The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment proves there is no God

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

Show me the theory, the hypothesis and I'll show you some assumptions.

A prime example of the confrontational playground response I was complaining about.

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

But what is the theory? what is the hypothesis, what does it predict that we can test? You seem to have skirted around this part of your argument.

I believe in the principle of 'first things first' , so I introduced the problem and known facts first. A coil of rope and a set of reading on a dial are not assumptions.
In fact the only thing I was avoiding (not skirting around) was making any assumptions.

For instance, the box to be lifted may be marked 50T but it cannot be assumed this is correct.
The rope may be marked or look like 100T braking but again no assumption as to the correctness of this may be made.

There is no hypothesis as this is not a statistical issue.

The issue is applying rational thought to develop a proceedure to decide whether or not the rope can be used to lift 50T.

Obviously if we attach a 50T load and it breaks then it is not suitable so rationally we are looking for our tests to show a larger breaking load. But just being greater than 50T is not good enough. The rationale comes in the rest of the proceedure.

 

This is one situation where science offers a rational way forward.

I have though of another where we observe a phenomenon and seek a theory to explain it.

Since the widespread introduction of plug in curcuit boards in the computing industry it was observed that plugged in boards tended to 'wander' out of their sockets.

In this case we are not discussing what to do about this phenomenon ie debating stronger spring contacts v retaining clips or screw fixings

We trying to achieve a theory of understanding of what is happening, without assumptions of little green men pulling our boards out while we sleep.

Any thoughts ?

 

[MigL]

40 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Do you think that "it's always been there" qualifies as special pleading?

Hey, don't thow me under the bus 😄.

For further info about symmetries, the intrinsic physical and mathematical fatures of a system, Holmes, you might want to look up Noether's theorem as it relates to continuous ( Lye groups ) and discrete (finite groups ) symmetries; These form the basis of our conservation ( and invariance ) laws.
Symmetries can also be classified as global, such as the ones mentioned above, or local, which are the basis for gouge theories.

One could argue that there are no 'rules, axioms or assumptions' in Physics, but these so called 'rules' simply follow from the way things are.

( do you consider this 'special pleading' also ? )

[Holmes]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

A prime example of the confrontational playground response I was complaining about.

I fail to see how asking you to describe your hypothesis can be deemed "confrontational".

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I believe in the principle of 'first things first' , so I introduced the problem and known facts first. A coil of rope and a set of reading on a dial are not assumptions.

I never said they were, but if you think about that it's not really true. You must assume the dial works, you must assume the dial is reliable, gives acceptable repeatability, is not unduly influenced by temperature and so on.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

In fact the only thing I was avoiding (not skirting around) was making any assumptions.

Perhaps, my position was though that every theory in science make assumptions, posting a set of measurements is not a theory so my remarks are not directed at your data and never were.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

For instance, the box to be lifted may be marked 50T but it cannot be assumed this is correct.
The rope may be marked or look like 100T braking but again no assumption as to the correctness of this may be made.

There is no hypothesis as this is not a statistical issue.

In which case why present this as rebuttal? as I just explained my assertion is that every theory in science makes assumptions posting something that isn't a theory hardly serves to invalidate that assertion.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

The issue is applying rational thought to develop a proceedure to decide whether or not the rope can be used to lift 50T.

Obviously if we attach a 50T load and it breaks then it is not suitable so rationally we are looking for our tests to show a larger breaking load. But just being greater than 50T is not good enough. The rationale comes in the rest of the proceedure.

This is one situation where science offers a rational way forward.

I have though of another where we observe a phenomenon and seek a theory to explain it.

Since the widespread introduction of plug in curcuit boards in the computing industry it was observed that plugged in boards tended to 'wander' out of their sockets.

In this case we are not discussing what to do about this phenomenon ie debating stronger spring contacts v retaining clips or screw fixings

We trying to achieve a theory of understanding of what is happening, without assumptions of little green men pulling our boards out while we sleep.

Any thoughts ?

Why you are asking me to formulate a hypothesis? All I've said in this regard is IF you show me a theory, any theory, then it will make assumptions (and I'm happy to point these out should you disagree).

That's all I'm saying about this.

