About philosophy. Book “Facing Up", by Steven Weinberg.

The result of “philosophy of science" must be logical explanation nature from its origin to the present days.
No. That would be science, not philosophy. Scientists discover new facts and laws in nature and give them different interpretations. Today they come to conclusion that the Universe was begun from “Big Bang". But “big bang" cannot be the origin of nature because “big bang" doesn’t give answer to the question: “ Where did the masses for big bang come from?" Somebody can think that God created these masses. And if Feynman said: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." it is also because the beginning of creation was chosen wrong. Therefor philosophers must explain physicists, astronomers, . . . . . to understand this fact and help them to find another source of creation of the Universe. But philosophers haven’t done their job. You are asking for the conditions under which mass could come into existence. That is a question for the cause of mass' appearance. But that means it is still a physics questions, so there is really nothing a philosopher can contribute here. Question: Where did masses come from? Answer: maybe from “big bang", maybe from chaos, maybe from vacuum, maybe from 11-dimensions , maybe . . . . . . Why philosophers of science cannot help physicists to solve this problem? ====….
Question: Where did masses come from? Answer: maybe from “big bang", maybe from chaos, maybe from vacuum, maybe from 11-dimensions , maybe . . . . . . Why philosophers of science cannot help physicists to solve this problem? ====….
As you have been told, because they are not physicists. This is really quite a simple question. The hard question is how can we detect anything that happened before the Big Bang?
Question: Where did masses come from? Answer: maybe from “big bang", maybe from chaos, maybe from vacuum, maybe from 11-dimensions , maybe . . . . . . Why philosophers of science cannot help physicists to solve this problem? ====….
As you have been told, because they are not physicists. This is really quite a simple question. The hard question is how can we detect anything that happened before the Big Bang? How can we detect what happened before the Big Bang? ==.. Scientists say that before the “big bang" was nothing: neither space nor time. In my opinion when we say “space", “time" we must define more precisely. We must define more precisely that we are talk about “gravity-space" and “gravity-time". Is my opinion correct? ====… First - SRT. (1905) a) Take SRT the theory without gravity. This theory doesn’t have “gravity-space" and “gravity-time". This theory has “spacetime"- other names: Minkowski spacetime, negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space. In my opinion all these words hide one true word: vacuum. b) One SRT postulate says that the speed of light is constant in vacuum because the laws of electricity and magnetism predict that light travels at c = 2.998×108 m/s in a vacuum. But scientists did not specify the frame of reference in which light had this speed. Therefore was invented Minkowski spacetime, negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space – all these words are different names of vacuum. Vacuum is reference frame for speed of quantum of light and SRT. (we still don’t know what vacuum is) Second – GRT. (1915) Take GRT the theory about gravity. The gravity masses somehow changed the surrounded “spacetime" and create “gravity-space" and “gravity-time". There aren’t “space" and “time" without gravity. Third – The prove. You can detect my opinion in our Earth referent frame. How? Try to live without “gravity-space" and “gravity-time". # Astronauts can live in satellite without “gravity-space" and “gravity-time" only because they have artificial air. Without artificial air this satellite is flying coffin. We can live on natural / artificial cosmic satellite /planet Earth only because Earth has own gravity-space- air and gravity-time. ==.. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus =====…

That’s a whole lot of words to say nothing, Socratus. Your musings are so far off base they aren’t even wrong.

That's a whole lot of words to say nothing, Socratus. Your musings are so far off base they aren't even wrong.
Once more. =. Before BB was no space and no time. The situation “no space and no time" have only one reference frame -- vacuum. Vacuum has different names: Minkowski spacetime, negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space. # Before BB was “singular point". This “singular point" has masses. Where did these masses come from? The answer can be only one. These masses came from vacuum. These masses came from cold zero vacuum. Therefor in the beginning the “singular point“ wasn’t hot. In the beginning the “singular point" was cold. Very cold. Question: How did the temperature arise from zero vacuum to the star’s conditions? This process I explained in the article: Star formation. / scheme by Israel Sadovnik Socratus / ==… http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18203/ =======..
That's a whole lot of words to say nothing, Socratus. Your musings are so far off base they aren't even wrong.
Once more. =. Before BB was no space and no time. The situation “no space and no time" have only one reference frame -- vacuum. Vacuum has different names: Minkowski spacetime, negative 2D, Pseudo Euclidian space. # Before BB was “singular point". This “singular point" has masses. Where did these masses come from? The answer can be only one. These masses came from vacuum. These masses came from cold zero vacuum. Therefor in the beginning the “singular point“ wasn’t hot. In the beginning the “singular point" was cold. Very cold. Question: How did the temperature arise from zero vacuum to the star’s conditions? This process I explained in the article: Star formation. / scheme by Israel Sadovnik Socratus / ==… http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18203/ =======.. "...If something knows something of nothing Can nothing not not be a thing?"

What are you doing Socratus? Physics or philosophy?

What are you doing Socratus? Physics or philosophy?
Do word salads count as either?

