Is the big bang and evolution sciences theory of everything.

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm with studiot on this one. Using evolution instead of development (or something else) to describe geological processes is misleading, just like insisting that "proof" also means less than 100% proven.

When one is talking about the biological  version it's with a big 'E'.

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

Where would natural selection and the competition that implies come into it?

I didn't say it was unreasonable, I asked because it must widen the definition of evolution perhaps as far as to the original nautical one.

Remember that Darwin's theory is the theory of evolution by natural selection — other theories of evolution existed or could potentially exist (see e.g. Lamarckism). Natural selection is not inherently implied by the use of the term evolution, but in general discussion it is assumed/implied when discussing biology, because Darwin's theory (the modern version of it, anyway) is the only game in town.

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

Remember that Darwin's theory is the theory of evolution by natural selection — other theories of evolution existed or could potentially exist (see e.g. Lamarckism). Natural selection is not inherently implied by the use of the term evolution, but in general discussion it is assumed/implied when discussing biology, because Darwin's theory (the modern version of it, anyway) is the only game in town.

I have no idea what this refers to, I asked about geological evolution, not Darwin's theory.

The word 'evolution' was stolen from a nautical term in the pre-Darwin  Romantic period when geology was becoming popular and continued on into the Scientifc community with Darwin.

I recommend the book

Reading the Rocks By Brenda Maddox (2017)

Interestingly Brenda came from Bridgewater Mass. which was named after the Bridgwater which is 8 miles from me and (not so) shortly to be home to the world's most expensive white elephant.

Edited September 21, 2018 by studiot

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

The word 'evolution' was stolen from a nautical term in the pre-Darwin  Romantic period when geology was becoming popular and continued on into the Scientifc community with Darwin.

Nautical term?

Quote

evolution (n.)

1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve). 

Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859)

https://www.etymonline.com/word/evolution

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nautical term?

https://www.etymonline.com/word/evolution

Just because it doesn't appear on Wikipedia doesn't invalidate the rest of the world (which is still larger then Wiki).

 

Evolution is a sailing term used to describe the transition form fully reefed to fully spread from the 1600s on.

One of the reasons the English navy could beat the French was that they used to practice this whilst timed by whatever timepiece was available in the 1600/1700/1800s.

The French navy did not.

[PrimalMinister]

I am enjoying this conversation, and by the way, its my birthday today, I am 42, the solution to the problem of life, the universe and everything.

[studiot]

Of course maths has yet another definition of evolute and evolution, though I am not sure of their derivation.

[Itoero]

Here are 2 papers that concern geological evolution.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17819825https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18719275

On Wikipedia and other websites, geological evolution is often called 'geological history'.

[studiot]

Thank you geological history is enough for me to understand.

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

Evolution is a sailing term used to describe the transition form fully reefed to fully spread from the 1600s on.

I would assume that the sailing use and the biological use both derived from the original meaning. But unless we want to start a new thread on the history (evolution) of the various senses and uses of the word, I am not going to do the research to check. (Although the OED is calling to me from its place on the shelves...) 

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

I would assume that the sailing use and the biological use both derived from the original meaning. But unless we want to start a new thread on the history (evolution) of the various senses and uses of the word, I am not going to do the research to check. (Although the OED is calling to me from its place on the shelves...) 

Probably.

 

Anyway since I was a mathematician and the OP didn't clarify his use of the word in his early discussion with you or later, I am going to assume the mathematical definition.

Quote

Evolution

Algebraic operation in which a root of a number or expression is extracted

See also Involution.

 

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

I would assume that the sailing use and the biological use both derived from the original meaning. But unless we want to start a new thread on the history (evolution) of the various senses and uses of the word, I am not going to do the research to check. (Although the OED is calling to me from its place on the shelves...) 

Have you got the full set? That is etymological nirvana.

Edited September 21, 2018 by StringJunky

[PrimalMinister]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

No, it's a definition, not an opinion.

