|
0 members (),
219
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Senior Member
|
OP
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415 |
Our Modern Scientific Philosophy.
=.
The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton.
Question.
Where did electron and proton come from?
Answer.
Electron and proton came from big bang.
Question.
Where the did big bang come from?
Answer.
The big bang was created when all electrons and protons
and all another particles were pressed into a singular point.
==..
If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are ignorant man.
=.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
like the chicken and the egg philosophy... which came first
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Senior Member
|
|
OP
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415 |
like the chicken and the egg philosophy... which came first The question ‘ what was before: the chicken or the egg ?’ is very old and doesn’t have answer. Therefore I will ask a simpler question: What was before: the ‘big bang’ or the vacuum? =.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
The question ‘ what was before: the chicken or the egg ?’ Actually the answer is very clear. The egg was first. According to the theory of evolution there was at some time a bird that wasn't a chicken. That bird laid an egg that hatched to produce a chicken. Therefore the egg was first. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 118
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 118 |
Beautiful Bill. Exactly right. Undisputable!
Good atmosphere and good conversation...that's the best.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
The question ‘ what was before: the chicken or the egg ?’ Actually the answer is very clear. The egg was first. According to the theory of evolution there was at some time a bird that wasn't a chicken. That bird laid an egg that hatched to produce a chicken. Therefore the egg was first. Bill Gill The philosophical question goes beyond the pat answer. Obviously there was something prior to the egg, which produces the egg, be it genetically similar in appearance or not.... But if you trace the history and genealogy of the species in question, the original question still remains. There was a creature which gave the chicken its egg, and that creature came from an egg which was made by its creator etc. But then it winds its way into the scientific theory of some kind of primordial ooze having found a way to give birth to intelligent life or even not so intelligent life, like that of a chicken. (Trust me chickens are not very intelligent) From whence does thyself come? This is what is being asked. What is a vacuum, and is a vacuum when referenced to a condition prior to the universe as we experience it the same kind of vacuum which is void of anything. Is a vacuum that is categorized when a container is emptied of air the same kind of vacuum that is referenced before the bang theory projects itself as the culmination of properties and conditions which gave birth to the universe? The egg so to speak, which was the Universe before it was hatched. What created that vacuum or universal egg? Is there a something (proverbial chicken) before the something (proverbial egg) or a nothing before the something? People tend to find they have their simple answers.. but then those simple answers only apply to simplistic thinking within the boundaries of relative ideas, that are lodged within the box of the theoretical foundations of accepted social and scientific mores. Said another way. Your train of thought only extends itself within the sandbox you decide to play in. Whether you can observe the observer and stand outside all boxes will show yourself whether you have any relative boundaries and whether there is anything that can be contained by any particular theory and simple answer. Once you decide you have the simple answer, its likely you just stepped into a particular kind of sandbox.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
While, undoubtedly, it is fun to follow these circuitous discussions on their endless revolutions, the question seems to resolve itself to this:
Where did the Universe come from?
The answer is at once simple and profound. There can never have been a time when there was nothing, or there would still be nothing now.
Something, therefore, must be eternal.
The question: "What is that eternal something?" is a completely different question, and seeks an answer that we are probably unable to supply without entering the realms of belief.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
(Trust me chickens are not very intelligent) Doesn't that depend on what you mean by intelligent? It seems reasonable to assume that evolution (or God) endowed chickens with the right amount of intelligence to survive and thrive. The fact that in many cases humans have deprived them of the scope to exercise their intelligence does not mean they don't have it.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Where did the Universe come from?
The answer is at once simple and profound. There can never have been a time when there was nothing, or there would still be nothing now.
I made it ... I got bored one day ... proove I didn't ;-)
Something, therefore, must be eternal.
The question: "What is that eternal something?" is a completely different question, and seeks an answer that we are probably unable to supply without entering the realms of belief.
