Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem...

kelly1

Hello, just wondering if anyone has heard of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem?

The paper is available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

and William Lane Craig discusses it here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115

If science could definitively prove that all matter/universe(s) had a beginning, would that affect your stance on theism/deism?

Regards,
Noel.

P.S. I wondering if Godel's incompleteness theorem has similar implications?

pts

Not really, since it would imply that God has to have a beginning too.
I've often heard that "God doesn't require a beginning, he (it?) was always there" however if you take that to its logical conclusion it doesn't make sense. Why would you be willing to say that a God can appear from nowhere, but matter can not? You would be making an exception to the rule for an extremely complex being (God) but not willing to make an exception for a much less complex thing like matter.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

If science could definitively prove that all matter/universe(s) had a beginning, would that affect your stance on theism/deism?

I can certainly see how such a proof might spark interest in Deism, but I can't see how it would validate any one of hundreds of defined human religions.

The problem theistic religion has is not that they can't yet prove the universe has a beginning, it's that the stories that they are composed of are frankly crackers.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

The problem theistic religion has is not that they can't yet prove the universe has a beginning, it's that the stories that they are composed of are frankly crackers.

amen

kelly1

pts wrote: »

Not really, since it would imply that God has to have a beginning too.

Why? Nobody is saying that God is made of physical matter. The theorem applies to physical matter.

pts wrote: »

I've often heard that "God doesn't require a beginning, he (it?) was always there" however if you take that to its logical conclusion it doesn't make sense. Why would you be willing to say that a God can appear from nowhere, but matter can not? You would be making an exception to the rule for an extremely complex being (God) but not willing to make an exception for a much less complex thing like matter.

Theologians don't claim that God appeared from nowhere. They claim that God is eternal and exists outside of time and that God created time.

If the entire universe (all matter) had a beginning i.e. it was created, then something must have created it. Something cannot emerge from nothing. So it's reasonable to ask who or what created the universe.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

If science could definitively prove that all matter/universe(s) had a beginning, would that affect your stance on theism/deism?

No. The idea of a creator god as described by christians fails because of basic logic, not science.

kelly1 wrote: »

I wondering if Godel's incompleteness theorem has similar implications?

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says that if you have a formal theory which supports certain basic arithmetic operations, there exist statements which are true within the system, but not provable within the system. Or as Gödel himself said:

Kurt G&#246 wrote: »

For every ω-consistent recursive class κ of forumulae, there are recursive class signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg(v Gen r) belongs to Flg(κ), where v is the free variable of r.

Unless you believe that the christian god is a formal system which supports basic arithmetic, I don't immediately see how he would tie in here.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

I can certainly see how such a proof might spark interest in Deism, but I can't see how it would validate any one of hundreds of defined human religions.

The problem theistic religion has is not that they can't yet prove the universe has a beginning, it's that the stories that they are composed of are frankly crackers.[/QUOTE]
Leaving the nature of God aside, doesn't the necessary existence of a Creator raise the question of what happens to us when we die?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Something cannot emerge from nothing. So it's reasonable to ask who or what created the universe.

If something cannot emerge from nothing, then what created the christian god?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

doesn't the necessary existence of a Creator raise the question of what happens to us when we die?

No, they're completely unrelated topics.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Leaving the nature of God aside, doesn't the necessary existence of a Creator raise the question of what happens to us when we die?

Necessary existence of a Creator? Big jump there Noel. Also there is no question about what happens when we die scientists and the public alike know what happens when we die and its called being dead.

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

Leaving the nature of God aside, doesn't the necessary existence of a Creator raise the question of what happens to us when we die?

No, I really don't see the connection

pts

Let's play a bit with your quotes:

kelly1 wrote: »

They claim that God is eternal and exists outside of time and that God created time.

Then we've got

kelly1 wrote: »

Something cannot emerge from nothing.