That is just word play, very basic logic tells us something is either fact or opinion, it can't be both, its either one or the other. What exactly does saying 'its a defintion' add to the conversation, you are just bringing in another term for no other reason than you felt like it. I would argue you cant properly tell the difference between what is objective and subjective, you dont know the difference between between fact and opinion. Logic, philosophy or whatever tells us that if its not a fact, its an opinion.

And by the way, a couple of my friends have said I am brave to pour my heart about about my mental health problems, plus its my birthday, so despite having a crappy time on here, I have been really enjoying the digital company of my friends. I also explained briefly that I have realised sciences theory of everything, they where supportive.

I hope my time here will get less crappy, I enjoy science.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

That is just word play, very basic logic tells us something is either fact or opinion

I would say a definition is a fact, by definition.

If, in an essay, I define the word groiklet to mean the bit of skin between the thumb and first finger, then it is fact that that is the meaning of the word (in that essay). Someone can't come along and say, "no I disagree; that is not what the word means". The would be wrong, as a matter of fact, because I have defined what the word means.

So, if the phrase "theory of everything" has a defined meaning, then it is fact that it means that. Not an opinion.

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

That is just word play, very basic logic tells us something is either fact or opinion, it can't be both, its either one or the other. What exactly does saying 'its a defintion' add to the conversation, you are just bringing in another term for no other reason than you felt like it.

In practice,  'definition' is that which is defined by consensus, which is arbitrary. Once a word has been defined, one needs to find other words to define other things. You don't get to unilaterally decide what words mean. In science, specific words are associated with specific ideas and all scientists use those terms to mean the same thing. This aids clarity between them,

Edited September 21, 2018 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

That is just word play, very basic logic tells us something is either fact or opinion, it can't be both, its either one or the other. What exactly does saying 'its a defintion' add to the conversation, you are just bringing in another term for no other reason than you felt like it. I would argue you cant properly tell the difference between what is objective and subjective, you dont know the difference between between fact and opinion. Logic, philosophy or whatever tells us that if its not a fact, its an opinion.

It's definitely not that black and white (like most complicated things). When we define our terms, like the Everything in Theory of EVERYTHING, it's very specific. Everything is... everything. All of it. When we're defining terms, precision tells us in what context the word is used.

Take the term "white". You wouldn't call it your "white" shirt if it had a white and red checkerboard pattern on it. 

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

And by the way, a couple of my friends have said I am brave to pour my heart about about my mental health problems, plus its my birthday, so despite having a crappy time on here, I have been really enjoying the digital company of my friends. I also explained briefly that I have realised sciences theory of everything, they where supportive.

I don't see where your health problems are relevant. It certainly doesn't affect the parts of your argument that don't persuade. 

If you make a bad argument here, please understand that we care enough about you to correct your misunderstandings, if you have any. That's the kind of support we're happy to give, since it's been given to us all at one time or another.

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I hope my time here will get less crappy, I enjoy science.

If by "less crappy" you mean "people will simply agree with what I say", don't blow out the candles. We enjoy science, and it has some standards that need to be addressed. Happy birthday, btw. Great age, 42. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I have no idea what this refers to, I asked about geological evolution, not Darwin's theory.

You asked where the natural selection is. It's in Darwin's theory, not in the term "evolution"

[beecee]

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

. I claimed in another thread I had realised science can explain everything, but it was I got accused of Soapboxing, .So I am now making another claim, I hope this is different.

You seem to be full of claims....all unsupported, all unscientific, all unevidenced, and verging on pseudoscience.

Quote

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.

And it appears trolling by continuing to make the same unsupported claims without one iota of evidence to support it.

6 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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?

The BB theory/model explains how our observable universe/spacetime evolved from t+10- 43 seconds. It does not explain, the why, or the how. The theory of evolution of life explains how life evolved. It does not say anything about how life got started, although scientifically speaking, there is really only one possible process.

Quote

 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.

Apparently there is agreement on the fact that you are posting unsupported nonsense.

