The Wrong God

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Ginkgo » Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:04 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:01 am
Oh. I see.
Well, do you think the BB was a caused event, or a completely uncaused one?
I'll go along with Lawrence Krauss on this one and say that quantum fluctuations caused the Big Bang. On this basis we can say the universe was caused.
Immanuel Can wrote: That's an important question to answer. Please give it some thought, and let me know what you decide; I'd be very interested.

All the explanations I've ever heard of the BB hold that there was something in place prior to it...usually oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, plasma...you know...basic elements just...there. But where "there" is, these explanations often avoid saying; and how these elements got to exist, the BB explanations don't even TRY to say. And what catalyst suddenly produced the explosion (or "expansion") when the elements had not done so before, this the conventional explanations also never say.
The majority of elements you list did not exist in the early universe. The elements we know today came from supernovae. In other words, the majority of elements did not exist until after star formation.
immanuel Can wrote: But of course the problem with all this is obvious: the BB isn't then an explanation of the actual first origin of things, but of how elements that had already been originated by something else came to explode. This makes the BB not "the Beginning," but a later stage in the formation of the cosmos. And it completely begs the question of where the cosmos originated in the first place. After all, a bunch of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and so forth just floating around "somewhere" is still a "cosmos" of a sort; and its existence itself needs a lot of explanation...

So the BB is really a non-explanation, when it comes to the origins question.
No one really knows what came before the Big Bang. Hawking tells us that the events before the Big Bang have no observational consequence.Events before the Big Bang are not defined so we cannot measure them.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1396
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:07 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:04 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:16 am
You've never studied Calculus! :lol:

That is all about 'limits' to zero, infinities or unit approaches.
Actually, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. We're talking about causal chains, not zero points or Zeno's paradox.

A causal chain is a chain of events in which an event (call it "event X") is "caused" by an earlier event (call it X-1). In a causal chain, by definition, X cannot happen until after X-1, or it's not a causal situation at all. X-1 is the sine qua non of X...or, as we say, its "cause."

But if X-1 is also a "caused" event (which it is, in a causal chain), then it cannot happen until X-2 has already happened. But X-2 cannot happen until after X-3...and so on, ad infinitum.

What this means is that if the causal chain is infinite, X never happens. In fact, neither does X-1 or X-2, or X-3, because NONE of them can happen until some other event happens first...and the backward chain is infinite, which means that THERE IS NO FIRST EVENT.

Get it now? And actual infinity of regressed causes is mathematically and logically impossible. It cannot have happened, by its own definition. Without a first-cause event, no causal chain can ever commence.

There's many more arguments to support this, but I refer you to the work of David Hilbert on this.
I'm well aware of the what you are thinking. But logic takes things AS without time (propositional & predicate, that is). But causation is still a function of it.

If you have a crime, usually this occurs after the fact. DNA, as one mere counter-sample, can suffice to 'prove' one guilty. Only the politics of people are what makes things like the O.J.Simpson trial go the way it occurred in contrast to extraneous considerations. But nature is still determinable. The Universe still "looks" like it is 14 Billion years old given the evidence and deduction.

Logic can be valid but false. But IF valid and true, then the argument is considered "sound". Most fallacies are informal constructs and almost always have exceptions. What matters is HOW the material connects in fact as well as in validity. David Hilbert wouldn't be a good example. He was one of the major contributor's to attempting to find some mathematical justification for everything.

Your own error was to assert something determinate to something you cannot know: that there is a certainty to know the universe began at a specific time. That's what you asserted. You can have inductive inference that creates an input premise, like

"If something appears to diverge, it MUST diverge."

And while this may only be a real illusion, the premise can still create a deductive argument. But I'm saying that if given the appearance of something diverging about time and space, we cannot speak of this (ineffable) in terms of scientific justification. What justifies the above statement for instance other than a pattern to which some things in physical nature fits with this pattern.

But my argument is about how you end up with too many contradictions OF other scientific standards. One for the simplest case is about infinitesimals that approach zero. Zeno's paradox is a trick ONLY because there still exists time and space beyond the wall or the race-post. If no space exists at some point while time does in sync, they never can become 0/0. This is called a 'limit' only.

