Atheists and theists are the same.

[Mike375]

So even if the current theory is wrong, the process expects to challenge it and this process of challenge based on new observations should winnow out the wrong ones and leave us with a theory that is closer to being correct.

So how do you feel if the jump from Big Bang is as big as the jump from Steady State to Big Bang.

I think at that point all will agree the theories are as a result of funding to get the result.

 

[Alisa]

Not quite. Einstein included the constant to remove the universe's expansion because he assumed the universe was static. He hadn't even considered that it might not be static. After it was proposed that the universe was not static, Einstein called that Cosmological constant his greatest blunder.

The simple fact that our accepted theories change over time in no way discredits us.

Ptolemy said the earth was the center.
Copernicus said the sun was the center.
Kepler said the planets orbited in ellipses.
Newton defined gravity.
Einstein defined relativity.

These are all gradual progressions toward the way things actually are. The fact that our best ideas are testable and make accurate predictions lend (dare I say) credence to the scientific view.

Just to expand on your point, I think the fact the scientific theories are refined as we gain more evidence is important, but there is an even more fundamental difference between scientific theories and religious ideas. If the slate were wiped clean, the fact that the same scientific theories would emerge again is even more important. Say that our collective memory and all of our scientific knowledge dissappeared and we had to start from scratch. We would discover precisly the same law of gravity all over again because the same evidence would be there waiting to be discovered. Now compare that to religious belief. The story of creation, or any other religious story, would never be written the same way twice. In fact, without even going through this thought experiment we can see that there are already a multitude of creation stories. Why? Because they are not based on evidence, they are just stories.

 

[Rabbie]

So how do you feel if the jump from Big Bang is as big as the jump from Steady State to Big Bang.

I think at that point all will agree the theories are as a result of funding to get the result.

Although older (and possibly wiser) than you I am not as cynical as you appear. I think that most people actually have something called integrity especially around their main calling so I don't think that these theories are a result of funding to get a desired result.

 

[Mike375]

Mike375 - I've tried to ask this in a previous reply post, but I think it might be better a standalone question...

It seems like you have objected to the scientific method, on the grounds that it doesn't guarantee certainty

As I understand it, the method consists of:

1-Observe something
2-Try to invent an explanation
3-Test your explanation by trying to use it to predict something not in the original observation, attack your explanation with possible objections and exceptions, etc
4-Modify your explanation so that it accommodates the original observation, plus all the new data, or discard it entirely and formulate a new one that fits
5-Keep going back to step 3

This process never expects to get to a point where it stops, satisfied that it has the right answer. It does not provide absolute certainty, nor promise to - it consists of the determined effort to approach the truth as closely as possible.

What do you think of this? Can you suggest a better, more useful alternative?

I think you have outlined it well and in particular
5-Keep going back to step 3

But this stuff is verry different. Firstly, as you and I agreed on another post, we see the layman's version of the maths results.

Secondly this stuff is not about observation. Yeasr ago that was a point Hawking made in respect of his health problem.

In my opinion the answer is completely unrelated to the laws of nature as they exist for us. Hawking and Co have already said that. There is no physics pre Big Bang but at the same time Big Bang is the beginning.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

It may or may not be worth noting at this point that the theories about the nature of the universe don't exist in isolation - they overlap with, and are provoked by, a bunch of other science that we're doing just to make our modern lives happen

Similarly to what Alisa says above, even if we completely rebooted science, the seemingly abstract theories about the nature of the universe would become a necessary line of inquiry, once we started working on anything technological.

For example, electronic devices rely heavily on purpose-built semiconductors - it's impossible to work in semiconductor design without getting into quantum mechanics, and from there, it's short, inevitable step to questions about what the universe is made of.

There's no way to create a comfortable, technological modern world without at least some people having to face questions about what the universe might be made of - and for these people, certainty cannot be sought at the expense of closeness to the truth.

 

[Rabbie]

I think you have outlined it well and in particular
5-Keep going back to step 3

But this stuff is verry different. Firstly, as you and I agreed on another post, we see the layman's version of the maths results.

Secondly this stuff is not about observation. Yeasr ago that was a point Hawking made in respect of his health problem.

In my opinion the answer is completely unrelated to the laws of nature as they exist for us. Hawking and Co have already said that. There is no physics pre Big Bang but at the same time Big Bang is the beginning.

Thanks for summing up the paradox. There may have been physics pre Big Bang - We just have no means of knowing what there was. However IMHO that does not mean there was any supernatural influence to cause the Big Bang.

