Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Since a scientific explanation has been proven to be a logical impossibility


Forums Forums Science and Technology Since a scientific explanation has been proven to be a logical impossibility

This topic contains 36 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Lausten 1 day, 23 hours ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 37 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #307166

    Sherlock Holmes
    Participant

    @3point14rat

    Language is for communication. Unless you adopt the meaning of the words used in theoretical physics the way they are used by theoretical physicists, you are not communicating anything other than your unwillingness to learn and participate in an exchange of ideas.

    Take your refusal to understand the word ‘nothing’ to the physicists themselves and make them use a different word. Don’t rant on here and assume you have the power to just change the terminology of an entire field of science because the words they use make you mad or sad.

    Did you even read my post containing the definition of the word ‘nothing’?

    You seem to be under the impression that all theoretical physicists define “nothing” in the same way, they do not. Nor does it matter if you or anyone choose to redefine a clearly established term to mean something else.

    Here is what the term actually means and has always meant until some began to equate the “quantum vacuum” with “nothing”:

    the absence of all magnitude or quantity

    From Merriam Webster’s dictionary.

    You’ll agree (I hope) that the “quantum vacuum” is not well described as being “the absence of all magnitude or quantity” because it does have properties.

    So yes I read your post and was disappointed that you refused to admit the validity of what I wrote, no physicist would disagree with me – you can always contact one and invite him/her here if you wish.

    The redefinition of “nothing” to be something i.e. the “quantum vacuum” is not helpful but has been adopted by the likes of Krauss et-al to further their absurd and disingenuous claim that we can get something from nothing we cannot and a large percentage of his critics dismiss him for acting this way.

    Stephen Hawking too adopted this wholly unscientific position and was rightly dragged over the coals by peers.

    The fuss over “something from nothing” is due to the fact that what physics previously regarded as “nothing” (a pure vacuum) actually has properties after all but they persisted in informally referring to it as nothing when they should actually refer to it as “quantum vacuum”.

    The quantum vacuum has properties so it exists, something exists.

    This is very simple indeed, are you really still struggling?

     

     

     

    #307169

    3point14rat
    Participant

    Nothing you say surprises me. You hit the limit of how shockingly absurd and dense and insulting you can be long long ago.

    It was never interesting, although there was lots of potential for it to be so.

     

    #307170

    Lausten
    Participant

    Sherlock, when you said,

    We therefore have a very obvious contradiction and therefore have to accept that no scientific theory or explanation can exist.

    I took that to mean we can’t have any scientific theories about anything, since they all ultimately rest on some assumption. But you clarified,

    I did not say that at all, nowhere did I say that science has no use, only that the universe itself is ultimately inexplicable scientifically.

    So, fine. I’ve conceded that point several times. Given that we have theories that go beyond our cause/effect observed universe, I hold out some hope that we might be able to figure it out, but you might well be right. And people who do this every day agree with you. They keep trying, but they admit they might not ever figure it out. From the time you arrived here, this has been a trivial point that doesn’t add anything to what we already know. But somehow you think you are telling us something we don’t know.

    Do you agree that even if we never explain the origin of the universe, there is still a lot to know? There are still many things to discover, possibly other parallel universes or ways to travel our universe through wormholes, or who knows?

    #307175

    Sherlock Holmes
    Participant

    @lausten

    From the time you arrived here, this has been a trivial point that doesn’t add anything to what we already know. But somehow you think you are telling us something we don’t know.

    Did you say “us”?  I think you’ll find that several others here do not agree with me (or you).

    Do you agree that even if we never explain the origin of the universe, there is still a lot to know? There are still many things to discover, possibly other parallel universes or ways to travel our universe through wormholes, or who knows?

    I agree 100% with you there, no issues at all. I was an avid consumer of science-fiction as a teen at the same time I was immersed in theoretical physics (self study, I did not get to a university) and was always pondering these kinds of things, it was fun (I was studying electronic engineering too in college and all this added up to a very interesting period for me).

    I recall at the age of around 15 being given a Guinness Book Of Record (perhaps 1974 or so) this was a great thing full of facts and figures on all sorts, fastest aircraft, most powerful rocket engine, highest radio frequency signal etc. In one chapter I stumbled upon a section that touched upon time dilation and special relativity, telling me that “moving clocks slow down” – I’d never ever heard any such thing so I went to my library and so began my personal investigations.

    Even the complete layman can learn some interesting stuff from Einstein’s own books, the opening chapters are often non mathematical and are filled with very basic physics principles like how do we measure time, how we me define space and so on, very helpful to read how the world appeared at the time Einstein was working on relativity.

    It was in one these books that I first heard of Mach’s principle and the origin of inertia, these and similar concepts lie at the very foundation of Einstein’s work and had a deep impact on his views.

    So yes I agree there are lots to learn, I’m no theoretical physicist and try to find time to study the subject when I can but I don’t often have the endless days and weeks I did as  a teen.

     

     

    #307178

    3point14rat
    Participant

    I was immersed in theoretical physics (self study, I did not get to a university)

    No way!!

    You could knock me over with a feather right now.

    I never would have guessed!!!

    #307179

    Sherlock Holmes
    Participant

    @3point14rat

    I never would have guessed!!!

    If this gives you some comfort I’m pleased for you. The fact is I am more than capable of studying the subject and earning a degree, I would have loved to but opportunities are not always available to all of us. I do know rather a lot about many aspects of the subject and also taught myself a lot of math over the years, this is one of the reasons I routinely came 1st or 2nd in the classes in electronics engineering, I’d already studied the math years before.

     

     

     

    #307361

    We therefore have a very obvious contradiction and therefore have to accept that no scientific theory or explanation can exist.