Can you not see that you've created two rules. One rule, which applies to everything except "God" is that "nothing can come from nothing" (name the Shakespeare Quote )

But then there is the 2nd rule, which applies to God, which says he (it?) can come from nothing. If you are going to argue that God has existed forever I would be curious to why God can exist forever but some kind of primeval matter can not.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

No. The idea of a creator god as described by christians fails because of basic logic, not science.

Robin, I didn't mention Christianity. If the universe was created, then don't you agree it must have a creator. And if the universe has a creator, then the validity of atheism must come under scrutiny.

robindch wrote: »

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says that if you have a formal theory which supports certain basic arithmetic operations, there exist statements which are true within the system, but not provable within the system. Or as Gödel himself said:Unless you believe that the christian god is a formal system which supports basic arithmetic, I don't immediately see how he would tie in here.

I brought this up because we are inside the system trying to find a theory of everything and according to Godel, it sounds like we will always have unprovable theories. So maybe God (who is outside the system) is the missing factor? Anyways, I shouldn't have brought this up, it's distracting from the discussion at hand.

robindch wrote: »

If something cannot emerge from nothing, then what created the christian god?

If the Christian God were created, then he's still inside the created system and can't be the cause of all that exists.

Since God isn't physical matter and isn't composed of any parts (i.e. entirely simple), what's to prevent Him being eternal and the ultimate source of all that exists?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

...Since God isn't physical matter and isn't composed of any parts (i.e. entirely simple), what's to prevent Him being eternal and the ultimate source of all that exists?

Because I can still ask the question why?

Zillah

Oh my God Noel not this again. How many times are we going to do this?

The fact that the universe has a beginning in no way supports the existence of God. Your entire argument is based on the unsustainable assertion "Something can't come from nothing", which when contemplating the nature of space-time is a big assumption.

And even if we accepted this assumption for the sake of argument, it still in no way points towards a sentient, loving, all-powerful entity. All that it would lead to is the conclusion that X caused the universe, where X is anything that is timeless.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Necessary existence of a Creator? Big jump there Noel.

If the universe had a beginning, then it was created. Is that not so? If it was created, the it must have had a creator because something cannot come out of nothing. For an atheist to claim that the universe emerged our of nothing, smacks of hypocrisy.

toiletduck wrote: »

No, I really don't see the connection

Don't you? I don't see how the creator can be a physical being because matter can't create more matter from itself. So we must, to my mind, assume that the creator is made of a non-physical substance.

pts wrote: »

Can you not see that you've created two rules. One rule, which applies to everything except "God" is that "nothing can come from nothing" (name the Shakespeare Quote )

But then there is the 2nd rule, which applies to God, which says he (it?) can come from nothing. If you are going to argue that God has existed forever I would be curious to why God can exist forever but some kind of primeval matter can not.

What I'm saying is that everything which begins to exist must have a cause. I'm also saying that God never had a beginning and has no need of a cause. And since God has no "parts", nothing needed to come together to form Him.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Robin, I didn't mention Christianity. If the universe was created, then don't you agree it must have a creator. And if the universe has a creator, then the validity of atheism must come under scrutiny.

Not at all. The big bang could have arisen from within another universe (in fact, many physicists believe this is a simplistic understanding of what might have happened). And so on back. No need for any deities.

kelly1 wrote: »

I brought this up because we are inside the system trying to find a theory of everything and according to Godel, it sounds like we will always have unprovable theories.

Gödel was talking about formal mathematical systems, not about god, and as I said above, unless you believe that the universe is a formal mathematical system which supports arithmetic, his interesting results have nothing whatsoever to do with the universe we live in.

kelly1 wrote: »

Since God isn't physical matter and isn't composed of any parts (i.e. entirely simple), what's to prevent Him being eternal and the ultimate source of all that exists?

You're certainly free to propose a deity which is not bound by your "something cannot come from nothing" rule. However, within gentlemanly debate, if you're going to permit yourself an exception, then you can't stop others from using the same exception. See the first sentence in this post.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

For an atheist to claim that the universe emerged our of nothing, smacks of hypocrisy.

