Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 204 of 273 (472928)
06-25-2008 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by onifre
06-25-2008 8:29 AM


Re: Finite
quote:
There is no 'outside' the Universe. What I was refering to was the fact that we are only a 4 dimentional Universe within a Multi dimentional space. However, to your question, 'is everything within our Universe finite?', I would say yes. But only in the sense that I think you're asking the question.
The denial is done via plausable sounding jargon. Here, the notion of a 4 dimensional realm is supposed to justify a rejection of an infinite realm. The yes becomes no, via denting the yes to such an extent that it cannot apply anymore.
Here, we are told there is no denial of a finite universe; rather that the finite universe is within an infinite realm - thus the finite is really infinite. Of course, there is no proof of the novel premise of other realms, however it leaves the other side quagmired to disprove what is not proved. IOW, go disprove a non provable other dimension.
Pigs fly - but in different dimensions. Go disprove it. And if you cannot - it proves that pigs fly. This also proves there are other dimensions, but not in this finite realm, only in the non-provable other realm. And no, the non-provable infinite realm is not contained in this finite realm, stupid! No stupid, the other dimension is not provable and if it were it would still be within a further invisable ghostly dimension. Polterguist. QED.
But knock, knock! All dimensions are post-universe. Including the premise of nothingness. There are no pre-, pra-, or multi-dimensions/universes; nor pre-space, nor pre-nothingness. And in this view - you have lost. Stupid.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by onifre, posted 06-25-2008 8:29 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by onifre, posted 06-26-2008 9:41 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 206 of 273 (472974)
06-26-2008 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Straggler
06-26-2008 8:23 AM


Re: Change
quote:
That infinite = unchanging remains a baseless assertion on your part.
Thus your subsequent conclusions regarding the finiteness or otherwise of the universe are equally invalid.
Yours is a common under-impression what 'change' really means, whereby you see this in a very basic, superficial level, like blue to green, and H+O = water. To promote your deeper understanding, I suggested you consider what it means when something is 'unchangeable' - period, meaning unable to be effected by 'anything' - therein is the only criteria requirement, which is indispensible for any claims of infinite.
This is the unique criteria which renders an immunity from such finite traits like aging, corrupting, decomposing, finishing, splitting, losing power or anything possessed, lessening, increasing, dividing, multiplying, death, becoming something else, etc. These cannot occur with a changeless factor.
This is in fact pure logic: to be uneffected by something - the factor of non-changeability is obvious and not negotiable. Nor is this allignable or equatable with changes of state as a deflective and back door mode of infinite, which says only that if one thing can change something, that changed or changing factor is also able to be effected by another, more transcendent factor. Other similar manouvers such as part of the finite is infinite are also not impacting reasons.
It appears science is becoming akin to a theology - some beliefs are non-violable, as with a heresy. At the expense of truthful and correct science itself. Basically, you are agreeing the universe is finite [which is not debatable anymore] - but you have a problem what constitutes that factor. And its almost like a psychological problem more than a science based error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2008 8:23 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2008 9:34 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 209 of 273 (473030)
06-26-2008 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Straggler
06-26-2008 9:34 AM


Re: Unchanging
quote:
I have no disagreement with your concept or definition of change as far as I can see.
I have absolutely no disagreemnet that something which undergoes no change must be infinite.
You can indeed conclude that anything unchanging must be infinite.
However you cannot logically infer from this that everything that is infinite is necessarily unchanging.
Ok, perhaps I cannot define what is infinite, equally as anyone else cannot, as this is indeed indefinable and incomprable with anything in this finite universe. The definition should be limited to the finite, and I see you may have a valid point here.
While none can say anything about infinite attributes, whether this can abide by change and still maintain its infinite value - which is in itself a reference to unlimited power and ultimate sustainance, including that nothing can 'effect' infinite [which includes change, though I would say this change would be a voluntary act], it can be put thusly:
Anything subject to change must be finite.
That does not say anything about infinite, and may not apply with infinite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2008 9:34 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 10:17 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 210 of 273 (473032)
06-26-2008 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by onifre
06-26-2008 9:41 AM


