|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An honest answer for a newbie, please. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: There isn't plenty of your post at all.
quote: Covered this. Did you miss that part? It is cosmology. It is falsifiable by the same means as any other science. It just happens to be right at the edge of human knowledge at the moment.
quote: Rather than helpful, I find your posturing useless and distasteful. But here we go... From No webpage found at provided URL: http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh2a.htmlquote: From Quentin Smith Bigbang » Internet Infidels quote: From Page not found - N2Net quote: Same source as above.
quote: And again...
quote: quote--You seemed to understand my initial post by disagreeing with it in your response and saying:][/quote] Your first post wasn't the problem. It was this gem that threw me, seeming to support precisely that to which you were objecting.
quote: ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: hi karl first, i didn't jump from one to the other, i used m.e. as an example only, and when it wasn't liked as an example i tried to find one that would be better liked... also, isn't there a vast difference between evolution and macroevolution? as for your "..we do not currently have anything more for abiogenesis than hypotheses. These hypotheses are being tested in repeatable, falsifiable etc. ways. When we have a well-supported model, we will have a theory. And it will, indeed be scientific, because it will have been tested, and those tests will be repeatable." how can (not saying it can't, i just don't have the specialized knowledge) it be falsifiable, much less repeatable? what would have to happen in order for abiogenesis to be proven?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"There isn't plenty of your post at all."
--What kind of remark is that supposed to be? "Covered this. Did you miss that part? It is cosmology. It is falsifiable by the same means as any other science. It just happens to be right at the edge of human knowledge at the moment."--You have not exemplified the potential falsifications of your 'theory'. All you said earlier is, 'Sure. It ought to be settled by cosmologists, eventually'. Implying that you currently know of no extant potential falsifications but hope that it will be settled in the future. Not sufficient. You say that my potential falsification is 'cosmology', so what is that supposed to mean? You need to expand on this. "Rather than helpful, I find your posturing useless and distasteful."--Distasteful? Do you mean that as to say 'objectionable', or offensive? If the latter, I see no reason at all for that to be indicative. I'm not here to bash on your theories, opinions, or objections, but I am here to discuss their merit. I would encourage you to likewise consider this line of thought. You can keep telling yourself that my position and inquiries are ridiculous and futile, just don't expect it to take you anywhere or have beneficial product come out of discussion. --Your sources: http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh2a.htmlQuentin Smith Bigbang » Internet Infidels Page not found - N2Net --Your quotations from these articles do not give this thread anything new. As I explained earlier, you are still dealing with extant space-time, no matter the distortion or infinitesimal properties. You do not have a singularity to work with, you have "0". Why do you feel that working with the properties of a singularity is applicable to the initial predicament?--That classical physics break down at the singularity does not seem to help you. --Your last source also illustrates the semantics of the argument in saying: quote: --The problem is that whether causality is extant, you have no where for 'effect' to occur either. Whence, "But in non-existence, you have time going from 0 to 0. Cause, nor effect can occur here" ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The kind of comment that points out that you are taking insubstantial pot-shots from the sidelines. Substantial potshots are much appreciated.
quote: Ok. I am getting damned tired of this tactic. I never said that I have a non-causality theory. You made that up, probably because it sounds a bit silly. What I said is that under certain conditions causality breaks down-- predictability breaks down.
quote: Implying that there are people working in the very areas concerned. Want I should spell it out for you? It is simple really. Either cosmologists determine that causality continues to or through a singularity or they determine that it does not.
quote: Please, TC. This is trite. Do you mean that as to say 'objectionable', or offensive?[/b][/quote] Distasteful is softer and, well... not so much objectionable as sickening.
quote: Then discuss away, but give me something to bite into and not just nos-like oneliners.
quote: You, likewise, can pretend that you have said something important.
quote: How can you miss: From No webpage found at provided URL: http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh2a.htmlquote: Do you see that part about about predictability breaking down? From Quentin Smith Bigbang » Internet Infidels [quote]A singularity is a place where the classical concepts of space and time break down[/b][/quote] Classical concepts of space and time break down. From Page not found - N2Net quote: Same source as above.
quote: No space. No time. How is a cause to preceed an effect when there is no time? Likewise how is there a cause or an effect when there is no space? Certainly, if such things can be they are nothing like we currently conceive of them. And I was discussing, with forgiven, a very classical kind of causality. And again...
