Page 9 of 21

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:44 pm
by Logik
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:40 pm
Not just "experience." It's experience as disciplined by the Scientific Method, not casual experience.
Convenient appeal to authority. The scientific method AND the scientist are trapped in time too.

A t-symmetrical object is not.

This is the core of the measurement problem. We don't have an objective yardstick for measuring "change".

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:06 pm
by Immanuel Can
Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:44 pm
This is the core of the measurement problem.
I've recognized the measurement problem. As I say, when it comes to origins, we're projecting backward from available data. That's never a 100% reliable process. And it's even more difficult when we get to asking "What came before the universe (and its present laws) existed?"

But then, no science has ever produced the complete set of possible experiments, even for one hypothesis. So all science is a matter of probability, not absolute certainty...even before we get to the problem of interpreting the data. Admitting that is still not a decisive problem, because it's the best we've got. And it sure beats random guess-making.

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:18 pm
by Logik
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:06 pm
I've recognized the measurement problem. As I say, when it comes to origins, we're projecting backward from available data.
And yet you still can't stop yourself from using words like "projecting" and "backwards". Words whose meaning deeply embeds the arrow of time.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:06 pm
That's never a 100% reliable process. And it's even more difficult when we get to asking "What came before the universe (and its present laws) existed?"
Look! "Before the universe" :lol: :lol: :lol: You can't think outside of the box of 'time' can you ?

The notion of t-symmetry is completely foreign to you.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:06 pm
But then, no science has ever produced the complete set of possible experiments, even for one hypothesis. So all science is a matter of probability, not absolute certainty...even before we get to the problem of interpreting the data.
And yet - you are interpreting everything through the lens of 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:06 pm
Admitting that is still not a decisive problem, because it's the best we've got. And it sure beats random guess-making.
Now you are just backtracking. We started with the simple point that this is a false dichotomy.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
So the problem simplifies as: "Is time linear or cyclical?"
If time is cyclical there is still room for interpretation. e.g room for choice. Direction. Laps completed. etc. etc.

I have intuitions about "time" that you don't - thanks to the work I do.

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:28 pm
by Immanuel Can
Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:18 pm
I have intuitions about "time" that you don't - thanks to the work I do.
Well, I'll leave you to your intuitions, then.

Best wishes.

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:36 pm
by Scott Mayers
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:14 pm
Unfortunately, if I am correct about what the OP is asserting, the LOGIC alone suffices to remove the Big Bang theory and with priority to any discounting of its alternative Steady State model. It IS political because of this very factor.
I suggest it doesn't. Even if right, the BB theory is not really an answer to the question of final causes. It allows a prior question: "What was the cause of the BB?" This puts us on an infinite-regress pattern of causes.

We can simplify the field very easily. There are only two options: either the universe itself had a cause, or it had none. If it's the former, time is linear. If it's the latter, only a cyclical model of time will eliminate the original singularity.

So the problem simplifies as: "Is time linear or cyclical?"
The "Big Bang" was derived by Fred Hoyle's original insult to the theory before it was named as such precisely because the singularity was defined as literal. He was responding specifically to that because it proposes that matter, time, and energy just popped into existence...and thus, that pop was what the Big bang referred to uniquely. To place an unknown barrier between the singularity only acts to pretend it still exists and yet maintain keeping it hidden.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
When the supposed 'final nail to the coffin' of the Steady State theory was based on a mere interpretation of the Cosmic Background Radiation as 'supporting' the Big Bang model with the added assertion that the Steady State model simply had no explanation for it, this KIND of reasoning suffices to raise suspicion.


