iNow Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 3 hours ago, joigus said: You've filed some ad-hominem-attack complaints here --If I'm not mistaken @iNow was to blame I accept no blame on that bc the aspersions cast were also themselves fallacious and misdirected. I’ll give Holmes the benefit of the doubt here and assume it was a sincere issue of inaccurate reading comprehension, but I did not engage in any ad hom attacks in order to further my position in this thread. That claim was and continues to be absolutely baseless.
Holmes Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 17 hours ago, beecee said: And the means are substantial. eg: GR and quantum mechanics. So you'll explain material phenomena in terms of material phenomena? that's the paradox and it cannot be resolved scientifically just as we cannot prove that π is rational number no matter how long one cares to try for. Quote Not really. It simply stems from the point you are making that something beyond science and the scientific methodology maybe responsible. eg; god/or whatever. No it is a strawman, I'm disappointed at the regularity with which I have to point this out here. Quote Probably because it is a strawman? No I don't think it is, we are discussing physics and laws and mathematics, the nature of mathematical proofs and an example of a mathematical proof is entirely within the scope of this discussion. If we cannot discuss mathematics then we cannot discuss physics. Quote Hmm, is that so. I'had thought you did, but anyway, I'm too lazy to go back checking through your rhetoric. I'll take your word for it at this time. Reaffirming things simply reaffirms the science and scientific method. Nice to see you agree though. This is imo and Krauss' opinion, where science and philosophy converge and is at the core of Krauss' critique of philosophers. And I certainly do not dismiss Professor Carroll. Very well so why - scientifically - are there laws of physics? why is there a "quantum foam"? why is there "instability"? 17 hours ago, iNow said: Unless you’re intentionally misreading me, then this suggests likely challenges with reading comprehension. I do not think that word means what you think it means. The assertion about that being an ad hom is about as valid as when you claimed this was your thread. Your refusal to respectfully refrain from strawman arguments and ad-hominem personal references as the bedrock of your replies has reached the stage where I have no desire to discuss this with you any further. 15 hours ago, MigL said: You guys have spent pages aruing about each other's discussion styles, rather than addressing the question. Thank you, I suspect this is not entirely accidental either. 15 hours ago, beecee said: And I see your argument as flawed as it steps outside the scientific method. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo: Abstract: Questions regarding the formation of the Universe and ‘what was there’ before it came to existence have been of great interest to mankind at all times. Several suggestions have been presented during the ages – mostly assuming a preliminary state prior to creation. Nevertheless, theories that require initial conditions are not considered complete, since they lack an explanation of what created such conditions. We therefore propose the ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN) theory, aimed at describing the origin of the Universe from ‘nothing’ in information terms. The suggested framework does not require amendments to the laws of physics: but rather provides a new scenario to the Universe initiation process, and from that point merges with state-of-the-art cosmological models. The paper is aimed at providing a first step towards a more complete model of the Universe creation – proving that creation Ex Nihilo is feasible. Further adjustments, elaborations, formalisms and experiments are required to formulate and support the theory. Discussion and future work: This paper presents a model for the Universe creation ‘Ex Nihilo.’ The proposed theory's main advantage is that it does not require any explanations of the physics prior to the Universe creation. This stream of research can also provide an explanation to several unexplained phenomena, such as the second law of thermodynamics, the existence of virtual particles in vacuum, the source of symmetry in the Universe, the evolution of matter and anti-matter, and non-local influences in quantum mechanics. The paper provides a first step towards a more complete model of the Universe creation – proving that creation Ex Nihilo is feasible. Further adjustments, elaborations, formalisms and experiments are required to formulate and support the theory. Two of such elaborations include: (1) formulating the mathematics of the dynamicity laws in the Universe platform; and (2) modeling specific mechanisms responsible for the evolvement of observed phenomena in the Universe, and in particular life itself. Such future research could demonstrate how complex and unpredictable phenomena can be generated from a small set of rules, and how it is possible to simulate dynamic life and other computational processes from a small amount of initial information. Possible directions for such future research may be based on the discovery of information structures that maintain ‘life’ properties such as ‘survival,’ ‘growth,’ and ‘duplication’ during changes in the Universe; or representing the evolvement of information in the Universe either as an extended case of a cellular automaton, or as an artificial neuron network. This is more like it, a more honest approach to grappling with this problem. First let us note that this paper argues against the very thing many here have been arguing for (all emphasis is mine) Quote Nevertheless, theories that require initial conditions are not considered complete, since they lack an explanation of what created such conditions. Moving on, I read the paper and noticed this which seems be a rejection of Krauss's "from nothing" thesis: Quote His (Vlenkin, not Krauss) proposed scenario interacts gravitational and matter fields, and a symmetric vacuum state that has a nonzero energy density. Therefore, the initial state does not, in fact, represent an absolute, pure, ‘nothing.’ reading further Quote Following this line of thought, the Universe is a fluctuation of the vacuum in the sense of the quantum field theory. Therefore, the initial state is not property-less, and it requires an explanation of how fluctuations can evolve from ‘nothingness.’ Before proceeding its worth examining the accepted definition of Creatio Ex Nihilo: Quote Creatio ex nihilo (Latin for "creation out of nothing") refers to the belief that matter is not eternal but had to be created by some divine creative act, frequently defined as God. The paper's recourse to "information" as the fundamental means by which physics came to exist is noteworthy, at least the author's seem to recognize the futility of arguing in purely material terms. However they seem to have missed something pretty basic here, note: Quote The co-existence of opposite nullifying elements derives a matching necessity within the compendium of simultaneous NIEs. They must presume something exists, explaining non-existence as being composed of things that do exist amounts to invalidating the initial assumption that such an agglomeration is in fact "nothing'. Further: Quote Assuming an infinite amount of NIEs Moving to the closing remarks I saw this: Quote The proposed theory's main advantage is that it does not require any explanations of the physics prior to the Universe creation. Which I cannot see myself, after all equating information with energy (which the authors' do) means - by implication - that the "information" that conceptually drove the "creation" must be regarded as an aspect of physics of science. Ultimately the paper is scientifically unsatisfactory for several reasons, one is it directly states that "nothing" has a structure, a composition which amounts to a contradiction and thus falls victim to the very same criticisms they mention at the start with respect to other explanations. The other is the dubious treatment of "information", perhaps if they simply referred to this initial cause as "god" they might have saved a lot of typing. Edited July 3, 2021 by Holmes
studiot Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 19 minutes ago, Holmes said: we are discussing physics and laws and mathematics, the nature of mathematical proofs and an example of a mathematical proof is entirely within the scope of this discussion. If we cannot discuss mathematics then we cannot discuss physics. I thought you wished to discuss the supernatural because you claim that ordinary natural analysis is inapplicable and/or inadequate. Is this not then your case ? "If we cannot discuss mathematics then we cannot discuss physics." Here is a typical example of you making a pronouncement, without any backup whatsoever. Whilst I agree the much if not most of Physics is mathematical in nature, there are important occasions when no Mathematics is involved. Indeed Mathematics cannot be used to express the reasoning involved. My favourite one involves Professor Swinnerton's description of what you see and can be deduced by looking down a microscope at the crystals in granite. I have already said that many of your pronouncements are sufficiently interesting propositions in their own right to deserve threads of their own. I actually consider many of them to be more important and more interesting than the OP here itself. An OP that we have agreed is flawed. I suggest that in future you consider rephrasing some of your 'pronouncements' so that they are not of the 'all or nothing' type as counterexamples can so often be found in the 'devil is in the detail' principle applied to totality statements made without caveats. 1
Holmes Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 4 hours ago, studiot said: I missed that. We have several different perfectly good mathematical proofs that it is irrational, bearing in mind the full and complete definition of a rational number. Proof is the in the realm of mathematics and logic, not Science. Of course proof in those instances is clearly defined and means something different from the corresponding idea in Science, validation, which is why we have different words for them. But we must adopt logic if we are to reason are we not? can you imagine a scientific argument that is not logical? So I must disagree, claiming that scientific arguments need not be logical sounds like a rather extreme step to me. So proofs do exist in logic and if some claim about the natural world can be expressed in logical terms of premises and deductions then that claim must be subject to logic and the rules of logic. So sweeping statements like "Proof is the in the realm of mathematics and logic, not Science" are IMHO misleading. Physics adopts and leverages mathematics and the proofs in mathematics must therefore hold if the science is to be logical, rational.