quote: Notice. Here is support for the idea that there was no 'before' and hence causality doesn't make sense. Also, this is support for my contention that causality requires time.
quote: What difference does it make? I have shown that predictability breaks down. This objection is nonsensible.
quote: ummmm..... and this makes your case better? I made this statement and you went off about singulaities aren't actually zero but merely infinitely small.
quote: What predicament? You mean why are the properties of singularity applicable to the BB singularity? ????
quote: Why the hell not? Classical physics IS CAUSALITY.
quote: No kidding ???? This is precisely what I have been saying. Are you for me or against me? You seem to be playing both sides. This is why I am so confused and just a tad irritated with you. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 11-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Ok. I am getting damned tired of this tactic. I never said that I have a non-causality theory. You made that up, probably because it sounds a bit silly. What I said is that under certain conditions causality breaks down-- predictability breaks down."
--Yep, I 'made it up' I don't know what else to call it. Potential falsification is still non-existent here. The initial argument is that you say that producing a universe ex nihilo void of supernatural incorporation is entirely feasible because the universe 'doesn't need a cause' or some such. Claiming it as scientifically applicable requires potential falsification for this theory. "Implying that there are people working in the very areas concerned. Want I should spell it out for you? It is simple really. Either cosmologists determine that causality continues to or through a singularity or they determine that it does not."--This is not the initial argument, see above. It doesn't matter if causality breaks down at a singularity, evidently I must over emphasize this. "Please, TC. This is trite."--Trite? That's almost funny John, you've already pretty much indicated that you, nor cosmologists have the answer to your problem. "Then discuss away, but give me something to bite into and not just nos-like oneliners."--This has been done repetitively. "No space. No time. How is a cause to preceed an effect when there is no time? Likewise how is there a cause or an effect when there is no space? Certainly, if such things can be they are nothing like we currently conceive of them. And I was discussing, with forgiven, a very classical kind of causality."--Why do you think I said, 'But in non-existence, you have time going from 0 to 0. Cause, nor effect can occur here.' Because it doesn't matter how you look at it, if there exists no space-time, you don't get space-time. Arguing that causality breaks down at a singularity, has no impact on its veracity. "Notice. Here is support for the idea that there was no 'before' and hence causality doesn't make sense. Also, this is support for my contention that causality requires time."--Also notice, effect does not make sense either. Pertaining to space=-time, 0=0, no matter what you do, 0 is not going to bring anything into existence, let alone space-time. What you want to get is space-time. "What difference does it make? I have shown that predictability breaks down. This objection is nonsensible."--It is fully sensible, again the singularity and its dimensional properties and its unconformity with classical physics is irrelevant, let us move from this. "ummmm..... and this makes your case better? I made this statement and you went off about singulaities aren't actually zero but merely infinitely small."--That's right! The reason for that is because in a singularity space as well as time still exist, but you don't have the luxury of working with them, because you have zero! "What predicament? You mean why are the properties of singularity applicable to the BB singularity? ????"--No, whether the BB singularity is similar or even equivalent to frozen hole singularities makes no matter. The fact is you have zero to work with, you need an effect, and the effect is the existence of space time. Seeing as we've ruled out causality, I am wondering what other scientifically applicable mechanism you have. "No kidding ???? This is precisely what I have been saying. Are you for me or against me? You seem to be playing both sides. This is why I am so confused and just a tad irritated with you."--I explain this above, since we've ruled out causality, how do you get anything other than 0 space, 0 time, 0 matter, 0 energy, absolutely nothing with no extant entity to work with, let along a singularity. ------------------- [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Well, now we've established that you don't have any idea what the conversation was about prior to your joining it.
quote: Evidently you must brush up on your reading skills. That or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said.
quote: And of course, you are the final authority on this. Lets have some substance. I should take your word for it?
quote: Once you figure out what I am talking about, get back to me.
quote: Certainly you believe this.
quote: All very interesting, but entirely your construct not mine. This is where we are missing each other. I didn't make any argument about something coming from nothing. I made the argument that causality breaks down at a singularity such as the BB and so an ARGUMENT BASED ON CAUSALITY isn't applicable.
