Is there a single shred of evidence against naturalism?

[Polymath257]

If the universe is infinite couldn't there have been several "big bangs?" We know that all that we call the universe existed within time-zero billions of years ago, but what about further out into space? What about further than we can ever imagine? Couldn't some galaxies far out be the result of some other event besides our "big bang?" I'm not talking about other universes in other dimensions, I'm just saying "how do we know that all the stuff in infinite space came from the same place?" BTW couldn't there have been a "big bang" that happened billions of years before what we call the "big bang" that made a previous known universe that collapsed back into time-zero only to explode again? Friedrich Nietzsche seemed to believe in eternal reoccurrence, but I don't know if he thought about it on a cosmic level.

This becomes a matter of terminology as much as anything else.

General relativity, which is the underlying theory for the Big Bang, does not allow situations like you describe. And the current observations, including red-shifts, are all consistent with GR.

On the other hand, what you describe is, essentially, what happens in certain multiverse models.

 

[Polymath257]

I'll keep an open mind, it still seems like there could be something we don't know/maybe can't know and that science can't explain. Thanks for answering my posts.

But that isn't quite what you were claiming. You were asking if it is possible to have something science could not *detect*, even in theory.

There may well be things that humans can't understand because it takes too much processing power to do so and we simply don't have the capability.
There may well be chains of deduction that are impossible to carry out because it would take longer than the age of the universe to do so.

But the *only* way we have of actually gaining knowledge is by observation, hypothesizing about those observations, and testing our hypotheses. That, in short, is the scientific method.

So, if it is possible to know, then science will eventually find it. If it is not possible to know, then nothing else can be done. Speculation without observation and testing has been shown to lead to nonsense and is *completely* unreliable. It can be good for coming up with hypotheses, but those then those hypotheses need to be tested before they can be relied upon.

 

[Polymath257]

I'd be of a third school of thought, one that says even "supernatural" things could be part of physical phenomena. What if something like the presence of a ghost could be picked up by a machine that reads radio signals? Wouldn't that be proof of ghosts? I'm not sure, but I hold an open mind to occult phenomena.

What does it then mean to be 'supernatural'? For that matter, what does it mean to be 'physical'?

If a ghost could be picked up by some device, then, by definition, a ghost would be a physical phenomenon. And yes, it would be proof of ghosts. But it would also show that ghosts are not supernatural. It would show they are a natural phenomenon.

The reason we discount occult phenomena is that ALL the cases that have been investigated were either frauds or misunderstood. The frauds are often done by amateur magicians, which is why it is often easy to fool the scientists investigating them. It is much better to use a profession magician, who knows the tricks that can be played and can set up an environment to counter them.

James Ramsey is a magician that has put up a $1 million prize for anyone who can show evidence of certain phenomena. He gets to demand certain constraints because of how he knows tricks can be played.

At this point, there have been people attempting to fool him, but nobody has given a shred of evidence for anything supernatural. If you have some, let him know and you can get that $million. If not, it is most reasonable to have doubts until any evidence is presented.

 

[1137]

Is there any reason other than faith to believe in the soul, god, gods, pretty much any spiritual concept?

I used @1137 's thing to make my own thing. It's like hijacking a thread but instead of actually hijacking it we built a very similar thread right next door.

It must be understood that "naturalism," that all things are natural, can easily be applied to religion. The more appropriate counter to that thread would be asking "is there a single shred of evidence against physical/material monism?"

 

[Ricktheheretic]

This becomes a matter of terminology as much as anything else.

General relativity, which is the underlying theory for the Big Bang, does not allow situations like you describe. And the current observations, including red-shifts, are all consistent with GR.

On the other hand, what you describe is, essentially, what happens in certain multiverse models.

So matter trillions of light-years away in outer space couldn't have come from something other than the "big bang?" There couldn't have been another scenario like time-zero(a great mass of matter and radiation) that existed far away someplace out in the universe at the same time as what we call time-zero existed, and it exploded too and became several galaxies. Its hypothetical, and I won't argue any further, but it seems plausible.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

But that isn't quite what you were claiming. You were asking if it is possible to have something science could not *detect*, even in theory.

There may well be things that humans can't understand because it takes too much processing power to do so and we simply don't have the capability.
There may well be chains of deduction that are impossible to carry out because it would take longer than the age of the universe to do so.

But the *only* way we have of actually gaining knowledge is by observation, hypothesizing about those observations, and testing our hypotheses. That, in short, is the scientific method.

So, if it is possible to know, then science will eventually find it. If it is not possible to know, then nothing else can be done. Speculation without observation and testing has been shown to lead to nonsense and is *completely* unreliable. It can be good for coming up with hypotheses, but those then those hypotheses need to be tested before they can be relied upon.

All I can say is what if scientists never invent the right instrument that can detect another type of energy or electromagnetic waves? What if such things don't interfere with other things at all because they pass through and have no affect on other physical things? But I can't prove my hypothesis, so I'll let it rest.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

So how do you decide what's "supernatural" and what isn't?