Atheists do not make this claim. And despite pointing this out many times, religious people seem unable to remember it. Weird but true!

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe had a beginning, then it was created. Is that not so?

No, it certainly isn't. See the first sentence of my previous post.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe had a beginning, then it was created. Is that not so? If it was created, the it must have had a creator because something cannot come out of nothing. For an atheist to claim that the universe emerged our of nothing, smacks of hypocrisy.....

Oh yes how silly of me I forgot. It does clearly state in the hallowed Book of Atheism chapter 2 verse 10: The Universe emerged out of nothing, believe it!
:pac:

kelly1

Zillah wrote: »

Oh my God Noel not this again. How many times are we going to do this?

Don't get involved if you don't want to. You're free to ingore this thread.

Zillah wrote: »

The fact that the universe has a beginning in no way supports the existence of God. Your entire argument is based on the unsustainable assertion "Something can't come from nothing", which when contemplating the nature of space-time is a big assumption.

Do you accept therefore that the universe/spacetime could have spontaneously popped into existence where nothing at all existed beforehand? How likely is that? Isn't creation by something far more likely?

Zillah wrote: »

And even if we accepted this assumption for the sake of argument, it still in no way points towards a sentient, loving, all-powerful entity. All that it would lead to is the conclusion that X caused the universe, where X is anything that is timeless.

I think X would have to sentient and all-powerful, don't you?

robindch wrote: »

Not at all. The big bang could have arisen from within another universe (in fact, many physicists believe this is a simplistic understanding of what might have happened). And so on back. No need for any deities.

But the BGV theorem rules out any such prior universes.

Quote from Vilenkin's book:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

robindch wrote: »

Atheists do not make this claim.

Some do Robin. And the BGV theorem rules out the eternal universe/successive universes/multiverse option. Do you reject the BGV theorem?

togster

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you accept therefore that the universe/spacetime could have spontaneously popped into existence where nothing at all existed beforehand? How likely is that? Isn't creation by something far more likely?

neither one is more likely than the other. Right?

20goto10

it still doesn't change the fact that everything in the universe can be explained intrinsically. You do not need an external force in order to explain the stars, planets and life or anything else in the cosmos.

Zillah

kelly1 wrote: »

Don't get involved if you don't want to. You're free to ingore this thread.

Well it's just annoying considering that I've explained all of this in great detail in the past.

Do you accept therefore that the universe/spacetime could have spontaneously popped into existence where nothing at all existed beforehand? How likely is that? Isn't creation by something far more likely?

I don't know, you don't know, we don't know anything about the nature of the non-before timelessness that was pre-big bang. Let's not make shit up, shall we Noel?

I think X would have to sentient and all-powerful, don't you?

Pfffbhwwahahaha why? Why not some timeless super particle that creates big bangs? Why on earth would it need to be an intelligence? And surely very powerful would suffice, rather than all powerful?

20goto10

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you accept therefore that the universe/spacetime could have spontaneously popped into existence where nothing at all existed beforehand? How likely is that? Isn't creation by something far more likely?

Saying the universe has a begining is not the same as saying it popped into existence from nothing. It simply suggests that there is something external. It doesn't have to be a God.

the fact is nobody knows. Saying God did it explains nothing.

stevejazzx

This makes painful reading.

Even if there is a God, introduing him at this point only makes the eqaution more difficult as his presence casues more questions than it answers.

fitz0

kelly1 wrote: »

And the BGV theorem rules out the eternal universe/successive universes/multiverse option.

Let me get this straight, you accept that, in line with the BGV theorem, that eternal/successive universes/multiverse are all impossible but you willingly believe in heavan and hell? How can you possibly reconcile that?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you accept therefore that the universe/spacetime could have spontaneously popped into existence where nothing at all existed beforehand?

Happens all the time. That's what particle accelerators study.

kelly1 wrote: »

How likely is that? Isn't creation by something far more likely?