MigL Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 There are unanswered questions ( paradoxes even ) in Physics today. Physics if far from done, and we have barely scratched the surface of the Physics of the universe. Arrogant people ( even scientists ) thought Physics was 'complete' over 100 years ago, then, Quantum Mechanics forced a new paradigm on the scientific community, and we realized how little we actually knew. When, and only when, we know ALL of the Physics of the universe, and there may still be unanswered questions, will I consider explanations that are 'beyond' science. But that's just me. 1
studiot Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, studiot said: I missed that. We have several different perfectly good mathematical proofs that it is irrational, bearing in mind the full and complete definition of a rational number. Proof is the in the realm of mathematics and logic, not Science. Of course proof in those instances is clearly defined and means something different from the corresponding idea in Science, validation, which is why we have different words for them. I completely fail to understand how my post above leads to your reply 36 minutes ago, Holmes said: But we must adopt logic if we are to reason are we not? can you imagine a scientific argument that is not logical? So I must disagree, claiming that scientific arguments need not be logical sounds like a rather extreme step to me. So proofs do exist in logic and if some claim about the natural world can be expressed in logical terms of premises and deductions then that claim must be subject to logic and the rules of logic. So sweeping statements like "Proof is the in the realm of mathematics and logic, not Science" are IMHO misleading. Physics adopts and leverages mathematics and the proofs in mathematics must therefore hold if the science is to be logical, rational. Where did I say that one must eschew either Logic or Mathematics in Science ? Where did I say that proof do not exist in Logic ? You are simply drawing the wrong conclusions from what I did say. The conclusions to be drawn are that there are matters in each of Science, Logic, and Mathematics, that are not in one or both of the other two. And, following convention, proof is one of these matters. A very easy way to understand this is to draw yourself a standard three circle Venn diagram. one circle representing the content of each discipline. Such a diagram will not show complete overlap. Such a topic is one of those ideal candidates for another thread, indeed we have had such here in the past. Edited July 3, 2021 by studiot add punctuation comma
Holmes Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, iNow said: I accept no blame on that bc the aspersions cast were also themselves fallacious and misdirected. I’ll give Holmes the benefit of the doubt here and assume it was a sincere issue of inaccurate reading comprehension, but I did not engage in any ad hom attacks in order to further my position in this thread. That claim was and continues to be absolutely baseless. This a perfect example of why I will no longer be discussing this subject with you, condescension is your preferred tool when you are on the back foot, rigor and honesty are of little value to you, is this very post an ad-hominem? yes I suppose it is but this is why such language is frowned upon by mature debaters, it always, always, always leads to a breakdown of the discussion, I will not be responding to any more of your posts in this thread, I said this already then gave you another opportunity which you did not value or learn from, so now you can post all you wish, it is beneath me to waste my time with someone who seems to have no interest in the subject other than his ego. Let me leave you with this, an example of a discussion between two opposing positions without the slightest hint of condescension, insults, ad-hominem, at no point does Russell introduce terms like "fiction" or "unicorns" or "mashed potato" or "reading comprehension", he could have done I'm sure, but he had no need, no base ego to satisfy. You do not know what you do not know and you do not know how to respectfully discuss anything with anyone, perhaps, just perhaps you can put your ego to one side and learn from this, the ball's in your court. 23 minutes ago, studiot said: I completely fail to understand how my post above leads to your reply Where did I say that one must eschew either Logic or Mathematics in Science ? Where did I say that proof do not exist in Logic ? You are simply drawing the wrong conclusions from what I did say. The conclusions to be drawn are that there are matters in each of Science, Logic, and Mathematics, that are not in one or both of the other two. And, following convention proof is one of these matters. A very easy way to understand this is to draw yourself a standard three circle Venn diagram. one circle representing the content of each discipline. Such a diagram will not show complete overlap. Such a topic is one of those ideal candidates for another thread, indeed we have had such here in the past. Well your reaction stems it seems from my introduction of an analogy, the analogy that we can know there is no point in continuing to seek an example of two integers who's ratio is π . So let me ask you, do you know that we can never find such a pair of integers or do you regard it as a possibility given enough time to conduct a search? this is not so much a mathematics question as it is a logic question. Having an answer from you will help us move forward. Edited July 3, 2021 by Holmes -1