The only thing eternal is religious nutter trolls on physics forums :-)
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
(Trust me chickens are not very intelligent) Doesn't that depend on what you mean by intelligent? It seems reasonable to assume that evolution (or God) endowed chickens with the right amount of intelligence to survive and thrive. The fact that in many cases humans have deprived them of the scope to exercise their intelligence does not mean they don't have it. In fact the main evidence that a species is successful is survival of the species. So each species, including chickens, has some group of traits, including some level of intelligence, that makes it successful. As far as chickens go, at the present time one trait that makes them a success is that they taste good. Oh, and they lay eggs that also taste good. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
Beautiful Bill. Exactly right. Undisputable! But you fogot to mention: The mother that layed the egg had to be a repitle. Now the question is: Which came first, the reptile, or the egg? Or should it be: Was it Abbot, or Costello? 
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
The only thing eternal is religious nutter trolls on physics forums :-) Get a grip, Orac; you're letting them get to you. 
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
The question: "What is that eternal something?" is a completely different question, and seeks an answer that we are probably unable to supply without entering the realms of belief.
I don't think its exclusive of the chicken and the egg question, and I think the symbolisms only elude those who want to be pragmatic and exclusively relative. (Trust me chickens are not very intelligent) Doesn't that depend on what you mean by intelligent? Of course It seems reasonable to assume that evolution (or God) endowed chickens with the right amount of intelligence to survive and thrive. The fact that in many cases humans have deprived them of the scope to exercise their intelligence does not mean they don't have it.
There in lies the relative point of view. Regardless of what one is capable of, the reality of relative measure is going to be entered into the equation when a question of relative measure is presented.
I made it ... I got bored one day ... prove I didn't ;-)
Make someone hear you, recognize what you recognize and then believe you.
The only thing eternal is religious nutter trolls on physics forums :-)
Wrong. Religion changes by the minute and so the nutter is never going to stand in one place or repeat the same thing regarding belief. The only thing consistent is the presence of that which one allows ones self to react. Which is held in the mind of the beholder of perceptive realities. Even that is going to be changing, but the ego idolizes qualities as eternal as long as he/she can continue to hold the belief within the identity of the human meat-sack. When that is gone, all beliefs return to the eternal.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 118
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 118 |
Our Modern Scientific Philosophy.
=.
The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton.
Question.
Where did electron and proton come from?
Answer.
Electron and proton came from big bang.
Question.
Where the did big bang come from?
Answer.
The big bang was created when all electrons and protons
and all another particles were pressed into a singular point.
==..
If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are ignorant man.
=.
Excuse my philosophical ignorance Tsolkas. Let me preface the alternative that I offer by saying that I have visited your website and appreciate your passion and diligence. To me, these are the attributes that spell your worth and cannot be assailed. Our universe always existed in a balanced static state...a near singularity. Its constituents were elemental particles, space and a “boatload” of potential energy. This balance was disturbed when kinetic energy was introduced from an “inside” universe. Now armed with the missing ingredient, it fired. This is a serial function. Currently, our universe is the only one out of an infinite number of progressive/ regressive universes that is in motion. The megaverse has no beginning and no end. Just my ignorant, humble opinion. Pleased to meet you Socratus.
Good atmosphere and good conversation...that's the best.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
http://philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.ca/2009/09/paul-diracnew-book.htmlA Venue for Discussions of Science, Philosophy and the Arts http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/dirac/Career Of Dirac
Dirac established the most general theory of quantum mechanics and discovered the relativistic equation for the electron, which now bears his name. The remarkable notion of an antiparticle to each particle - i.e. the positron as antiparticle to the electron - stems from his equation. He was the first to develop quantum field theory, which underlies all theoretical work on sub-atomic or "elementary" particles today, work that is fundamental to our understanding of the forces of nature. He proposed and investigated the concept of a magnetic monopole, an object not yet known empirically, as a means of bringing even greater symmetry to Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism.