quote: Interesting, but still not the argument I made. See how easy this would have been if you had just explained yourself? I foolishly assumed you were criticising an argument that I had made. Go figure.
quote: Again, you are arguing something entirely differnet than what I was arguing.
quote: Wow. Score another point against an argument I did not make.
quote: Ok. Now that I understand what you are arguing against, it is making sense. Though it is funny that you are arguing against an argument I didn't make.
quote: How would you get anything with causality? Seems like you have a better chance getting something from nothing without causality than with it. Good thing this doesn't have anything to do with the argument I actually made though, which, in review, was that an argument based on causality is meaningless under circumstances where causality-- predictablility if you will-- breaks down. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Well, now we've established that you don't have any idea what the conversation was about prior to your joining it.
Evidently you must brush up on your reading skills. That or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said."--What I mean is that this is what our discussion is revolving around. So why didn't you respond to the segment where I asked you to provide me with potential falsifications?: quote: "And of course, you are the final authority on this. Lets have some substance. I should take your word for it?"--Is that all you can say? Question if I am the final authority on it? Why don't you just tell me why my statement is ridiculous or some-such rather than this type of response. "Once you figure out what I am talking about, get back to me. "--Lets flee from this irelevant quibble. You again, have indicated that you, nor cosmologists have the answer to your problem. "Certainly you believe this."--Its only obvious. Lets get to something productive --> "All very interesting, but entirely your construct not mine. This is where we are missing each other. I didn't make any argument about something coming from nothing. I made the argument that causality breaks down at a singularity such as the BB and so an ARGUMENT BASED ON CAUSALITY isn't applicable. "--Actually this is your construct, in post #2: quote: --I am arguing that your notion of no causality is sophistry. you've attempted to solve your problem of creation ex nihilo by a quantum fluctuation here. Of course, quantum fluctuations do not take place outside of space. You attempted to continue rambling off properties of singularities, but do not address the initial creation of space-time because you continued with the underlying premise that space-time has already been created. Either that or you have ignored its potential to modify your argumental position completely. "Interesting, but still not the argument I made. See how easy this would have been if you had just explained yourself? I foolishly assumed you were criticising an argument that I had made. Go figure."--You must be mistaken, I'm sure, see above and feel free to attempt reply to the comment: quote: --Seeing this is a continued reiteration, I'll reiterate mine as well:
quote: quote: "Ok. Now that I understand what you are arguing against, it is making sense. Though it is funny that you are arguing against an argument I didn't make."--Haha, yeah, thats a good one. But no, seriously.. "The fact is you have zero to work with" "How would you get anything with causality? Seems like you have a better chance getting something from nothing without causality than with it."--I think you just side-stepped a mile. You've forgotten another possibility than the two you've listed. Maybe its just that, if you don't have causality, you don't get anything. Just thought I'd suggest that since it never seemed to cross your mind, eh? "Good thing this doesn't have anything to do with the argument I actually made though, which, in review, was that an argument based on causality is meaningless under circumstances where causality-- predictablility if you will-- breaks down."--Your a funny guy, I've heard of people making strawman arguments of other's incite, but how often do you make a strawman of your own initial argumentation. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: We don't have a conversation, TC. You made a comment about something you think I said during another conversation.
quote: All due respect, but, are you an idiot? You are asking, and have been for several posts, to provide you with 'falsification' for an argument you made up and attributed to me.
quote: Well, dear TC, if you can pontificate I can bitch about it.
quote: quote: How could you have missed the last hundred years of physics and cosmology? How can you repeat this over and over after when it takes virtually no effort to verify the fundametal contention that causality breaks down at or near a singularity. This is absurd. I have even posted references for you which flat out state that very thing.
quote: I haven't attempted to solve any such problem. This is your overactive imagination. I have though about the subject and posted one of those thoughts but I damn sure have not tried to solve any creatio ex nihilo problem. I don't need to attempt such a thing to support the argument I was in fact making.
quote: Have you noticed yet that I wasn't trying to address the initial creation of spacetime? And I only figured out last post that this is what you were talking about.
quote: Nope. I was always here.
quote: If I had been discussion the topic you think I was discussing perhaps I would have mentioned it. But since I was talking about something quite different it really doesn't matter. Since, as actually happened, I was talking about the validity of applying an argument based upon causality to a time and place where PREDICTABILITY BREAKS DOWN.