 

[PrimalMinister]

52 minutes ago, beecee said:

Apparently there is agreement on the fact that you are posting unsupported nonsense.

Ok, I asked this before, explain to me the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, so I know, explain to be in clear, consise language. At present, you have still not told me how I might do this, I am here to learn, teach me. I am no longer talking about my theory of everything (as I understand it I need to do the big reveal before I can discuss it on the forum) I am now talking about your theory of everything.

[Ghideon]

 

10 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

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).

I've thought about the statement above and found it interesting. That is one reason why I engage this discussion.

9 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

10 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Why is Big Bang + Evolution "complete" making it a theory of everything?

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.

I have read through the posts and I can't find an answer, I'm still curious: How are these two theories unique and how are they, or will be, able to explain everything? If I get your idea correctly there are gaps to be filled but only within these two theories. There is no room anywhere for any kind of new discovery that does not fit within big bang/evolution*? How is that? If possible, I would like some more detail, not an answer similar to "Because it explains everything".

 

*)I've have been gone for a while and trying to catch up. I've seen the interesting discussion about definitions in the topic, and at this point my question may be imprecise. 

[PrimalMinister]

Look, I am asking you to explain to me the difference between facts and opinion, despite me being intelligent enough to already know the difference between fact and opinion. That's how ridiculus this discussion is, you are making me jump through hoops. In theory, this should be straight forward, in practice its not. How do you know what is objective and subjective exactly, its a mystery to me.

Edited September 21, 2018 by PrimalMinister

[Ghideon]

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

Look, I am asking you to explain to me

Sorry, was that comment directed at me? (bold by me)

It's probably just a language issue on my part, but I have to ask before trying to answer.

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

(as I understand it I need to do the big reveal before I can discuss it on the forum)

The big reveal? Just a few sentences describing your idea, along with some evidence that supports your stance, should be enough to persuade anyone here if you have some good arguments. You make it sound like you're doing a magic trick to fool us. 

Soapboxing is simply stating the same thing over and over without responding to calls for clarity, or answering questions, or adjusting your concept when a portion of it is shown to be wrong. In science discussion, it's too frustrating trying to talk to someone who is firmly convinced but has nothing that convinces others. If you have evidence for your stance, just put it out there. No need for a big reveal unless it's a trick.

Everybody here is willing to be shown a great argument, and evidence is the key to any scientific position. The two theories you've mentioned have mountains of supportive evidence from multiple disciplines, and verified by countless experiments. 

17 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Look, I am asking you to explain to me the difference between facts and opinion, despite me being intelligent enough to already know the difference between fact and opinion.

It's dangerous walking around with loaded questions like that.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

How do you know what is objective and subjective exactly, its a mystery to me.

To be honest, I doubt there is a simple answer to that. It is the sort of thing (like “what is truth”) that philosophers have been debating for centuries. 

A couple of suggestions:

1. If everyone agrees on something, then it is probably objective (but I can already think of multiple objections and counter examples)

2. If we can measure it then it is probably objective. 

But im not really sure why you are so hung up on this. The common-sense or dictionary definitions are good enough, no?

[beecee]

19 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, I asked this before, explain to me the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, so I know, explain to be in clear, consise language.

Already answered, in your other thread. But anyway, again, an “objective” claim can be classed as one that is entirely independent  of the observer and is evident by measurable verifiable means that conclude with different observers coming to the same obvious conclusion. Your subjective point of view is best evident by the unsupported claims that you have made in this thread and others, or more generally, one that is not verifiable or evident, but based on personal agendas, feelings, and such.

 

Quote

At present, you have still not told me how I might do this, I am here to learn, teach me. I am no longer talking about my theory of everything (as I understand it I need to do the big reveal before I can discuss it on the forum) I am now talking about your theory of everything.

To learn one must be open to accept logical evidenced based answers. You fail in that regard and appear rather delusional with regards to what you think you have to reveal.