[studiot]

25 minutes ago, Holmes said:

All I've said in this regard is IF you show me a theory, any theory, then it will make assumptions (and I'm happy to point these out should you disagree).

That's all I'm saying about this.

You have actually said rather more than this, without any support whatsoever for this all or nothing claim.

25 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I fail to see how asking you to describe your hypothesis can be deemed "confrontational".

"It wan't me Miss" , is the favourite playground bully's cry.

It was confrontational because it was issued as a challenge, not a request,  and this is not a pissing contest.

Cooperative would be making some useful and pertinent comments on the information you did have.

 

25 minutes ago, Holmes said:

In which case why present this as rebuttal?

Is rebuttal your favourite word?

Do you operate any other process ?

 

25 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I never said they were, but if you think about that it's not really true. You must assume the dial works, you must assume the dial is reliable, gives acceptable repeatability, is not unduly influenced by temperature and so on.

Are you really suggesting that the proceedure is not self checking, without knowing how it works ?

25 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Perhaps, my position was though that every theory in science make assumptions, posting a set of measurements is not a theory so my remarks are not directed at your data and never were.

Of course they were, not only did you make assumptions of your own in your initial response but you directly (but incorrectly) addressed my data.

Well designed scientific investigations try to identify and exclude 'what if' situations and occurrences.

So  what if the dial needle sticks ?

We have the 'return to zero' policy

What if the dial is inaccurate by say 10% ?  -  This is taken care of in the margin introduced in the development of the proceedural policy.

What if the dial is inaccurate by 100%, 1000% ? We use the test against known load and get a new dial if it is that far out.

and so on.

We can take a very long time to go through every possibility and ther is a danger of loosing the wood for the trees.

Edited July 1, 2021 by studiot

[Holmes]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

Hey, don't thow me under the bus 😄.

For further info about symmetries, the intrinsic physical and mathematical fatures of a system, Holmes, you might want to look up Noether's theorem as it relates to continuous ( Lye groups ) and discrete (finite groups ) symmetries; These form the basis of our conservation ( and invariance ) laws.
Symmetries can also be classified as global, such as the ones mentioned above, or local, which are the basis for gouge theories.

I wish I had the time to indulge, I have so many books I purchased this past twelve months and then I realized that I'm not reading the damn things!

This is all extremely interesting though, my earlier studies in physics were really during the 1970s as I was approaching my twenties, had time etc and were quite focused on GR and various associated bits of math. This whole symmetries and groups etc were unknown to me, possibly not even discussed much at all outside of academia at that time.

Quote

One could argue that there are no 'rules, axioms or assumptions' in Physics, but these so called 'rules' simply follow from the way things are.

Are you drawing a distinction here between reality and how we represent, describe reality?

Quote

( do you consider this 'special pleading' also ? )

Not sure, special pleading is sometimes a knee-jerk accusation whenever a discussion in metaphysics makes a reference to "god" or "supernatural", I've had it levelled at me many times, a bit like the tiresome response "goddidit" or "sky daddy" or "there's no evidence for God" and so on.

Its helpful before claiming something is special pleading to at least be honest with oneself and play devil's advocate, see if you can explain (to yourself) why something is special pleading, often it is just blurted out as a precursor to dismissing what was said.

This was instrumental in me abandoning atheism many years ago when I became critical of some atheist reactions (including some of my own at the time) to theists.

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

You have actually said rather more than this, without any support whatsoever for this all or nothing claim.

"It wan't me Miss" , is the favourite playground bully's cry.

It was confrontational because it was issued as a challenge, not a request,  and this is not a pissing contest.

Cooperative would be making some useful and pertinent comments on the information you did have.

I disagree we were discussing the merits of my claim that all theories rely on assumptions therefore asking for the theory itself (rather than a set of numbers) is reasonable.

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Is rebuttal your favourite word?

Do you operate any other process ?

Are you really suggesting that the proceedure is not self checking, without knowing how it works ?

Of course they were, not only did you make assumptions of your own in your initial response but you directly (but incorrectly) addressed my data.

I make no apologies for making assumptions, as I said repeatedly we must make assumptions if we want to formulate and write down scientific explanations, you seem to want to contest this but appear unable to.