iNow Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Holmes said: rigor and honesty are of little value to you, is this very post an ad-hominem? It’s really not. You continue misusing that term. It is not an ad hom no matter how many times you repeat yourself claiming otherwise. How about this… Consider my mention of “comprehension challenges” as an observation based on the evidence available; a sincere attempt to better understand why this discussion with you feels so consistently full of friction. Please try not to consider it as an attack on you because it simply is not, nor is it an attempt to bolster my own position with fallacious logic. It’s simply the only way we can reasonably explain why so very many interactions with you here seem to go so unnecessarily and so consistently sideways (that and your needlessly combative nature), and I’m hardly the only one who’s noticed: 54 minutes ago, studiot said: You are simply drawing the wrong conclusions from what I did say. On 6/29/2021 at 9:47 AM, studiot said: More deflective smoke and mirrors. Where exactly did I say that… On 6/29/2021 at 9:47 AM, studiot said: I made no such claim On 6/29/2021 at 1:48 PM, iNow said: Nobody’s talking about predicting the future. You’re either moving the goal posts, introducing strawmen, or failing to comprehend what others are saying. On 6/29/2021 at 5:28 PM, MigL said: You suggested I was an adherent of scientism, not science, and I simply offered my reasons for being one. I did not imply you were an adherent of religion, so I have no reason to 'be careful'. On 6/30/2021 at 7:00 AM, joigus said: You're playing semantic games. On 6/30/2021 at 9:35 AM, studiot said: I have no idea of the relevance of the quote you append to your reply to me as it does not address anything I have said. On 6/30/2021 at 5:56 PM, joigus said: No. I didn't talk about any theory of everything; I was talking about inflationary scenarios, which are falsifiable On 6/30/2021 at 5:56 PM, joigus said: I don't need you to translate anything I say. It is intellectually dishonest to do so EDIT: Continued below. My intent to merge posts failed when x-posting with our good man, joigus Edited July 3, 2021 by iNow 3
joigus Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, iNow said: I accept no blame on that bc the aspersions cast were also themselves fallacious and misdirected. I’ll give Holmes the benefit of the doubt here and assume it was a sincere issue of inaccurate reading comprehension, but I did not engage in any ad hom attacks in order to further my position in this thread. That claim was and continues to be absolutely baseless. Clarification: I meant that as per Holmes' claims; I did not mean that you were actually to blame. Sorry for being ambiguous. My distinct impression is that you always, at the very least, make constant efforts to support what you say on documents or arguments. Also, I tried to remind Holmes how their comments on L. Krauss are nothing short of a slur: "Krauss of all people?" "his shenanigans", and I quoted. Holmes is a bit enigmatic to me. I don't know where they're going. They've played a wildcard, and then dropped it, and then taken it again with a different value... I would like to know why. I'm kinda curious how one who's tasted the elixir of science can part ways with it and embrace the word that stands for anything. mess-posted with @iNow Edited July 3, 2021 by joigus 1
iNow Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 On 7/1/2021 at 4:29 PM, exchemist said: What you accuse me of is the polar opposite of what I have been saying to you throughout. On 7/2/2021 at 11:14 AM, Phi for All said: Now this is a strawman…the rest is a man of straw you knocked down as irrelevant. So you see? The suggestion that reading comprehension challenges might be at play is an observation, and a well founded one at that. It’s also giving you the benefit of the doubt since the only other explanation is that you are PURPOSEFULLY misrepresenting the views of other. No, I don’t think that’s what you’re doing. I think you’re misunderstanding what others are saying. I’m suggesting this based on a consistent pattern throughout. Not an attack. Not an ad hom. An observation based on a consistent pattern of evidence. I hope this helps. On 7/1/2021 at 3:10 PM, Holmes said: I'll no longer be responding to you in this thread. 1 hour ago, Holmes said: I will no longer be discussing this subject with you <…> I will not be responding to any more of your posts in this thread That’s fine and I accept your concession. It’s really a shame though as I’d much rather we find common ground and help each other improve our stances and sharpen our viewpoints. On another note, I do love how you accuse me of condescension then in the next sentence suggest I’m immature (as a debater or otherwise). Fun times
Holmes Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 55 minutes ago, joigus said: Also, I tried to remind Holmes how their comments on L. Krauss are nothing short of a slur: "Krauss of all people?" "his shenanigans", and I quoted. Holmes is a bit enigmatic to me. I don't know where they're going. They've played a wildcard, and then dropped it, and then taken it again with a different value... I would like to know why. There's only one of me. Quote I'm kinda curious how one who's tasted the elixir of science can part ways with it and embrace the word that stands for anything. mess-posted with @iNow As for Krauss, he is not a participant in the thread and because of that distinction I have no qualms about discussing him, the person. Science is as much about people, celebrities' these days and their views as it is about facts, figures and theories. Krauss has elected to be in the public eye and enjoy the material rewards that that can bring and is a source of personal slurs and attacks himself, so please, spare me the tears. 