|
|
Post by Gorn on Aug 16, 2017 18:46:09 GMT -7
You have repeatedly demonstrated a layman's understanding of the word "theory", so let me spell it out for you:
Yes, Science Theories can't be unproven: they have to have numerous studies and proofs in order to put them forward as accepted knowledge that we call a Science Theory. Often it takes years for them to be accepted as a Science Theory. They may one day be DISproven, or, more usually, modified, as new information and new interpretations come to light, but that has no bearing upon how they appear on the scene in the first place.
Do you have an understanding now of how a Science Theory comes out of proven Hypotheses, or do I need to get Mr. Rogers puppets for you?
Or perhaps you're deliberately making a religion based defense against the implications of Krauss' HYPOTHESIS. Given that there is alot of observed (that means "measured") evidence FOR it, it's well on its way to becoming a PROVEN Science Theory. I'll be in Star Trek forums for as many years as I can, and we can see the outcome. Only given we have billionth decimal place measurements...your position of a saddle or open Universe looks more like a religion based one.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Aug 17, 2017 15:25:27 GMT -7
Deprived of any original input you are repeating yourself. See, this time I'm not going to expound a point so you can run to google and try to gig me on some semantic technicality.
"Theories can't be unproven". Lmao.
You are still holding up something as a fact when it isn't. Still evading the point. You don't know and you can't admit it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Aug 17, 2017 16:15:33 GMT -7
Talk as religiously vague as you want. If you haven't made a point backed up with facts, (as I did on one quote you made of me, presumably because you thought it was false...which was disproved above,) then you're still spewing out nothing other than bullshit. Philosopher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2017 10:12:25 GMT -7
Man...
I thought someone had made a comment about Universe from nothing proves God, or Universe From Nothing disproves God, so I ended up re-reading this entire thread. I never did find that comment though. Suffice it to say I'm pretty sure I can guess how each of us would respond to the question.
It's a pretty funny read now that it's mostly in our wake. Some of it really got me chuckling. It's especially hilarious when I imagine us all in a bar somewhere having this exact same conversation face-to-face. I mean, if that were to happen, can you imaging the looks on the faces of the other patrons? Honestly, they would think we were all completely off our nuts. Just a bunch of utterly mad nerds frothing at the mouth and screaming about the big-bang, the existence of nothing, the copper age, and calling each other "Philosopher" as an insult. It's just Nucking Futs!
Anyway... Good thread, guys. Even informative and semi-lucid in a few places.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 10, 2017 22:10:57 GMT -7
I do my best. Of course it helps if people actually READ the references they posted as reference. This shouldn't have been something to square over in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2017 13:44:39 GMT -7
Meh... It has been my experience in this forum is that even agreeing with someone can be contentious. We were doomed the moment I posted a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 12, 2017 9:04:27 GMT -7
hey Joe is looking for you.
Joe mama
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2017 7:08:35 GMT -7
This was an interesting article: [ LINK]. It's some thoughts on ye olde Science vs Philosophy poo-flinging contest. I am not going to say I agree or disagree with it, but only that it was interesting. More topical is this the video below. I have to be honest, I don't really care about the existence or non-existence of "nothing". But these guys do, and it's an interesting video. Nice to see that people can debate a topic like this without resorting to name-calling and poo-flinging.  |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Nov 13, 2017 8:17:21 GMT -7
Well, to be fair, they are all:
A. Very intelligent people and
B. Professionals and
C. In public...
That makes some difference in presentation!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2017 11:27:23 GMT -7
Well, to be fair, they are all: A. Very intelligent people and B. Professionals and C. In public... That makes some difference in presentation! Must be item "C" that makes the big difference (unless someone wants to state they are unintelligent and unprofessional). Interesting to see what happens without the Internet's veil of anonymity. It is interesting to see the panel did not agree on what Nothing actually is or isn't. It's also nice to see that my own plebeian thoughts on the matter appear to be in line with Professor Gott's, in that there may be an edge to the universe(s), beyond which is actual nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Nov 14, 2017 20:30:03 GMT -7
Doesn't matter what the panel agrees on or doesn't.