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well designed scientific investigations try to identify and exclude 'what if' situations and occurrences.

So  what if the dial needle sticks ?

We have the 'return to zero' policy

What if the dial is inaccurate by say 10% ?  -  This is taken care of in the margin introduced in the development of the procedural policy.

What if the dial is inaccurate by 100%, 1000% ? We use the test against known load and get a new dial if it is that far out.

and so on.

We can take a very long time to go through every possibility and ther is a danger of loosing the wood for the trees.

So obviously you're assuming these "procedures" and "policies" are always sufficient to reach the levels of safety you desire.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Holmes

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

Its helpful before claiming something is special pleading to at least be honest with oneself and play devil's advocate, see if you can explain (to yourself) why something is special pleading, often it is just blurted out as a precursor to dismissing what was said.

Perhaps, but that is not what happened here. Let me repeat the same point you seem to have missed the first four times. 

You claim the universe could not have come from nothing, or that it’s always been here is not a sufficient explanation. Then in the next breath you state that it’s perfectly fine to assert god came from nothing or has always been there (I paraphrased, but that’s the gist so please let’s not quibble).

That is why you’ve been rightly accused of special pleading. Protest all you’d like and ask a bunch of irrelevant red herring questions. This is what you've been doing. 

More below in hopes of not having to explain this a 5th time:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

The key to this being a fallacy is that there is no adequate reason for treating the situation differently. Since a different situation is, by definition, different, there is always some distinction to be made; the issue is whether this difference is sufficient. <…>

In the Thomistic cosmological argument for the existence of God, everything requires a cause. However, proponents of the argument then create a special case where God doesn't need a cause, but they can't say why in any particularly rigorous fashion

<…>
One response to this argument, beyond pointing out the fallacy, would be to point out that nature itself could have existed eternally in some form just as they say God had existed eternally before creating nature.

[Holmes]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps, but that is not what happened here. Let me repeat the same point you seem to have missed the first four times. 

You claim the universe could not have come from nothing, or that it’s always been here is not a sufficient explanation. Then in the next breath you state that it’s perfectly fine to assert god came from nothing or has always been there (I paraphrased, but that’s the gist so please let’s not quibble).

That is why you’ve been rightly accused of special pleading. Protest all you’d like and ask a bunch of irrelevant red herring questions. This is what you've been doing. 

There are some inaccuracies in that summary.

Here's what I actually claimed, you'll find this in my very first post in this thread:

Quote

 

God is that which brought the universe into existence, God can be rationally inferred from that observation, it is a definition of God.

We cannot logically, ever have a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe ("universe" being all matter/energy/laws/fields etc. that exist) it is beyond the ability of science to explain it's presence.

All theories in physics refer to pre-existing material quantities, refer to laws that underpin material interactions, therefore in the absence of material quantities and laws no theory could be developed, the true "theory of everything" would be a blank sheet of paper.

The explanation for the presence of the universe (matter, energy, fields, laws) must be non-scientific, therefore scientific explanations are not the only form of legitimate explanation.

 

Let me put this into a tabular form:

1. We cannot logically, ever have a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe.
2. All theories in physics refer to pre-existing material quantities and laws.
3. The explanation for the presence of the universe (matter, energy, fields, laws) must be non-scientific.

Which of these do you dispute and why?

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Holmes

[iNow]

Oh well. So much for asking you not to quibble when the basic gist was right or you avoiding asking me red herring questions. 

[Holmes]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Oh well. So much for asking you not to quibble when the basic gist was right or you avoiding asking me red herring questions. 

It seems to me that the main thrust of your responses are to express disapproval of me, my character and my motives and this amounts to what could be construed as an on-going ad-hominem attack.

I just gave you the opportunity to address each of the three elements from my original post in this thread and you've refused and again post complaints about me or my manner or my motives all of which are irrelevant to what is being discussed.

This is not how one debates in good faith, the ongoing absence of a well articulated rational response to my arguments serves to show that you are bereft of any sound counter arguments, you may want to consider how this makes you look in the grander scheme of things.