6 hours ago, joigus said: Inspired by one of @beecee's previous posts: Here's a very interesting piece of interview in which Sagan explains my "semantic" point very eloquently, I think: I'll let Sagan do the talking and take a break from the conversation. I may have mentioned that I used to be an atheist, I was from the earliest I can remember. I was raised to discover and find things out for myself, my mother bought me books and encyclopedias for that reason. During the 1970s and early 1980s I was immersed in science both in my own personal study of physics and later electronics and by the TV and radio. Carl Sagan was a person I am very familiar with, I watched "Cosmos" when it first aired as I did "The ascent of man" and "Burke's Connection" and "Tomorrow's World" and the entire Apollo moon landings and the fascinating BBC "Horizon" all of these and more were eagerly absorbed at every opportunity. I was (and still am) a huge fan of science fiction both hard and soft, including Asimov and Clark and EE. Smith to name just three, but also TV like Star Trek and Dr.Who. I built my own telescope, had a microscope, built radios and other gadgets, had my own workshop that I built myself from junk and scraps at the age of 16. So I am very very familiar with Sagan and his views, I shared those views once. I watched the clip but was drawn to two things in particular, the first is that he chose not to answer "is there a purpose" and objected because "God" is ambiguous. If I was sitting and talking about this subject with Sagan myself I'd be pressing him on these two areas. Edited July 3, 2021 by Holmes
exchemist Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) On 7/1/2021 at 10:51 PM, Holmes said: Well I do not dispute that. 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). They are generalizations, extrapolations based on inductive reasoning, their universality is assumed not absolutely known to be true. I do not dispute that/ 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. To return briefly to the other points you raised, yes, I'm quite happy with the idea that theories involve reasoning from assumptions that are based on generalisations from observation. I still maintain that axioms is the wrong word for them, as these things are based on observation, and subject to being abandoned if later observations show something different. They are purely empirical. I also fully agree that there are questions science can't answer, for want of suitable observations to test any hypothesis, the origin of the universe being one of them. Whether this will always be so, I am not sure. There does seem to be a fundamental difficulty in finding an explanation for the all of the order ("laws") in nature - though some "laws" turn out to be derived from others. Where I think you go off the tracks is in suggesting that we must have an explanation for the origin of the universe, even though science cannot provide one (First Cause and all that). Edited July 3, 2021 by exchemist
studiot Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Holmes said: Well your reaction stems it seems from my introduction of an analogy, the analogy that we can know there is no point in continuing to seek an example of two integers who's ratio is π . So let me ask you, do you know that we can never find such a pair of integers or do you regard it as a possibility given enough time to conduct a search? this is not so much a mathematics question as it is a logic question. Having an answer from you will help us move forward. My reaction has nothing whatsoever to do with π . I already addressed your issue with the irrationality of π in the post you quoted. Did you not read it ? If you look carefully at the post you will see (as I and other members do) that the stupid forum software 'rolls up' a quoted post so you only see the first line of my quote of your reply. IT specialists call this 'convenience' but I'm sure it leads to much misunderstanding and probably has in this case. Here is a screenshot of what I see. It's layout shows my post I quoted (but you would need to click on 'expand ' to read the whole post) Referring to that post I asked why you had accused me of making two particular statements, when I had carefully stated the exact opposite. I then quoted your post where you had made these accusations. (again you would need to click on 'expand ' to read the whole post) Edit Sorry I missed out the screenshot. Nobody's perfect. Edited July 3, 2021 by studiot
Holmes Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, MigL said: There are unanswered questions ( paradoxes even ) in Physics today. Physics if far from done, and we have barely scratched the surface of the Physics of the universe. Arrogant people ( even scientists ) thought Physics was 'complete' over 100 years ago, then, Quantum Mechanics forced a new paradigm on the scientific community, and we realized how little we actually knew. When, and only when, we know ALL of the Physics of the universe, and there may still be unanswered questions, will I consider explanations that are 'beyond' science. But that's just me. I want to try to clarify why I use the term "supernatural" and why phrases like "beyond science" arise in these discussions, I tried to establish this earlier in a few posts. Supernatural literally means events that cannot be due to what we regard as natural. We regard natural as that which can - in principle at least - be explained or understood scientifically, perhaps with laws and mathematics, experiments, testing and so on. So in this regard, are there things that even in