not global... some parts are expanding and some arent, and because of the rate the space in between universes in the multiverse are expanding light from those other universes cant ever reach us. I dont claim to understand it all

Quantum mechanics doesn't say much about multiverse theories, those are another realm of physics. And, unlike quantum mechanics and relativity, which have such monumental heaps of experimental evidence supporting them that they are among the most well supported theories in all of science, multiverse theories at this point have no supporting evidence whatsoever nor any testable predictions. They are the same as string theory in that regard.

In any case as I said I dont know of any aspect of atheism that would make an atheist think theres "nothing" outside our observable or known universe.

Whether or not anything exists outside the known/observable universe is a clear scientific claim. And the answer is yes, something exists. Most likely, as I mentioned, it is more space, populated with stars and galaxies and dark matter the same as that which we can observe. Or perhaps there are other things in that space. But that space exists, and at the very least is space.

As for whether or not anything exists outside of the entire physical universe, that too is a scientific question, albeit one to which we do not have as good of an answer as yet. The conventional answer is that our universe has no edge, no boundary, and that the term outside has no meaning. It's not like you could travel really far in one direction and then just come to the end of the universe and wonder what is behind the big wall that's in front of you. Just like the Earth turned out not to be flat and not to have edges and corners, so too our universe is not flat, but its lack of flatness is thought to be that of a 3 dimensional surface wrapped around a 4 dimensional form, rather than the Earth's lack of flatness which is that of a 2 dimensional surface wrapped around a 3 dimensional form.

In any case, you are right, the physical question of whether there is such a thing as an "outside" to our universe, and if there is an outside, whether there is anything there, is a question of science, not of religion. It doesn't have much to do with atheism, nor is there anything in atheism that would suggest one should have unfounded beliefs about what is or is not outside the universe. Atheism is the statement that one does not believe in god, and I suppose that could be specified to mean that one believes there is no god outside of the universe, just as it also means there is no god outside my door, outside my office building, or outside the solar system. But atheism says nothing about the existence or non-existence of many other things, and an atheist could well have reason to believe that there are other things outside our universe, such as perhaps other universes, if multiverse theories turn out to be true.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Bonam

[WIP]

Hey, since this thread is about Alex Jones exposing atheists....I'll just assume that's what the video in the OP is about. there's no damn way I'm going to listen to Alex Jones if I don't have to....but now there's an Alex Jones video with real comedic value, thanks to his recent appearance on the Piers Morgan Show. I used to think he was just a windbag out to make money off of selling gold and other crap, but this looks like he's a genuine lunatic. So totally insane that he makes Piers Morgan look good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Ddb3oa5CE

Edited January 11, 2013 by WIP

[WIP]

Quantum mechanics doesn't say much about multiverse theories, those are another realm of physics. And, unlike quantum mechanics and relativity, which have such monumental heaps of experimental evidence supporting them that they are among the most well supported theories in all of science, multiverse theories at this point have no supporting evidence whatsoever nor any testable predictions. They are the same as string theory in that regard.

But, quantum mechanics tells us that in that very early stage of our universe, when it was inflationary - as proposed by Alan Guth - and for a brief period of time, this reverse gravity was driving everything apart very rapidly, that the universe would have been so small and so dense at that point that quantum fluctuations in the space/time fabric would have led to all potential probabilities being actualized, and an infinite stream of universes rapidly inflating and then spreading out like bubbles that have no further contact with the original universe that was expanding, or remain in contact with any other universes formed during the inflationary period. I know I probably mangled that explanation. I heard an interview with Alex Vilenkin on the Eternal Inflation Model he and Andre Linde proposed by developing Guth's theory with quantum mechanics. This Science Blogs regular goes through the details step by step. I'll have to read it over myself!