Re: Finite
Cool. However, many speak of multi universes via other dimensions, which is because they have not formed an opinion the universe is finite, or that they have a different notion of finite by seeing it selectively or in limitations - like an artificial pregnancy of sorts.
Before the discovery of radiation and radio waves, such dimensions would be invisable - but these were at all times post-universe products. Thus any new dimensions discovered will have the same value. There is no credibility in proposing pre- or outer universe premises; everything is within the same universe - even the word 'same' is a violation, and better 'this' universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by onifre, posted 06-26-2008 9:41 AM onifre has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 213 of 273 (473078)
06-26-2008 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by New Cat's Eye
06-26-2008 5:47 PM


Re: Infinity
Correct. But nor does the term 'nothingness' have any meaning, other than an admission for the motion of a finite universe. Both nothing and no-things are universal concepts - as is the half empty part of a half full cup.
The empty bag is not empty - it contains a lot of emptiness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2008 5:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 8:19 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 215 of 273 (473133)
06-27-2008 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by New Cat's Eye
06-27-2008 8:19 AM


THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
NOTHING = NO THINGS.
PERIOD.
Here's why I see genesis not as a theology [the NT & Quran are theologies, namely based on belief], while Genesis is science - which does not mean it has to subscribe to all the science of the day, any period - instead, it is 'A' science - one with a different scientific premise. Buddhism is not a theology but a philosophy, while I cannot define Hinduism.
Now we do not have a scientific premise of nothingness or a pre-uni scenario - so Genesis does not go against science in this instant, but posits a different view, while no view is provable about the universe origins; even BBT is only a theory. But as theories, where logic and no contradictions with known science counts, then Genesis wins the day on what prevailed pre-uni, as well as what defines nothingness. Genesis' opening verse says:
'IN THE BEGINNING GOD/CREATOR'
Not provable you say? I already preambled that fact, and instead will rely on logic relating to this non-provable premise, logic being a form of science in itself, or its absolute forerunner requirement. The Q here is, why is a Creator positation logical in this opening statement in Genesis? First thing is to forget the premise of theology and think science, or else, at least logic, and that which does not contradict known science - I believe this is a reasonable scientific methodology.
Firstly, we have no scientific knowledge or proven position of a pre-uni scenario. Secondly, the premise of a beginning point [BB] does not even begin to explain the universe, raising questions such as how can a complexity result from a random or of its own or from chaos or what triggered the activation of the first point particle? A fristrating vaccuum confronts us here.
Now one can say, yes but nor does a verse in Genesis relieve this vaccuum. Let's examine that again. Genesis is saying before the universe there was not NOTHING, but a Creator - and that there was nothing else [it is a pre-uni statement, appearing before the word CREATED occurs]. This statement is not as naive as one may think - for a start it introduces that the universe had a beginning, namely it is the first positation of a finite universe, and correctly contexted in the formation of the universe, namely the heavens [galaxies] and the earth. That is 100% science today.
Then the premise that there was no nothingness but only a creator, is also 100% science: all things are post-uni in a finite universe - thus no things contained in this universe could exist pre-uni, including para- and multi-V universes. Real science and logic.
Then that enigmatic question, how does this point more logically to a Creator creating the universe, as opposed to everything just acculumatively progressing on its own. My answer:
EXCUSE ME! Since when is a creator creating a complex realm, LESS LIKELY than that realm occuring by itself - we need a verb [action] and an actioner [subject] - whatever happened to logic and science suddenly?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 8:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 10:28 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 222 of 273 (473242)
06-27-2008 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Straggler
06-27-2008 7:56 PM


