PrimalMinister

You explain what a theory a theory is, you are the expert, I have been lumped with the ignorant fool role. Why do we call them theories and not facts, what is stopping us from us from calling our theories fact, answer that. Why is it called evolutionary theory and not evolutionry fact. Why do you use the term theory when fact is better. I am playing the ignorant fool.

Do you honestly think I am that much of an ignorant fool, that I would say a theory is story scientists tell in order to explain things. Why do you think so little of me, you know nothing about me. Apprently I don't understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. My, what a fool I am.

We haven't yet agreed on anything, what can we agree on, can we agree the big bang happened, that evolution happened, and that combined they explain how we got here? I am going to keep tapping away at this point, why can't we find agreement, surely that is basic straight forward science. I have been searching for agreement since I started posting, are you just evading this to be difficult. I will play the ignorant fool if you like, I don't mind, you trying to cyber bully me into me into submission isn't going to work. That warning was bang out of order and I will explain why in clear, consise, scientific fashion. Someone should had said to me, Simon what you are doing is called showboating and this is not allowed on the forum, here is a link to that rule or all the rules. Then, I would have read the rules, realised I was showboating, and stopped it before I got an actual blemish on my record. What you have done by not clearly warning me before blemishing my record, is fucking bullshit, but it tells me a lot about you (even though I know nothing about you and you nothing about me). Yes, maybe I should have read the rules, but why you didn't be 'in the spirit of science' be clear with me and upfront with me, where is your compassion for a rookie mistake.

By the way, I just wrote a long post on facebook to my friends, it contained a discussion of my mental illness, and the assertion I have realised how the universe, I am getting lots of positive responses, its different here and I know why.

I understand science, its not some mystical thing only the scribes can understand. I know the big bang/evolution story, our story of how we came to be, and I know it does not explain everything, that there are gaps, but the solution to these gaps is simple, more science. I am here, please explain how I got here, to explain this you are go to invoke the big bang and evolution, I can see how it is a theory of everything, I dont think its the right theory of everything, but lets run with current science. I am not excluding any parts, I am simply pointing out that the big bang/evolution looks like a theory of everything. Why is this so offensive?

The theory of everything is a made up idea, I think it is a romantic idea about the universe, that everything is explainable with science. I claimed in another thread I had realised science can explain everything, but it was I got accused of Soapboxing, this is all new to me, so I am sorry for that, it wound have been nice to have it explained to me in clear, consise, scientific langauge that I was soapboxing, it would have stopped before you gave me the warning, but oh well, you are the adminstrators, you decide how this plays out on here. Anyhow, the big bang/evolution theory explains everything, including things we don't understand yet, the scientific process, given time, will explain what we don't understand. So I am now making another claim, I hope this is different.

Because it explains everything, including things we don't know yet. There is plently of evidence to suggest the big bang and evolution happened so why don't we don't we just say this is truth, this is the theory of everything and trust the scientific process will fill in the gaps.

Marvlous, absolutly no idea why you have said it. I am just trying to point out the big bang/evolution is obviously a theory of everything, because it explains everything, including what we don't yet, scientists like Richard Dawkins say it is just a matter of time, but science will explain it.

You can tell the big bang/evolution is a theory of everything. I keep using the term theory of everything but I want to tell you what it means, the "theory of everything" is a romantic idea about the universe and John Wheeler quote captures that romance. The theory of everything is a simple idea that given enough time, science will explain everything. You closed my thread, its fine it was a mess anyway, lets start here with a fresh simple look at things here. When I say theory of everything I am referring to the romantic idea that science, given enough time, can explain everything. The big bang/evolution is a theory of everything, it explains everything does it not?

The big bang/evolution is sciences story about how we came to be, and there is lots of evidence to support it. Why don't we just declare the big bang/evolution the theory of everything, because it is a theory of everything if you think about (I am hoping to get people thinking).

Scientists are so overwhelmed by the universe, it appears they have failed to realise that the big bang and evolution is a theory of everything. I have stood back and looked at it objectivity, the big bang and evolution is, whether you have realised it or not, a theory of everything, it looks like a theory of everything, it should be called a theory of everything.

Is the big bang and evolutionary theory sciences theory of everything, it looks like a theory of everything to me. It looks like it a theory of everything because it explains everything doesn't it? Yes there are gaps in our knowledge, but the overarching story is tight is it not?

Look, I am happy to look at your theory of everything (the big bang and evolution) and if you don't want to discuss mine fine, but be brutally honest and objective about your own theories. I am just happy to find agreement on the objective facts. Is the big bang and evolutionary theory sciences theory of everything? It looks like a theory of everything to me. You are just making an assertion, its not pure science, its your opinion. You are not being very scientific.

Please use clear, consise, scientific language when talking to me. And please don't bark orders at me, its not civil and a sign you spend time on the internet where it is perfectly ok be rude. I am ready to listen to you, regardless of whether you being objective or simply spouting opinion as fact. I am ready to listen to you, I have listened to you, you don't have to get all preachy with the evidence and the models and the pillars and so. Some people, I can tell, have given up on the hard questions and are looking for small science to make progress, not big science, lots of people have given up on big science as it hasn't proved that fruitful. I will tell you how this is going to play out, first I am going to start a go fund me page so I can get some money to help prove my case. This money, is going to be used as a prize for proving me right or wrong. I may employ someone, hopefully a scientist, but maybe not, to look over input from others. I hope to sign up 3000 scientists to give one hour of their time to look at this theory, that is like somebody working on it full time for three years. I will make the big reveal when this is in place. I think people need to prepare for it, for example, you have to come to terms with eternity, with infinity. So before you get to see the big reveal, you can explain to me how the universe works. Can you explain how the universe works without using opinion?

