Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang and the visible past.
Yrreg
Member (Idle past 5001 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 11-21-2006


Message 16 of 89 (582514)
09-21-2010 6:25 PM


Okay, now that you have situated yourself inside a box, you don't think...
Okay, now that you have situated yourself inside a box, you don't think you can employ your mind to go outside the box to think on what is outside the box?
Is that an intelligent attitude in the use of your mind or in the treatment of your mind?
Of course you are entitled as a living thing endowed with free choice to use your mind to describe anything that might if at all exist outside the box as crap.
And go way feeling so intelligent.
Which is not any constructive use of your mind but an abuse.
And anyone with an open mind will see you as not thinking intelligently at all.
Yrreg

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Omnivorous, posted 09-21-2010 6:54 PM Yrreg has not replied
 Message 18 by Nij, posted 09-21-2010 9:45 PM Yrreg has not replied
 Message 19 by onifre, posted 09-21-2010 10:00 PM Yrreg has not replied
 Message 20 by Huntard, posted 09-22-2010 3:06 AM Yrreg has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 17 of 89 (582519)
09-21-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Yrreg
09-21-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Okay, now that you have situated yourself inside a box, you don't think...
Yragg writes:
And go way feeling so intelligent.
Which is not any constructive use of your mind but an abuse.
Who you talkin' to buddy?
You talkin' to me?
You talkin' to ME?
Go away. You're making my little baby neurons cry.
Edited by Omnivorous, : AbE: With a tip o' the hat to ringo.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Yrreg, posted 09-21-2010 6:25 PM Yrreg has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4966 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