I may cease discussing this subject in this thread as there is real danger of the conversation descending into pettiness, I have no desire for that and I'm sure others share that view.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Holmes
clarify

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, Holmes said:

this amounts to what could be construed as an on-going ad-hominem attack.

Not really, no. I’m not saying Holmes is an idiot and therefore his claim is wrong. I’m showing where you claim relies on fallacies and is little more than a personal preference or opinion. 

If, however, you disagree and feel you’re being personally attacked, then use the report post function so I can be dealt with properly. 

11 minutes ago, Holmes said:

you are bereft of any sound counter arguments, you may want to consider how this makes you look in the grander scheme of things.

Now THIS right here is much closer to a personal attack. And this too:

On 6/30/2021 at 2:58 PM, Holmes said:

I can only assume that bias, prejudice and preconceptions are making this rather straightforward discussion a struggle for you.

 

5 hours ago, Holmes said:

you do like to garnish your posts with emotive terms like "warm cozy inner peace" you seem unable to discuss this without using such emotive terms

 

[Holmes]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not really, no. I’m not saying Holmes is an idiot and therefore his claim is wrong. I’m showing where you claim relies on fallacies and is little more than a personal preference or opinion. 

If, however, you disagree and feel you’re being personally attacked, then use the report post function so I can be dealt with properly. 

Now THIS right here is much closer to a personal attack. And this too:

 

Which we can contrast with these, each of which appears in replies you've posted to me:

• your appeals to personal incredulity have been rampant, too
• for reasons of psychological comfort
• one that pleases you psychologically
• pinning all of your hopes
• you’re incredulous
• and ignorant too
• bunch of pseudo woo woo horseshit in the middle 
• Argument from personal incredulity

There's a pattern of dismissing an argument I've made by labelling it as "incredulity" or "ignorant" or "horseshit" as if that amounts to a reasoned rebuttal.

If this was a formal refereed debate these kinds of insults and mischaracterizations would not be tolerated.

[iNow]

Ok. It’s not tho 

You’ve also quoted me out of context, which I didn’t do to you. Whatever tho 

[Holmes]

Just now, iNow said:

Ok. It’s not tho 

I'll no longer be responding to you in this thread.

[MigL]

Remember guys, this is a SCIENCE forum.
Can we just stick to the science ?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Remember guys, this is a SCIENCE forum.
Can we just stick to the science ?

I agree with you. This is not a formal refereed debate. 

[MigL]

The essence of this debate seems to be...

"Can science alone explain the existence and workings of the universe, or is something 'outside' of science needed ?"

Holmes seems to think science alone cannot do it, and 'something else' is required.
I happen to think science alone can, or will eventually, be sufficient.

I'm struggling to figure out what some of the other members are proposing/opining.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

We do make a distinction here between attacking ideas and attacking people. Pointing out ignorance is not a personal attack. Pointing out flaws in reasoning or the use of logical fallacies is not a personal attack. All of these are attacking the idea, not the person who is trying to explain it.

Suggesting that someone is "struggling" or "prejudiced" without evidence is clearly personal, and is a violation of our rules on civility. Everyone needs to follow this process when it comes to science discussion.

 

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, Holmes said:

OK, I'll assume nothing, the list is a randomly generated list.

I steer away from misleading terms like "validated assumption" science deals with falsification, it can only ever invalidate an assumption.

Consider Newtonian gravitation, was the inverse square law "validated" and if so when was it validated? it was regarded as such for two and a half centuries by many until the unexpected and stubborn deviation of the perihelion of mercury refused to play ball.

At that stage the assumption (that the inverse square law is true) was invalidated and was eventually abandoned as I'm sure you know. 

So how can something be validated if it can later be shown to be invalid? the answer is very obvious, it was never "validated" at all.

I too object, to your misleading attempt to imply that scientific theories are not based on assumption, unprovable beliefs.

Newtonian gravitational theory was tested by reproducible observations of nature, tell me please at what point do you think the inverse square law became validated? if it was validated then how on earth could it later be invalidated?

The conservation laws are assumptions, mathematical theories that hinge upon them draw their conclusions on the basis that the laws are assumed to be true. So far as the mathematical analysis goes they are axiomatic.