See my other posts that I dedicate to these types of possibilities distinctly.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:17 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:51 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:42 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:00 am

I might also suggest that Ockham would then dispense of the proposal for the necessity of two entities at the creation, because we'd be multiplying explanations beyond the necessary there. Really, if we want a final answer, we're looking for a single Uncaused Cause, or we once again simply have infinite regress.
I.C.
I neglected to mention that I dispensed with Ockham's crap in favor of Russell's criterion in the thread, "Before sliding down the bannister..."

I did so purposely, knowing that someone would bring up Ockham on this thread. You will gain a deeper understanding of Ockham's deficiencies by studying that thread.

Thank you.
Greylorn
I agree that Ockham has been misunderstood. But I think he's got a point here: why posit the existence of two entities to do the job of one?

Ockham's point is really just this: if somebody says, "IC died of cancer and being run over by a car and old age," we have three explanations for one phenomenon. Ockham just wants to point out that choosing one of them would be more plausible than choosing three at once. And that seems obviously true. For while it is remotely possible that all three killed me at precisely the same instant, it's not normal to think the more complicated explanation is likely to be right.
I.C.
Thanks for ruining my previous high opinion of you by running off your ockham dogma w/o reading a word I wrote on the subject.
GL

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:23 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:04 am


No one really knows what came before the Big Bang. Hawking tells us that the events before the Big Bang have no observational consequence.Events before the Big Bang are not defined so we cannot measure them.
Screw Hawking. That nit could not accept the real fundamentals behind reality. Get your mind out of the butts of authority figures, or get off this thread. I'm looking for the handful of people capable of thinking for themselves. -GL

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:38 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:07 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:04 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:16 am
You've never studied Calculus! :lol:

That is all about 'limits' to zero, infinities or unit approaches.
Actually, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. We're talking about causal chains, not zero points or Zeno's paradox.

A causal chain is a chain of events in which an event (call it "event X") is "caused" by an earlier event (call it X-1). In a causal chain, by definition, X cannot happen until after X-1, or it's not a causal situation at all. X-1 is the sine qua non of X...or, as we say, its "cause."

But if X-1 is also a "caused" event (which it is, in a causal chain), then it cannot happen until X-2 has already happened. But X-2 cannot happen until after X-3...and so on, ad infinitum.

What this means is that if the causal chain is infinite, X never happens. In fact, neither does X-1 or X-2, or X-3, because NONE of them can happen until some other event happens first...and the backward chain is infinite, which means that THERE IS NO FIRST EVENT.

Get it now? And actual infinity of regressed causes is mathematically and logically impossible. It cannot have happened, by its own definition. Without a first-cause event, no causal chain can ever commence.

There's many more arguments to support this, but I refer you to the work of David Hilbert on this.
I'm well aware of the what you are thinking. But logic takes things AS without time (propositional & predicate, that is). But causation is still a function of it.

If you have a crime, usually this occurs after the fact. DNA, as one mere counter-sample, can suffice to 'prove' one guilty. Only the politics of people are what makes things like the O.J.Simpson trial go the way it occurred in contrast to extraneous considerations. But nature is still determinable. The Universe still "looks" like it is 14 Billion years old given the evidence and deduction.

Logic can be valid but false. But IF valid and true, then the argument is considered "sound". Most fallacies are informal constructs and almost always have exceptions. What matters is HOW the material connects in fact as well as in validity. David Hilbert wouldn't be a good example. He was one of the major contributor's to attempting to find some mathematical justification for everything.

Your own error was to assert something determinate to something you cannot know: that there is a certainty to know the universe began at a specific time. That's what you asserted. You can have inductive inference that creates an input premise, like

"If something appears to diverge, it MUST diverge."

And while this may only be a real illusion, the premise can still create a deductive argument. But I'm saying that if given the appearance of something diverging about time and space, we cannot speak of this (ineffable) in terms of scientific justification. What justifies the above statement for instance other than a pattern to which some things in physical nature fits with this pattern.

But my argument is about how you end up with too many contradictions OF other scientific standards. One for the simplest case is about infinitesimals that approach zero. Zeno's paradox is a trick ONLY because there still exists time and space beyond the wall or the race-post. If no space exists at some point while time does in sync, they never can become 0/0. This is called a 'limit' only.

