Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Ben Dhyan]

This vague hand-waving doesn't change the fact that we have an extremely well tested theory of space-time (which is also covered in the wiki article), which describes it as a (pseudo-Riemannian) manifold. Quite apart from all the specific tests that have been done, every time you use a GPS device, you are using both the special and general theories of relativity - the former because it has to compensate for the time dilation due to the relative motion between you and the satellites and the latter because the satellites are in a weaker gravitational field than you are so time goes faster for them (due to space-time 'curvature').

This simply doesn't follow at all. Science investigates based on the available evidence, when we don't have enough evidence we have to say we don't know. Nothing whatsoever like making up a story about some god saying "let there be light".

I understand proxy time measurement devices such as atomic clocks, GPS, etc., it doesn't alter the fact that these are proxies, time itself does not exist as an entity. Spacetime is a concept to help understand reality.

I understand that, I am saying that that science should say the concept of something from nothing is not possible, not now, not ever.. To suggest that there is insufficient evidence to rule it out is what prompted me to raise the miraculous "let there be light" point.

 

[ratiocinator]

I understand proxy time measurement devices such as atomic clocks, GPS, etc., it doesn't alter the fact that these are proxies, time itself does not exist as an entity. Spacetime is a concept to help understand reality.

How do you know that "time itself does not exist as an entity"? Seems to be based on absolutely nothing but what you want or feel intuitively. Our best understanding of any aspect of the physical world is the best scientific model (theory) we have of it. Your intuition (or mine) counts for nothing - we know that reality works in highly counter-intuitive ways.

I understand that, I am saying that that science should say the concept of something from nothing is not possible, not now, not ever..

Why? There's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that suggests that it's possible to quantum mechanically tunnel from a dimensionless point ('nothing') to an expanding space-time. Also, the manifold picture from GR avoids the question neatly all by itself; although time might be finite in the past direction, there was never a time at which there was nothing so the whole question doesn't arise.

To suggest that there is insufficient evidence to rule it out is what prompted me to raise the miraculous "let there be light" point.

Saying we don't know something is pretty much the exact opposite of making up a baseless story about it.

 

[Native]

How do you know that "time itself does not exist as an entity"? Seems to be based on absolutely nothing but what you want or feel intuitively.

"Time" is just a human invented concept for measuring motions in space and nothing else.

 

[ratiocinator]

"Time" is just a human invented concept for measuring motions in space and nothing else.

You didn't address the question you quoted: how do you know? We have a mathematical theory of space-time, that makes exact, numerical predictions that we can test and use in technology (GPS in this case). What value do people's baseless assertions have when compared to that standard?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
You confuse "theoretical assumptions" and "circumstantial observations" for "evidence" and all this have unfortunately all too many followers.



Of course I understand the scientific methods and its evidences.

Let me give you an "evidence" example:
Astronomical science once assumed that the laws of celestial motion were universal and they took the orbital motions in our Solar System as evidence for this law.

Then cosmological science discovered the orbital motions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy and this observed motion contradicted the assumed law of celestial motion and it´s evidence, but what happend then?

The "scientist" just blurred the obvious and evidential contradiction with the assumptive invention of "dark matter" instead of revising or discarding their assumed law as the scientific method claims if anything should count as real evidence.

So much for your ideas about "evidences" and dark inventions which is more fiction than real science.

I see that you are projecting again. Scientists do not assume in the sense that you do. They make models and test them. So they did not assume that motion followed the same rules everywhere.. That is a feature of the model that they used. When they found that stars in the Milky Way and in fact in all galaxies rotated too quickly that told them something was wrong with their model. Since it was very accurate besides this it made little sense to throw it out. As usual they tweaked the model a bit. Dark Matter was only one of several tweaks attempted. Like all models it was tested. And they found further evidence supporting it.

Don't assume that scientists are guilty of your sins. You are incorrect when you accuse them of assuming. That is what you appear to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't address the question you quoted: how do you know? We have a mathematical theory of space-time, that makes exact, numerical predictions that we can test and use in technology (GPS in this case). What value do people's baseless assertions have when compared to that standard?

Well those baseless assertions make him feel better. Does that count for anything?

 

[alsome]

"We have a mathematical theory" is enough said !

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How do you know that "time itself does not exist as an entity"? Seems to be based on absolutely nothing but what you want or feel intuitively. Our best understanding of any aspect of the physical world is the best scientific model (theory) we have of it. Your intuition (or mine) counts for nothing - we know that reality works in highly counter-intuitive ways.

Why? There's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that suggests that it's possible to quantum mechanically tunnel from a dimensionless point ('nothing') to an expanding space-time. Also, the manifold picture from GR avoids the question neatly all by itself; although time might be finite in the past direction, there was never a time at which there was nothing so the whole question doesn't arise.

