Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 121 of 301 (723248)
03-28-2014 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jon
03-27-2014 8:36 PM


What makes this such a great discovery?
Surely there are more important things that have been discovered.
Well it and the Higgs are probably the two most important discoveries in physics in the last forty years. The two most important discoveries in physics nearly a half century would rank pretty high on the list of scientific importance.
The discovery of the Higgs essentially shows us that what we thought about particles is correct. This shows us which of the ideas for the evolution of the early universe is correct.
We now have direct experimental evidence of how the universe behaved up to 10^(-35) seconds after it was born.
Surely there are more important things that have been discovered.
Yes, certainly. However I think, as a scientific achievement, knowing essentially the whole history of the early universe is fairly significant.
In fact, I could care less, and cannot imagine this discovery having any impact on me, or anyone really, whatsoever.
Probably not, but so what? Does that affect its scientific importance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Jon, posted 03-27-2014 8:36 PM Jon has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 122 of 301 (723252)
03-28-2014 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by NoNukes
03-27-2014 11:36 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
NoNukes writes:
I've already given perfect ratio reason to think he might be wrong.
Yes NoNukes, wrong about gravity but the questions still remains
and I believe is the salient point.
Did the laws of nature exist before nature?
Strong force
Weak force
EM
Gravity
I say I don't think so. What do you think?

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2014 11:36 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2014 11:37 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 123 of 301 (723254)
03-28-2014 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by onifre
03-28-2014 2:01 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
onifre writes:
kbertsche writes:
I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself.
Then so would whatever supernatural being you've chosen to be the creator of this particular universe.
Agreed; if God began to exist, there must be a cause for this. Of course, if God is eternal with no beginning, then no such cause is necessary.
onifre writes:
kbertsche writes:
If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural.
Not at all. It could be we are part of a multiverse system.
Supernatural has never ever ever ever ever been the answer to any question that we've solved. Why now?
You apparently didn't read my statement carefully enough. I defined "universe" as "all of nature". Whatever caused nature to begin to exist must transcend nature. This, by definition, is super-nature (supernatural).
Your hypothesized multiverse is either a part of nature or it is itself supernatural. Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence.
{ABE: in my usage above, "nature" = "natural world". If you find my comments confusing, please try replacing "nature" with "natural world".}
Edited by kbertsche, : ABE

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 2:01 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2014 11:21 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 125 by AZPaul3, posted 03-28-2014 11:25 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 03-28-2014 12:28 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 132 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 2:37 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 301 (723256)
03-28-2014 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 10:55 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence.
Right. Just as sunlight and water vapor transcend rainbows.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:55 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 125 of 301 (723257)
03-28-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 10:55 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence.
Unless it is eternal just as you propose for your god. The multiverse, all natural, all the time, might be eternal with no beginning and with universe upon universe by the billions bubbling into existence then fading away. Supposition is such an open box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:55 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 126 of 301 (723259)
03-28-2014 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by 1.61803
03-28-2014 10:03 AM


Re:
es NoNukes, wrong about gravity but the questions still remains and I believe is the salient point.
Did the laws of nature exist before nature?
Does your question have any meaning at all? I can grant that your question might have implications if in fact your question makes sense.
The laws of nature are not external and human like. They are not marionette strings pulling at the substance of the universe. Instead the laws of nature are a descriptive of how the universe operates or how it does not operate. Perhaps it has always been the case that when two masses are present, they will appear to attract each other as GR describes. Or it may be that under certain conditions opposite charges have always attracted. That can be true regardless of whether there have always been a pair of masses or charges. What would it mean to ask if the law of gravity existed when there was only one, or no particles, and no energy? And further, did those hypothetical conditions ever exist?
I say I don't think so. What do you think?
I think what you (and kbertsche and shadow71) are doing is envisioning an answer that you feel comfortable and asking 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' questions in support of what you have already decided. You at least are not claiming that people who don't see it your way are shallow minded non-thinkers.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by 1.61803, posted 03-28-2014 10:03 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by 1.61803, posted 03-28-2014 12:59 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(3)
Message 127 of 301 (723265)
03-28-2014 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by kbertsche
03-27-2014 11:47 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself.
How do you go from "outside itself" to "supernatural deity"?
If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural.
No, it would simply become part of nature. At one time, the Earth and it's immediate surroundings were considered the entire extent of the natural world. Does this mean that the Andromeda galaxy is supernatural? No. If there is a process that creates universes that is as impersonal and non-sentient as the process that produces clouds, why wouldn't we call that a natural process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 11:47 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 3:32 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 128 of 301 (723266)
03-28-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 10:55 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence.
Why can't that transcendent cause be a non-sentient process like the transcendent cause of rainbows or clouds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:55 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 129 of 301 (723270)
03-28-2014 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by NoNukes
03-28-2014 11:37 AM


