Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[YoursTrue]

What are you getting on about, Yours True?
There are always "maybes," but thinking people assign varying probabilities to different maybes, based on likelihood; the likelihood being determined by known, natural laws, forces and conditions.

But I suppose if you believe in a magical universe where things appear and disappear at the whim of an invisible creator, with no natural causes, everything seems equally probable.

Spoken like a veritable troglodyte, incurious and unmotivated to look into anything that doesn't promise immediate reward.

There are eight billion people on this earth. Do you expect everyone to have the same interests and aptitudes?

Improving things here on Earth would be great, but many of the mechanisms for doing so are already well known. The problems lie in motivation and implementation.
Certain conservative types resist altering the status quo they're familiar with.

There are plenty of brains to go around, and curious minds are not restricted from philanthropic endeavors outside their fields of study.

God does what He wants, when He wants.

 

[YoursTrue]

What are you getting on about, Yours True?
There are always "maybes," but thinking people assign varying probabilities to different maybes, based on likelihood; the likelihood being determined by known, natural laws, forces and conditions.

But I suppose if you believe in a magical universe where things appear and disappear at the whim of an invisible creator, with no natural causes, everything seems equally probable.

Spoken like a veritable troglodyte, incurious and unmotivated to look into anything that doesn't promise immediate reward.

There are eight billion people on this earth. Do you expect everyone to have the same interests and aptitudes?

Improving things here on Earth would be great, but many of the mechanisms for doing so are already well known. The problems lie in motivation and implementation.
Certain conservative types resist altering the status quo they're familiar with.

There are plenty of brains to go around, and curious minds are not restricted from philanthropic endeavors outside their fields of study.

With all the time and energy put by some into figuring out how life began in the 'scientific' sense one might wonder a lot of things. About humanity and the sapien part of the human race.

 

[YoursTrue]

What are you getting on about, Yours True?
There are always "maybes," but thinking people assign varying probabilities to different maybes, based on likelihood; the likelihood being determined by known, natural laws, forces and conditions.

But I suppose if you believe in a magical universe where things appear and disappear at the whim of an invisible creator, with no natural causes, everything seems equally probable.

Spoken like a veritable troglodyte, incurious and unmotivated to look into anything that doesn't promise immediate reward.

There are eight billion people on this earth. Do you expect everyone to have the same interests and aptitudes?

Improving things here on Earth would be great, but many of the mechanisms for doing so are already well known. The problems lie in motivation and implementation.
Certain conservative types resist altering the status quo they're familiar with.

There are plenty of brains to go around, and curious minds are not restricted from philanthropic endeavors outside their fields of study.

I guess that the "big bang," maybe from nothing or maybe something depending on what scientist is offering opinion, is not magic, right? (shaking my head here with a small smile...)

 

[Valjean]

God does what He wants, when He wants.

And that's why I find your attempts at rational explanation and scientific justification so perplexing, inasmuch as they're irrelevant, from your point of view.
You believe in magic, so science, reason and evidence don't matter, yet you keep responding to reasoned posts. Why?
Of course, I suppose I'm being equally bull-headed, trying endlessly to reason with you.

With all the time and energy put by some into figuring out how life began in the 'scientific' sense one might wonder a lot of things. About humanity and the sapien part of the human race.

What other sensible approach to finding out how life began is there?
Yes, I often wonder about the sapience of certain members, myself....

I guess that the "big bang," maybe from nothing or maybe something depending on what scientist is offering opinion, is not magic, right? (shaking my head here with a small smile...)

Yes, we don't believe it was magic. We believe there is a natural explanation.
Magic is not just ignorance of cause or mechanism. Magic is denial of cause or mechanism, which violates the very essence of science.
It is, however, your fall-back position.

 

[YoursTrue]

And that's why I find your attempts at rational explanation and scientific justification so perplexing, inasmuch as they're irrelevant, from your point of view.
You believe in magic, so science, reason and evidence don't matter, yet you keep responding to reasoned posts. Why?
Of course, I suppose I'm being equally bull-headed, trying endlessly to reason with you.