See my other posts that I dedicate to these types of possibilities distinctly.
Scott and I.C.
You are both diverging from the point of this thread. That's a hijack. Please, both of you, go away.
GL

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Ginkgo » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:45 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:23 am
Ginkgo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:04 am


No one really knows what came before the Big Bang. Hawking tells us that the events before the Big Bang have no observational consequence.Events before the Big Bang are not defined so we cannot measure them.
Screw Hawking. That nit could not accept the real fundamentals behind reality. Get your mind out of the butts of authority figures, or get off this thread. I'm looking for the handful of people capable of thinking for themselves. -GL
I rather go with a renowned PhD than a BSc with a self published book.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:09 am
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:56 pm
How, when and where did the origin originate? Rinse repeat - infinite regress!
Impossible. Infinite regress of causes is both mathematically and logically impossible. We know that much.
Well, look - that's an argument between finitism and infinitism. I am a finitist e.g I reject the notion of infinity, but that's just a choice. I could be wrong. The universe may well be infinite, but there is no way for me to know that.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:09 am
So the causal chain had to have a start point.
Ok good. It sounds to me like you are a finitist too e.g you reject the notion of "infinity". Great!

So what's wrong with the BB as a point of origin?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:51 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:45 am
I rather go with a renowned PhD than a BSc with a self published book.
Einstein had neither a degree nor a book.

uwot
Posts: 4169
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by uwot » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:14 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:51 am
Ginkgo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:45 am
I rather go with a renowned PhD than a BSc with a self published book.
Einstein had neither a degree nor a book.
Yer might wanna check that.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:19 am

uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:14 am
Yer might wanna check that.
If you see an error in what I say, it's probably far easier if you point it out than making me re-examine all the evidence I've already taken into account before I said what I said.

His paper on special relativity was published in 1905.

Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"[161] ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") was received on 30 June 1905 and published 26 September of that same year.
Mass-energy equivalence (E = mcc) - published on 21st November of same year.

1905 was Einstein's "annus mirabilis". In 1905 Einsten held no academic titles and published no books. He was a "persona non-grata" in so far as the physics community was concerned.

All his honours and recognition came after. You are merely asserting his degrees and publications a posteriori.

uwot
Posts: 4169
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

The Wrong Logik

Post by uwot » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:03 pm

Einstein achieved his first degree in 1900 from the Swiss Federal Polytechnic. In 1905, he gained his PhD from Zurich. True he didn't write his first book until a year later, but his annus mirabilis wasn't all he did and it is not clear that Gingko was referring to that.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong Logik

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:12 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:03 pm
Einstein achieved his first degree in 1900 from the Swiss Federal Polytechnic.
A B.A. Would you listen to a B.A when it comes to a matte of physics?
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:03 pm
In 1905, he gained his PhD from Zurich.
Yes. He obtained that while publishing his work.

Knowledge caused PhD.
PhD didn't cause knowledge.

uwot
Posts: 4169
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Wrong Logik

Post by uwot » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:24 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:12 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:03 pm
Einstein achieved his first degree in 1900 from the Swiss Federal Polytechnic.
A B.A. Would you listen to a B.A when it comes to a matte of physics?

Maybe. If you think I should only listen to people who are qualified, what is your qualification with regard to history of science?
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:12 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:03 pm
In 1905, he gained his PhD from Zurich.
Yes. He obtained that while publishing his work.

Knowledge caused PhD.
PhD didn't cause knowledge.
Good grief.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong Logik

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:26 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:24 pm
Maybe. If you think I should only listen to people who are qualified, what is your qualification with regard to history of science?
I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. This discussion started from .
Ginkgo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:45 am
I rather go with a renowned PhD than a BSc with a self published book.
Are you saying a PhD is mandatory in order to listen to somebody?
Because all I am saying is that IF you have a well-developed bullshit filter who you listen to is far less important than your ability to rapidly detect bullshit irrespective of its source.

uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:24 pm
Knowledge caused PhD.
PhD didn't cause knowledge.
Good grief.
Q.E.D

My qualification is applied science/mathematics/physics/systems engineering. Or as you call it - experience.

My work will be published outside of the institutions of science. For I do not recognize its authority, nor do I seek or desire its honours and epaulettes.

I only want an honorary PhD so I can shit on it in public.
Last edited by Logik on Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

uwot
Posts: 4169
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Wrong Logik

Post by uwot » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:55 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:26 pm
My qualification is applied science/mathematics/physics/systems engineering. Or as you call it - experience.
Fair enough.
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:26 pm
My work will be published outside of the institutions of science. For I do not recognize its authority, nor do I seek or desire its honours and epaulettes.
Then why should Einstein's qualifications matter?
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:26 pm
I only want an honorary PhD so I can shit on it in public.
Good luck with that.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest