Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 6:06 AM
265 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 264 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,305 Year: 28,911/21,208 Month: 977/1,847 Week: 352/475 Day: 15/102 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 211 of 220 (694594)
03-26-2013 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:54 PM


Re: Improbability and time
A random letter generator would be expected to hit one of the keys on the top row, a numeral, at some point in the more than 600 consecutive key strikes needed to produce the sonnet. You could not expect a random letter generator to completely avoid 25% of the keyboard for more than 600 consecutive key strikes.

That would make it non-random.

It is impossible to produce a Shakespearean sonnet at random even in infinite time.

No it would be produced infinite times.

I don't think you understand what the words random and infinite mean.

I suggest a basic primer on probability too.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:54 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 104
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 yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29787
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 213 of 220 (703996)
08-01-2013 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by nano
08-01-2013 10:41 AM


No logical dilemma
But there is no logical dilemma.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by nano, posted 08-01-2013 10:41 AM nano has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 214 of 220 (704009)
08-02-2013 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nano
09-25-2012 2:26 PM


Hi nano,

nano writes:

1. Consider the beginning of the universe.
2. There was either a "first thing" or "something has always been here".

I would like to take this 1 step further.

There has always been existence or existence had a beginning to exist.

Existence= the universe and everything in it including any multiverses or superverse. In other words everything that exists or has existed.

What is the opposite of existence?

Non-existence is the opposite of existence.
That would be no universe, multiverse, superverse, branes, or instantons, or a vacuum for the instanton or branes to exist in.
There would be no existence for vertical time to exist in, or any substance.

nano writes:

8. Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be scientifically explained.

Sure it can be explained, every time I ask what existed at T=0 I get the answer, "We don't know".

You say, but that is not a scientific explanation. Well that is the answer I get from scientist.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nano, posted 09-25-2012 2:26 PM nano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2013 12:33 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 220 by onifre, posted 08-05-2013 12:13 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


(3)
Message 215 of 220 (704011)
08-02-2013 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by ICANT
08-02-2013 12:21 AM


"We don't know"
Sure it can be explained, every time I ask what existed at T=0 I get the answer, "We don't know".

You say, but that is not a scientific explanation. Well that is the answer I get from scientist.

Beats making stuff up.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2013 12:21 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
nano
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 104
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 yet responded
 Message 218 by vimesey, posted 08-02-2013 12:18 PM nano has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4000
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 217 of 220 (704028)
08-02-2013 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by nano
08-02-2013 7:12 AM


No, he says we don't know because we don't know. We may never know. Bu that does not mean that it cannot be explained logically. We don't know whether or not it can be explained logically, although many scientists suspect that it can.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by nano, posted 08-02-2013 7:12 AM nano has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
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 yet responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 104
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.


    
onifre
Member (Idle past 566 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 220 of 220 (704160)
08-05-2013 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by ICANT
08-02-2013 12:21 AM


Sure it can be explained, every time I ask what existed at T=0 I get the answer, "We don't know".

Well "we don't know" isn't an explanation. It's an honest answer to the question. Because, science tends to be very cautious when it says "we know".

Of course there are countless smarty pants working on the answer so it's likely we will eventually know for sure.

u say, but that is not a scientific explanation.

How can saying "I don't know" be an explanation?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2013 12:21 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017