I'm not sure why. An infinite-cyclical model does not accord with observable science -- like, as you say, the Red Shift Effect (or even basic entropy). All proposed models for an infinite universe are merely mathematical-conceptual proposals of empirically-unverifiable character. Thus the rejection of the cyclical models seems very reasonable to me. I don't think we need to suppose any great and dark conspiracy behind that.
The 'conspiracy' is precisely the kind that assures most politicians everywhere require being tied to some religious background in order to get elected. That is, it is conventional understanding that if you want funding and support by or for people, the political minimal expectation is to not piss off the religious people's expectations. If science held strong to a theory that threatened religion, it also threatens the foundation of 'faith' in anything and so would not be promoted in most areas. Even media dependence on advertising prefers the 'faithful' thinkers as do politicians in times of desired actions calling upon their faith. You don't need a formal handshake of 'conspirators' to conspire.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
Given we have the evidence that space expands,
That's another "given" that argues against any circular model.
I'm confused about your 'cyclic model' references. What has this got to do with anything I mentioned? Steady State class theories don't propose cycles.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
...we have only one of two possible general classes of theories to explain the observation as trusted: (1) Those theories interpreting a actual Singularity in space-time or (2) Those theories expressing only the appearance such that the apparent 'singularity' is an approaching limit via our perspective.
You'll have to explain that second one to me. I'm not sure I'm understanding you there.
The second class of theories are those that only treat the singularity as an illusion....and necessarily so. The first class types literally believe the evidence points to a real singularity in time and space. That is why they assert a unique age of the universe to be 14 Billion years old. The error is in treating time from our perspective of space further out as 'constant' by our local standards. The Steady State theory would hold that as you look further into space, just as it is "expanding" as a measure, you require "expanding" time as well. Note that space/time is also a rate as speed is. So to Steady State theories, 'c' has to be treated constant. When you look to what appears to have a larger space, the time in that apparent space has to be 'stretched' as well or you cheat as to Zeno's paradoxes do. [Zeno's paradoxes of movement, the wall, and Achilles race, all only fail because no actual matter nor space is ever non-moving and the wall and goal posts of Achilles race have a stop in space and time but still have known space and time beyond those points. If the wall was actually the 'end' of the universe, say, we could never 'touch' it because we are bound to be of that space. Similarly, for any singularity-based theory that treats the apparent point as 'real', would require knowing THAT there is more space and/or time before it.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
The Big Bang model falls in the first type (contrary to how many today re-interpret this by stealing some factors of the second class types). The second class are those, such as a Steady State model that treats both components of space and time to require converging IN SYNC with any 'origins'.

For the first class, you require a presumption that both space and time begin at that point literally.
Yes, all linear models would require a start-point.
No they don't. Maybe this is why you thought the other theories were essentially cyclical? The 'starting' point would be an illusion just as the boundary limitations set by a maximum observable universe is fixed to the nature of a fixed speed of light, or, on the atomic level, that we cannot actually have a point with a temperature of 0 K. These kinds of points are "assymptotes". The BB treats the point as real and is dependent upon it. Moving the supposed actual bang AFTER that point is meant to justify placing a fixed amount of material energy in a presumed finite space. AT the singularity no space would mean no matter. So the added convenience of pushing the 'bang' forward is to account for at least some space to hold that special magical amount of matter.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
But for that to be true requires at least either space beyond that point to exist OR time beyond that point to exist, or both, which then simply defaults to assuming an infinite universe.

Well I think, no, actually. If "space" and "time" had any origin, it was simultaneous, and at the moment of the start of the universe, along with "matter." For this would be the way it would work: "matter" (i.e. substances of at least two different kinds) would appear, and at the same time the distance ("space") between those (at least) two distinct particles, and also an interval between the two (i.e. "time") The whole triad would appear at precisely the same instant: and there would be no possibility of speaking of "matter," let alone "space" or "time" having existed prior to that Singularity.
And this is the 'magical' thinking that Hoyle's response referred to. Why would there be a SPECIAL quantity of matter and/or energy be extant? The special pleading that there is required going from no space and time to an immediate quantified jump to a minimal space with a fixed amount of energy. It's a DISCRETE jump, not continuous. This brings in a 'god' feature to the theory because it isn't even observably possible to assert.

If you think of the Zeno's paradox of the race between the Tortoise and the Hare, the reason the paradox exists is only because it treats the goal post as the end to the race without realizing there is still space and time after it that is still relevant. IF the goal post was literally an end to space and time, THEN the paradox would hold, ....and why the second type of [Steady State] theories hold that the singularity must certainly be an illusion even considering any plausible changes of physics in between. The default has to NOT assume the point is 'real' but the 'appearance',...especially if it is to be honest about what science does.

I think these answers also apply to the rest of your post or should require you to alter them in light of this.

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm
by Immanuel Can
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:36 pm
To place an unknown barrier between the singularity only acts to pretend it still exists and yet maintain keeping it hidden.
Oh, there is no "barrier," to be sure.

But the BB is traditionally interpreted two ways: one is as the first big explosion that allegedly created the universe. But that one isn't the ultimate beginning, because it depends on the already-existence of basic elements capable of "explosion." The other way is to mistake it for the ultimate start of the whole universe, including any basic elements. That would be what we ought to call "the Singularity."

We'd be best to keep them totally distinct. But I'm not suggesting a "barrier" is necessary to do that. We just need to understand that the BB isn't a cosmic-origins theory...and when it used as one, it's merely question-begging.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
When the supposed 'final nail to the coffin' of the Steady State theory was based on a mere interpretation of the Cosmic Background Radiation as 'supporting' the Big Bang model with the added assertion that the Steady State model simply had no explanation for it, this KIND of reasoning suffices to raise suspicion.