What exactly is unscientific about claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based?

Strange, you are getting frustrated because I am not doing the 'big reveal', I realise this puts me in crank zone, but I am prepared to weather that. If that gets this post closed, thats a shame, yes be sceptical, but don't be dismissive, you don't know enough about it to dismiss it. Strange, do you want this thread closed because I am not doing the big reveal? Is that is what is bugging you?

But instead of doing pure science, you drop back to a subjective opinion. You believe, or are of the opinion, that science cannot explain everything, or you believe, or are of the opinion, that science can explain everything. Logic tells us it has to be one of them, it can't be both, its either or. The 'truth' of the matter is we can say for sure whether or not science will explain everything or that some things remain a mystery to us forever. Its all just opinion.

Lets get down to the basics, can his statement be used as supporting evidence for my theory? Think about what I am saying, and be brutally honest and objective. It is his whole life, all his knowledge, experience and wisdom, in a single sentence. He understood, RIP. Our current theories are a mix of objective facts and subjective opinions, there are no subjective opinions in what I am putting forward. I know you want the 'big reveal' how the magic trick is done, but you are going to have to work for it by being brutally honest, objective and sincere. Are you ready to put aside opinions completly and look at the facts, the best evidence there is?

People are asking for evidence, consider the John Wheeler quote, he taking all his knowledge and wisdom and condensing it into a simple, clear, consise form. That is something to behold, that is a man who after many years of study, says something like that. He is of the opinion that science can explain the universe, and he is right. Is this supporting evidence, John Wheelers statement?

That is your subjective opinion. Ok, is it not science to seek the underlying cause of cancer so we can cure it? You either believe, or are of the of the opinion this can be discovered, or you believe, or are of the opinion that it will always remain a mystery. Its the same with everything. As I understand it, science is in the business of explaining things, am I somehow again wrong?

Are you saying I cannot tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. If I am wrong about about this, you need to explain why I am wrong, that is scientific. How hard can it be to understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, are you trying to say I am not even intelligent to understand this difference, I proved I know the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion with the simple table explanation. What is bad about the table explanation, does it or does it not clearly explain the difference between objective fact and subject opinion.

Surely you believe, you are of the opinion, that science will explain everything in the end given enough time? Am I correct in assuming this? Are we in agreement here? I am looking for agreement because objective facts are objectivily objective facts, its self-evident, it doesnt need evidence, it explains its self. It I am looking for facts, not opinions, a fact is something we all agree on it because its objective, its fact, only fools argue with facts (like the flat earthers, what a ridiculus bunch). So we have to look at the facts and put opinion to the side. That is why I am looking for agreement, each agreement will take us closer to the truth. As I understand science today, we have a theory of everything (big bang, evolution) and there are just a few more things we have to work out. That is my understanding of current science, am I wrong?

Maybe I am a nutter, a crank, but I am going to point out the problems with our current theories and I know they are problems, I am intelligent enough to know that, and if you are brutally honest and objective you will admit those problems exist too, although a few people will probably give me the "god did it explanation". Look, this conversation is so bad that we can't even agree on a defintion of objective fact and subject opinion. I will present the evidence but if you refuse to look at I am stuck, so I have thought long and hard about how to present it, and it takes some preperation to understand it. Ok, great, but you are are being lazy because you are just preaching to the converted (except I was not brought up religious, I was brought up to think scientifically) where do you think science is going, how far can this big bang theory take us? Science claims it is looking for a theory of everything but this is confusing as they all ready have one, big bang, expand, stars and planet form, life emerged and evolved, all happening over a very long time. So why is it we are looking for a theory of everything if we already have one (big bang, evolution)? Have you not yet realised the big bang and evolution is the theory of everything, I am confused. Do we understand how the universe works on not, you tell me, you are the experts. Please, I am not anti-science and I pro science, I love that people are interested in science, I think more people should be. I have seen the article, I don't remember where but it basically listed things to look out for if you are dealing with a crank. Yes, I do tick a few of the boxes, but fortunatly for me, a lot of them don't apply to me. If someone knows to this document maybe we can can look at it to see if I am really am a crank, that should be a bit of fun.

Right, that is a bit better. Now if you think about what you just said you will realise that I have mentioned the omnipresense of the laws of the universe, and you seem to be saying this is what needs to be explained, am I right or wrong? Like how do I tell the difference, is the big bang the objective truth or subjective opinion. Is the universe a mystery to us or do we have it all worked out, please tell me what is fact and opinion.

Ok, but how do I tell the difference, I don't want to confuse objective facts with subjective opinions, I want to know the difference in clear, consise, scientific langauge. Can i have a clear, consise scientific explanation of the difference between objective facts and subjective opinions so that I can understand in its fullness. Thank you. This statement is not very scientific, its not as elegant as the mathematics is it? Ahh, the beauty of it all. I will be honest, people are being well lazy and unscientific with this post and that would be obvious to the objective observer that people are being lazy and unscientific. There is a scientific difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, there is a logic behind the difference, which we SHOULD all agree on is the objective truth. So please give me a clear, consise, scientific explantion of the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, and then agree with me that objective fact is context independent and subjective opinion is context dependent. I know I have banged on about a pixel/tile/cell based universe but lets put that aside, let this be the first question and we will talk modern science for a bit.