Only if you accept your "something cannot come from nothing" rule which you don't apply to yourself. See my post above.

kelly1 wrote: »

But the BGV theorem rules out any such prior universes. And the BGV theorem rules out the eternal universe/successive universes/multiverse option. Do you reject the BGV theorem?

I have no opinion on it, since I don't understand it. If a suitably-qualified physicist other than the author tells me that this is a reasonable point of view, then I've no doubt that I'll probably accept what's said. But until cosmologists settle down with a single, well-supported theory of what happened before the big bang, I'm not likely to invest much time or effort in understanding the luxuriant variety of theories currently on offer. I have a job and a kid too and other technical stuff to keep up to date with.

And even if BGV does show that the universe arose out of nothing. Well, fair enough. That means that god doesn't exist.

Which seems a fair enough conclusion to me.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe had a beginning, then it was created. Is that not so? If it was created, the it must have had a creator because something cannot come out of nothing. For an atheist to claim that the universe emerged our of nothing, smacks of hypocrisy.

Sand dunes are created. Who is their creator?

The vast majority of atheists do not say that the universe came from nothing, when asked they'll mostly say "I don't know". You're the only one saying something came from nothing, your god

Also, if your creator is "something" and something cannot come from nothing, you might want to update your statement to "only one thing can come from nothing"

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sand dunes are created. Who is their creator?

The wind.

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

The wind.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think X would have to sentient and all-powerful, don't you?

Is the wind sentient and all-powerful, or is it a natural process that is capable of creating something that does not require an all-powerful intelligence?

The Mad Hatter

20goto10 wrote: »

Saying the universe has a begining is not the same as saying it popped into existence from nothing. It simply suggests that there is something external. It doesn't have to be a God.

the fact is nobody knows. Saying God did it explains nothing.

Er... /thread?

Sam Vimes

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Er... /thread?

You would think......

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Is the wind sentient and all-powerful, or is it a natural process that is capable of creating something that does not require an all-powerful intelligence?

We've been over this but something must make it all work. Not a sentient being but something.

Anyway i was just joking with ya

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

We've been over this but something must make it all work. Not a sentient being but something.

Anyway i was just joking with ya

Could this "something" be a natural process like gravity or electromagnetism that we haven't discovered yet or do you think it's supernatural?

Goduznt Xzst

kelly1 wrote: »

If the entire universe (all matter) had a beginning i.e. it was created, then something must have created it. Something cannot emerge from nothing.

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe was created, then don't you agree it must have a creator....

If the Christian God were created, then he's still inside the created system and can't be the cause of all that exists.

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe had a beginning, then it was created. Is that not so? If it was created, the it must have had a creator because something cannot come out of nothing....

What I'm saying is that everything which begins to exist must have a cause. I'm also saying that God never had a beginning and has no need of a cause.

kelly1 wrote: »

Isn't creation by something far more likely?

Everybody... hop on!

Sam Vimes

I find the idea of an infinitely complex, all powerful, all knowing, all loving, eternal, timeless being who doesn't like people who masturbate, who created a trillion trillion trillion planets but only felt the need to put life on one of them and who deliberately wants to keep the knowledge of his existence from us because he values faith (ie gullibility) to be completely incomprehensible.

Is it not far more likely that the universe was created through a natural process that we don't understand yet?

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

Don't you? I don't see how the creator can be a physical being because matter can't create more matter from itself. So we must, to my mind, assume that the creator is made of a non-physical substance.

What's that gotta do with what happens when we die though?

because something cannot come out of nothing.

What I'm saying is that everything which begins to exist must have a cause. I'm also saying that God never had a beginning and has no need of a cause. And since God has no "parts", nothing needed to come together to form Him.

You seem to know an awful lot about an 'unknowable' being....

The whole "everything must have a creator except <insert religious figure>" has to be one of the weakest arguments going. I really don't know what you expect us to say to it.

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Could this "something" be a natural process like gravity or electromagnetism that we haven't discovered yet or do you think it's supernatural?