The other main alternative to explain origins of the universe, coming from string theories is from the M Theory developed by Ed Witten, which added an extra dimension to the 10 dimension string theory models. As explained by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, M Theory leads to an endless cascade of universes forming from the energy of branes of existing universes colliding after expanding into each other. If it could be visualized, it might look like a giant fireworks display of universes being seeded and expanding until they have spectacular collisions with other universes and the whole process happening all over again. Here's the Edge lecture Neil Turok gave back in 2007 explaining their Cyclic Universe Model. Where the cyclic model taps out, when attempting to explain everything through naturalistic models is where we come to that metaverse frame containing all of the expanding and exploding universes. The metaverse would have to be timeless and pre-exist all universes that come into existence. The Cyclic Model may never develop an approach to try to understand what that background metaverse would be. If there's a creator, then the metaverse would be where God would be found. But, this would be a very remote sort of God; even more remote than a God of each universe.

[Guest Manny]

Multiverses, an stuff? Sure, you boys and girls are welcome to fantasize about unproveable, untestable theories of reality all you like.

[GostHacked]

Multiverses, an stuff? Sure, you boys and girls are welcome to fantasize about unproveable, untestable theories of reality all you like.

Well those looking into some of the things you mentioned know that it is currently unprovable and may never be provable at all. So now the testing can begin to validate such claims. Why do you hate the scientific method?

[Mighty AC]

Multiverses, an stuff? Sure, you boys and girls are welcome to fantasize about unproveable, untestable theories of reality all you like.

We all dream, hypothesize and invent. The difference is we readily admit that there isn't any evidence to support these hypotheses at this time. Can you imagine how silly it would be to fully accept an assertion without evidence?

[WIP]

We all dream, hypothesize and invent. The difference is we readily admit that there isn't any evidence to support these hypotheses at this time. Can you imagine how silly it would be to fully accept an assertion without evidence?

But, the new physics of the 20th century (quantum mechanics and relativity) that remains counter-intuitive to our expectations, is proven and was essential for the development of modern technologies and space travel. And when applied to cosmological theories, they prove that universes cannot be singular events. If one universe comes into existence, so do an infinite number of universes. The point Vilenkin was making with Eternal Inflation, was that Guth's Inflation Theory occurred during a stage of the early universe when quantum fluctuations would have to be taken into effect, and the result would be an endless, infinite stream of universes or no universe at all! And, if string theory of some sort is the solution to resolving the conflicts between quantum theory and general relativity, universes are events on an even larger stage that cosmologists applying string theory like Paul Steinhardt, say will be too difficult to grapple with until string theory is further developed and connected with applied research that can be examined and investigated.

[WIP]

Multiverses, an stuff? Sure, you boys and girls are welcome to fantasize about unproveable, untestable theories of reality all you like.

And they're developed from the same theoretical physics that made it possible to design and build the computer you're using to browse the internet and make comments! Just because we don't understand the math, doesn't mean that nobody does. The problem is that the math gets more and more difficult as physicists try to peer back into the beginning of our universe, and fewer and fewer are able to follow along and develop approaches to reach the goal of 'the end of physics.'

So, the big question is not whether there are other universes....that's almost certain just based on what's been learned about our universe so far. The real question is whether the great a priori assumption of science - that the universe is completely understandable by humans applying the scientific method and we can be able to answer all of the fundamental questions about nature.

[Guest Manny]

We all dream, hypothesize and invent. The difference is we readily admit that there isn't any evidence to support these hypotheses at this time. Can you imagine how silly it would be to fully accept an assertion without evidence?

Yes I can, but its not always silly. Sometimes what matters more is that it works. It may be impossible to prove, but it produces a useful result. I'm talking about string theory.

[Bonam]

But, the new physics of the 20th century (quantum mechanics and relativity) that remains counter-intuitive to our expectations, is proven and was essential for the development of modern technologies and space travel. And when applied to cosmological theories, they prove that universes cannot be singular events. If one universe comes into existence, so do an infinite number of universes.

No, such assertions are not proven in physics. In fact, not only they are not proven, they have no supporting evidence. Multiple universes are not direct predictions of either relativity or quantum mechanics.

So, the big question is not whether there are other universes....that's almost certain just based on what's been learned about our universe so far.

Nope. It's a possibility that is thus far not ruled out. And some physicists see multiple universes as an elegant theory. But it is neither proven, nor certain, nor almost certain. You may want to learn more about physics before you make such grandiose statements.

