Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:37 am
And what's wrong with that?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:No, blob was calling for an impossibility to make a conclusion-an infinite amount of evidence.
Evidence for God from Science
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Multiple Universe Theory
Page 2 of 6
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:37 am
Big Bang in crisis. That's funny.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:38 am
It's impossible and would suffocate all science. I mean, take for example God's gift to the atheist, Darwin-he wouldn't have been able to make up his flimsy theory, and you wouldn't be able to have a theory that isn't backed by science to cling to.Blob wrote:And what's wrong with that?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:No, blob was calling for an impossibility to make a conclusion-an infinite amount of evidence.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:42 am
I'll take it you consider the inflationary model of our observable universe to be done, dusted and 100% correct then?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Big Bang in crisis. That's funny.
But doubt and the need for new explanations is what drives science.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:It's impossible and would suffocate all science.Blob wrote:And what's wrong with that?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:No, blob was calling for an impossibility to make a conclusion-an infinite amount of evidence.
But evolutionary science is practised to this day, and that will continue. Again it is not done, dusted and 100% correct.I mean, take for example God's gift to the atheist, Darwin-he wouldn't have been able to make up his flimsy theory, and you wouldn't be able to have a theory that isn't backed by science to cling to.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:50 am
1) As long as Einstein's general theory of relativity is true, the universe must have a beginningI'll take it you consider the inflationary model of our observable universe to be done, dusted and 100% correct then?
2) Einstein's general theory has been put under the microscope for over half a century.
3) Big Bang theory has made predictions that came true later on.
4) Because something isn't "dusted and shown to be 100% correct"...does not mean there is a crisis.
Doubt? Doubt would also suffocate science. Because theories are based on other theories, whith are based on other theories...which are finally, at the bottom, based on assumptions-if a scientist is full of doubt, how would he get anything done?But doubt and the need for new explanations is what drives science.
Because religious zealots hold tightly to a belief with no scientific support...it means it's correct? I don't see what you're trying to sayBut evolutionary science is practised to this day, and that will continue. Again it is not done, dusted and 100% correct.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:14 am
We do not have any explanation for what happened before Planck time. That's because the physics breakdown - General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible at the extreme of T < Planck Time.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:1) As long as Einstein's general theory of relativity is true, the universe must have a beginning
2) Einstein's general theory has been put under the microscope for over half a century.
3) Big Bang theory has made predictions that came true later on.
4) Because something isn't "dusted and shown to be 100% correct"...does not mean there is a crisis.
Hence physicists are searching for a (badly named) Theory of Everything with likes of string theory, brane theory and so on.
That is why the Big Bang can be said to be in crisis.
It is indeed doubts with current models of the universe that drives science. That is why scientists always use words like "speculation", " as far as we know", "it is possible that..." and so on.Doubt? Doubt would also suffocate science. Because theories are based on other theories, whith are based on other theories...which are finally, at the bottom, based on assumptions-if a scientist is full of doubt, how would he get anything done?
Debates rage amonst scientists regarding evolution. There is no absolute certainty and much work to do.Because religious zealots hold tightly to a belief with no scientific support...it means it's correct? I don't see what you're trying to say
It's strange you chose a metaphor of religious belief to criticise that with which you personally disagree. As though you are saying that which you oppose is just as bad as theism. Imagine I said the equivalent in reverse by way of criticism - for example: "Christians speculatively claim certain ideas pending evidence". A curious 'attack' don't you think?
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:36 am
Relativity and Special Relativity have nothing to do with the big bang other than it has implications in the field of physics.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: 1) As long as Einstein's general theory of relativity is true, the universe must have a beginning
The big bang theory can only go back so far in time. Therefore the theory is incomplete and "in crisis"AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:2) Einstein's general theory has been put under the microscope for over half a century.
3) Big Bang theory has made predictions that came true later on.
4) Because something isn't "dusted and shown to be 100% correct"...does not mean there is a crisis.
Theories are based on other Theories supported by observations. It is a scientists duty to be critical and skeptical.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Doubt? Doubt would also suffocate science. Because theories are based on other theories, whith are based on other theories...which are finally, at the bottom, based on assumptions-if a scientist is full of doubt, how would he get anything done?
Where is there no scientific support? This statement has no support, yet you cling to it.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Because religious zealots hold tightly to a belief with no scientific support...it means it's correct? I don't see what you're trying to say
Re: Multiple Universe Theory
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:38 am
It is a theory as used in the vernacular. Not a scientific Theory.bizzt wrote:May I ask how the Multiple Universe even became a Theory. What Testing has been Done? There has to be some kind of Proof for it to be a Viable Theory!?
In other words it is an individuals speculation which is in the realm of possibilities. But not supported or refuted by any observations.
Re: Multiple Universe Theory
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:49 am
Ok... Thanks BGood.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It is a theory as used in the vernacular. Not a scientific Theory.bizzt wrote:May I ask how the Multiple Universe even became a Theory. What Testing has been Done? There has to be some kind of Proof for it to be a Viable Theory!?
In other words it is an individuals speculation which is in the realm of possibilities. But not supported or refuted by any observations.