Saying we don't know something is pretty much the exact opposite of making up a baseless story about it.

Fwiw, I value my intuition as providing a much greater depth of perception than the thinking mind, and serves as well as a near perfect b/s detector. Time as an entity does not pass the smell test, but as an essential human conceptual construct to help understand reality as perceived through the human sensory system and mind, it is indispensable.

I accept that there may be, at least to your understanding, a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that suggests something from nothing is possible, but for me, I will accept it when I hear that some part of the existing space-time reality has been turned into nothing! If that can be done, then by the principle of reciprocity, something from nothing is possible.

I am not sure why you are saying that but let me say, I have no problem with scientific hypothetical speculation, but I am patient to see actual proof, not merely to believe it because of some emerging consensus among those who believe it to be true.

 

[gnostic]

I am not sure why you are saying that but let me say, I have no problem with scientific hypothetical speculation, but I am patient to see actual proof, not merely to believe it because of some emerging consensus among those who believe it to be true.

Again, science don’t rely on PROOFS.

What determine a model as “scientific”, are EVIDENCE or OBSERVATIONS, NOT proofs.

Proofs are logical or mathematical models, like equations, formulas, constants or metrics - they are possible solutions that require verification just as hypothesis or scientific theory is an explanatory/predictive model that required verification to be validate.

Proof by itself, isn’t evidence, but equation (proof) can be factual ONLY WHEN EVIDENCE BACK UP THE EQUATION.

A proof would look like this:

E = m c^2​

The above equation (mass-energy equivalence equation) is Einstein’s proof used in Special Relativity. The equation is a possible solution, but it isn’t evidence.

Einstein’s field equations used in General Relativity, are proofs, not evidence.

Maxwell’s equation is proof, not evidence.

All the equations found in Newton’s Laws of Motion and Law of Universal Gravitation, are proofs, they are not evidence.

Evidence is something that can be observed/detected, quantified, measured, tested, etc.

So, if you were to do some physics experiments, all the objects and items used, the measurements taken, the data acquired, etc, these are observations of the evidence.

In science, evidence needs to “empirical” - meaning multiple evidence that you can compared against each other, hence the term “empirical evidence”. There are no such thing as “empirical proof”

It is amazing how many creationists don’t understand the differences between “evidence” and “proof”. They keep using the word, “proof”, which is a mistake, when they really mean “evidence”.

And you are like those creationists, never learning to use the correct terminology, repeating the same mistakes, over and over and over again.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, science don’t rely on PROOFS.

What determine a model as “scientific”, are EVIDENCE or OBSERVATIONS, NOT proofs.

Proofs are logical or mathematical models, like equations, formulas, constants or metrics - they are possible solutions that require verification just as hypothesis or scientific theory is an explanatory/predictive model that required verification to be validate.

Proof by itself, isn’t evidence, but equation (proof) can be factual ONLY WHEN EVIDENCE BACK UP THE EQUATION.

A proof would look like this:

E = m c^2​

The above equation (mass-energy equivalence equation) is Einstein’s proof used in Special Relativity. The equation is a possible solution, but it isn’t evidence.

Einstein’s field equations used in General Relativity, are proofs, not evidence.

Maxwell’s equation is proof, not evidence.

All the equations found in Newton’s Laws of Motion and Law of Universal Gravitation, are proofs, they are not evidence.

Evidence is something that can be observed/detected, quantified, measured, tested, etc.

So, if you were to do some physics experiments, all the objects and items used, the measurements taken, the data acquired, etc, these are observations of the evidence.

In science, evidence needs to “empirical” - meaning multiple evidence that you can compared against each other, hence the term “empirical evidence”. There are no such thing as “empirical proof”

It is amazing how many creationists don’t understand the differences between “evidence” and “proof”. They keep using the word, “proof”, which is a mistake, when they really mean “evidence”.

And you are like those creationists, never learning to use the correct terminology, repeating the same mistakes, over and over and over again.

It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with logic. Sure, there may be evidence that suggests such and such may be an explanation, but I want to see something more than evidence that suggests, I want evidence that meets the standard of proof before I would accept it as being true. And I am very patient.

 

[gnostic]

It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with logic. Sure, there may be evidence that suggests such and such may be an explanation, but I want to see something more than evidence that suggests, I want evidence that meets the standard of proof before I would accept it as being true. And I am very patient.

Thats the wrong way to go about thing.

Evidence are reality, where as proof is abstract logic-based and mathematical-based model, hence man-made, which can be flawed or wrong.

Evidence are what can determine any model correct or incorrect, valid or invalid, science or not science.

If evidence don’t back the proof, then it is the proof that’s wrong, not the evidence.