What other sensible approach to finding out how life began is there?
Yes, I often wonder about the sapience of certain members, myself....

Yes, we don't believe it was magic. We believe there is a natural explanation.
Magic is not just ignorance of cause or mechanism. Magic is denial of cause or mechanism, which violates the very essence of science.
It is, however, your fall-back position.

Nobody said that I know about yet that the universe has no "natural" mechanisms in it. By natural I mean like genetics. It is "natural" for a man and woman to produce a child through natural occurrence and a woman naturally carrying a fetus within her body.

 

[Valjean]

Nobody said that I know about yet that the universe has no "natural" mechanisms in it. By natural I mean like genetics. It is "natural" for a man and woman to produce a child through natural occurrence and a woman naturally carrying a fetus within her body.

And these natural facts don't threaten your theology, so a claim of mechanism is acceptable.

On the other hand, creation of the universe or of life, by natural means, obviates the need for God, so is not acceptable, and you must fall back on magic: "God does what He wants, when He wants."

 

[Polymath257]

The concept of spacetime to my mind is seen as the continuity of existence, existence being analogous to space and continuity to time. So space and time are not two separate things, space continuing to exist is called spacetime by science. That is the point I've been trying to make, existence doing nothing but continuing to exist is called time. Timing otoh is something else altogether, it is the measuring by proxy of finite periods/segments abstracted from the unbroken continuity of existence.

Btw, wrt Planck scale, do you think there may be a form of vibrating energy existing at wavelengths smaller than Planck length?
When it is said that Dark Energy comprises 65% of the mass of the universe, what sort of dark energy wavelength range are we looking at?

From my perspective, existence is all of spacetime. Space and time individually are simply ways of slicing it, sort of like latitude and longitude on a sphere. The sphere is what really exists. The latitude and longitude are ways we choose to measure that sphere. In the same way, spacetime is what really exists with space and time ways that we choose to measure it.

Existence, meaning spacetime, 'simply is'. All 'change' is simply decoration on the geometry of spacetime, sort of like the continents change as we look at different latitudes. So in that sense, it is static. Since all time is within it, there is no cause of spacetime; it doesn't change, etc.

To push the analogy further, the Big Bang is analogous to the North or south poles. Just like there is no 'south of the south pole', there is no 'before the Big Bang'. Just as all latitude is on the Earth, all time is in spacetime, in other words, the universe.

Anyway, that is one mental model I use a lot.

 

[Polymath257]

Wonderful, just wonderful. (sarcasm...)

Do you have a reply, or just a non-comment?

 

[YoursTrue]

And that's why I find your attempts at rational explanation and scientific justification so perplexing, inasmuch as they're irrelevant, from your point of view.
You believe in magic, so science, reason and evidence don't matter, yet you keep responding to reasoned posts. Why?
Of course, I suppose I'm being equally bull-headed, trying endlessly to reason with you.

What other sensible approach to finding out how life began is there?
Yes, I often wonder about the sapience of certain members, myself....

Yes, we don't believe it was magic. We believe there is a natural explanation.
Magic is not just ignorance of cause or mechanism. Magic is denial of cause or mechanism, which violates the very essence of science.
It is, however, your fall-back position.

The Bible says two things -- we must love God and our fellowman, and we must fear God. So now if I value my life and the majesty of God I will not want to displease Him.

 

[YoursTrue]

And these natural facts don't threaten your theology, so a claim of mechanism is acceptable.

On the other hand, creation of the universe or of life, by natural means, obviates the need for God, so is not acceptable, and you must fall back on magic: "God does what He wants, when He wants."

The mechanics that God allows, as well as those since Adam's fall and pushing without any recourse the rest of us into the mechanics that God is not altering now. Which includes death for all men. He never promised everlasting life to animals, offered that only to Adam and Eve IF they refrained from eating of that one tree. No, we're not animals no matter what evolutionists say, so please don't expect me to change my expression. Later He will change these things for mankind by means of the resurrection and striving towards perfection in HIS (not our) eyes. And plus the animals will be treated much better by those who love and serve God.