Multiple universe theory
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:16 pm
we do not have any explanation for what happened before Planck time. That's because the physics breakdown - General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible at the extreme of T < Planck Time.
Hence physicists are searching for a (badly named) Theory of Everything with likes of string theory, brane theory and so on.
That is why the Big Bang can be said to be in crisis.
In quantum mechanics we can't get beyond Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Does that make quantum theory in crisis also. There are simply limits to what we can learn about the reality we live in. The Big Bang math predicted the shape of the backgroun radiation waves almost perfectly. Big Bang is not in crisis.
Re: Multiple universe theory
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:59 pm
You are correct that both of those are limitations. But that is not the crux of the problem. The Big Bang inflationary model may not account for baryon concentrations found today, nor the concentrations of actual matter vs anti-matter, nor the expected concentrations derived from nucelosynthesis. To answer these questions we need the Big Bang Theory to go back a little further. This leaves alternative theories, or modifications of the original theory to explain these observations. The Big Bang theory is still debated scientifically and does not always form the basis for scientific experimentation in the field of theoretical physics. Other problems with the theory include the reintroduction of the cosmological constant, dark mater, dark energy and different interpretations of background radiation.David Turell wrote: In quantum mechanics we can't get beyond Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Does that make quantum theory in crisis also. There are simply limits to what we can learn about the reality we live in. The Big Bang math predicted the shape of the backgroun radiation waves almost perfectly. Big Bang is not in crisis.
Re: Multiple universe theory
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:14 pm
The uncertainty principle is not due to experimental error nor inadequacy of measurement. It is not a gap in our knowledge yet to be plugged but rather a statement that uncertainty is inherently in the nature of qunatum particles due to their wave-like properties.David Turell wrote: In quantum mechanics we can't get beyond Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Does that make quantum theory in crisis also. There are simply limits to what we can learn about the reality we live in. The Big Bang math predicted the shape of the backgroun radiation waves almost perfectly. Big Bang is not in crisis.
Our lack of knowledge of what happened in the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe however is a gap in our knowledge - there is nothing unknowable about it in principle. We just haven't got there yet.
That said, even though the inflationary model of the universe (Big Bang model) is in a worse state than quantum mechanics (qm) that doesn't mean that qm itself isn't wanting. Although qm is supported by masses of emperical evidence it still fails in certain cases and some physicists are speculating with string theory in an attempt to supercede it.
Remember that even Newtonian mechanics made (and still makes) many many perfect predictions but still had a crisis and was superceded 100 years ago.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:01 pm
I still see no crisis-the "crisis" seems to be that scientists are less than a second away from the Big Bang-and I heard William Craig say recently that has changed.
As I said, if the general theory is correct, there must be a beginning to the universe-thus the Big Bang...Relativity and Special Relativity have nothing to do with the big bang other than it has implications in the field of physics.
The ability to validate the theory is lacking by less than a second...the theory itself is not in crisis.The big bang theory can only go back so far in time. Therefore the theory is incomplete and "in crisis"
Blob said scientists must be full of doubt thought, what's your point.Theories are based on other Theories supported by observations. It is a scientists duty to be critical and skeptical.
Yes it does have support.Where is there no scientific support? This statement has no support, yet you cling to it.
lol, you're pulling these words out of someone else's mouth. And no not curious.It's strange you chose a metaphor of religious belief to criticise that with which you personally disagree. As though you are saying that which you oppose is just as bad as theism. Imagine I said the equivalent in reverse by way of criticism - for example: "Christians speculatively claim certain ideas pending evidence". A curious 'attack' don't you think?
Multiple universe theory
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:25 pm
Kmart: I agree with you. Crisis is much too strong a word. Penrose in his book, the Road to Reality, expects a new brilliant paradigm from some 'subtle change in perspective---something that we all have missed...' The mysteries at the quantum level play into my theory that the emergence of consciousness is a holographic quantum process that currently defies our understanding. As Penrose has pointed out in his previous book, artifical intelligence is not achievable until or unless we reach some deeper undertanding. And this applies to cosmology also. True, the standard inflationary model is winning at the moment, if 'winning' is a way to put it. But again Penrose has some cogent objections. I still think that flying off into multiverse math is happening because no one has any good ideas for a GUT, and they still need to apply for grants and to look productive.
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:49 pm
This postulating a "break down" is only one side of the coin. Others believe there is no need for break down since it has been shown mathematically that within at least 10 dimensions, physics (and general relativity) can hold back right to the beginning.Blob wrote:We do not have any explanation for what happened before Planck time. That's because the physics breakdown - General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible at the extreme of T < Planck Time.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:1) As long as Einstein's general theory of relativity is true, the universe must have a beginning
2) Einstein's general theory has been put under the microscope for over half a century.
3) Big Bang theory has made predictions that came true later on.
4) Because something isn't "dusted and shown to be 100% correct"...does not mean there is a crisis.
But let us say a break down in physics is a given. It still would allow someone to postulate anything they like. The fact a universe so significant such as ours essentially came out of chaos perhaps begs for something (or someone) directing everything more so than if it didn't. Thus, I think non-Theists are perhaps on better grounds to steer clear from this path, but then I suppose either way one looks at it, an explanation of some form appears to be required.
Kurieuo