I did give an example, there are in fact many, the inverse square law assumed by Newton is an excellent example as is the luminiferous aether hypothesis.

I do not really think your making a good rebuttal, nothing I've said is false, at odds with reality or history. You object it seems to the fact that I refuse to elevate science and theories to the status of unquestioned absolute truth.

 

 

I think you and I have got to clear up the last point before it is worth discussing anything else. 

What you accuse me of is the polar opposite of what I have been saying to you throughout.

- I have been saying that all scientific theories are mere models of aspects of nature.

- I have been saying there are no axioms, just propositions, open to testing by observation.  

- I have been saying these so-called "laws" are made-made representations of aspects of the order we perceive in nature.  

I have, in effect, been saying there are no absolute truths in science whatsoever, and that everything is open to challenge.     

Yet, you seem determined to hear me saying what your own prejudices apparently assume I should say, while ignoring what I have actually been saying. 

Why?

 

 

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Holmes said:

Completely irrelevant to our discussion.

Quite relevant in fact and the definition supplied to reflect your own position.

7 hours ago, Holmes said:

This is partly true but you've misunderstood. Yes it is unscientific (I've stressed that point several times in this thread) and that is because the explanation for the origin cannot possibly be scientific if we are to avoid paradoxes. I make no apologies, very clearly, the logic is trivially simple here, if the explanation for the origins of the laws of nature cannot be explained scientifically then we must accept the fact that the explanation will not be scientific, we must accept the fact that non-scientific explanations must be considered.

In fact it is you who has misunderstood, or simply being obtuse. Just because the laws of physics and nature cannot as yet be explained, does not mean that they never will. I see no reason why anyone need depart from the scientific methodology to the unscientific myths, unless of course to maintain that warm fuzzy inner glow, as emotive as that may sound to you.

7 hours ago, Holmes said:

Here you go again, I made no mention of "myth" or "old bloke" or "sitting on clouds" this is an attempt at a strawman, an attempt to misrepresent what I actually said, this is not the first time you've stooped to this level and it makes your attempt at rebuttal look intellectually rather weak not say rude.

Stop being obtuse. You are inferring with your questionable claims and rhetoric some supernatural entity, or a "god of the gaps" simply because science as yet does not have the answer. If that offends you then I would question why it offends you.

7 hours ago, Holmes said:

Saying a "quantum foam" has always been there is fine, by all means one can propose that but it is not a scientific explanation it is a belief an assumed absolute truth that cannot be subject to test, it cannot be falsified.

It leads one to just dumbly stare and say "it's just always been there" how that is a "better" explanation than an agency with power and will, intentionally bringing it into existence? I do not think it is a better explanation, perhaps it is more palatable because of deep seated prejudices, biases against what you think "God" may represent or imply but that's your choice.

The possibility of quantum foam is certainly a scientific explantion, unevidenced as such at this time, and until we have a proper quantum theory of gravity. Proving hard, but that's science, the discipline in eternal progress, based on our observational and experimental data and the scientific methodology. That friend is why science is superior, and I would guess the reason why you appear to be denouncing it. Thankfully that eternal progress will continue without resorting to unscientific supernatural myth.

And on your second claim about scientists to just "dumbly stare" and claim, I see as rather silly. As I explained most lay people would see the quantum foam as nothing anyway, and whether we need to redefine nothing to mean the quantum foam, it is infinitely closer to the general acceptance that we have of nothing today, then substituting some sort of deity of choice, based on your personal deep seated prejudices and biases.

7 hours ago, Holmes said:

More mischaracterizations! you do like to garnish your posts with emotive terms like "warm cozy inner peace" you seem unable to discuss this without using such emotive terms, well let me say here and now these are your terms, reflecting your perceptions not mine.

I don't think you're making a very strong case, as rebuttals go this is intellectually disappointing, I've debated with many competent thinkers over the years, this is not my first rodeo as the saying goes.

Emotive terms like "dumbly stare"? My use of "warm cozy inner peace" certainly stands, as a prime reason for religious beliefs, rather then accept the factual nature of the finality of death.