Those equations that I mentioned in my last reply. Those equations are proofs. Those equations/proofs are only correct and useful, only if the evidence support them. If they don’t, then you would have to throw out the equations/proofs, just as you would throw out any debunked/refuted hypotheses.

If you bother to actually learn and understand science, then you would know that proof never take precedence over evidence.

You got it bloody backwards, just as many creationists do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with logic. Sure, there may be evidence that suggests such and such may be an explanation, but I want to see something more than evidence that suggests, I want evidence that meets the standard of proof before I would accept it as being true. And I am very patient.

When you demonstrate that you do not understand evidence or the scientific method and then spout nonsense you confirm a lack of understanding of logic as well. You don't have logic. It appears that you are relying on wishful thinking which is neither logical nor scientific.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thats the wrong way to go about thing.

Evidence are reality, where as proof is abstract logic-based and mathematical-based model, hence man-made, which can be flawed or wrong.

Evidence are what can determine any model correct or incorrect, valid or invalid, science or not science.

If evidence don’t back the proof, then it is the proof that’s wrong, not the evidence.

Those equations that I mentioned in my last reply. Those equations are proofs. Those equations/proofs are only correct and useful, only if the evidence support them. If they don’t, then you would have to throw out the equations/proofs, just as you would throw out any debunked/refuted hypotheses.

If you bother to actually learn and understand science, then you would know that proof never take precedence over evidence.

You got it bloody backwards, just as many creationists do.

I am free to go about understanding what I can about reality as I see fit, you are free to do so also, so let it be, we disagree.

 

[gnostic]

@ben d

In physical sciences and natural sciences, they should be built around natural or physical reality, not the other way around.

Science is a tool to understand nature and the physical world. You would try to model explanations (including formulations mathematical equations) that meet with the reality being observed.

This is why in science, your works meet the standards of science, and these standards are Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review.

Every single of these standards require that the observations and evidence back up the hypothesis, and that’s the only way that can occur, are through observable and verifiable evidence, not proofs.

Don’t get me wrong, logic and maths are useful tools, but they are only valid if the evidence support or back them up.

Logic is no good to science, if every evidence repeatedly refute the logic or maths.

Logic isn’t infallible, nor are maths (eg equations).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am free to go about understanding what I can about reality as I see fit, you are free to do so also, so let it be, we disagree.

But are you really understanding? Last time I checked wishful thinking was not understanding.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When you demonstrate that you do not understand evidence or the scientific method and then spout nonsense you confirm a lack of understanding of logic as well. You don't have logic. It appears that you are relying on wishful thinking which is neither logical nor scientific.

So you go about it your way, I will go mine, we will both learn, one perhaps attaining a more realistic understanding than the other but so be it. Keep up your learning, I wish you well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you go about it your way, I will go mine, we will both learn, one perhaps attaining a more realistic understanding than the other but so be it. Keep up your learning, I wish you well.

The problem with your method is that it does not seem to lead anywhere. How do you test your ideas? How do you confirm them? How do you correct them?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

@ben d

In physical sciences and natural sciences, they should be built around natural or physical reality, not the other way around.

Science is a tool to understand nature and the physical world. You would try to model explanations (including formulations mathematical equations) that meet with the reality being observed.

This is why in science, your works meet the standards of science, and these standards are Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review.

Every single of these standards require that the observations and evidence back up the hypothesis, and that’s the only way that can occur, are through observable and verifiable evidence, not proofs.

Don’t get me wrong, logic and maths are useful tools, but they are only valid if the evidence support or back them up.

Logic is no good to science, if every evidence repeatedly refute the logic or maths.

Logic isn’t infallible, nor are maths (eg equations).

I don't disagree with your post, but that doesn't mean I must agree with you that BB something from nothing evidence is sufficient such that everyone must believe that something from nothing is possible or else be called out as being unscientific.

 

[gnostic]

I am free to go about understanding what I can about reality as I see fit, you are free to do so also, so let it be, we disagree.

Your opinions are your own, but if you want to challenge science, then you’ll need evidence to do so.

While logic is good, logic is only superior when it has evidence to support it.

As I said in my last reply, logic isn’t infallible, nor they are inerrant. Logic can be wrong, and logic can be biased, because there is always a man behind logic, who can be wrong and can be biased.

Without the evidence, it is merely make-believe opinion, or worse delusional opinion if you let ego refused to let you see your error.

I preferred reality over personal logic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem with your method is that it does not seem to lead anywhere. How do you test your ideas? How do you confirm them? How do you correct them?

I accept the scientific method, I read a lot about scientific published papers on many disciplines, a lot of them are weak and I do not accept it as settled. You can call me out of a science denier, but I do not accept that there was a something from nothing BB, it is a bridge too far for my intuition to buy.