A philosopher refuses to experiment, and so cannot know if his statement is true or not.
A Scientist relies on observed proof that IS tested.
It can only be supplanted by a better explanation for the observed data, or by more observed data that contradicts the conclusion.
That is how we currently know the Universe came from nothing, to the billionth decimal place.
Those that would "disagree" and argue against this conclusion as being true, and who provide no better explanation, are simply in denial of reality. I don't think philosophers even do that; that is purely the purview of the religious and of most politicians.
If the maths allow Nothing to be a condition, then it can happen. If it fits best what we observe, in accord with Occam's razor vs other Hypotheses, then we think it happened. The more supporting observations we make, the surer we are that it's correct and we can say we know it happened.
The example of Evolution vs creation is the same class of comparison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 4:34:40 GMT -7
Hey! Welcome back, Gorn ! We all really... noticed your absence. Universe form nothing. I'm not debating that in the least. |
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 15, 2017 13:50:52 GMT -7
This is not correct. Anyone who knows Descartes, Pascale or spinoza knows this.
I’m going to watch your video before I comment further @ironnerd, but folks like krausse in particular make it too strange. Before, I posteda video from carlos rovelli when we batted this around before. He is a physicist working on quantum loop gravity, the weight of which escapes anyone who hasn’t read Krausse’s book, apparently.
But there is a direct and complimentary advancement between philospophy and science.
In fact in that video someone challenges rovelli in a similar way as we have seen, and in a similar dismissive tone. In essence saying that people seem to always be able to point out some philosopher somewhere who said something similar, almost like a bible verse that seems topical on a superficial reading. Rovelli relies this isn’t the case, philosophy has been a boon to science since anaximander.
Also more to the point of my quote...without experimentation, using just his human powers of observation, reason, and logic...was anaximander wrong? In fact after his revelations the world never went back to thinking before him.
Philosophy MUST proceed from what is currently known. It’s simply thinking hard about the possibilities of what we know, permutations on current theories, playing around with alternate interpretations of data.
It’s that simple, it’s a useful tool and it’s reckless to discard it out of hand. Data is essential but the data isn’t what we prize so much as what the data tells us about the world. Devoid of meaning and context, data is just numbers.
Anyway didn’t we already put this to rest? Essentially separating philosophy from science is a false distinction at best and a fool’s errand at worst. Look to my references in the other thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 16:51:30 GMT -7
The whole Philosophy vs Science thing was hashed out in another thread.
I've learned as much as I care to about nothing; it does not exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 15, 2017 16:57:15 GMT -7
that’s the key, the historically and philosophically ignorant redefining *nothing* as *something*. then they get pissy when other people correct them and furthermore accuse their *critics* of moving the goalposts when in fact they didn’t understand the terms all along.
That’s the acedemic’s argument dumbed down about as far as it can go.
Abbott and Costello did comparable comedy bits. lolz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2017 17:12:58 GMT -7
Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist. I covered some special and general relativity in University Physics courses. Using the principle of non-existence, I can only find two concepts of nothing that actually mean something: 1) No matter, and no energy in literally "empty" 'space'. While time might pass, it is meaningless, since nothing at all happens; not one photon passes thru. But it is a manifold governed by Quantum Laws. This "nothing" can exist and produces virtual particles. 2) No matter, no energy, no SPACE, no time, either. Dimensions simply don't exist, since "nothing" is defined by non-existence. While there is literally nothing within the area that would "later" become our Universe, all of those terms ("within" "become" "area" "before") is a failing of our language, how we experience the Universe, and our pin sized brains. There was no area for anything to be within. "Become" (and all other terms of time) is a non-sequitur until time is "invented" along with our Universe's spacetime. Quantum Laws would only arise with our Universe, since non-existence included those laws "before" our Universe arose. It is important to point out that if you add a fantasy creator to this mix to start it all, you simply put off the exact same questions of how it arose from Nothing by merely one step. Humans experience spacetime in one direction. Causes preclude events for us - but that doesn't mean it is the only way our Universe can and - may have - acted. We imagine going backwards in time (and presumably space in order to stay on the same planet with our present coordinates) but have a hard time