Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Sorry yeah it's very late here and I missed the cannot bit you keep sliding them in, I actually avoid using the term cannot that is a really hard test condition in science which sort of topically was the source of a really weird discussion with Bill.

If you look at my answer I only talked about the does not part and ignored the cannot bit in my justification for accepting that. So you are correct I wouldn't accept that statement unless you remove the cannot bit sorry for the confusion.

Hey at least that means you understand my logic enough to even pick up my own errors now ... I am a horribly logical animal smile

So now you should be able to predict my answers to all your questions ahead of time laugh

Am I correct in saying however you were seeking some sort of ultimate answer to that question which the way I do science just is never going to be able to get a valid setup on to answer? I hate the term never as well but you know what I mean.

You would also understand that if that was your intention and I was a science moderator why the thread would be closed unless you could proved a valid test mechanism because it probably isn't a valid science question for a science forum. I suspect if you try this question on heavily moderated science forums that would be what happens have you ever done so?

Last edited by Orac; 02/06/14 02:18 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
It's 1.20 am here, so I'm going to bow out, at least until tomorrow. Sorry, that should be later today. Must get these things right on a science forum. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
DO WE NEED TO GET RID OF SIMPLISTIC MEDIEVAL THINKING ABOUT A GOD WHO EXISTS?

The following are comments about this that I like, by Kernel John, a poster at http://www.opensourcereligion.net/forum/topics/moral-relativism?xg_source=msg_forum_disc

Quote:
Here's the problem with this simplistic medieval thinking. It is based on the notion that perfection exists in a material universe of continuous change. It doesn't take long to understand that in its absolute form, perfection - by definition - is unchanging. Perfection does not change.

The notion of moral absolutism is a religious framework that is itself relative to a universe of continuous change.

As you can see, this type of framework does not withstand logical scrutiny. It holds together only by the suspension of rational thinking and the employment of faith based belief.

Perfection is a concept that can only exist in a Perfect Universe that is beyond change which is endemic to space-time (movement). This is the perfection that theoretically exists beyond the speed of light. This is where God resides.

Next question is does Perfection (God) intervene in an imperfect universe of matter?

Personally, I don't think so . . . however, the majority of religious trend setters and wanna bes continue to rely on a personal God that assists them by intervening into the affairs of humankind.

Religious extremists and terrorists especially rely on this limited earthly form of thinking.
Does this mean that science thinking is a limited earthly kind of thinking with nothing in common with absolutes like infinity?

Last edited by Revlgking; 02/06/14 05:07 AM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Does this mean that science thinking is a limited earthly kind of thinking with nothing in common with absolutes like infinity?


Correct Rev K (assuming earthly is how I interpret because that translates sort of strange to me) at least in the sort of science I practice I will leave it to the other groups to answer for themselves.

That is why I went through the logic to my form of science it is clear concise and open and leaves no real room for personal preference.

That is why we get used to being wrong because you have to accept the logic even if you don't like it and most new discoveries break something you previously held solid. I have lost count how many things I have been wrong on over the years it is sort of water of a ducks back these days smile

It is a fairly brutal and impersonal process I am guessing your logic would be more philosophical and what feels right type which I don't have the ability to entertain at least not in a formal sense but would be nice sometimes smile

Last edited by Orac; 02/06/14 10:04 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Absolute nothing can not and does not exist as evidence by the fact you are here.


I don’t intend rabbiting on eternally about this, and I am quite happy to take the “can not” out of the above quote.

That gives us: “Absolute nothing does not exist as evidence by the fact you are here.”

I would just like to clarify what you are saying here. My interpretation would be: “If there had ever been nothing, there would be nothing now.”

Is that what you are saying?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Remove the word ever ... that implies all time I am not that old and don't have evidence that goes back that far.

As far as I will stretch is "If there was nothing at the big bang, there would be nothing now.”

I am happy to conjecture beyond that (and sometimes do) but not try and make some sort of definitive statement, scientifically my evidence stops at the big bang. The problem is that prior to the BB I have no idea what the laws of physics look like so my observation based logic of this universe is not valid I have no way of knowing even basic things like does time exist there .. remember how Intuitionistic logic works so pre-bigbang is another "flying pig".

If QM and whatever causes it predates the big bang and that's a monumentally huge IF it might be possible in the future to scientifically extend backwards but beyond the big bang otherwise all we can do is conjecture and philosophize.

The idea that there was and always has been nothing is an interesting notion it raises the question why do we always assume that the universe started with nothing. I think as a philosophical or conjectural topic it is an interesting topic but I doubt it couldn't be discussed scientifically.

It's one of those sort of topics Rev K likes which are interesting but ultimately not science.

