Holmes, how has that been established to begin with?
That is proving the impossibility of “a” Scientific Explanation.
Can you show us the steps or who’s conclusively achieved that?
Or are you in actuality discussing the Certainty of your own Faith?
When philosophically based arguments conflict with reality based ones, the reality based ones win, don’t they? Why should philosophical arguments be granted some super-strength that allows them to trump our eyes, ears, measurements, calculations and ?
People are free to believe anything they want- even that reality isn’t real. But why anyone would choose to do that?
And how does this explain the BB? Is the BB wrong or is the notion that the BB emerged from nothing wrong.
Does it matter if there was something or nothing before? There is something now, no?
If this presents a logical impossibility we are missing something, wouldn’t you say?
A scientific theory that initially assumes nothing exists, no forces, no properties, no particles etc is the only kind of theory that could ever explain the presence of the universe.The 'nothing' used by laymen is not the 'nothing' used by the theoretical physics you are talking about.
If you don’t understand the theoretical physics behind the theories, welcome to the largest group of people on earth- the vast majority of us don’t understand the math and details. But don’t reject the ideas because you don’t understand them- if not understanding something is grounds to reject it, then no one could learn anything because we would all reject everything.
We therefore have a very obvious contradiction and therefore have to accept that no scientific theory or explanation can exist.The contradiction doesn't exist once you use the definition of 'nothing' the physicists are using. Heck, the theory of gravity is false if we go and change the definitions used to describe it.
There’s no way out, this is just one reason why abandoned physics as the fundamental basis for explaining the world.You might have modified your post before posting it and accidentally deleted the word between 'why' and 'abandoned'. I don't want to guess wrong, so let me know who you meant.
Here’s the ‘nothing’ of theoretical physics [emphasis mine]…
imagine if you could remove all particles, energy, gravity… everything from a system. You'd be left with a true vacuum. Even at its lowest energy level, there are fluctuations in the quantum vacuum of the Universe. There are quantum particles popping into and out of existence throughout the Universe. There's nothing, then pop, something, and then the particles collide and you're left with nothing again. And so, even if you could remove everything from the Universe, you'd still be left with these quantum fluctuations embedded in spacetime.
I posted the definition of ‘nothing’. The source is plenty reputable enough to satisfy anyone.
‘Nothing’ means something other than what you are saying it means when theoretical physicists are using the word to discuss an absolute vacuum or the state before the Big Bang. Understanding the proper definition of terms is necessary to understand any concept. Scroll up two posts and read the definition.
I really do think this is an interesting topic and would like to discuss it with you, but you refuse to read what I write and you talk to me like you are way smarter than me and can barely stand stooping to my level. All I ask is that you read my posts and stop talking to me like I’m a complete idiot.
I won’t report what you wrote. I was simply asking for you to stop making unnecessary comments.
You rewrote your original post as though the word ‘nothing’ still has the definition you want it to have, which is different than using the correct definition.
Sherlock Holmes said,Clearly I understand rather a lot more than either of you two, as for the Big Bang – that is not a theory about the presence of the universe only is development from a hypothsized ultra dense initial state – i.e. the Big Bang begins with something already existing
Not necessarily physical. There can be no stasis, it ceases to exist immediately. Therefore, whatever it is, it has to be dynamical in essence.
When something is dynamical in essence it follows mathematical patterns (chaos theory). One of the abstract dynamical patterns led to an instability in the vacuum.
Random cause, Deterministic effect.
We therefore have a very obvious contradiction and therefore have to accept that no scientific theory or explanation can exist.This is not logical. Are you saying that because science can't explain the origin of everything, we can't use science for anything? Is the reverse true? That only something that can explain the origin of everything should be used to explain anything? You've already stated that "In the beginning God created ..." is only a possible explanation. So we still don't have a complete answer, right?
-...because we differed over what “nothing” meant. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and not contesting it’s meaning with you.-Now back to the issue – how can we have a theory that starts with the absence of physical properties and then leads to the emergence of physical properties?
Language is for communication. Unless you adopt the meaning of the words used in theoretical physics the way they are used by theoretical physicists, you are not communicating anything other than your unwillingness to learn and participate in an exchange of ideas.
Take your refusal to understand the word ‘nothing’ to the physicists themselves and make them use a different word. Don’t rant on here and assume you have the power to just change the terminology of an entire field of science because the words they use make you mad or sad.
Did you even read my post containing the definition of the word ‘nothing’?
Nothing you say surprises me. You hit the limit of how shockingly absurd and dense and insulting you can be long long ago.
It was never interesting, although there was lots of potential for it to be so.