I'm not sure why. An infinite-cyclical model does not accord with observable science -- like, as you say, the Red Shift Effect (or even basic entropy). All proposed models for an infinite universe are merely mathematical-conceptual proposals of empirically-unverifiable character. Thus the rejection of the cyclical models seems very reasonable to me. I don't think we need to suppose any great and dark conspiracy behind that.
The 'conspiracy' is precisely the kind that assures most politicians everywhere require being tied to some religious background in order to get elected.
Oh, I find that highly doubtful. Are you suggesting that "being religious" is more likely to get people elected these days? There are an awful lot of counter-examples to that right now. In fact, having any firm "religious" convictions or background is likely to wreck your chances. People with very flexible morals are the ones getting elected right now...at least in North America and in the UK for sure.
That is, it is conventional understanding that if you want funding and support by or for people, the political minimal expectation is to not piss off the religious people's expectations. If science held strong to a theory that threatened religion, it also threatens the foundation of 'faith' in anything and so would not be promoted in most areas.

Oh, I think that's very evidently not so. There is very little (if any) religious influence in science funding these days...at least anywhere I know of. Most Western governments are functionally secular, and almost all the universities are. But maybe you live in a place where that's not so?
Even media dependence on advertising prefers the 'faithful' thinkers as do politicians in times of desired actions calling upon their faith.

I'd really have to say that's all imposture. Every head of state may gesture occasionally in the "religious" direction. Maybe they show up for a "prayer breakfast," or occasionally throw in a "God bless," but in practice they don't make policy based on it. If they do, the press calls them out on it pretty fast.
You don't need a formal handshake of 'conspirators' to conspire.
Actually, for a "conspiracy" you pretty much do.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
...we have only one of two possible general classes of theories to explain the observation as trusted: (1) Those theories interpreting a actual Singularity in space-time or (2) Those theories expressing only the appearance such that the apparent 'singularity' is an approaching limit via our perspective.
You'll have to explain that second one to me. I'm not sure I'm understanding you there.
The second class of theories are those that only treat the singularity as an illusion....and necessarily so.
Why is that "necessary"?
The first class types literally believe the evidence points to a real singularity in time and space. That is why they assert a unique age of the universe to be 14 Billion years old. The error is in treating time from our perspective of space further out as 'constant' by our local standards. The Steady State theory would hold that as you look further into space, just as it is "expanding" as a measure, you require "expanding" time as well. Note that space/time is also a rate as speed is. So to Steady State theories, 'c' has to be treated constant. When you look to what appears to have a larger space, the time in that apparent space has to be 'stretched' as well or you cheat as to Zeno's paradoxes do. [Zeno's paradoxes of movement, the wall, and Achilles race, all only fail because no actual matter nor space is ever non-moving and the wall and goal posts of Achilles race have a stop in space and time but still have known space and time beyond those points. If the wall was actually the 'end' of the universe, say, we could never 'touch' it because we are bound to be of that space. Similarly, for any singularity-based theory that treats the apparent point as 'real', would require knowing THAT there is more space and/or time before it.

Sounds similar to Hawking's theory in "A Brief History..." But that's been demonstrated untenable, I understand. The mathematics won't work with real numbers.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
Yes, all linear models would require a start-point.
No they don't. Maybe this is why you thought the other theories were essentially cyclical? The 'starting' point would be an illusion just as the boundary limitations set by a maximum observable universe is fixed to the nature of a fixed speed of light, or, on the atomic level, that we cannot actually have a point with a temperature of 0 K. These kinds of points are "assymptotes". The BB treats the point as real and is dependent upon it. Moving the supposed actual bang AFTER that point is meant to justify placing a fixed amount of material energy in a presumed finite space. AT the singularity no space would mean no matter. So the added convenience of pushing the 'bang' forward is to account for at least some space to hold that special magical amount of matter.

Hawking's theory?

It's essentially cyclical, because it posits an eternally-existing universe, with cycles of some sort of BB and "Big Crunch." The problems with this remain, though. One is that the amount of matter in the universe has exceeded escape velocity already, relative to everything else. There isn't nearly enough density of matter in the universe to produce any "Big Crunch" anymore.

Or have I missed your point somewhere here?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
But for that to be true requires at least either space beyond that point to exist OR time beyond that point to exist, or both, which then simply defaults to assuming an infinite universe.