principle cannot be understood scientifically? because if there are then very obviously the term supernatural is not an improper or invalid term to use. 17 minutes ago, exchemist said: To return briefly to the other points you raised, yes, I'm quite happy with the idea that theories involve reasoning from assumptions that are based on generalisations from observation. I still maintain that axioms is the wrong word for them, as these things are based on observation, and subject to being abandoned if later observations show something different. They are purely empirical. I also fully agree that there are questions science can't answer, for want of suitable observations to test any hypothesis, the origin of the universe being one of them. Whether this will always be so, I am not sure. There does seem to be a fundamental difficulty in finding an explanation for the all of the order ("laws") in nature - though some "laws" turn out to be derived from others. Very well lets use "premises" instead of "axioms"? Quote Where I think you go off the tracks is in suggesting that we must have an explanation for the origin of the universe, even though science cannot provide one (First Cause and all that). I would not write it that way myself, I would say that if there is an explanation we have no right to insist that the only explanations we can entertain are scientific ones. I say this reasons akin (in an informal sense at least) to Godel's incompleteness theorem(s). In a nutshell I mean by this that there are truths about the universe that cannot be understood by recourse only to that universe. Examples are the origin of laws and material, another is why the universe appears to be ordered at all in the first place, why is it comprehensible why not incessant chaos? These questions came up very naturally as I was studying GR and read the Meaning of Relativity by Einstein. Why do these relationships exist? might there actually be a unified field theory one day? if so what could explain the existence of that theory? would we get to a point where we have no more question? These are entirely legitimate questions about reality and it is a mistake to insist, to demand that the only true answers are scientific ones. I'm done here with this thread now, there is no more to be learned from one another, perhaps a future thread may arise but until then I'm finished in this thread, I stated my case and others can do with that what they want. It's been stimulating! Edited July 3, 2021 by Holmes -1
Ghideon Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Holmes said: I would say that if there is an explanation we have no right to insist that the only explanations we can entertain are scientific ones. In a scientific discussion on a science oriented web site, I would prefer or insist that the only explanations we should entertain are scientific ones. Note: I am probably biased due to my profession as an engineer. "We do not know", "we do not yet know" or "we can not know" are useful responses. Supernatural explanations is typically not very useful in engineering. Edited July 3, 2021 by Ghideon grammar
Kartazion Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Supernatural explanations is typically not very useful in engineering. The ability to think through the mind, therefore, makes it possible to undertake engineering.
MigL Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 If you had stated that there are things we may possibly never know ( as exchemist stated in the post above yours ), like the color of aunt Mabel's socks, on a world, in a universe that existed 100 billion years before ours, this discussion would have ended 9 pages ago, as everyone would have agreed with you. But let us be clear, these are 'scientific' obstacles to our knowing; the fact that you chose to term it 'supernatural' ( among many other terms ) is what got under people's skin. This is a science forum; you'll have to excuse us for thinking like scientists. 2
beecee Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Holmes said: So you'll explain material phenomena in terms of material phenomena? that's the paradox and it cannot be resolved scientifically just as we cannot prove that π is rational number no matter how long one cares to try for. No it is a strawman, I'm disappointed at the regularity with which I have to point this out here. Really, the most annoying thing out of all your posts, is the fact that you need to resort to claiming everyone is using adhoms against your person, and your usual mythical strawman dismissal. Let me sum it up again. What Krauss and others are saying is that we still don't know all the answers, but are reasonably logically able to deduce certain situations based on scientific speculation that answers some of these questions. The nothingness, the quantum foam from which the universe/space/time arose, is a logical answer, even though we still don't have the observational evidence to be able to raise this to scientific theory status. eg: Abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation explaining the evolution/arising of life, while still ignorant of the exact pathway. 7 hours ago, Holmes said: Very well so why - scientifically - are there laws of physics? why is there a "quantum foam"? why is there "instability"? It just is. Far more sensibly logical to accept those obvious facts, and still strive to answer the why and how, then to invoke some mythical, unscientific being. [is that another adhom?] Rememeber how you misinterpreted the excellent summary by Feynman on magnets? 