Submitted by Himangsu Sekhar Pal on Sat, 05/14/2022 - 06:38
Now, we all know that spacetime is not fundamental, because physicists are saying so. But, do we know the reason why spacetime cannot be fundamental?
This is a physics question as well as a philosophy question.
If we say that X is a fundamental ingredient of the universe, then we will have to admit that whatever will exist in it, will need X for its existence. Nothing can exist without it.
However, if there is something in the universe that does not need X for its existence, then X cannot be called a fundamental ingredient of the universe.
Submitted by Himangsu Sekhar Pal on Mon, 06/14/2021 - 10:05
My justification for writing this post is that only emergent spacetime can ultimately lead to God. So, we must defend it in every possible way.
Recently, I have posted the following in one Facebook Discussion Group:
'Physicists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, and it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal.
‘As we have come to know that spacetime is emergent, so some questions arise here that I am giving below:
Submitted by Himangsu Sekhar Pal on Mon, 02/15/2021 - 08:17
So far as I can remember, there are these two equations in Einstein’s special theory of relativity:
l1 = l(1-v2/c2)1/2……. (1)
t1 = t((1-v2/c2)1/2……. (2)
From the above two equations, two conclusions can be drawn that are as follows:
1) Time and distance are not absolute, they are relative;
2) At light speed, both travel time and travel distance become zero.
Submitted by Himangsu Sekhar Pal on Wed, 12/18/2019 - 22:35
Below is a quote from the Mindscape presented by theoretical physicist Sean Carroll. Here, two physicists, Carroll and Leonard Susskind are discussing the fine-tuning of parameters and the existence of the multiverse.
Submitted by Himangsu Sekhar Pal on Thu, 11/28/2019 - 02:14
In one YouTube comment thread one atheist has remarked that it is really infuriating that all the apologist arguments that he has seen presented so far have ultimately failed to provide any proof for the existence of god. All their arguments are nothing but playing around with definitions of words and literally just throwing an explanation into the gaps of our knowledge, thus showing that every single god argument is essentially a god of the gaps argument, or that they feel good or special by being able to give that argument.
Pages
Recent comments