Sherlock, when you said,
We therefore have a very obvious contradiction and therefore have to accept that no scientific theory or explanation can exist.I took that to mean we can't have any scientific theories about anything, since they all ultimately rest on some assumption. But you clarified,
I did not say that at all, nowhere did I say that science has no use, only that the universe itself is ultimately inexplicable scientifically.So, fine. I've conceded that point several times. Given that we have theories that go beyond our cause/effect observed universe, I hold out some hope that we might be able to figure it out, but you might well be right. And people who do this every day agree with you. They keep trying, but they admit they might not ever figure it out. From the time you arrived here, this has been a trivial point that doesn't add anything to what we already know. But somehow you think you are telling us something we don't know.
Do you agree that even if we never explain the origin of the universe, there is still a lot to know? There are still many things to discover, possibly other parallel universes or ways to travel our universe through wormholes, or who knows?
I was immersed in theoretical physics (self study, I did not get to a university)No way!!
You could knock me over with a feather right now.
I never would have guessed!!!
We therefore have a very obvious contradiction and therefore have to accept that no scientific theory or explanation can exist.So is Holmes proposing that because science doesn't have the tools to adequately describe initial conditions before the Big Bang occurred, to his personal satisfaction - that means we can infer that all of science is no better than religion in understanding the physical world around us?
What kind of “logic” is that?
Guess it helps to be convinced you’re the smartest in the room and that anyone who disagrees with you has got to be a dummy.
Still,
Science works on gathering and digesting physical facts. So long as one doesn’t grasp that fundamental truth, they’ll never get it, no matter how condescending they can make their words sound.
Perhaps the pre-bang moments are simply beyond our ability to observe and know with any certainty - But that doesn’t mean scientific tools are worthless for understand the “creation” that resulted from the “BANG” as I hear Holmes trying to claim.
I was an avid consumer of science-fiction as a teen at the same time I was immersed in theoretical physics (self study, I did not get to a university) and was always pondering these kinds of things, it was fun (I was studying electronic engineering too in college and all this added up to a very interesting period for me).I was an avid consumer of science history and natural history and observing the world around me. Had little time for science fiction since it seemed little more than contrived glorified Westerns to me. Real life always held more fascination. I too had loads of fun learning about the history of physics, trying to grasp the basic concepts and learning the fascinating stories of the people that helped set the stage for Einstein and the folks around him that refined the theory and got us to the Big Band, the Atom Bomb, and H bomb.
I’ll bet most the folks around here have similar histories of active sustained curiosity at a young age.
So there, goodie for all of us to have found each other.
So is Holmes proposing that because science doesn’t have the tools to adequately describe initial conditions before the Big Bang occurred, to his personal satisfaction – that means we can infer that all of science is no better than religion in understanding the physical world around us?That's a common mistake made by some theists. Their ignorance (of science and atheism and logic) becomes the main source of their arguments.
Misunderstandings like:
- thinking that not believing in a god leads to eugenics,
- thinking atheists hate god,
- thinking if science got something wrong once it's a failed methodology, and
- thinking morals can only come from religion,
If the difference was high level (like, is punctuated equilibrium really a thing), there could be a discussion, but in this situation one side doesn’t even understand the fundamentals of the topic.
So is Holmes proposing that because science doesn’t have the tools to adequately describe initial conditions before the Big Bang occurred, to his personal satisfaction – that means we can infer that all of science is no better than religion in understanding the physical world around us?I thought that's what he meant, and I said so. He replied in his usual indignant tone that it was not what he meant. He's good at that though, so I was sure to ask him to specify if science was useful for things other than describing the origin of the universe, and he gave specific examples. So, he'll say that, but you have to really corner him.
Prior to that, he stated that because there is the theory of ID, there is no need for quantum states or string theories. Again, if you pressed him, he’d probably say it’s fine if someone wants to study that. But he’s obviously not the guy you would want making the decision to continue funding CERN.
When you’re done berating whomever you think you are berating, I have a question. Do you agree that we do exist? Just ignore the problem of how we came to exist for a moment and answer that question. Then we can get back to questions about what came before us or more complex questions like how do you describe cause and effect in a universe that doesn’t have time.
@ Sherlock
Please consider joining The Worthy Christian forum or the Joel Olsteen groupies. You can All Thank the Lord Our Savior for Murder’s, Child Molesters, War, World Hunger and inflicting Cancer on sweet innocent children. Apparently, God is just exhausted from performing miracles.
In the meantime, I’ll be praying that Cheezus chooses you for the next Immaculate Conception ?
Always hard to tell with the mysterious Sherlock. Did I stump him? Is he just mad? Does he have something to do besides respond to my stupid questions?
The reason I ask the question is that is where the conundrum begins. We exist but why? Why is there existence of anything at all? Then you can start to ask where existence came from. To get there, we work backwards because that’s the only avenue we have if you are looking for natural explanations. If you want a supernatural explanation, that skips that problem, but you still have some questions to answer:
What are the attributes of this supernatural explanation?
Why is it not bound by time and/or space?
Does it have other boundaries? If so you are just starting over with the same line of reasoning. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you have to acknowledge which laws you are talking about and how one set causes or effects the other.