Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,812 Year: 4,069/9,624 Month: 940/974 Week: 267/286 Day: 28/46 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained
nano
Member (Idle past 1319 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 108 of 220 (675018)
10-05-2012 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Son Goku
10-04-2012 7:15 AM


Re: The Kochen Specker Theorem - Part 2
Very interesting. Thanks.
So, can we draw any conclusions about the nature of reality from this? I think any conclusions must be limited because certainly electrons have a defined mass and charge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Son Goku, posted 10-04-2012 7:15 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Son Goku, posted 10-08-2012 4:11 AM nano has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 1319 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 212 of 220 (703995)
08-01-2013 10:41 AM


An interesting (perhaps) follow-up:
Neil deGrasse Tyson was interviewed in the January 2013 issue of Sky magazine. He was asked "What was around before the Big Bang?". He answered "We don't know. That's the answer. We have some strong ideas but they're not elevated to the level of theory yet. But one of them is that we might be one bubble of many bubbles in a multiverse. The multiverse would have been around before we were born in it, but that just pushes it farther back. Where'd the multiverse come from?..."
I don't think scientists talk enough about this logical dilemma. For instance, Stephen Hawking spoke at CalTech in April 2013. From what I can gather, he essentially said he favored the multiverse explanation of where the universe came from, but (as far as I can tell, I don't have the text) he did not go further and discuss where the multiverse came from.
FYI - The quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson is impossible to find online. I can post a scan (if allowed) from the physical magazine if anyone is interested.

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by jar, posted 08-01-2013 10:43 AM nano has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 1319 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 216 of 220 (704027)
08-02-2013 7:12 AM


Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wholeheartedly support Tyson's statement of "We don't know" and "..but that just pushes it farther back". This is the kind if refreshing talk about the beginning of the universe that I don't see enough of from scientists.
Maybe I am projecting too much onto Tyson's statement here, but I believe when he says "..but that just pushes it farther back" he is clearly referring to the logical "problem" of the beginning of the universe. It simply can't be explained logically. That is why he says "We don't know".

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by JonF, posted 08-02-2013 7:16 AM nano has not replied
 Message 218 by vimesey, posted 08-02-2013 12:18 PM nano has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 1319 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 219 of 220 (704148)
08-05-2013 9:00 AM


It's certainly, at the very least, a current issue to be solved, otherwise Tyson would not say "We don't know" and "Where'd the multiverse come from?".
And even without time its always appropriate to ask why the universe exists.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024