Re: BB Theory/Evolution Of The Universe?
Entropy is an effect, not a cause. The effect would not occur without critical factors applying: e.g. reciprocity and intergration factors: these are anticipatory and rely on pre-determined criticality factors.
The sun's energy is not what makes life possible. Photosenthesis, for example, requires the other product it impacts to be receptive to it: that is why the sun cannot create life upon iron ore or other planets. You are confusing a creative factor with the created process; the former must subsist before the latter can: holding a white paper high in the air does not make the car manual the end point of a car.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 7:56 PM Straggler has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 223 of 273 (473244)
06-27-2008 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Agobot
06-27-2008 5:18 PM


Re: Infinity
quote:
Wrong. 0+0=0. Nothing+nothing=nothing. Empty+empty=empty.
And what happens when there is no '0'? Nothing is not zero, but no-things; and all things are uni contained - including no-things. This enigmatic premise is well catered to in the notion all things began with a duality factor; in fact this says there is no 'ONE' in the universe. Track down all things and you find it is a combination of at least a duality - namely a positive and negative force, and no where can any one of those forces subsist in the universe independently or as ONE.
This is the reason particles either attract or repel each other, and levels seek their uniform balance - these are effects of fundamental designs within the deepest realms of the universe. One has to agree with the position prior to the universe [namely, all things], there was ONE - as opposed no things/nothingness. Nothingness is a subjective posiion, meaning it is limited to what one can fathom, discern, calculate, measure, see or contain in their vocab. And this means only that there is ONE factor when no things existed - meaning there is never nothing - else no things could be possible. Even the notion of no-things or nothingness - requires ONE to say that is so!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Agobot, posted 06-27-2008 5:18 PM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by onifre, posted 06-28-2008 12:03 PM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 224 of 273 (473245)
06-27-2008 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Straggler
06-27-2008 10:28 AM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
quote:
Genesis is science?
BBT is only a theory. They are both just points of view etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.
Science tests it's conclusions regarding nature against the facts of nature. Predictions about physical phenomenon are made and verified or refuted.
Yes, science comes from genesis; science is an explanation how an existing and operating process works - nothing more. Its like a faculty of maths, history and geography. When genesis declares there was a beginning, humanity had to consider it - then fathom it - then endeavour to explain and rationalise it. But if Genesis said there was no beginning and everything was always there, it would be the end of science, or science could not be initiated: what for?
quote:
If you produce one verifiable prediction regarding an as yet unknown physical phenomenon by means of your "Genesis science" I will dedicate my life to God.
I just did.
quote:
If you cannot produce any verifiable predictions then your "Genesis science" just isn't science.
That the uni had a beginning; that next came entropy [formless to form]; then came critical seperations of the elements [light from darkness; water from land; etc]; then came life giving luminosity; then came life forms - in a chronological, evolutionary order. Am I still talking science - and is there any science outside these premises?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 10:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Straggler, posted 06-28-2008 10:33 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 230 by onifre, posted 06-28-2008 12:18 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 225 of 273 (473252)
06-27-2008 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Straggler
06-27-2008 10:17 AM