Last edited by Orac; 02/07/14 04:49 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
As far as I will stretch is "If there was nothing at the big bang, there would be nothing now.”


I agree with that, but it would be helpful to know why you think that.

It would also be interesting to know what you mean by “at the big bang”. Obviously the Big Bang is something; so it would seem somewhat tautologous to say there must have been something at the point at which something happened. Patently, if there were not something, something could not have happened.

Quote:
remember how Intuitionistic logic works so pre-bigbang is another "flying pig".


This must mean that eternal inflation has brought an infinite number of “flying pigs” into existence.
Quote:
If QM and whatever causes it predates the big bang and that's a monumentally huge IF


Should one assume from this that you believe the idea that the Universe originated as a quantum fluctuation is philosophy, rather than science.

Quote:
The idea that there was and always has been nothing is an interesting notion it raises the question why do we always assume that the universe started with nothing.


Just to ensure that the record is straight; I have never held “that there was and always has been nothing”.

As far as the idea goes that the “universe started with nothing”; you would have to be clear as to what you meant by “nothing”, and what you meant by “started with” before I could comment on that.

Who are the "we" who "always assume that the universe started with nothing"?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I agree with that, but it would be helpful to know why you think that.

Standard timeline to the big bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
It would also be interesting to know what you mean by “at the big bang”. Obviously the Big Bang is something; so it would seem somewhat tautologous to say there must have been something at the point at which something happened. Patently, if there were not something, something could not have happened.

Question how close to t=0 you can get that is a matter of science and what we discover.

You will note in the above article the big warning

Originally Posted By: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period. Proposed scenarios differ radically.

You probably guess my view on Cosmogony smile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

Quote:
Cosmogony can be distinguished from cosmology, which studies the universe at large and throughout its existence, and which technically does not inquire directly into the source of its origins. There is some ambiguity between the two terms. For example, the cosmological argument from theology regarding the existence of God is technically an appeal to cosmogonical rather than cosmological ideas. In practice, there is a scientific distinction between cosmological and cosmogonical ideas. Physical cosmology is the science that attempts to explain all observations relevant to the development and characteristics of the universe as a whole.

That is what I suspected you want is Cosmogony but you didn't know the scientific term we give it.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
This must mean that eternal inflation has brought an infinite number of “flying pigs” into existence

And why is that a problem? Science doesn't deny that flying pigs could exist and if we observe them then they exist.

I have methodically peeled the science process open at length and in detail to explain this. Again science isn't here to necessarily answer every question.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Should one assume from this that you believe the idea that the Universe originated as a quantum fluctuation is philosophy, rather than science.

You would assume right it is a Cosmogony idea we can start using the correct term now. It is however an idea that might be able to be made scientific as discussed if QM predates the BB, remember there is nothing wrong with looking for flying pigs just don't tell me they exist until you find one. Look at the story of the Higgs they had to build a big machine to prove a "flying pig" they predicted from theory was actually there, we would not accept it without that.

The rest you have clarified and I really have no comment on.

Last edited by Orac; 02/08/14 05:35 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Standard timeline to the big bang


That doesn’t address the question. You said: "If there was nothing at the big bang, there would be nothing now.” That is meaningless. The Big Bang was something, so what this says is: If there was nothing when there was something (?!) there would be nothing now.

If you accept that there was a Big Bang, and that it was something, then if you want to talk of the possibility of there having been nothing in relation to the BB, then you have to specify what you mean.

Quote:
That is what I suspected you want is Cosmogony but you didn't know the scientific term we give it.


I see the assumption of ignorance is alive and well. smile Where did I use the term “cosmology” where you think “cosmogony” would have been more appropriate? Could it be that you regard the Big Bang theory as cosmogony, in spite of the quote from your linked article?

Originally Posted By: Wiki
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the early development of the universe


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
That doesn’t address the question. You said: "If there was nothing at the big bang, there would be nothing now.” That is meaningless. The Big Bang was something, so what this says is: If there was nothing when there was something (?!) there would be nothing now.


It says what it says there there was something at the big bang or we would not be able to measure it (CMBR), we have no idea why you keep talking about nothing. smile

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If you accept that there was a Big Bang, and that it was something, then if you want to talk of the possibility of there having been nothing in relation to the BB, then you have to specify what you mean.


Sorry I don't have to specify anything science doesn't work like that go back through the logic again laugh

You keep saying there was nothing before the big bang I am simply saying science has really no comment on the matter I have repeatedly told you we can't measure the other side of BB yet so science is silent on the matter.

All we can say is there was something at the big bang.

Before the big bang take whatever guess you want flying pigs, nothing, everything, god, green aliens, or Elvis Presley because science has no data to argue with you.


