Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(2)
Message 124 of 220 (675443)
10-11-2012 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-11-2012 11:51 AM


Professor Hawking is dealing with matters in relation to which elemetary arithmetic and everyday logic have absolutely nothing to do. Yet again, you don't understand something (deep physics and cosmology), and therefore dismiss it as incorrect.
Perhaps I can explain this way. You are presented with a novel that is written in, say, French. You are effectively saying that the author is writing gibberish, because you don't understand French.
Now, when it comes to deep physics and cosmology, there's no shame in not understanding it. I don't have anything more than a rudimentary grasp of the real basics of it, and I'm not ashamed. But I am bright enough not to dismiss it as incorrect - to do that, I would have to have an incredible depth of knowledge of the field, and be more visionary than a whole host of really bright people. That I am not.
To dismiss Hawking and any other physicist, you need the deep maths (which goes waaaay beyond basic arithmetic). In just the same way as you would first need to be able to speak French, before you could dismiss as gibberish a book which purports to be written in French.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-11-2012 11:51 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-11-2012 12:42 PM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 126 of 220 (675452)
10-11-2012 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-11-2012 12:42 PM


Oh, I have no illusions about the relevance of my opinions to the field of physics.
But then, I'm an intelligent chap with a reasonable level of humility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-11-2012 12:42 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 218 of 220 (704043)
08-02-2013 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by nano
08-02-2013 7:12 AM


It's logic Captain, but not as we know it !
The biggest problem anyone has, in approaching what can loosely be called "the origin of the universe" from a "logical" perspective, rather than a physics / mathematical perspective, is that it is really hard to get day to day "logical" thinking around the fact that the big bang actually created time. The concept of "before" the big bang is meaningless - like further north than the north pole.
And when you accept that, all day to day "logical" thinking of cause and effect goes out the window (in relation to the singularity at the heart of the big bang, anyway).
There is some theorizing being done, at the cutting edge of physics, which might provide the shape of an answer - but saying it doesn't make logical sense is, I'm afraid, meaningless. The universe doesn't give a stuff about our "logic".
And it may just be, that the answer to "why does the universe exist" is "why not ?"

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by nano, posted 08-02-2013 7:12 AM nano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024