Post Big Bang there definitely was physics and the scientific method is valid. Do you accept that? I would go so far as to say that because our knowledge and theories are built up on what we already know. Newton could not have come up with the Theory of Relativity because the observational data just was not available to the required accuracy. It was because later observations did not fit 100% with Newton's predictions that Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 followed 10 years later by his General Theory of Relativity. Again he built on the work of Michaelson, Morley and Fitsgerald among others to develop his theories.

 

[Mike375]

Although older (and possibly wiser) than you I am not as cynical as you appear. I think that most people actually have something called integrity especially around their main calling so I don't think that these theories are a result of funding to get a desired result.

There is no question that the dinosaur stuff is driven by funding. I think this happend with any science where it is not as simple as 2 + 2 = 4

For debate purposes, as you know I use Big Bang. My feeling is Big Bang was a funded result.

They have integrirty within their funding. There are not many people higher on the eduction scale than actuaries. Well, I can tell you that results are produced that are funded.

Medcial people know that grain is not good for man. But they won't say anything publicly.

I am a realist, different to cynical. Undoubtedly working close with big financial institutions for most of my life has influenced me. Somewhere around the early 1990s it became very evident that they were running the show.

Does anyone here seriously beleive if Al Gore won POTUS in 2000 and bin Laden did his thing in September 11, that the USA would not have been in Iraw and Afghanistan. Might have been some differences in outcome but the USA, England, Australia etc would be have been there.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

For debate purposes, as you know I use Big Bang. My feeling is Big Bang was a funded result.

They have integrirty within their funding. There are not many people higher on the eduction scale than actuaries. Well, I can tell you that results are produced that are funded.

What kind of funding are you talking about? Surely you're not suggesting someone said "here's some money - invent a theory about the origin of the universe that doesn't include God"

 

[Mike375]

Thanks for summing up the paradox. There may have been physics pre Big Bang - We just have no means of knowing what there was. However IMHO that does not mean there was any supernatural influence to cause the Big Bang.

The supernatural could be as simple as a world with different natural laws. Maybe like nuclead compared to chemistry.

I think many of you are locked into a supernatural as a bloke with a beard. However, there could be beings that are from the Pre Big Bang laws of nature.

Post Big Bang there definitely was physics and the scientific method is valid. Do you accept that?

Yes but a junior supernatural on the local scene.....Earth, its orbit etc and etc.

I would go so far as to say that because our knowledge and theories are built up on what we already know. Newton could not have come up with the Theory of Relativity because the observational data just was not available to the required accuracy. It was because later observations did not fit 100% with Newton's predictions that Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 followed 10 years later by his General Theory of Relativity. Again he built on the work of Michaelson, Morley and Fitsgerald among others to develop his theories.

That is different to how I thought things were. But the way you have typed it I will take a back seat and accept it (but please don't post links of support, I can tell you know what you are talking about)

My understanding was (obviously wrong but just to tell it to you) that observation occured well after Einstein did his thing. One be NASA and long distance probes and the other being observing light being refracted by gravity. In other words, my understanding was that Einstein did not do what he did as compared to Newton because of observation advantages.

But I stand corrected which is why I outlined my basic understandings.

 

[Mike375]

What kind of funding are you talking about? Surely you're not suggesting someone said "here's some money - invent a theory about the origin of the universe that doesn't include God"

In an institution...you get the idea...you don't need to be told.

If you are a paleontologist and you think you will announce that dinosaurs are cold blooded and birds are not living dinosaurs.....then you will feel a chill come your way.

Even when it is a science that is closer to 2 + 2 = 4 it happens. All the science about smoking not being harmful.

You have three possibilities and you get the idea it will be easier for you and everyone else if Number 2 is the choice.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

The supernatural could be as simple as a world with different natural laws. Maybe like nuclead compared to chemistry.

I think many of you are locked into a supernatural as a bloke with a beard. However, there could be beings that are from the Pre Big Bang laws of nature.

If it exists, behaves consistently and can be observed (even indirectly, in the form of conclusions arising from mathematical extrapolations, as in case of the Big Bang), then it's not supernatural - it's just a bit of the natural universe we don't necessarily have a firm grip on.

 

[Alisa]

Does your lack of response to my question indicate that you do not in fact have evidence of god? I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to take your previous statement back . . .

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

In an institution...you get the idea...you don't need to be told.

If you are a paleontologist and you think you will announce that dinosaurs are cold blooded and birds are not living dinosaurs.....then you will feel a chill come your way.