quote: What can I say? You are completely and hopelessly lost and are now pretentious enough to tell me what my argument was about. LOL. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i'm not sure, this is a hard discussion to follow, but i *think* tc is asking you if what you say above (including any references you posted) is or has been shown to be falsifiable, and if so how so... but i could be *way* off
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Let me summarize. TC, as I understand it now and after much effort, is asking me to show falsifiability for the contention that the universe came from nothing at all. This is the 0=0=0=0=0 that keeps popping up. I can't. No one can at the moment. There are theories out there, one of which I mentioned in passing, and there are people working on the problem. What is driving me nuts is that I don't need to go all the way back to nothing at all, if ever such was. I only need to go back to a singularity for my argument to work. At or near a singularity, causality-- predictability-- breaks down. This is all I need. Even TC has admitted that, but continues with his hard-headed insistence that I defend a claim I didn't make. He read between the lines, and read wrong. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Have you noticed yet that I wasn't trying to address the initial creation of spacetime? And I only figured out last post that this is what you were talking about."
--Please John, this is a petty sidestep. I am going to quote you verbatim and you tell me that you didn't actually say the things you said. Did you think I wasn't following the thread before I joined in?: quote: --Here you are talking about no causality prior the Big Bang event. The Big bang event implies the development of space-time and everything in it. Speaking in the past tense in reference to the Big Bang, is speaking about a time when there space-time does not exist thus everything in it as well. --Again you elaborate:
quote: --Here you also are again iterating the argument that since you have no existence there is no reason to say that you need a cause. However my argument is that whether you have cause or not, your not going to ever go from prior the BB to the BB, but your only going to go from zero to zero. --Further support for the fact that this is what your arguing, ie, creation ex nihilo:
[Quote]
Its more like all of our notions about causality are tied to the world around us-- to spacetime. Things happen sequentially. Things move through space. [/i]Remove time and space and try to imagine causality.[/i] It is like trying to define Cartesian coordinates without the Cartesian or the coordinates.
[/Quote] --Remove time and space and you don't even have a singularity, let alone a BB one, you don't have a Big Bang with no space, and no time.
quote: --Here you are attempting to contrast Frozen stars in their singularity properties and the question of whether the BB had to have a cause. But here you are following the false notion that singularities imply a halt in existence, an essence of zero. This is not true, thus does not and has not supported your argument. And the Creme de la creme, your first post to me:
quote: --A singularity does not imply the non-existence of space-time, which you assume here. You indicate this by say here that the BB singularity existed prior to space-time, when a singularity requires space-time. I'm not an idiot, you are by deductive reasoning, arguing creation ex nihilo, you have a problem, and have admitted the problem is not solved while still parroting that it has been solved by hundreds of years of cosmological study. --This is getting tedious, why can't you just admit that you don't have an answer? -------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"What is driving me nuts is that I don't need to go all the way back to nothing at all, if ever such was. I only need to go back to a singularity for my argument to work. At or near a singularity, causality-- predictability-- breaks down. This is all I need. Even TC has admitted that, but continues with his hard-headed insistence that I defend a claim I didn't make. He read between the lines, and read wrong. "
--False, wrong, incorrect, and, erroneous. You do need to go back to nothing at all. You are arguing creation ex nihilo, or maybe its creation from zero? Either way its completely synonymous no matter the semantic jargon. In order for this to be true: quote: --You need to begin with absolutely nothing, no space-time [as you say in your quote] and thus nothing within it. Even if you were arguing how the Big Bang occurred after the singularity came into existence, its a pointless argument, this has already been settled and agreed with. But you don't have space time to work with! ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Petty is your psychotic insistence on telling me what I was arguing.
quote: Wow. Gee whiz. I just said that noboby knows. This includes me. And you are using this to claim that I have a theory of no causality? Its absurd, TC.
quote: And where do you see me arguing that something came from nothing? All I said was that SPACE and TIME did not exist,and that causality is tied to the two. What I did not claim is that nothing existed. Maybe there is something else that did exist, maybe not. I didn't say. I don't really know. I do know there are theories which try to explain what was prior to the BB.
quote: Do you dispute this?
quote: Do you dispute this?
quote: This would be the sideline speculation, as implied in the first damn sentence.
quote: Yup. What I am not talking about is the existence or non-existence of pre-BB stuff.
quote: Damn sure does. But not necessarily the generation of space-time from nothing. This is a jump you've made and continually attribute it to me.
quote: No argument. But still not what you insist it is-- a statement of something from nothing. You are right. I'd like to think that everything came from nothing. It is a funny idea. I like the irony, but that isn't what I argued.