Re: Re:
Hi NoNukes,
Does your question have any meaning at all? I can grant that your question might have implications if in fact your question makes sense.
I believe the universe is self caused.
That probably is a misnomer because a "cause" indicates a causer. yadda yadda....
So I will state it another way. The Universe exist because the Big Bang happened some 13 billion years ago. It could of been another universe bumping into another, or a spontaneous quantum fluctiation. blah blah blah... All we know is it happened.
There was no univese and now bingo..here we are. Now does any of this sound unreasonable?
NoNukes writes:
The laws of nature are not external and human like. They are not marionette strings pulling at the substance of the universe. Instead the laws of nature are a descriptive of how the universe operates or how it does not operate. Perhaps it has always been the case that when two masses are present, they will appear to attract each other as GR describes
Precisely, a possible emergent property of energy/matter is that it will behave accordingly. I get that. I am down with that concept.
I am, and possibly wrong, but think everything is directed by the fundalmental forces that exist. Correct me if this is wrong.
Scientist at the present time speculate that the majority of mass in the universe is possibly dark matter and dark energy. They are trying to see how it behaves how it 'interacts' or why it doesn't. How inflation occured, or if it did. Now it seems to me if we do not even know the nature of most of the shit in our cosmos or how the unverse expanded faster the c (inflation). It is not a unreasonable question to ask if it is possible we are getting our marching orders from somewhere else? Alternate universe? Parallel universe? etc.. Is there a free lunch in the universe?
I know, I know do these questions even mean anything!

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2014 11:37 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2014 1:29 PM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 131 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2014 1:37 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 301 (723274)
03-28-2014 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by 1.61803
03-28-2014 12:59 PM


Re: Re:
It is not a unreasonable question to ask if it is possible we are getting our marching orders from somewhere else?
Of course it is not unreasonable to ask. But what I am seeing is people saying scientists are stupid because they don't ask the questions answered in Genesis when they slide pucks on an air table.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by 1.61803, posted 03-28-2014 12:59 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 301 (723276)
03-28-2014 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by 1.61803
03-28-2014 12:59 PM


Re: Re:
I believe the universe is self caused.
That probably is a misnomer because a "cause" indicates a causer. yadda yadda....
No. It doesn't. Perhaps that's the entire subject in nutshell. Germs cause you to get sick. You don't really need to assume an evil spirit is behind you getting a cold sore.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by 1.61803, posted 03-28-2014 12:59 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by 1.61803, posted 04-02-2014 10:34 AM NoNukes has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 132 of 301 (723284)
03-28-2014 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 10:55 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Of course, if God is eternal with no beginning, then no such cause is necessary.
Great, now let's keep that in mind when we talk about a multiverse system.
I defined "universe" as "all of nature".
Yes, I got that. The universe is 4D spacetime i.e. all of nature, all of reality.
Whatever caused nature to begin to exist must transcend nature. This, by definition, is super-nature (supernatural).
Not at all. It just means it is not governed by the laws of our 4D spacetime.
Your hypothesized multiverse is either a part of nature or it is itself supernatural. Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence.
Since it is not governed by our 4D spacetime, things like time and beginning and end are irrelevant. So a multiverse doesn't begin to exist or anything relating to the functions of time.
It can itself be eternal.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:55 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 133 of 301 (723294)
03-28-2014 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Taq
03-28-2014 12:26 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Taq writes:
kbertsche writes:
I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself.
How do you go from "outside itself" to "supernatural deity"?
"Outside nature" is "super-nature", by definition.
Whether or not this is a "deity" depends on one's definition of "deity". Many would agree that a "deity" is eternal and uncaused (though this wouldn't apply to minor Greek and Roman deities).
Taq writes:
kbertsche writes:
If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural.
No, it would simply become part of nature.
No, you're not making sense. If nature had a beginning, it needs a cause which is outside itself, i.e. super-nature. (The idea that something is self-caused is a logical impossibility.)
Taq writes:
At one time, the Earth and it's immediate surroundings were considered the entire extent of the natural world. Does this mean that the Andromeda galaxy is supernatural? No.
I disagree. If "nature" is defined to be the earth, then this cause is "super-nature" by definition.
Taq writes:
If there is a process that creates universes that is as impersonal and non-sentient as the process that produces clouds, why wouldn't we call that a natural process?
I only see two possibilities:
1) nature (including the process that you propose) had a beginning to its existence, in which case it needs a super-natural cause
2) nature (including the process that you propose) is eternal, with no beginning, in which case it has effectively become a god (an impersonal god in this case, similar to Spinoza's and Einstein's)
Can you think of any other options?
{ABE: in my usage above, "nature" = "natural world". If you find my comments confusing, please try replacing "nature" with "natural world".}
Edited by kbertsche, : ABE

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 03-28-2014 12:26 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-28-2014 3:54 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 136 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 5:37 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 155 by Taq, posted 03-31-2014 5:00 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 301 (723296)
03-28-2014 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 3:32 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
1) nature (including the process that you propose) had a beginning to its existence, in which case it needs a super-natural cause
As far as we know, beginnings requiring causes is something that happens within the universe. There's no reason to extrapolate that to the whole universe, itself.
With time also having an emergence, the universe may just be wrapping back up into itself in the past direction, which could be a "beginning" without a cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 3:32 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 135 of 301 (723298)
03-28-2014 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by NoNukes
03-27-2014 1:40 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Don't forget conference presentations with peers who have been in your field for 40 years.
:yikes:

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2014 1:40 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024