7 hours ago, Holmes said: This is more like it, a more honest approach to grappling with this problem. Before proceeding its worth examining the accepted definition of Creatio Ex Nihilo: 😊Embracing honesty in one line, then suddenly reverting to the opposite. You know very well that your "Creatio ex nihilo (Latin for "creation out of nothing") refers to the belief that matter is not eternal but had to be created by some divine creative act, frequently defined as God" is not what is presented, meant, or referenced to in the paper. Your posts reflecting such tiring semantics, along with the continued accusations of adhoms and strawmen is not a pretty picture. 7 hours ago, Holmes said: Ultimately the paper is scientifically unsatisfactory for several reasons, one is it directly states that "nothing" has a structure, a composition which amounts to a contradiction and thus falls victim to the very same criticisms they mention at the start with respect to other explanations. The other is the dubious treatment of "information", perhaps if they simply referred to this initial cause as "god" they might have saved a lot of typing. ☺️ Obviously that is nothing more then just your opinion. So why not write up another paper for peer review, and in refutation of that? That would be interesting indeed. Your last statement is rather strange. Why would scientists writing up a scientific paper on how a universe had to arise from nothing or quantum foam as that nothing, then step outside of the realms of science into the mythical arena? 6 hours ago, studiot said: I thought you wished to discuss the supernatural because you claim that ordinary natural analysis is inapplicable and/or inadequate. Is this not then your case ? Funny, I also thought that. 5 hours ago, Holmes said: I may have mentioned that I used to be an atheist, I was from the earliest I can remember. I was raised to discover and find things out for myself, my mother bought me books and encyclopedias for that reason. During the 1970s and early 1980s I was immersed in science both in my own personal study of physics and later electronics and by the TV and radio. Carl Sagan was a person I am very familiar with, I watched "Cosmos" when it first aired as I did "The ascent of man" and "Burke's Connection" and "Tomorrow's World" and the entire Apollo moon landings and the fascinating BBC "Horizon" all of these and more were eagerly absorbed at every opportunity. I was (and still am) a huge fan of science fiction both hard and soft, including Asimov and Clark and EE. Smith to name just three, but also TV like Star Trek and Dr.Who. Funnily enough, my story is while similar, actually the opposite. I was raised a good Catholic boy, in fact I was an Altar boy [confession at this point, I was dismissed from the Altar boy's union, after I and another were found drinking the altar wine behind the altar 😉]I also enjoyed immensley Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series in the seventies, am a lover of most movies, sci/fi movies, my favourites being 2001 A Space Odyssey, Mission to Mars, Forbidden planet, and The Day the Earth stood still [1953 VERSION] I also am not a scientist, simply an old retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/Welder who has read a fair bit including Hawking's BHoT, Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps, The first Three minutes by Weinberg, and other books by Davis, Kaku, and others. Yes, I also loved Star Trek and never missed an episode. That's my story in brief. I do not, nor ever really have classed myself as an Atheist, simply someone who finds astronomy/cosmology and the emerging physics as awesome material, and have grown and learnt to appreciate science and the scientific method. Perhaps the closest I would come to god would be Einstein's god, being the sum of the natural and physical laws and facts of the universe/space/time, and I see that as astronomically distant from your own apparent and obvious beliefs. 4 hours ago, Holmes said: I'm done here with this thread now, there is no more to be learned from one another, perhaps a future thread may arise but until then I'm finished in this thread, I stated my case and others can do with that what they want. It's been stimulating! Yes it has been stimulating, but in reality you have proven nothing, other then that at this time, science/physics does not have all the answers. We all accept that, even a poor old retired old bastard like myself. Edited July 3, 2021 by beecee
beecee Posted July 4, 2021 Posted July 4, 2021 6 hours ago, Holmes said: [1] I would not write it that way myself, I would say that if there is an explanation we have no right to insist that the only explanations we can entertain are scientific ones. [2]I say this reasons akin (in an informal sense at least) to Godel's incompleteness theorem(s). [3] In a nutshell I mean by this that there are truths about the universe that cannot be understood by recourse only to that universe. [4]Examples are the origin of laws and material, another is why the universe appears to be ordered at all in the first place, why is it comprehensible why not incessant chaos? [1]Can we also say that if there is a correct way in controlling and/or elimination this current covid 19 pedamic, we have no right insisting that we follow the science, and should also entertain Trump like pseudoscience and conspiracies? Is that what you believe? [2] Probably because I aint a scientist, but I fail to see a connection, in any sense. There is no reason to search for answers outside of science, until we know all of science. [3] We don't know that at all. [4] There was a time when the universe and our solar system was chaotic. As suggested with regards to the laws of physics etc, if it wasn't as it is, we probably wouldn't be here to appreciate it anyway.