I have also listened to many competent thinkers over the years, some are pretty smart and excellent at putting their case, and yet when we all finally get down to the nitty gritty of it all, we all know the superior position science takes in explaining the universe around us, and the fact that supernatural explanations just don't hold water.

 

I also see where you have raised the Newtonian concept of gravity and the inverse square rule, and GR. What you should understand is that we still use Newtonian mechanics every day on Earth, in near all situations, plus of course near all of our space shots to Mars, Venus, the Sun etc. This should tell you that Newtonian mechainics is not wrong, but rather simply a less accurate method [but still accurate enough for all examples I have given] and that GR is the more accurate method. Afterall if we did decide to use GR in all my examples, we would get the required answers as Newtonian gives us, but far more accurately, and I might add, with far more difficulty and complication....the accuracy of course is not needed so we stick with our old mate Isaac.

Edited July 1, 2021 by beecee

[Holmes]

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I think you and I have got to clear up the last point before it is worth discussing anything else. 

What you accuse me of is the polar opposite of what I have been saying to you throughout.

- I have been saying that all scientific theories are mere models of aspects of nature.

Well I do not dispute that.

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

- I have been saying there are no axioms, just propositions, open to testing by observation.  

I dispute that because it contradicts your first point above. A model is based on reason and reasoning is the process whereby we draw conclusions from premises, there must be premises before we can begin to reason and create models.

For example in general relativity the core premises (axioms, assumptions, I use these interchangeably) are the principle of equivalence and the principle of relativity (principle of general covariance).

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

- I have been saying these so-called "laws" are made-made representations of aspects of the order we perceive in nature.  

They are generalizations, extrapolations based on inductive reasoning, their universality is assumed not absolutely known to be true.

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I have, in effect, been saying there are no absolute truths in science whatsoever, and that everything is open to challenge.

I do not dispute that/

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yet, you seem determined to hear me saying what your own prejudices apparently assume I should say, while ignoring what I have actually been saying. 

Why?

Well perhaps the above answer clear this up, perhaps its clearer what I agree with and disagree with.

• All scientific explanations are models.
• All models involve reasoning from premises.
• Premises refer to material reality.

Therefore we can never explain - scientifically - the presence of material reality because we must refer to material reality in order to establish the premises we need to create that explanation for material reality.

In short we cannot explain the origin of the universe in terms of the universe, we cannot explain the origin of laws of nature (premises) in terms of those same premises.

 

 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

There are some inaccuracies in that summary.

Here's what I actually claimed, you'll find this in my very first post in this thread:

Let me put this into a tabular form:

1. We cannot logically, ever have a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe.
2. All theories in physics refer to pre-existing material quantities and laws.
3. The explanation for the presence of the universe (matter, energy, fields, laws) must be non-scientific.

Which of these do you dispute and why?

 

[1] Wrong. It follows reasonably logically, that our universe may have evolved/arose from nothing: because as inferred by quantum theory, nothing is inherently unstable.

[3] Wrong: your continued "god of the gaps"explantion doesn't hold any water.

[Holmes]

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

Quite relevant in fact and the definition supplied to reflect your own position.

In fact it is you who has misunderstood, or simply being obtuse. Just because the laws of physics and nature cannot as yet be explained, does not mean that they never will.

But I never said that the reason they never will was because they "cannot be explained yet", I said it was because it leads to a paradox, a contradiction. There is no "yet" it is not and never was a matter of time it is a logical impossibility like proving that π is a rational number, it is logically not possible - proof by contradiction.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

I see no reason why anyone need depart from the scientific methodology to the unscientific myths, unless of course to maintain that warm fuzzy inner glow, as emotive as that may sound to you.

Stop being obtuse. You are inferring with your questionable claims and rhetoric some supernatural entity, or a "god of the gaps" simply because science as yet does not have the answer. If that offends you then I would question why it offends you.

See above, it is not and never was a matter of "yet" - if I argued that just because we have not yet found a proof that π is a rational number that does not mean we'll never find such a proof? do you think we might find a proof of that given enough time?

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

The possibility of quantum foam is certainly a scientific explantion, unevidenced as such at this time, and until we have a proper quantum theory of gravity. Proving hard, but that's science, the discipline in eternal progress, based on our observational and experimental data and the scientific methodology. That friend is why science is superior, and I would guess the reason why you appear to be denouncing it. Thankfully that eternal progress will continue without resorting to unscientific supernatural myth.

