At 36:45 someone asks a question about CCC but what they are describing WLC's response to Sean Carroll's weird symmetrical model of two universes radiating from the same point in time but going in different directions (back AND forward in time -- I don't know what that is called, but it's not Penrose's CCC.)
correct this model is called the Janus model and there are several versions of it Sean Carroll has one version of it but I think it goes by Anthony Aguirre and Steve Gratton originally. Julian Babrour has also done a lot of work on this idea.
I get the impression that there are many good theories around today, stemming from the fact that the structure of the very large and very small is more weird and surprising than we used to imagine. This gives rise to some new possibilities, for example quantum instability and the possibility that absolute nothing may not actually be able to exist. Theists would essentially agree on this except that the "something" has to be a god, one that is proposed without the slightest hope of explaining that additional complexity and without a great deal of hand-waving and the need to put their chosen deity in a time and place beyond the reach of usual rigour.
@@20july1944 Phil Harper has done an excellent job at explaining some of the possibilities with links at the end of the video that expand on his lecture. There's probably no point in me going over the material particularly if you're inclined to being foul-mouthed again!
@@20july1944 Have you listened to Phil's talk or followed any of his suggested links or checked out any other books or videos on the subject? There are plenty of possibilities other than a completely unexplained and unexplainable god!
AY: Yes I've listened to all of his 6 videos and they all have at least one fatal flaw and a couple are incoherent. What *general kind* of thing would *need* to exist, if you posit that it is possible that it is impossible for nothing to exist. I find that an odd claim, but I'll read what you write.
At 36:45 someone asks a question about CCC but what they are describing WLC's response to Sean Carroll's weird symmetrical model of two universes radiating from the same point in time but going in different directions (back AND forward in time -- I don't know what that is called, but it's not Penrose's CCC.)
correct this model is called the Janus model and there are several versions of it Sean Carroll has one version of it but I think it goes by Anthony Aguirre and Steve Gratton originally. Julian Babrour has also done a lot of work on this idea.
I get the impression that there are many good theories around today, stemming from the fact that the structure of the very large and very small is more weird and surprising than we used to imagine.
This gives rise to some new possibilities, for example quantum instability and the possibility that absolute nothing may not actually be able to exist. Theists would essentially agree on this except that the "something" has to be a god, one that is proposed without the slightest hope of explaining that additional complexity and without a great deal of hand-waving and the need to put their chosen deity in a time and place beyond the reach of usual rigour.
AY:
What (in general) would *necessarily* exist, as opposed to nothing?
@@20july1944
Phil Harper has done an excellent job at explaining some of the possibilities with links at the end of the video that expand on his lecture.
There's probably no point in me going over the material particularly if you're inclined to being foul-mouthed again!
AY:
Give me your summary of what necessarily exists.
I'm curious.
@@20july1944
Have you listened to Phil's talk or followed any of his suggested links or checked out any other books or videos on the subject?
There are plenty of possibilities other than a completely unexplained and unexplainable god!
AY:
Yes I've listened to all of his 6 videos and they all have at least one fatal flaw and a couple are incoherent.
What *general kind* of thing would *need* to exist, if you posit that it is possible that it is impossible for nothing to exist.
I find that an odd claim, but I'll read what you write.
Excellent!