TheVat Posted July 9, 2021 Posted July 9, 2021 On 10/15/2020 at 8:30 PM, VenusPrincess said: According to the Copenhagen interpretation a quantum system remains in superposition until it is observed. If God was omnipotent he would be all knowing, implying that he observes all. However since the cat's state remains in superposition we can infer that it has not been observed, and therefore God is has no knowledge of the cat's state. That contradicts the initial assumption that God is omnipotent, but if God is not Omnipotent then he is not God at all, and therefore God does not exist. This is a bewildering mass of unwarranted assumptions on the nature of a deity. Why would a deity have to observe everything? Thomas Jefferson and his Deist buddies believed God sets the universe going and then sits back, rather uninvolved in its operations. Pantheists believe the divine is basically in everything but not necessarily in control in any way we'd call omnipotence. Perhaps God lets all the quantum state vectors evolve and it's we who do the observing and wavefunction collapsing. Maybe God sees all the superpositions. You can't define God away simply by saying "you're only a real god, if X. " This is akin to the fallacy of No True Scotsman.
Goude Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 On 6/28/2021 at 1:41 PM, Bufofrog said: LOL, your a hoot! If you assume something is supernatural, then since this thing exists that is evidence of the supernatural? Really? Let me play this game. There is no exact mechanism that explains red sprites, so I think they are supernatural. Red sprits exist, therefore they are evidence of the supernatural! Cool.🙄 Supernatural is just a word to pin on unexplained events, nothing more. We will never be able to explain everything in the Universe, so there must be supernatural events.
joigus Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 18 minutes ago, Goude said: We will never be able to explain everything in the Universe, so there must be supernatural events. You've just arbitrarily re-defined 'unexplained' as 'supernatural'.
studiot Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 20 minutes ago, Goude said: Supernatural is just a word to pin on unexplained events, nothing more. We will never be able to explain everything in the Universe, so there must be supernatural events. I agree. Most of the 10 pages of this thread have involved (sometimes overheated) semantic arguments over definitions. The actual OP question was answered quite quickly and simply several times. +1
beecee Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 2 hours ago, Goude said: Supernatural is just a word to pin on unexplained events, nothing more. We will never be able to explain everything in the Universe, so there must be supernatural events. That's simply false. Unexplained refers to something that at any particular time, we lack the observational data to explain properly...eg:There was a time when we lacked the knowledge to explain the forces controlling the Sun, or even the fact that the Sun is simply another star. Dictionary: not described or made clear; unknown."the reason for her summons was as yet unexplained" not accounted for or attributable to an identified cause."cot death is still an unexplained phenomenon" Supernatural is defined as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature.[1] This term is attributed to non-physical entities, such as angels, demons, gods, and spirits. It also includes claimed abilities embodied in or provided by such beings, including magic, telekinesis, levitation, precognition, and extrasensory perception. extract: The supernatural is featured in folklore and religious contexts,[4] but can also feature as an explanation in more secular contexts, as in the cases of superstitions or belief in the paranormal. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: So in essence something "unexplained" may still be capable of being defined as scientific and by the laws of physics, whereas something that we define as "supernatural" is simply an unscientific application of myth and scientific ignorance. Examples: Some reported sightings that are generally referred to as UFO's/UAP's, are unexplained events...nothing more, nothing less. We have evidence of "something" that lacks the evidence to specify what it is or isn't. Supernatural on the other hand [as quoted from the WIKI link] "The philosophy of naturalism contends that all phenomena are scientifically explicable and nothing exists beyond the natural world, and as such approaches supernatural claims with skepticism". 2
MigL Posted July 16, 2021 Posted July 16, 2021 Further to Beecee's excellent post, there are many things we cannot know, like the exact position and momentum of an electron. But the reason we cannot know is quite natural, and in no way does it deviate from known laws of Physics.
Recommended Posts