He quantized the gravitational field, and developed a general theory of quantum field theories with dynamical constraints, which forms the basis of the gauge theories and superstring theories of today. The influence and importance of his work has increased with the decades, and physicists daily use the concepts and equations that he developed. Dirac's first step into a new quantum theory was taken late in September 1925. Ralph Fowler, his research supervisor, had received a proof copy of an exploratory paper by Werner Heisenberg in the framework of the old quantum theory of Bohr and Sommerfeld, which leaned heavily on Bohr's correspondence principle but changed the equations so that they involved directly observable quantities. Fowler sent Heisenberg's paper on to Dirac, who was on vacation in Bristol, asking him to look into this paper carefully.
Dirac's attention was drawn to a mysterious mathematical relationship, at first sight unintelligible, that Heisenberg had reached. Several weeks later, back in Cambridge, Dirac suddenly recognized that this mathematical form had the same structure as the Poisson Brackets that occur in the classical dynamics of particle motion. From this thought he quickly developed a quantum theory that was based on non-commuting dynamical variables. This led him to a more profound and significant general formulation of quantum mechanics than was achieved by any other worker in this field ......[21]
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Was it Abbot, or Costello? Abbot - by 9 years, but "Who" could still have been first. Are we all going "bats"? How many are old enough to appreciate that one without looking it up?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Was it Abbot, or Costello? Abbot - by 9 years, but "Who" could still have been first. Are we all going "bats"? How many are old enough to appreciate that one without looking it up? 3rd, I don't know. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
I see you are reading around a bit on QM Rev K and as I suggested to you that you might find it interesting but some of the doors we can't walk thru because it isn't science :-)
While I am thinking about it I keep meaning to ask what is the origin of morality in your religion is it like handed down as gods word as in many religions.
If it needs a longer explaination start a thread in NQS and I will pick it up there.
Morality is the one aspect of religion that has interested me because not being exposed to religion in my youth my morality is a product of my society and it is interesting when you start asking why do I believe this and that at a moral level.
Last edited by Orac; 09/10/12 03:03 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
I see you are reading around a bit on QM Rev K and as I suggested to you that you might find it interesting but some of the doors we can't walk thru because it isn't science :-) ... And, as the work of Paul Dirac shows, a lot of science is not just science. http://bigideas.tvo.org/episode/172188/graham-farmelo-on-paul-dirac-and-mathematical-beautyGraham Farmelo on Paul Dirac and Mathematical Beauty
Adjunct Professor of Physics at Northeastern University in Boston, Graham Farmelo, on Paul Dirac and the Religion of Mathematical Beauty. Apart from Einstein, Paul Dirac was probably the greatest theoretical physicist of the 20th century. Dirac, co-inventor of quantum mechanics, is now best known for conceiving of anti-matter and also for his deeply eccentric behavior. For him, the most important attribute of a fundamental theory was its mathematical beauty, an idea that he said was "almost a religion" to him.
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
TVO (TV Ontario)--Video on Paul Dirac (1902-1984) http://ww3.tvo.org/video/173055/graham-farmelo-paul-dirac-and-mathematical-beautyIn this lecture--given at Waterlo University (Ontario)--which I heard on TVO last Sunday, Farmelo pointed out that Dirac was autistic. As a young person he was very much a loner. However, later, he did marry and had two children. He became very interested in philosophy. BIOGRAPHY AND STORY OF WORK http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item1154996/?site_locale=en_GB======= "Just because the results happen to be in agreement with observation does not prove that one's theory is correct" (Dirac 1987, p. 196). Quotes attributed to Paul Dirac Art and science have their meeting point in method. (Paul Dirac) God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world. (Paul Dirac) In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite. (Paul Dirac) The fundamental laws necessary for the mathematical treatment of a large part of physics and the whole of chemistry are thus completely known, and the difficulty lies only in the fact that application of these laws leads to equations that are too complex to be solved. (Paul Dirac) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