Re: Unchanging
quote:
But there remains no basis for your assertion that things subject to change must be finite.
Infinite = everlasting = unchanging.
A state of change = the thing was and is finite.
A state of no change = not finite.
All finite things are subject to change.
Something which changes means it was not the same thing 10 seconds ago. Something which does not change means it was always that same thing. There is no other factor which positively and conclusively makes something finite than change.
Name anything which is finite and not subject to change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 10:17 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Straggler, posted 06-28-2008 10:22 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 227 by AdminNosy, posted 06-28-2008 10:30 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 231 of 273 (473402)
06-28-2008 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Straggler
06-28-2008 10:33 AM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
quote:
All you do with your Genesis nonsense is reword selected bits of it to fit in with the parts of modern science you agree with and other bits of it to fit in with your preconceived notions of God. About as unobjective as it is posible to be.
That's a neat trick. I saw some science books saying the universe was finite, then I looked up an ancient document which co-incidently says the universe had a beginning. But co-incidently, no such document exists elsewhere.
It means: I cannot be right even if...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Straggler, posted 06-28-2008 10:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2008 6:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 232 of 273 (473404)
06-28-2008 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by onifre
06-28-2008 12:18 PM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
You bring up talking snakes when it will be off topic to respond. But you use this as a means of negating that whiich you cannot negate. I call it 'thinking clearly inside the box'. You are also disregarding some basic considerations: some words were not yet in humanity's vocabs 3000 years ago: e.g. 'finite, entropy, big bang, etc, etc. One cannot be logical in science but illogical in history lessons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by onifre, posted 06-28-2008 12:18 PM onifre has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 233 of 273 (473405)
06-28-2008 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Straggler
06-28-2008 10:33 AM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
quote:
The CMB was predicted. The bending of light around massive objects was predicted. The rate of clocks on orbitting satellites was predicted. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Physical phenomenon described in detail before they had been observed with calculated predicted results and no post observation interpretation required.
So what's your point? Why not play a game: go via a time machine 3000 years back to the future, and make a statement concerning the beginning of light or whether the universe is finite or not - before this is predicted. How would you word it to an audience in the town square, noting that a few may actually understand the spoken word - therein is the test, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Straggler, posted 06-28-2008 10:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2008 6:24 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 237 of 273 (473435)
06-29-2008 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Straggler
06-29-2008 6:24 AM


Re: Prediction
quote:
My point is that from Genesis you have only interpretatios made with the benefit of hindsight. Not verifiable predictions.
Absolutely not - the relevent, opening entry in genesis is contexted in a verse and paragraph which discusses only the universe origins, with no possibility of interpretations being required. The entire follow-up verses also deal precisely and solely with the subsequent factors immediately upon the universe occuring.
I tend an open challenge to you: instead of deflecting away - what other possibility can Genesis be talking about? I mean, there has to be other potential and different interpretations possible before you accuse me of wrong or exeggerated interpretations - is Genesis's first chapter talking about agriculture, wood carving, rock'n'roll - what other thing aside from the universe's origin?
You either have a comprehension issue, or else guilty of the charges you lay elsewhere. I note also your own self contradictions: first you negate genesis - then you say it is a retrospective interpretation - which also admits, by default and denial, an over-turning of the first charge.
There is only one issue to confront, and that is whether today's science is catching up with a first recording of a finite universe. The answer is positively yes, but only recently, half heartedly and reluctantly dragging its foot there. Now I can produce a host of ancient writings which affirm the view held of a limited and finite universe - well before the term 'finite' was coined. In any case you have no grounds to question a document which says something 3000 years ago, and attack me instead of addressing what is said in that document.
quote:
Interpreting "theories" (e.g. Genesis) in line with known facts is obviously not objective and is the very antithesis of scientific.
There is no interpretation - or any other possible meaning to a verse which says the galaxes and this planet had a beginning - then goes on to list what came next, and next, and next - all being limited to universe origins, and mentioning no other items - even saying this prior to the emergence of any life forms: IOW - the writings is exclusively vested in the universe origins [the texts!].
You can learn from genesis - and state your preamble which universe you are talking about - a finite or infinite one. Otherwise, you can say whatever you wish and none can question you - and that os what is happening all over the place. Genesis is bold and up-front here - while you have not responded to this primal question after repeated requests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2008 6:24 AM Straggler has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 238 of 273 (473436)
06-29-2008 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Straggler
06-29-2008 6:37 AM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
quote:
Every religion has a creation myth.
That is your problem: you equate head bashing deities battling for supremecy with genesis' monotheistic creator. FYI, the term religion and bible has no reference of equalisation with genesis, other than an imposed common usage. Nor has anything been negated in genesis by you or anyone else. They're just shouting words such as myth, religion, etc - but putting nothing on the table.
quote:
The idea of a beginning is hardly unique to Genesis.
So you do admit genesis is talking about a universe which had a beginning? What took you so long to decide!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2008 6:37 AM Straggler 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