Not if there's evidence to support it. The scientific world is pretty competitive - if there was a chance that someone could steal the limelight by overturning something that is widely accepted, and if they had the evidence to support it, they would do it.

Even when it is a science that is closer to 2 + 2 = 4 it happens. All the science about smoking not being harmful.

What evidence about smoking not being harmful? And who do you reckon might have funded that research?

 

[Rabbie]

The supernatural could be as simple as a world with different natural laws. Maybe like nuclead compared to chemistry.

I think many of you are locked into a supernatural as a bloke with a beard. However, there could be beings that are from the Pre Big Bang laws of nature.

We clearly have different definitions of "supernatural". Different laws of physics are not supernatural in my definition. I do not accept that supernatural exists.

Yes but a junior supernatural on the local scene.....Earth, its orbit etc and etc.

That is different to how I thought things were. But the way you have typed it I will take a back seat and accept it (but please don't post links of support, I can tell you know what you are talking about)

My understanding was (obviously wrong but just to tell it to you) that observation occured well after Einstein did his thing. One be NASA and long distance probes and the other being observing light being refracted by gravity. In other words, my understanding was that Einstein did not do what he did as compared to Newton because of observation advantages.


But I stand corrected which is why I outlined my basic understandings.

Just to clarify what I meant. Einstein produced his theories to explain various observations that existings theories did not explain. using Einstein's theories people including Einstein were able to make predictions that have since been verified as you stated.

Thats the way the scientific method works. the existing theory does not explain the latest observations. A new/modified theory is then produced and can be verified by checking if its predictions can be verified and so on.

 

[Mike375]

If it exists, behaves consistently and can be observed (even indirectly, in the form of conclusions arising from mathematical extrapolations, as in case of the Big Bang), then it's not supernatural - it's just a bit of the natural universe we don't necessarily have a firm grip on.

How do you define supernatural.

What about pre Big Bang and observation that is indirect.

 

[Mike375]

Does your lack of response to my question indicate that you do not in fact have evidence of god? I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to take your previous statement back . . .

I missed the question, sorry for that. Remember I am in the bunker on my own and attacks are coming from everywhere.

Post it again.

PS. Remember time zone as I will head to bed soon. But if I head to bed before I see the question I will get it in the morning.

 

[Mike375]

Not if there's evidence to support it. The scientific world is pretty competitive - if there was a chance that someone could steal the limelight by overturning something that is widely accepted, and if they had the evidence to support it, they would do it.

What evidence about smoking not being harmful? And who do you reckon might have funded that research?

Extremely and in particular for continued funding. You can compete for the limelight but it will be within the "funded" area.

 

[Alisa]

you have evidence for god???? Why didn't you say so. What is it?

. . . . . . .

 

[Mike375]

Originally Posted by Mike375
The supernatural could be as simple as a world with different natural laws. Maybe like nuclead compared to chemistry.

I think many of you are locked into a supernatural as a bloke with a beard. However, there could be beings that are from the Pre Big Bang laws of nature.

We clearly have different definitions of "supernatural". Different laws of physics are not supernatural in my definition. I do not accept that supernatural exists.

Shock announcement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike375
Yes but a junior supernatural on the local scene.....Earth, its orbit etc and etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike375
That is different to how I thought things were. But the way you have typed it I will take a back seat and accept it (but please don't post links of support, I can tell you know what you are talking about)

My understanding was (obviously wrong but just to tell it to you) that observation occured well after Einstein did his thing. One be NASA and long distance probes and the other being observing light being refracted by gravity. In other words, my understanding was that Einstein did not do what he did as compared to Newton because of observation advantages.


But I stand corrected which is why I outlined my basic understandings.

Just to clarify what I meant. Einstein produced his theories to explain various observations that existings theories did not explain. using Einstein's theories people including Einstein were able to make predictions that have since been verified as you stated.

Thats the way the scientific method works. the existing theory does not explain the latest observations. A new/modified theory is then produced and can be verified by checking if its predictions can be verified and so on.

So I was not that far out.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

How do you define supernatural.

Might be easier for you to define your version - since it's part of your arguments...

I define supernatural as something which is not explainable by, and will ever remain beyond the reach of natural science.

So not something we don't know or understand, something we cannot know or understand.

What about pre Big Bang and observation that is indirect.

Actually, all observations are indirect, but in the case of the Big Bang, some of the recent observations are physical - that is cosmic microwave background, etc. Earlier observations came in the form of mathematical results from calculations based on, and extrapolated from, existing (and supported)theories.