[Quote]John:Causality is tied to that space and time. Prior to the BB.... well, there was no prior because there was no space and no time. You cannot have a cause when there was no preceeding moment. Got it? TC:Here you also are again iterating the argument that since you have no existence[/b][/quote] Wrong again. ... since there is no space and time speaking of causality makes no sense. You don't see me using the term 'existence' do you? There is a reason for that.
quote: There is of course, 0 = 1 + -1. But that would just further confuse you, and it isn't relevant to the points you have criticised.
[Quote]John:
[b]Its more like all of our notions about causality are tied to the world around us-- to spacetime. Things happen sequentially. Things move through space. [/i]Remove time and space and try to imagine causality.[/i] It is like trying to define Cartesian coordinates without the Cartesian or the coordinates.[/b][/quote] Where do you get something from nothing ut of this?
quote: Have you missed the part about certain values going to zero at a singularity? To my way of thinking, this is functionally no space-time.
quote: I am not contrasting anything and I am not talking about whether the BB had a cause but about whether it is valid to apply an argument requiring causality to a time prior to the breakdown of predictability.
quote: Wrong again. But PREDICTABILITY breaks down. This is entirely the point.
quote: irrelevant, since I am still talking about the breakdown of predictability.
quote: Do you maintain that PREDICTABILITY does not break down at a singularity? Since this is explicitly what I said, I assume that this is what you dispute. I have provided references to back up my claim.
quote: It doesn't matter, TC. I would argue the point, but it doesn't matter to the debate.
quote: Prior to space-time as we know it. Prior to predictability. Besides which, precisely what is spacetime when the values go to zero?
quote: hmmmm..... very questionable indeed.
quote: This is just laughable.
quote: I have many, but not the ones you point out. That should be obvious by now.
quote: I admit the problem of the origin of the unierse is not solved. I did not imply that it had been solved but that you missed large parts of the last hundred years of physics and cosmology, which I still maintain.
quote: I admit that I cannot explain creatio ex nihilo. I also admit that I am not sure that such is even the case. But it has nothing to do with the validity of my claim that one cannot apply an argument based upon causality to a point in time past which predictability breaks down. Yes, it is getting tedious. Why not admit you were mistaken in your interpretations of my posts? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: ok, i think i finally see what he's saying, john... to say that the bb can't have a cause means it's not contingent... if it isn't contingent, it's either necessary or impossible... it isn't impossible, therefore it must be necessary... see, for the universe in which we live to be in motion, it had to exist in some form prior to that motion... that form would have to be absolutely static, absolutely timeless (else there'd be motion)... since we're postulating bb as that first motion event, and since you're saying it wasn't contingent (had no cause), this static state had to always exist as well as the universe having to be absolutely static and timeless prior to bb there had to be a time logically prior to that first event for it to have always existed... but by saying the universe is necessary, it must occur... it couldn't *not* occur else it wasn't necessary.. and since it wasn't contingent, it *would* occur.. also, if it was necessary there would be no need for a time logically prior to it... but therein lies the problem... to be necessary, all conditions necessary for the first event had to be present.. since the event would have occurred without a point logically prior to it (for there would be no point logically prior such that the conditions for the first event were not present) there was never a point when the universe wouldn't exist... think about it a moment... if bb was necessary, all conditions would be present, no logically prior moment would be necessary, and there would never be a moment that first event *couldn't* have occurred... it would be eternal in that case so i think tc is saying that given the point you're making, that the universe isn't contingent (it's uncaused), it must be eternal.. if eternal, if it's always existed, we'd never be here and now... see?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I damn sure don't. I only need to go back to the moment predictability breaks down in order to invalidate an argument that depends upon predictability and which is applied to a 'time' prior to such breakdown of predictability. It isn't that complicated.
quote: No, I am not. I am arguing that it isn't valid to apply causilty to a time prior to predictability.
quote: No I do not, because I am not building a cosmology, I am criticising an argument. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024