I don't know


Electromagnetism is pretty fascinating in itself.

toiletduck

To answer the question

kelly1 wrote: »

If science could definitively prove that all matter/universe(s) had a beginning, would that affect your stance on theism/deism?

No not really. It would seem to imply further 'evidence' against a god(s) but that's all.

kelly1

togster wrote: »

neither one is more likely than the other. Right?

Look, the theorem proves that the universe had a beginning meaning that absolutely nothing existed beforehand. No time, no matter, no space, no energy. So which is more likely:

a) The universe, culminating in the existence of humans capable of questioning the origins of the universe, sprang into existence without a cause

b) Something immaterial created the universe

Do you accept that the cause of the universe can't be physical/material? The substance or being which created the universe can't be physical because then there would be pre-existence instead of creation.

20goto10 wrote: »

it still doesn't change the fact that everything in the universe can be explained intrinsically. You do not need an external force in order to explain the stars, planets and life or anything else in the cosmos.

No, the universe can't explain its own existence. It came into being at a point in time. That's what the theorem says.

20goto10 wrote: »

Saying the universe has a begining is not the same as saying it popped into existence from nothing.

Yes it is. See my reply to togster. If there is a beginning, there can be nothing beforehand. Otherwise it's not a beginning is it?

20goto10 wrote: »

It simply suggests that there is something external. It doesn't have to be a God.

It says nothing about the nature of the creator. I'm arguing that the creator is immaterial and eternal.

20goto10 wrote: »

the fact is nobody knows. Saying God did it explains nothing.

You left out the word "precisely" Mr. Dawkins!

fitz0 wrote: »

Let me get this straight, you accept that, in line with the BGV theorem, that eternal/successive universes/multiverse are all impossible but you willingly believe in heavan and hell? How can you possibly reconcile that?

Why not? I believe Heaven and Hell were created.

robindch wrote: »

Happens all the time. That's what particle accelerators study.

Why then does it take incredibly high energy level to create these particles? Is it not energy being converted into matter?

robindch wrote: »

See my post above. I have no opinion on it, since I don't understand it.

Neither do I! But I'm assuming the theory hasn't been falsified.

robindch wrote: »

And even if BGV does show that the universe arose out of nothing. Well, fair enough.

Do you think the universe(s) were created or spontaneously popped into existence for no reason?

robindch wrote: »

That means that god doesn't exist.

I presume you meant to say "That doesn't mean god exists"?

Naz_st

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe had a beginning, then it was created. Is that not so?

No.

If it was created, the it must have had a creator because something cannot come out of nothing.

And your background in quantum field theory, particle physics and cosmology have led you to this inescapable conclusion?

Even if the universe was "created", there are non-God explanations (e.g. anthropomorphic one due to retro-causality, universe created in a lab of a parent universe, etc)

I don't see how the creator can be a physical being because matter can't create more matter from itself.

I also don't see how the creator can be a physical being...

So we must, to my mind, assume that the creator is made of a non-physical substance.

A "non-physical substance" eh? Cf. "Oxymoron"

What I'm saying is that everything which begins to exist must have a cause.

Not quantum mechanically. And not necessarily with temporal consistency either.

I'm also saying that God never had a beginning and has no need of a cause.

My, how convenient.

And since God has no "parts", nothing needed to come together to form Him.

Well then, QED on your part I suppose.

kelly1

toiletduck wrote: »

What's that gotta do with what happens when we die though?

Because I've argued that God cannot be physical if He created the universe because matter can't create new matter. Matter can only be transformed. I've also argued that God can't be composed of parts because this would raise the question of where the parts came from and how they came together.

So if such an eternal immaterial being exists, it's worth investigating whether we are annihilated at death or get to meet this eternal being. And does this eternal being have expectations of us etc, etc...

The Mad Hatter

Can I also point out the absurdity of talking about 'before the beginning', as we're talking about the beginning of time too?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

because matter can't create new matter

Again, yes it can. That's what particle accelerators do (see previous post).

kelly1 wrote: »

Why then does it take incredibly high energy level to create these particles? Is it not energy being converted into matter?