Scientists make scientific discoveries. Philosophers of science speculate on what they mean. They can’t speculate on what hasn’t been discovered. They are the Greek chorus of science.

Scientists make scientific discoveries. Philosophers of science speculate on what they mean. They can't speculate on what hasn't been discovered. They are the Greek chorus of science.
Maybe tomorrow “ the Greek chorus" will sing another song: “ When the next revolution rocks physics, chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything ==========…
Maybe tomorrow “ the Greek chorus" will sing another song: “ When the next revolution rocks physics, chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
Good link:
But only in the last 10 years has the vacuum taken center stage as a font of confounding mysteries like the nature of dark energy and matter; only recently has the void turned into a tantalizing beacon for cranks.
Italics by me.
Maybe tomorrow “ the Greek chorus" will sing another song: “ When the next revolution rocks physics, chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
Good link:
But only in the last 10 years has the vacuum taken center stage as a font of confounding mysteries like the nature of dark energy and matter; only recently has the void turned into a tantalizing beacon for cranks.
Italics by me. Dark energy may be vacuum http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php # A black hole has a temperature within a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero. / Oxford. Dictionary./ # A "black hole" has a temperature of only one ten-millionth of a degree above absolute zero. Book: "The theory of everything" by Stephen Hawking.The difference is so slight that I can say "black hole" and "vacuum" have the same equal temperature: T=0K. # Astronomers have found an enormous hole in the Universe, nearly a billion light-years across, empty of both normal matter such as stars, galaxies, and gas, and the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/coldspot/ # Scientists searching for an explanation for an unusually cool area of sky instead discovered a super void: an empty spherical blob 1.8 billion light years across . . . http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/20/astronomers-discover-largest-known-structure-in-the-universe-is-a-big-hole ====.. In my opinion this “astronomical hole" is Zero Vacuum. # “For though all creatures under heaven are the products of Being, Being itself is the product of Not-Being. " / chapter. 40, Tao Te Ching / ===. In my opinion the Lao Tzu “Not-Being" is zero vacuum: T=0K. ==============…
“For though all creatures under heaven are the products of Being, Being itself is the product of Not-Being. " / chapter. 40, Tao Te Ching / ===. In my opinion the Lao Tzu “Not-Being" is zero vacuum: T=0K.
Yes, Lao Tzu was a famous Quantum physicist...
“For though all creatures under heaven are the products of Being, Being itself is the product of Not-Being. " / chapter. 40, Tao Te Ching / ===. In my opinion the Lao Tzu “Not-Being" is zero vacuum: T=0K.
Yes, Lao Tzu was a famous Quantum physicist... The ancients knew something which we seem to have forgotten. / Albert Einstein / =============

Maybe the heart of this, has to do with perception, which necessarily requires contrast on some level. What I mean is that, we need “ones and zeroes” and “something and nothing” and “black and white” in order to perceive and make sense of things. Perhaps this places us in a closed loop, in which there is no possibility (or which makes very unlikely) that some meaningful answer can be found to what nothing is, and how it once became our universe.

The ancients knew something which we seem to have forgotten. / Albert Einstein / =============
Out of context quotation. Einstein was not referring to science, but to 'free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind' See here].
Maybe the heart of this, has to do with perception, which necessarily requires contrast on some level. What I mean is that, we need "ones and zeroes" and "something and nothing" and "black and white" in order to perceive and make sense of things. Perhaps this places us in a closed loop, in which there is no possibility (or which makes very unlikely) that some meaningful answer can be found to what nothing is, and how it once became our universe.
Hegel defined a contradiction as essentially different phenomena within the framework of their common unity, # Marx's concept of contradiction and his unity in essence, ... (The law of the unity and the conflict / struggle of opposites) # Nature itself is in contrasts / contradiction and harmony. ===================... “ones and zeroes" , “something and nothing", “black and white" , “movement and rest", “corpuscular and wave", “particle and antiparticle", “spacetime and space & time". “infinity and finite" . . . . . . . . “ . . . some meaningful answer can be found to what nothing is, and how it once became our universe." / TimB / =====================… " The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." / Albert Einstein / =====================…
The ancients knew something which we seem to have forgotten. / Albert Einstein / =============
Out of context quotation. Einstein was not referring to science, but to 'free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind' See here]. Good work GdB.
Maybe the heart of this, has to do with perception, which necessarily requires contrast on some level. What I mean is that, we need "ones and zeroes" and "something and nothing" and "black and white" in order to perceive and make sense of things. Perhaps this places us in a closed loop, in which there is no possibility (or which makes very unlikely) that some meaningful answer can be found to what nothing is, and how it once became our universe.
Hegel defined a contradiction as essentially different phenomena within the framework of their common unity… Well, Hegel and I could agree on that. But beyond that, I am suggesting the possibility that this conclusion, or ANY conclusion that we make, is necessarily bound by the processes and processing of perception. (And perhaps even with expanded perception, it may still be a quality of perception and processing perception, itself, that may limit our understanding of what may exist in our universe.) That being said, it seems to be a useless consideration, unless it is true and someone can figure out a work-around.