|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
However, it may very well come down to that. At some level, reality may be bound to some basic, simplistic statement. Quite so. But this statement, by virtue of being "basic" will itself lack any further explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: But "by definition" is a different sort of answer to a different sort of question. It's not the sort of answer you could give to a question about the causes of things. Again, exactly.We're talking about the beginning of the universe. It is not known that the universe must have "a cause." I'm talking about a "By definition" answer, a "just so" explanation for a possible situation that would likely include the universe's creation not having a cause. Therefore the question wouldn't be about "the causes of things." To answer the second question, we'd have to talk about things like slavery and the Confederacy and the Civil War. I understand. But, as with your previous example about the explanation for diamonds being about what causes diamonds... all your examples seem to hinge on the assumption that the universe must have a cause. But what if it doesn't? I agree that if we can somehow ascertain that the universe must necessarily have a cause, then it is impossible for the scientific method to explain that cause. (Then again, if we could know that, wouldn't we then know something about that cause?...) But that's not the situation I'm talking about. It doesn't seem rational to bring up example after example about things that have obvious causes to show that an explanation about the universe's creation cannot be explained because we don't know if the universe's creation must have a cause. The examples do not necessarily apply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
If Prof. Hawking should try to defy logic in practical matters,- drive for example his wheelchair across M25 full of heavy traffic, he would be crashed to death. Just like any one else. That is a fond idea many people got that as long as you say that this is science you can talk any nonsense and get away with it.
So, Prof. Hawking should learn elementary arithmetic and logic. A claim that the whole of existence can possibly spontaneously arise from nothing is like an attempt to multiply zero by zero. Quadrillions to the quadrillionth power of quackademics like the professor can repeat the operation an indefinitely great number of times. The result will be the same old zero every single time any of the luminaries may try.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Sorry, all that is just your irrelevant opinion. There is no such things as deep or shallow physics and cosmology. Some propositions are rational and some are contradictions in terms. The professor's statement is of the second variety. Sorry. The venerable professor has got no immunity from scrutiny. He's found to be talking egregious nonsense often enough. There is no need for deep maths to understand that nothing is zero by definition and if it is any other value then the value represents something and when there is something, there is something else necessarily by which that something is defined and known. A whole lot of it. Otherwise the feline speaks lovely French which like maths is a language that can be very well translated in other languages. Gibberish in the original translates into gibberish only. In any language. Sorry again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
That is a fond idea many people got that as long as you say that this is science you can talk any nonsense and get away with it. Not surprisingly, you got that 180 degrees backwards. If someone says something is scientific, there is a well-established set of criteria to assess the accuracy of the statement, and a large contingent of people well-versed in science to test it. On the other hand, if someone says something is religious, or spiritual, or new age, or alternative, or any of a host of other ill-defined mush-brained concepts, there's no real way to evaluate the truth of what they say within those "disciplines" because none of them have any method for determining the accuracy of their claims.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, anything that is labelled or sounds as spiritual, religious, new age or alternative has no much credibility with the modern ape to begin with so is no contender as its main current supplier of mass superstition and nonsense. The demand for absurd ideas to believe in is as great as ever and as ever the nonsense to be believed must be known to have come from a credible and reputable source and only the label "scientific" can nowadays satisfy that customer requirement. If it was the Catholic Church, hippies or scientologists spreading the beliefs in black holes, dark energy, time travel etc., the beliefs would have been but minor and marginal. Yet since the nonsense is known to come from the trusted and venerated science these examples of ludicrous superstition are major and global with those holding them as dear gospel found in any country in the modern world.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
While absolutely nothing in your post has anything to do with the topic, your post does raise the question of whether or not you have ever heard of Monseigneur Georges Lematre?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
No, anything that is labelled or sounds as spiritual, religious, new age or alternative has no much credibility with the modern ape to begin with.... You literally have no idea what's happening in the world, do you? Does any of this mean anything to you: HomeopathyDeepak Chopra Chiropractic Astrology Crystals Acupuncture Faith healing Tarot reading Ufologists Ear candling Aroma therapy Psychics Intercessory prayer Dowsing Telepathy Near death experiences Out of body experiences Antivaxers Birthers 9/11 truthers Edited by subbie, : Thought of a few moreRidicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Yes, the cat reads French so he had the pleasure of reading the abb's tales in the original. The same goes for Alexander Friedman - the other inventor of the spacetime creation metric. Russian is no secret to the feline.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
What is your point with this list, sub? Do you get your belief supply from anything on the list? I bet not, I bet you look elsewhere. But that was exactly my point. These suppliers are not credible enough for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
But they are more credible for most of the population than science is.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I understand. But, as with your previous example about the explanation for diamonds being about what causes diamonds... all your examples seem to hinge on the assumption that the universe must have a cause. But what if it doesn't? No, I didn't assume that the universe must have a cause. But if it doesn't, then that leaves it rather hard to explain. There's a reason for the cause in because.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But if it doesn't, then that leaves it rather hard to explain. There's a reason for the cause in because. Alpha decay does not have a cause. But we have a detailed explanation for alpha decay. If a phenomenon does not have a cause, then its explanation simply does not include a description of causation.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024