[Bonam]

Yes I can, but its not always silly. Sometimes what matters more is that it works. It may be impossible to prove, but it produces a useful result. I'm talking about string theory.

String theory makes no testable predictions at all as yet, let alone useful results.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Bonam

[WIP]

No, such assertions are not proven in physics. In fact, not only they are not proven, they have no supporting evidence. Multiple universes are not direct predictions of either relativity or quantum mechanics.

Go talk to the people who are trying to advance cosmology then! The general consensus appears to be that you can't have just one universe if you apply the rules of existing physics to cosmology theories like Alan Guth's Inflation Theory.....maybe you don't accept that either! But, from what I've read or listened to from interviews with present day theorists, an Inflation period in the early universe has wide acceptance. And Vilenkin's point is that such a small, hot universe would undergo inflation that would be subject to the rules of quantum mechanics.

Nope. It's a possibility that is thus far not ruled out. And some physicists see multiple universes as an elegant theory. But it is neither proven, nor certain, nor almost certain. You may want to learn more about physics before you make such grandiose statements.

And, of course you know more about physics than Vilenkin, Neil Turok or Paul Steinhardt? And, I know pretty much as much about cosmology and theoretical physics as I intend to right now. I don't have time to study every subject, so this is one that I will just learn about some of the basic principles, and leave the math and the complex issues for the experts. If they arrive at a consensus....like the general agreement that the energy signal found in a particle collision at the Large Hadron Collider is 99.999% certain to be the Higgs Boson....I'll just take their word on it! For now, what I'm not hearing in cosmology, are single universe theories to explain the origins of our universe. There must be some reason why every version I've heard about is a multiverse, or would lead towards a multiverse theory of origins.

[Guest Manny]

String theory makes no testable predictions at all as yet, let alone useful results.

"Usefu results" in this case are mathematical.

[Guest Manny]

And, I know pretty much as much about cosmology and theoretical physics as I intend to right now. I don't have time to study every subject, so this is one that I will just learn about some of the basic principles, and leave the math and the complex issues for the experts. If they arrive at a consensus....like the general agreement that the energy signal found in a particle collision at the Large Hadron Collider is 99.999% certain to be the Higgs Boson....I'll just take their word on it! For now, what I'm not hearing in cosmology, are single universe theories to explain the origins of our universe. There must be some reason why every version I've heard about is a multiverse, or would lead towards a multiverse theory of origins.

You are willing to believe what they say, despite there being no evidence. They have no evidence for their creation stories, only their theories. How are they not like modern day priests?

And Hawking is the Pope. His every mystical utterance creates universes

[kimmy]

Theories about quantum mechanics and atomic structure were pretty useless too, up to the part where they gave scientists the ability to invent transistors and advanced semiconductors and electron microscopes and nuclear power. You and I may not be able to observe electrons jumping between band gaps, but we can certainly observe that our computers and our LED lights work.

Today's research into the subatomic structure of matter and the nature of gravity and other topics may be so far removed from day to day life that they seem to be pure nonsense, but at some point in the future it may form the core of entirely new technologies, just as the "modern physics" movement of a century ago led to new fields of technology. I doubt anybody envisioned computers and LED lights when the Bohr model of the atom came out, and who knows what might eventually come from today's theoretical research. New materials? New energy sources? Space travel? A way to keep your beer cold while you're watching the game? We will have to wait and see. I'm sure it will be very exciting.

-k

[WIP]

You are willing to believe what they say, despite there being no evidence. They have no evidence for their creation stories, only their theories. How are they not like modern day priests?

And Hawking is the Pope. His every mystical utterance creates universes

I believe I've pointed out a time or two already that I am not a fundamentalist atheist, or an evangelical atheist, so I'm not in the business of trying to convert....or deconvert everyone who believes in a supernatural....and neither is Hawking for that matter! He merely made the observation that the origins and development of our universe can be explained by naturalistic processes without invoking God or the supernatural. The bombast that accompanied the rumbling over that statement is likely thanks to the follow up by his co-writer - Leonard Mlodinow....who is an evangelical new atheist, strongly advocating an end to religions and religious beliefs.