Originally Posted By: Wiki
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the early development of the universe


Correct it is and that theory starts with something at the big bang. If you want to argue there is something or nothing that predates our universe then it is cosmogony as we have no data.

Can you please show me any scientist or science theory that says there is an absolute nothing before BB because you keep sort of insisting it, Hawking is probably the only one brave and crazy enough. For me put whatever you want before the BB I really don't care as it isn't science.

Last edited by Orac; 02/09/14 01:49 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Can you please show me any scientist or science theory that says there is an absolute nothing before BB because you keep sort of insisting it, Hawking is probably the only one brave and crazy enough. For me put whatever you want before the BB I really don't care as it isn't science.

In fact as far as I know no reputable scientist has made that statement. But there have been suggestions by researchers that the Big Bang came about because of a quantum event. This implies that there was something before the BB. That would have been the quantum foam. The quantum foam would have had to exist in order for the universe to erupt out of it. So that there would not have been nothing (absolute nothing if you insist) before that. I don't see that Bill S. is claiming anything. He is wondering about it, which is a very human thing to do.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I agree totally with what you say Bill and we have explained it a number of times to Bill S. We might be able to push QM thru to the other side of BB and get some data. Similarly if we can work out what causes gravity it may also exist before BB it is after all a form of energy and perhaps we could do some pre-BB science with it and it is right we should consider such things.

However at the moment we have no data pre BB ... and no data is no data.

You can't apply any sort of logic to a no data situation especially when the universe is compacting in and the laws of physics may not remotely be what we are familiar with.

I have no problem with pondering the idea but there is no actual answer possible and really any answer is equally valid.

Last edited by Orac; 02/09/14 02:32 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill
I don't see that Bill S. is claiming anything. He is wondering about it, which is a very human thing to do.


Thanks Bill; it’s good to see that someone actually reads my posts.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
However at the moment we have no data pre BB ... and no data is no data.

You can't apply any sort of logic to a no data situation especially when the universe is compacting in and the laws of physics may not remotely be what we are familiar with.


Would I not be correct in thinking that the data to which you refer stops short at about 10^-35s after the Big Bang?

If there is no data prior to that, why would any scientist accept that there was a Big Bang? After all, "no data is no data".


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Would I not be correct in thinking that the data to which you refer stops short at about 10^-35s after the Big Bang?

If there is no data prior to that, why would any scientist accept that there was a Big Bang? After all, "no data is no data".


And that is exactly what I believe so now you do understand me and my angst at some cosmology .. isn't logic wonderful smile

You read the big formal warning put even into Wiki the big bang is a PROJECTION based on data and it comes with big warnings that there is no collider data to back them up but some people including certain scientists seem to just ignore that.

Last edited by Orac; 02/11/14 02:51 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
"If there was nothing at the big bang, there would be nothing now.”


If you are not certain that there was a Big Bang, how can you make that statement with such apparent certainty?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
big bang is a PROJECTION based on data


doesnt the projection data tell us that everything originated
from a single point.

to me that sounds a lot like "Let there be Light"


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: paul
to me that sounds a lot like "Let there be Light"

It's utterly awesome whichever way I look at it.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
It’s absolutely awesome, whatever the origin, the Universe is awesome.

Simply saying that we can go back to 10^-35s after the Big Bang, but can go no further, because beyond that is God’s province (as I believe a recent Pope said) is, to me, erecting a barrier that stifles thought. Obviously not every scientist erects a similar, non-beatific, barrier, but equally obviously some do. This can justifiably be seen as a protection against wild speculation, but we are beings capable of logical thought and reason, and I see a blank refusal to even consider applying that ability beyond an arbitrary cut-off point as stifling thought.

This is in no way a criticism of those who think: I can’t apply science beyond that point. Nor am I being critical of those who think: I can’t apply physics beyond that point because beyond that the laws of physics might be different. Mae pob un at ei gred ei hun!


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: Orac
"If there was nothing at the big bang, there would be nothing now.”


If you are not certain that there was a Big Bang, how can you make that statement with such apparent certainty?


ROFL ... Big Bang is hardly an exact definition .... I think you are being anal now ... is this an argument for argument sake smile

Tell you what, you tell me your definition of the big bang and I will see if I want to use the term or make my own definition.

Originally Posted By: Bill S
... laws of physics might be different


Could you what tell me remotely what physics laws will still exist and won't be different please?

All you need now Bill S is some half arse big bang model like all the rest of lunatics and you could call yourself a cosmologist .... apparently that is all it takes laugh

In case your worried you probably already meet the requirements to call yourself one (http://targetstudy.com/professions/cosmologist.html)

Last edited by Orac; 02/11/14 08:03 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5