So in this hypothetical scenario, ghosts exist and have physical effects that we can detect? Why wouldn't we just call ghosts "physical", then?

Some people would say that ghosts are physical. Supposedly old houses that's walls contain a lot of quartz crystal retain a lot of the psychic energy left by former residents. I know that ghost hunters have tools to detect ghosts, things that pick up on radio waves, but I have to hold such things in skepticism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some people would say that ghosts are physical.

How about you? How do you decide what's physical and what isn't?

 

[Polymath257]

All I can say is what if scientists never invent the right instrument that can detect another type of energy or electromagnetic waves? What if such things don't interfere with other things at all because they pass through and have no affect on other physical things? But I can't prove my hypothesis, so I'll let it rest.

You gave two separate situations. Yes, clearly scientists have made instruments that can detect quite a large number of things that they previously could not.

That is quite different than not being detectable *at all*. What does it mean to say that something exists if it has absolutely no effect?

 

[Polymath257]

So matter trillions of light-years away in outer space couldn't have come from something other than the "big bang?" There couldn't have been another scenario like time-zero(a great mass of matter and radiation) that existed far away someplace out in the universe at the same time as what we call time-zero existed, and it exploded too and became several galaxies. Its hypothetical, and I won't argue any further, but it seems plausible.

What you are missing is that space itself (as well as time) were formed in the Big Bang. There was no 'someplace else'.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

What you are missing is that space itself (as well as time) were formed in the Big Bang. There was no 'someplace else'.

That's not how I read it out of a book , and how could there no place else and no time? If time-zero existed there had to be space surrounding it, there had to be space for it to exist in and a time at which it exploded. I thought the only reason it was called time-zero was because it was the theoretical being of the galaxies that make up our universe, not because time didn't exist before it. One of my space books says that time-zero was of a stable temperature because it kept reabsorbing whatever radiation it put off, so there had to be space for its energy to radiate out into.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

How about you? How do you decide what's physical and what isn't?

I'm a skeptic. My spiritualist aunt says that spirits are electro-magnetic and can be detected by devices. I don't know, because I don't see enough evidence to prove that claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm a skeptic. My spiritualist aunt says that spirits are electro-magnetic and can be detected by devices. I don't know, because I don't see enough evidence to prove that claim.

Didn't really answer the question.

 

[Polymath257]

That's not how I read it out of a book , and how could there no place else and no time? If time-zero existed there had to be space surrounding it, there had to be space for it to exist in and a time at which it exploded. I thought the only reason it was called time-zero was because it was the theoretical being of the galaxies that make up our universe, not because time didn't exist before it. One of my space books says that time-zero was of a stable temperature because it kept reabsorbing whatever radiation it put off, so there had to be space for its energy to radiate out into.

The situation here depends a bit on which model you use. We can't determine which model is correct yet because we don't have the necessary data.

In general relativity, time and space began at the Big Bang. There simply is no 'before the Big Bang' and the expansion of the universe isn't into a 'void': it is simply into the future.

The various quantum theories of gravity allow for times before the current expansion phase,

But in *all* the models, the expansion is of ALL the space in the universe. There isn't an 'outside' (except in multiverse models, but you excluded those).

 

[Ricktheheretic]

The situation here depends a bit on which model you use. We can't determine which model is correct yet because we don't have the necessary data.

In general relativity, time and space began at the Big Bang. There simply is no 'before the Big Bang' and the expansion of the universe isn't into a 'void': it is simply into the future.

The various quantum theories of gravity allow for times before the current expansion phase,

But in *all* the models, the expansion is of ALL the space in the universe. There isn't an 'outside' (except in multiverse models, but you excluded those).

I'll have to get out some of my space books and look into the subject again. I was pretty sure it was just matter and energy that came out of time-zero. As to time itself, I'm sure that had to have always existed. There had to be time for time-zero to exist within, and there had to be a "time" when the explosion happened and a "time" before it. Time-zero just means before time as we know it.

 

[Polymath257]

I'll have to get out some of my space books and look into the subject again. I was pretty sure it was just matter and energy that came out of time-zero. As to time itself, I'm sure that had to have always existed. There had to be time for time-zero to exist within, and there had to be a "time" when the explosion happened and a "time" before it. Time-zero just means before time as we know it.

In general relativity, time is affected by matter and energy density. As you go back in time, the density for both go up, changing the properties of time. It turns out that the time coordinate cannot be extended backwards past a certain point. In a sense, it is like asking what is south of the south pole. For every *other* place on Earth, you can go south. But not at the south pole. In the same way (under GR), at every other event in space time, you can go farther into the past. Just not at the BB singularity itself.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

I don't know too much about relativity. I do know that Einstein's theory of relativity made time travel theoretically possible. Physics is deep stuff.