Graviton’s Energy-Mass Dualism

Everything in the dictionary and in the universe – nouns and verbs objects and processes – originate and
derive from the energy-mass dualism, from the ongoing constant rate conversion of mass to energy, from the ongoing resolution-release of inert gravitons, mass, leaving the clusters of the fractured seed of the universe, singularity, and becoming energy, mass in motion.

The Graviton’s energy-mass dualism derives from its gravity, self-attraction, and its compactness.

Gravity:
the propensity of the gravitons – the elementary particles of the mass of the universe – to return to their singularity state of zero motion, of compacted zero inter-particle distance.

Compactness:
the default particle’s size and shape that enable zero inter-particle distance at singularity.

This, commonsensically, is the matrix of the universe.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
Energy-Mass Poles Of The Universe
http://universe-life.com/2012/11/14/701/

PS:
Life is the obvious manifestation of energy-mass dualism. The sun’s energy, i.e. fast-moving mass particles, convert into slow-moving temporary mass formats… DH

I’m glad you say “It is certainly conceivable that the ultimate explanation is to be found in God; but a compelling argument to that effect would consist of a demonstration that God provides a better explanation (for whatever reason) than a purely materialist picture, not an a priori insistence that a purely materialist picture is unsatisfying.” Firstly, there are plenty of apologetics resources on the web that can dissuade you of your hardcore materialistic outlook, if only you had an open mind. Secondly, in the Christian tradition, one can only give you good reasons for why God exists, and why materialism isn’t the complete picture. To know the whole story you have to sign up and become a believer.

The problem with your perspective is that you assume that knowledge only comes through dispassionate reason. But knowledge also comes through experience.

The worst part of it all is how utterly infantile he is–as if he is back in the HS lunch room getting apple sauce smooshed in his hair again. Now the former dungeons and dragons grand wizard has a little band of followers with little more than a degree in nosepicking to make him feel special when all he really is is a sad lonely man waiting on oblivion with a boyish smile all because his puny mind cannot see Reality is not some scribble on his notepad.

Let is know how that notepad plays out when you encounter the One you fought your whole life to belittle.

“States of affairs only require an explanation if we have some contrary expectation, some reason to be surprised that they hold. Is there any reason to be surprised that the universe exists, continues to exist, or exhibits regularities? When it comes to the universe, we don’t have any broader context in which to develop expectations” (11).”

At first glance, this doesn’t actually seem to be an outright denial of the PSR, though it may be said to be a weaker form of it. I think it is fair to interpret this statement as a sympathetic attitude toward at least the sentiment behind the PSR on Carroll’s part. If that is so, I don’t think we can excuse him of the burden to defend his position on the origin of the universe by accepting his claim that it “just is.”

Considering his line of demarcation over demand for reasons–the degree of surprise within a state of affairs–I think there is good grounds for resisting his conclusion. He says we don’t have any broader context in which to develop expectations about the origin and existence of the universe. On the contrary, though, we do have a broader context in which to develop expectations: namely, modal reasoning. This is to say, we can entertain concepts of necessary and possible existence. Given that the universe exists, it is an open question whether it exists only possibly or necessarily. If the former is true, then it is, contra Carroll, surprising that it exists. If it is the latter, then it is not surprising. Thus, unless Carroll defends the view that the universe is a necessarily existing entity, his own standard appears to require an explanation on his part of why it exists rather than not. If he does in fact hold that the universe is a necessarily existing entity, it would be helpful if he would say so unequivocally to clear up any confusion.

Finally, Mr. Wright, even if we grant that Dr. Craig is guilty of argumentum ad hominem (though it’s not obvious to me that the quote you mention is ad hominem, at least not the abusive variety, even though I disagree with Craig’s quoted statement), that doesn’t excuse Dr. Carroll’s use of it in the least. All that would show is that two men are guilty of poor argumentation rather than just one.

Carroll’s quoted statement looks like he does not accept the PSR. So why should Carroll accept the it? So he can be considered a “serious” epistemologist?

> no serious thinker will ever be impressed by argumentum ad hominem

As a way of avoiding Craig’s substantive arguments, I agree that saying “Craig is not an expert, he’s a cherry picker” is unacceptable. But Carroll has tried to address some of those arguments.

Craig’s fond of ad hom statements himself (“when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart” and so on), though he does not generally use them in debates in front of the undecided, just as a way to shore up Christians against changing their minds when worrying about why their atheist friends are not convinced by their terribly compelling arguments. Still, I think that sort of thing, plus his previous statements about reason and the Holy Spirit, might lead some not to consider him a serious epistemologist.

Anyway, I think that it’s acceptable to point out that someone is filtering the evidence as a warning that listeners need to research further rather than take what they say as gospel (but not as fully general argument against people you don’t like). The key phrase to google is “What Evidence Filtered Evidence?”

“…some things happen for ‘reasons,’ and some don’t, and you don’t get to demand that this or that thing must have a reason. Some things just are.”

That may very well be true, but, as Dr. Craig points out in his 3rd podcast, this is only so for metaphysically necessary entities. So far as I can tell, Carroll hasn’t explicitly endorsed the proposition that the universe is metaphysically necessary (the way some abstract objects or God is a metaphysically necessary entity). If this is so, then the principle of sufficient reason applies (again, as Craig eloquently discusses) in order to give an account of the origin and existence of the universe. It would certainly be convenient for Carroll to consider the principle of sufficient reason “optional”; convenience, however, is not a luxury serious epistemology provides for.

Speaking of seriousness, I wish to record for Dr. Carroll that no serious thinker will ever be impressed by argumentum ad hominem. Students of this debate have long grown tired and numb by relentless efforts to attack William Lane Craig’s character in place of his carefully developed arguments. I can’t for the life of me understand why someone of your credentials would ever publish a personal attack in response to a qualified critique of your work. Having recorded this observation, I will go on to say that a carefully constructed response to Dr. Craig’s objections would still be well-received by the serious thinkers amongst us. Many, including myself, would surely profit from such a move on your part.