 

[YoursTrue]

And that's why I find your attempts at rational explanation and scientific justification so perplexing, inasmuch as they're irrelevant, from your point of view.
You believe in magic, so science, reason and evidence don't matter, yet you keep responding to reasoned posts. Why?
Of course, I suppose I'm being equally bull-headed, trying endlessly to reason with you.

What other sensible approach to finding out how life began is there?
Yes, I often wonder about the sapience of certain members, myself....

Yes, we don't believe it was magic. We believe there is a natural explanation.
Magic is not just ignorance of cause or mechanism. Magic is denial of cause or mechanism, which violates the very essence of science.
It is, however, your fall-back position.

Frankly, your explanation of the universe emerging from something maybe, or nothing maybe is more magical than that of the concept of a Creator. Isaiah 45:18 speaks about this. "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

 

[gnostic]

Frankly, your explanation of the universe emerging from something maybe, or nothing maybe is more magical than that of the concept of a Creator. Isaiah 45:18 speaks about this. "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

That verse is not reality, it’s a fantasy and fiction.

Magic is like god creating light with just a few words. Isn’t that magic, like witchcraft, an incantation used to casting a spell?

Light - day light - just popping out from nothing. Daylight without the sun because the sun doesn’t until later.

You talk of magic, but you don’t see that the Genesis creation is nothing more than magic.

Quoting a verse by someone who don’t understand nature, only put spotlight in the flaws in the Bible, whether in be in Genesis, book of Isaiah or book of Job.

 

[YoursTrue]

And these natural facts don't threaten your theology, so a claim of mechanism is acceptable.

On the other hand, creation of the universe or of life, by natural means, obviates the need for God, so is not acceptable, and you must fall back on magic: "God does what He wants, when He wants."

You have that right about my thoughts regarding whether there is an Almighty God or not. And I actually see no scientific reason for me to believe that all 'life' plus that of the forces in the universe came about by itself. Now I must say that I understand, with all the confusion and disagreements in religion, that many, including scientists become atheists or agnostics. That does not mean they are right. The Bible happens to bear that thought out, by the way, because Jesus said the road is narrow and not all would be on the road to life. Therefore, some would be on the broad road. Which does not lead to life.

 

[exchemist]

With all the time and energy put by some into figuring out how life began in the 'scientific' sense one might wonder a lot of things. About humanity and the sapien part of the human race.

Trying to figure out things we don't yet understand about nature is what science is all about.

 

[wellwisher]

In terms of science, applied science, leads pure or natural science. This is why we still have to do experiments to verify any theory, with experiments connected to applied science. The mistake that is being made, in terms of life elsewhere in the universe, is this is based on science, placed before applied science experimental proof. We have never seen life of any kind outside the earth, yet science tries to predict there is, all without hard applied science data?

The significance of this premise; applied science comes first and pure science second, explains how something like the Pyramids were built at a time, before modern science. Their understanding of the modern laws of science were primitive, yet they could design and build what still challenges modern science explanations. This was advanced applied science, consistent with modern science, but applied at a time, before much was known in pure science. History would still need to develop tech, to help fill in the earlier blanks; telescope and optics, before the Pyramid applied science can be known.

As a modern day example of this hierarchy of science, consider the iPhone. If we only use the known laws of modern pure and natural science, and statistics, what are the odds of the iPhone, appearing naturally on earth; grow on trees or hatch from eggs? The odds are close to zero, even though there is nothing about the iPhone that exceeds the laws of science we know. What are the odds of millions of iPhones appearing in nature, on earth, by natural laws? Applied science is not based on the randomness principles, used by pure science ,since it can defy these natural odds. Pure science is a subset of applied science, since many innovation that obey natural laws, do have natural odds for appearing. Humans create them even before they are thought about. However, bad quality control can introduce the need for the science math subset of QC statistics. Applied is more sure thing even of natural law is modeled with odds.