There are plenty of other particles popping into and out of existence other than the ones that show up because high-energy protons or lead atoms bang into each other.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you think the universe(s) were created or spontaneously popped into existence for no reason?

I've already answered this many times before, and at least once on this thread.

Why did your deity pop into existence for no reason? Who created it?

Surely something can't come from nothing?

kelly1

Naz_st wrote: »

And your background in quantum field theory, particle physics and cosmology have led you to this inescapable conclusion?

No, I'm very much a layman here. I'm only going by what science is telling us.

Naz_st wrote: »

Even if the universe was "created", there are non-God explanations (e.g. anthropomorphic one due to retro-causality, universe created in a lab of a parent universe, etc)

Not sure what you mean there but the theorem is independent of the model being used single universe, succession of universes, multiverse, nested universes etc. To use a techincal term, "the whole shebang" had a beginning.

Naz_st wrote: »

A "non-physical substance" eh? Cf. "Oxymoron"

For the sake of argument, let's call it a spiritual substance.

Naz_st wrote: »

Not quantum mechanically. And not necessarily with temporal consistency either.

Again not sure what this is about but in the case of quantum phenomena, we're talking about things which happen in existing matter. How does what you're saying apply to "nothing"?

DapperGent

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I'm very much a layman here. I'm only going by what science is telling us.

No you're not. You're skimming popular science looking for any snippets you can marry to your preconceptions.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I'm very much a layman here. I'm only going by what science is telling us.

In all fairness, Noel, I think you're going by what William Lane Craig says.

I don't think it's very wise to think that a religious preacher is a reliable source of information about physics. Look at what (diploma-mill-doctor) Ken Ham does to biology...

20goto10

kelly1 wrote: »

No, the universe can't explain its own existence. It came into being at a point in time. That's what the theorem says.

Everything within the universe can be explained intrinsically. If the theorem is correct and the universe does indeed have a begining then it simply means there is more to the story than our universe. It doesn't prove there is a God. It doesn't even suggest that there is a God because the idea of a God in the first place makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Who created God? Oh yeah its just this magical invisible thing that doesn't need to explain itself, thats why its a God. It's like saying I'm not stupid because by being stupid in itself suggests that I am an intelligent being. Its just complete and utter nonsense no matter how you put it.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I'm very much a layman here. I'm only going by what science is telling us.

Please outline clearly what science is actually telling you and be honest.

kelly1 wrote: »

For the sake of argument, let's call it a spiritual substance.

I can assure you that would do nothing for the argument. Remember where you are.

kelly1 wrote: »

Again not sure what this is about but in the case of quantum phenomena, we're talking about things which happen in existing matter. How does what you're saying apply to "nothing"?

A good question to ask yourself.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Again, yes it can. That's what particle accelerators do (see previous post).There are plenty of other particles popping into and out of existence other than the ones that show up because high-energy protons or lead atoms bang into each other.

OK, but does this happen outside particle accelerators or even beyond the edge of the universe where there really is nothing?

robindch wrote: »

I've already answered this many times before, and at least once on this thread.

Sorry, which post number is your anwer in?

robindch wrote: »

Why did your deity pop into existence for no reason? Who created it?

Surely something can't come from nothing?

You're taking the piss now. I've answered this clearly a few times.

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

Look, the theorem proves that the universe had a beginning meaning that absolutely nothing existed beforehand.

Admittedly I've only skimmed the paper (have plenty of other ones in front of me at the mo!) but I safely say it does no such thing.

Because I've argued that God cannot be physical if He created the universe because matter can't create new matter. Matter can only be transformed. I've also argued that God can't be composed of parts because this would raise the question of where the parts came from and how they came together.

So if such an eternal immaterial being exists, it's worth investigating whether we are annihilated at death or get to meet this eternal being. And does this eternal being have expectations of us etc, etc...

I don't think this is related to the topic at hand so I'll leave it be.