thinking how it might be done; which no observations have shown is possible so far. It doesn't mean the Universe can't still be created by Quantum Laws that didn't exist until the very moment it was created: for one example, a positron can be described as an electron travelling backwards through time. There is no reason to think that increasing chaos and (what we call) positive time flow is the preferred way for our Universe to exist. We haven't been around long enough to see if time will eventually start to flow "backward", or if time will "run out" and stop. None of this is philosophy. While these hypotheses cannot be tested right now, Scientists look towards the time when they can be tested, or at least, determined with reasonable certainty to be impossible to test. In the meantime, Physicists much more intelligent than I develop the maths that make these hypotheses possible outcomes of our investigations into reality. I have re-read this thread a few times, and I keep coming back to the OP with the same nagging question. I'm not being inflammatory, or poking a bear, or trying to start an argument or anything. I'm just looking at the OP and the thread that followed and I'm wondering... "Why?" Why create this thread? It seems more like a statement than the OP of a discussion. I'm not aware of anyone on the forum with any kind of degree in Physics, so I cannot think of anyone in a position to legitimately discuss or debate the matter. We can maybe post a few amateurish thoughts, or links to articles or videos, but none of us are in a position to know whether or not the information to which we link is valid. We may go so far as to access Scientific Journals, but we lack the training required to properly read and understand the peer reviewed papers therein. So there is no one on this forum who is qualified to debate or even discuss this matter with any sort of credibility. And that brings me back to my nagging question... "Why post this in a forum?" Certainly it is an interesting post, but beyond that I didn't see the reason for it. It seemed to my untrained eye to be an attempt to assert or establish intellectual authority over the forum, an attempt to create an argument that could never be resolved because no one is qualified to discuss or debate the matter, or an attempt to inform the forum membership of extremely interesting concept. Having gone back and re-read many other threads, going back to the start of this forum, I have also seen that Gorn has mentioned his students a few times. It is that element that I appear to have missed. Gorn is someone of intelligence, training, and education, possessing a wide range of interests and knowledge, and he is also (rather importantly) a teacher. In light of this revelation on my part, I have elected to accept the OP as a statement or attempt to educate the forum membership rather than the start of a discussion and say, "Thank-you Gorn for sharing this knowledge with us. It is a very interesting post." |
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 17, 2017 19:17:44 GMT -7
Lol you dole out WAY too much credit. Im still not convinced that anyone who can't and won't (read: refuses to) freely admit to the flaws in Krausse's theory has read the book on the subject.
There's no proof that the universe rose out of nothing in the way that krausse describes. See my signature post. It's a joke that this is treated as fact when the final empirical proof is said to decades away, if in fact it ever materializes.
My question to anyone pushing Krausse's theory is this:
If it's true, well, So what? What does it mean? What significance does it have? How does it change anything about our lives?
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Nov 17, 2017 21:01:46 GMT -7
The main thing is this - understanding the origins of the universe (creation, if you will) may allow us to better understand how to govern it, and ourselves.
It may also allow us to blow everything straight to hell in 6/10ths of a second (I'm sure it'll be a cool bang though)!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 9:41:38 GMT -7
The main thing is this - understanding the origins of the universe (creation, if you will) may allow us to better understand how to govern it, and ourselves. It may also allow us to blow everything straight to hell in 6/10ths of a second (I'm sure it'll be a cool bang though)! The "Nothing Bomb"? |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Nov 20, 2017 18:08:02 GMT -7
Essentially - yes... and also yes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Dec 7, 2017 20:57:31 GMT -7
Once again. For those who refuse to read. To the billionth decimal place, the Universe appears flat. Gravity balances expansion. Therefore, it came from nothing.
Once again. If there is a counter proof to this observation derived figure, present it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 21:03:14 GMT -7
Informative, as always, Gorn-san.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Dec 7, 2017 22:02:48 GMT -7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2017 5:14:14 GMT -7
Interesting read. Kind of a kooky idea. I guess we'll see what the experiment at CERN comes up with. ...so... could the anti-matter in the universe have come from anti-nothing? ;p |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Dec 8, 2017 6:46:43 GMT -7
But of course!
|
|