In modern times, our catalo of pure science has been developed, from applied science experiments, from the past. We now have a large pure science theoretical complex and data base. Theory that derives ew science from existing science, tends to be based on odds; life on other planets, even without any hard experimental data from applied science. This science from science approach leads to science fiction, sold as genuine science, since science that evolves, not by its itself and proof, but from odds. However, the principle of applied science is not limited by statistics or natural odds.

A good case in point was the BB theory seemed to be a done deal based on randomness assumption; BB, and science from science. Recently, applied science experiments have discovered fully formed galaxies from very early in the BB universe. This applied science observation is too deterministic, and not predicted by the experts; science from science and odds, who tried to extrapolate science from science with odds. Now Physics has a major redo.

This is why I fight against statistical models, since they are more of an artifact of science from science theory without applied science leading. Ironically, the prestige in science culture is more about science theory and less about engineering proof. This is backwards in terms of the natural hierarchy of science. It leads to illusions in science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you have a reply, or just a non-comment?

Yeah. Ridiculous. How about that? Like figuring out mass is going to get to the "core" of the question -- which is: did the universe create itself, or does it have a creator?

 

[YoursTrue]

That verse is not reality, it’s a fantasy and fiction.

Magic is like god creating light with just a few words. Isn’t that magic, like witchcraft, an incantation used to casting a spell?

Light - day light - just popping out from nothing. Daylight without the sun because the sun doesn’t until later.

You talk of magic, but you don’t see that the Genesis creation is nothing more than magic.

Quoting a verse by someone who don’t understand nature, only put spotlight in the flaws in the Bible, whether in be in Genesis, book of Isaiah or book of Job.

That's YOUR interpretation of the verse, it's not everybody's. Some people actually believe there IS a Creator, an intelligent force behind it all. And that speaking means it is done instantly. Like gravity -- you can't PROVE your explanation, we have to think (well, some people enjoy thinking about what it all is, how it all came about by "natural" means) about it, how it happened. No definite answers -- still wondering. In actuality, I'm thinking gorillas and bonobos look smarter than mankind because they don't care... But then again, they can't write either. Their brains just aren't developed enough. But then they can swing from trees and that's hard for humans. Now which extant branch of the ape variety did humans evolve from?

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah. Ridiculous. How about that? Like figuring out mass is going to get to the "core" of the question -- which is: did the universe create itself, or does it have a creator?

Why do you consider that to be the core of the question?

The question scientists are concerned about is not this. They are concerned about the laws that govern the universe and how those laws apply (if they do) to the formation of the universe. And, in that question, the mass distribution is crucial to understanding the dynamics. And that may well have bearing on how the universe got started.

The question of whether there is a personality involved in the formation of the universe is simply not one that is considered. Why not? because no possible evidence would resolve that question one way or the other. As such, it is simply not a scientific question.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

From my perspective, existence is all of spacetime. Space and time individually are simply ways of slicing it, sort of like latitude and longitude on a sphere. The sphere is what really exists. The latitude and longitude are ways we choose to measure that sphere. In the same way, spacetime is what really exists with space and time ways that we choose to measure it.

Existence, meaning spacetime, 'simply is'. All 'change' is simply decoration on the geometry of spacetime, sort of like the continents change as we look at different latitudes. So in that sense, it is static. Since all time is within it, there is no cause of spacetime; it doesn't change, etc.

Yup, well said.

To push the analogy further, the Big Bang is analogous to the North or south poles. Just like there is no 'south of the south pole', there is no 'before the Big Bang'. Just as all latitude is on the Earth, all time is in spacetime, in other words, the universe.

Anyway, that is one mental model I use a lot.

Thanks for your input, (Not your cup of tea, but fwiw, meditation can provide a sense of unity with the universe, there is no sense of me doing mental modelling, or even meditating,, there is only a state of awe at being at one with all there is.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah. Ridiculous. How about that? Like figuring out mass is going to get to the "core" of the question -- which is: did the universe create itself, or does it have a creator?

There does not appear to be any evidence for a creator. But we do have examples of energy appearing from "nothing". Of course that is one of the problems that the creationist sorts have. They cannot properly define the terms that they use.

What is "nothing"? be careful how you define it. You may end up refuting yourself again.