    So is Holmes proposing that because science doesn’t have the tools to adequately describe initial conditions before the Big Bang occurred, to his personal satisfaction – that means we can infer that all of science is no better than religion in understanding the physical world around us?

    What kind of “logic” is that?

    Guess it helps to be convinced you’re the smartest in the room and that anyone who disagrees with you has got to be a dummy.

    Still,

    Science works on gathering and digesting physical facts.  So long as one doesn’t grasp that fundamental truth, they’ll never get it, no matter how condescending they can make their words sound.

    Perhaps the pre-bang moments are simply beyond our ability to observe and know with any certainty – But that doesn’t mean scientific tools are worthless for understand the “creation” that resulted from the “BANG” as I hear Holmes trying to claim.

     

    #307371

    I was an avid consumer of science-fiction as a teen at the same time I was immersed in theoretical physics (self study, I did not get to a university) and was always pondering these kinds of things, it was fun (I was studying electronic engineering too in college and all this added up to a very interesting period for me).

    I was an avid consumer of science history and natural history and observing the world around me.  Had little time for science fiction since it seemed little more than contrived glorified Westerns to me.  Real life always held more fascination.  I too had loads of fun learning about the history of physics, trying to grasp the basic concepts and learning the fascinating stories of the people that helped set the stage for Einstein and the folks around him that refined the theory and got us to the Big Band, the Atom Bomb, and H bomb.

    I’ll bet most the folks around here have similar histories of active sustained curiosity at a young age.

     

    So there, goodie for all of us to have found each other.

    #307565

    3point14rat
    Participant

    So is Holmes proposing that because science doesn’t have the tools to adequately describe initial conditions before the Big Bang occurred, to his personal satisfaction – that means we can infer that all of science is no better than religion in understanding the physical world around us?

    That’s a common mistake made by some theists. Their ignorance (of science and atheism and logic) becomes the main source of their arguments.

    Misunderstandings like:

    • thinking that not believing in a god leads to eugenics,
    • thinking atheists hate god,
    • thinking if science got something wrong once it’s a failed methodology, and
    • thinking morals can only come from religion,

    all prove that they are ignorant of the most basic concepts.

    If the difference was high level (like, is punctuated equilibrium really a thing), there could be a discussion, but in this situation one side doesn’t even understand the fundamentals of the topic.

     

     

    #307569

    Lausten
    Participant

    So is Holmes proposing that because science doesn’t have the tools to adequately describe initial conditions before the Big Bang occurred, to his personal satisfaction – that means we can infer that all of science is no better than religion in understanding the physical world around us?

    I thought that’s what he meant, and I said so. He replied in his usual indignant tone that it was not what he meant. He’s good at that though, so I was sure to ask him to specify if science was useful for things other than describing the origin of the universe, and he gave specific examples. So, he’ll say that, but you have to really corner him.

    Prior to that, he stated that because there is the theory of ID, there is no need for quantum states or string theories. Again, if you pressed him, he’d probably say it’s fine if someone wants to study that. But he’s obviously not the guy you would want making the decision to continue funding CERN.

    #307590

    Sherlock Holmes
    Participant

    I’m frankly rather shocked at the naivety I’m seeing in some of the replies here, this in particular is hilarious:

    So is Holmes proposing that because science doesn’t have the tools to adequately describe initial conditions before the Big Bang occurred, to his personal satisfaction – that means we can infer that all of science is no better than religion in understanding the physical world around us?

    First I haven’t “proposed” anything. I’ve demonstrated that there can be no scientific theory to explain the presence of the universe, I’ve explained this several times now and those of you who can’t understand are frankly not my concern, I simply don’t care if this is such a struggle for you.

    Second there cannot be any “initial conditions” because nothing physical existed before the universe existed.

    This is very rudimentary logic, many of you seem to have rather exaggerated opinions of your own intelligence.

    Tell me how could any physical process give rise to the universe before anything physical existed?

    Absolute morons.

    (By all means report this, I really don’t care to waste my time discussing physics, metaphysics, philosophy etc with uneducated fools).

     

     

     

    #307593

    Lausten
    Participant

    When you’re done berating whomever you think you are berating, I have a question. Do you agree that we do exist? Just ignore the problem of how we came to exist for a moment and answer that question. Then we can get back to questions about what came before us or more complex questions like how do you describe cause and effect in a universe that doesn’t have time.

    #307595

    Blaire
    Participant

    @ Sherlock

    Please consider joining The Worthy Christian forum or the Joel Olsteen groupies. You can All Thank the Lord Our Savior for Murder’s, Child Molesters, War, World Hunger and inflicting Cancer on sweet innocent children. Apparently, God is just exhausted from performing miracles.

    In the meantime, I’ll be praying that Cheezus chooses you for the next Immaculate Conception 🙏

    #307596

    Lausten
    Participant

    Always hard to tell with the mysterious Sherlock. Did I stump him? Is he just mad? Does he have something to do besides respond to my stupid questions?

    The reason I ask the question is that is where the conundrum begins. We exist but why? Why is there existence of anything at all? Then you can start to ask where existence came from. To get there, we work backwards because that’s the only avenue we have if you are looking for natural explanations. If you want a supernatural explanation, that skips that problem, but you still have some questions to answer:

    What are the attributes of this supernatural explanation?

    Why is it not bound by time and/or space?

    Does it have other boundaries? If so you are just starting over with the same line of reasoning. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you have to acknowledge which laws you are talking about and how one set causes or effects the other.

    #307738

    Blaire
    Participant

    @ Sherlock

    Next time your talking to your invisible monster, will you please ask him these 36 questions?  Thank You 🤗

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 37 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.