So, in respects to how I consider scientific evidence and scientific claims, I mostly have to follow the consensus of expert opinion on these sorts of subjects. When there are problems, like the 20 year quest to connect string theories to testable predictions, there are some theorists, like Lee Smolin would be one example....who advise continuing alternative approaches to resolving the conflicts quantum theory has with gravity. Some theoretical physicists have observed that too many in this elite field are working in the development of string theory, because that's where university physics dept. heads put the research money. So, if a theoretical physicist wants to devote some time on alternatives like Loop Quantum Gravity, they will have a much harder time finding a place that will indulge their hobby.

If your point is that there is 'faith' or the equivalent of faith in how the public tries to deal with increasingly complex scientific research, point taken! But, I am more concerned about the fields of medical science than physics, and how the science of medicine is increasingly subject to profit-seeking corporations....like drug companies, who are directly funding more and more of their own research.

[Bonam]

Theories about quantum mechanics and atomic structure were pretty useless too, up to the part where they gave scientists the ability to invent transistors and advanced semiconductors and electron microscopes and nuclear power. You and I may not be able to observe electrons jumping between band gaps, but we can certainly observe that our computers and our LED lights work.

Today's research into the subatomic structure of matter and the nature of gravity and other topics may be so far removed from day to day life that they seem to be pure nonsense, but at some point in the future it may form the core of entirely new technologies, just as the "modern physics" movement of a century ago led to new fields of technology. I doubt anybody envisioned computers and LED lights when the Bohr model of the atom came out, and who knows what might eventually come from today's theoretical research. New materials? New energy sources? Space travel? A way to keep your beer cold while you're watching the game? We will have to wait and see. I'm sure it will be very exciting.

-k

Oh, today's theoretical physics remains a vital field of scientific study and will no doubt result in astounding applications in the future. I am the first to be excited about such things, trust me. At the same time, the level of maturity and supporting evidence for things like multiverse theories should not be exaggerated or overstated. In science, it is important to present things as they are, rather than as the author wishes them to be. One should not confound quantum mechanics (perhaps the most solidly supported theory in all of science) with M-theory or string theory (which have no supporting evidence), one should not confound the inflation of the universe in its early history with there being multiple universes, and most of all one should not try to create some kind of new age mysticism around these concepts.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Bonam

[WIP]

Oh, today's theoretical physics remains a vital field of scientific study and will no doubt result in astounding applications in the future. I am the first to be excited about such things, trust me. At the same time, the level of maturity and supporting evidence for things like multiverse theories should not be exaggerated or overstated.

Who's exaggerating or overstating? The point every theorist I've heard about the origins of our universe is that if one universe can pop into existence, then others can....likely an infinite number.

In science, it is important to present things as they are, rather than as the author wishes them to be. One should not confound quantum mechanics (perhaps the most solidly supported theory in all of science) with M-theory or string theory (which have no supporting evidence),

Since you were condescending to me that 'I should learn more about physics before I comment on this subject,' exactly how much have you read about String Theory? Because you give no indication here of being aware that M-Theory was proposed and generated excitement, because by adding that extra dimension to five existing 10 dimensional string theories, Ed Witten was able to show that all five could be harmonized as showing part of the same reality....as he described it - five blindfolded people walking up to an elephant and giving their descriptions based on which part of the elephant they were touching. No one is saying M-Theory is the way to resolve the conflicts between general relativity and quantum mechanics, but physicists will go on hunches and intuitions to, and see how far it carries them.

one should not confound the inflation of the universe in its early history with there being multiple universes, and most of all one should not try to create some kind of new age mysticism around these concepts.

Ever consider that Guth's Inflation Theory is not proven science either? Guth's proposal that the high heat, high density early universe produced a particle dubbed the "inflaton" which worked exactly opposite to gravity, and drive everything apart very rapidly, was seized upon because it is the only way to explain the improbable high degree of flatness of spacetime in our universe. It is very compelling and explains alot of other problems in cosmology besides flatness, but it is still not considered proven. It's more the most likely explanation.