Drawing attention to the epistemological limitations of some discipline is not a denunciation of that discipline.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

And on your second claim about scientists to just "dumbly stare" and claim, I see as rather silly. As I explained most lay people would see the quantum foam as nothing anyway, and whether we need to redefine nothing to mean the quantum foam, it is infinitely closer to the general acceptance that we have of nothing today, then substituting some sort of deity of choice, based on your personal deep seated prejudices and biases.

Emotive terms like "dumbly stare"? My use of "warm cozy inner peace" certainly stands, as a prime reason for religious beliefs, rather then accept the factual nature of the finality of death.

I have also listened to many competent thinkers over the years, some are pretty smart and excellent at putting their case, and yet when we all finally get down to the nitty gritty of it all, we all know the superior position science takes in explaining the universe around us, and the fact that supernatural explanations just don't hold water.

I also see where you have raised the Newtonian concept of gravity and the inverse square rule, and GR. What you should understand is that we still use Newtonian mechanics every day on Earth, in near all situations, plus of course near all of our space shots to Mars, Venus, the Sun etc.

I made no comment on the utility of the Newtonian model of gravity only on its correctness.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

This should tell you that Newtonian mechainics is not wrong, but rather simply a less accurate method [but still accurate enough for all examples I have given] and that GR is the more accurate method.

No, this is incorrect, the Newtonian model is wrong. Time is not universal, the trajectory of light is impacted by mass and so on. None of these facts reduce the utility of the theory but we are not discussing utility but correctness.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

After all if we did decide to use GR in all my examples, we would get the required answers as Newtonian gives us, but far more accurately, and I might add, with far more difficulty and complication....the accuracy of course is not needed so we stick with our old mate Isaac.

Theoretical physics is not concerned with utility, that's the province of engineering and we're discussing theoretical physics and its epistemological limitations and the implications this has on our ability to explain reality.

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

[1] Wrong. It follows reasonably logically, that our universe may have evolved/arose from nothing: because as inferred by quantum theory, nothing is inherently unstable.

[3] Wrong: your continued "god of the gaps"explantion doesn't hold any water.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

extract:

Relativity is very different from quantum mechanics, and so far nobody has been able to combine the two seamlessly. However, some theorists have been able to bring the two theories to bear on particular problems by using carefully chosen approximations. For instance, this approach was used by Stephen Hawking at the University of Cambridge to describe black holes.

In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens

One thing they have found is that, when quantum theory is applied to space at the smallest possible scale, space itself becomes unstable. Rather than remaining perfectly smooth and continuous, space and time destabilize, churning and frothing into a foam of space-time bubbles.

In other words, little bubbles of space and time can form spontaneously. "If space and time are quantized, they can fluctuate," says Lawrence Krauss at Arizona State University in Tempe. "So you can create virtual space-times just as you can create virtual particles."

What's more, if it's possible for these bubbles to form, you can guarantee that they will. "In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability," says Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts.

 

[Holmes]

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

[1] Wrong. It follows reasonably logically, that our universe may have evolved/arose from nothing: because as inferred by quantum theory, nothing is inherently unstable.

Instability is a material characteristic so cannot be referred to as nothing, nothing would have no material characteristics. Tell me what is the origin of the instability? 

Quote

[3] Wrong: your continued "god of the gaps"explantion doesn't hold any water.

Claiming that something is actually nothing just so that you can later claim that something can emerge from that "nothing" holds far less water than anything I've been saying.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Holmes

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

Instability is a material characteristic so cannot be referred to as nothing, nothing would have no material characteristics.

Yet the reputable professionals say you are wrong, but you are entitled to disagree, albeit with no evidence and simply rhetoric.

3 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Claiming that something is actually nothing just so that you can later claim that something can emerge from that "nothing" holds far less water than anything I've been saying.

More rhetorical denial. Anything supernatural like fairies at the bottom of the garden or some magical deity is myth...no evidence and as I have shown previously is continiously being pushed back into oblivion, as science continues to explaim more and more and more.