(1)
Message 18 of 89 (582540)
09-21-2010 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Yrreg
09-21-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Okay, now that you have situated yourself inside a box, you don't think...
I'll say it again so that it's clear:
We do not restrict ourselves from not exploring "before" the Big Bang. We are restricted from exploring "before" the Big Bang by definition of what it is.
And, also the fact that there was no "before" the Big Bang; there is no way to extrapolate data beyond the apparent singularity because no such data exists to use. As somebody earlier mentioned, people do try it. But they recognise that it is just speculation with little or no basis in reality.
It is not an atheist failing any more than it is a Christian or Buddhist or Daoist failing. Religion has nothing to do with it. It is a simple fact of our universe.
And anyone with an open mind will see you as not thinking intelligently at all
No. Anyone with an "open mind" would acknowledge that there is simply no way for us to currently do it, because of the universe we exist in and the very nature of the phenomenon itself that we are trying to study.
But if your outside-the-box intelligence has figured a way of getting around this blockage, we would very much like to know what it is. After all, science is about learning new things and sharing them with everyone. Not pretending you have something and snobbing anybody who can't find it on their own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Yrreg, posted 09-21-2010 6:25 PM Yrreg has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3027 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 19 of 89 (582542)
09-21-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Yrreg
09-21-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Okay, now that you have situated yourself inside a box, you don't think...
And anyone with an open mind will see you as not thinking intelligently at all.
Isn't that cute, the layman thinking the scientific method is not good enough.
In what other field do you trade empirical evidence, rigorous testing and objective results for the ability of your imagination? How do you imagine we cure cancer? Or AIDS? Or diabetes?
If you can solve the origin of the universe then these minor issues should be very easy for you.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Yrreg, posted 09-21-2010 6:25 PM Yrreg has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2371 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 20 of 89 (582553)
09-22-2010 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Yrreg
09-21-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Okay, now that you have situated yourself inside a box, you don't think...
Yrreg writes:
Okay, now that you have situated yourself inside a box, you don't think you can employ your mind to go outside the box to think on what is outside the box?
We don't even know if there is such a thing as "outside the box".
Is that an intelligent attitude in the use of your mind or in the treatment of your mind?
Yes. We could speculate about if there is an outside, and if there is, what that is like, but without a way of showing any of that to be actually the case, it's pretty useless to do so.
Of course you are entitled as a living thing endowed with free choice to use your mind to describe anything that might if at all exist outside the box as crap.
Again, we don't even know if there is such a thing as "outside the box". It's all pure speculation, and should be treated as such, not as some grand insight into anything at all.
And go way feeling so intelligent.
Which is not any constructive use of your mind but an abuse.
It's not constructive to just speculate, investigate, on the other hand...
And anyone with an open mind will see you as not thinking intelligently at all.
I've often found people that claim to have an open mind to believe in all sorts of woowoo, while people with actual open minds, didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Yrreg, posted 09-21-2010 6:25 PM Yrreg has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 21 of 89 (582556)
09-22-2010 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Yrreg
09-20-2010 5:15 PM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
We look at models of the Universe where there is no concept of "before" the Big Bang.
We also look at models of the Universe where there is a concept of "before" the Big Bang.
I'm not sure what it is that you think we are missing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Yrreg, posted 09-20-2010 5:15 PM Yrreg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Larni, posted 09-22-2010 4:21 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 7:52 AM cavediver has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 22 of 89 (582558)
09-22-2010 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by cavediver
09-22-2010 3:49 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
We also look at models of the Universe where there is a concept of "before" the Big Bang.
Could you go into a bit more detail about before the BB?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 09-22-2010 3:49 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by cavediver, posted 09-22-2010 6:47 AM Larni has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 23 of 89 (582567)
09-22-2010 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Larni
09-22-2010 4:21 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Could you go into a bit more detail about before the BB?
Sure - any of the extended comsological theories, such as those inspired by M-Theory, the ekpyrotic scenario, eternal inflation, etc. All highly theoretical, which is why the Standard Model of cosmology still sticks with the classical Big Bang cosmology, with the singularity and no "before".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Larni, posted 09-22-2010 4:21 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 09-22-2010 8:34 AM cavediver has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 24 of 89 (582575)
09-22-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by cavediver
09-22-2010 3:49 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
cavediver writes:
We look at models of the Universe where there is no concept of "before" the Big Bang.
We also look at models of the Universe where there is a concept of "before" the Big Bang.
I'm not sure what it is that you think we are missing
Here's what you are missing: Whereas you consider the above, science you reject/miss that the eternal intelligent designer model of the universe should also be considered a possible/viable/debatable science model.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 09-22-2010 3:49 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Huntard, posted 09-22-2010 8:08 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 26 by cavediver, posted 09-22-2010 8:09 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 28 by Larni, posted 09-22-2010 8:40 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2371 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 25 of 89 (582579)
09-22-2010 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
09-22-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
As should the purple pooping hippo with three horns on its head model. If you'll help me with that one, I'll help you with yours. Ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 7:52 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 11:31 AM Huntard has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 26 of 89 (582580)
09-22-2010 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
09-22-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
...you reject/miss that the eternal intelligent designer...
What does "ethernal" mean? What does "intelligent" mean? What is a "designer"?
How would I model such a thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 7:52 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 11:01 AM cavediver has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 27 of 89 (582583)
09-22-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by cavediver
09-22-2010 6:47 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Colliding Branes and that kind of thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by cavediver, posted 09-22-2010 6:47 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by cavediver, posted 09-22-2010 10:33 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 28 of 89 (582584)
09-22-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
09-22-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
science you reject/miss that the eternal intelligent designer model of the universe should also be considered a possible/viable/debatable science model.
Apart from a 'just so' story for why there is anything at all, what models could derive from 'goddidit'?
The whole point is to understand 'how'. Even if a god did poof it out of nothing scientists would still want to know how (I know I would).
But either way you get infinite regression: where did the creator come from? Which in turn regressess to 'it created it's self', and if something can create itself somthing does not need a creator.
And last time I looked this was a science thread. Superstitions from the bronze age are hardly appropriate.
Edited by Larni, : punctuation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 7:52 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 09-22-2010 11:25 AM Larni has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 29 of 89 (582604)
09-22-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Larni
09-22-2010 8:34 AM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Colliding Branes and that kind of thing?
Yep, that sort of thing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 09-22-2010 8:34 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 09-22-2010 10:43 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 30 of 89 (582607)
09-22-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Yrreg
09-20-2010 5:15 PM


Re: Is that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Yrreg writes:
s that attitude intelligent, not to go further than the big bang?
Suppose you ask yourself the question that point that is the big bang, mathematics reached to that point, but your mind is not all mathematics is it?
That is what you have encapsulated your mind if you cannot think any further than you can do so with mathematics.
That is self-censorship.
And censorship is not an intelligent attitude in anything that has to do with more knowledge.
We can speculate that our collective intelligence is not the only source of wisdom and knowledge, but we cant use any other tool to prove it. We can only work with what we have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Yrreg, posted 09-20-2010 5:15 PM Yrreg 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