Well I think, no, actually. If "space" and "time" had any origin, it was simultaneous, and at the moment of the start of the universe, along with "matter." For this would be the way it would work: "matter" (i.e. substances of at least two different kinds) would appear, and at the same time the distance ("space") between those (at least) two distinct particles, and also an interval between the two (i.e. "time") The whole triad would appear at precisely the same instant: and there would be no possibility of speaking of "matter," let alone "space" or "time" having existed prior to that Singularity.
And this is the 'magical' thinking that Hoyle's response referred to. Why would there be a SPECIAL quantity of matter and/or energy be extant?
I don't follow. There's nothing "magical" here: the three are logically entailed. That's pretty "unmagical," as descriptions go. It's hardly even surprising.
The special pleading that there is required going from no space and time to an immediate quantified jump to a minimal space with a fixed amount of energy. It's a DISCRETE jump, not continuous. This brings in a 'god' feature to the theory because it isn't even observably possible to assert.

Oh, I see. No, it's a straightforward deduction, based on the assumption that ordinary cause-and-effect chains, and things like normal entropy, have been in play since the beginning of the universe. That may not be a provable assumption, but it's certainly the most reasonable one -- unless new data comes in to show that it's not. Until that time, we'd be best to stay with it, I think.

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:26 pm
by Scott Mayers
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:36 pm
To place an unknown barrier between the singularity only acts to pretend it still exists and yet maintain keeping it hidden.
Oh, there is no "barrier," to be sure.

But the BB is traditionally interpreted two ways: one is as the first big explosion that allegedly created the universe. But that one isn't the ultimate beginning, because it depends on the already-existence of basic elements capable of "explosion." The other way is to mistake it for the ultimate start of the whole universe, including any basic elements. That would be what we ought to call "the Singularity."

We'd be best to keep them totally distinct. But I'm not suggesting a "barrier" is necessary to do that. We just need to understand that the BB isn't a cosmic-origins theory...and when it used as one, it's merely question-begging.
I already identify the distinctions.

The following illustration is from a discussion I had on this from my thread, Expansion Paradox on a science forum:
2016-11-25_074330.png
2016-11-25_074330.png (33.23 KiB) Viewed 341 times
See the two points of 'singularities' there? I am cautious of my logic on this.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm

I'm not sure why. An infinite-cyclical model does not accord with observable science -- like, as you say, the Red Shift Effect (or even basic entropy). All proposed models for an infinite universe are merely mathematical-conceptual proposals of empirically-unverifiable character. Thus the rejection of the cyclical models seems very reasonable to me. I don't think we need to suppose any great and dark conspiracy behind that.
The 'conspiracy' is precisely the kind that assures most politicians everywhere require being tied to some religious background in order to get elected.
Oh, I find that highly doubtful. Are you suggesting that "being religious" is more likely to get people elected these days? There are an awful lot of counter-examples to that right now. In fact, having any firm "religious" convictions or background is likely to wreck your chances. People with very flexible morals are the ones getting elected right now...at least in North America and in the UK for sure.[/quote]
Yes, people still prefer a religious leader. While more liberal leaders will keep this private, it is understood they appear secular only to evade discrimination BETWEEN different religious groups. We are only more secular recently and this novelty alone isn't sufficient to overthrow centuries of believers. Certainly, at least as far as the origins of the BB are concerned, note who originated it:
In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law.

History of the Big Bang
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm
That is, it is conventional understanding that if you want funding and support by or for people, the political minimal expectation is to not piss off the religious people's expectations. If science held strong to a theory that threatened religion, it also threatens the foundation of 'faith' in anything and so would not be promoted in most areas.

Oh, I think that's very evidently not so. There is very little (if any) religious influence in science funding these days...at least anywhere I know of. Most Western governments are functionally secular, and almost all the universities are. But maybe you live in a place where that's not so?
This is not just about formal 'governments' but also for organizations of any large groups. The colliders are funded through individuals, institutes, and governments alike. Same goes with NASA.

To the concern of other places, it still remains preferential to have one who is uniquely NOT atheist in power. Where societies demand atheism, even that devolves to a transferred 'faith' into their leaders. Would you vote for an atheist, for instance?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm
Even media dependence on advertising prefers the 'faithful' thinkers as do politicians in times of desired actions calling upon their faith.

I'd really have to say that's all imposture. Every head of state may gesture occasionally in the "religious" direction. Maybe they show up for a "prayer breakfast," or occasionally throw in a "God bless," but in practice they don't make policy based on it. If they do, the press calls them out on it pretty fast.
You don't need a formal handshake of 'conspirators' to conspire.
Actually, for a "conspiracy" you pretty much do.
Well you're barking up the wrong tree if you presume I'm going to bite on your insistence that I share your meaning. I don't require proving handshakes here, just the logic of people's capacity to conform to apparently obvious benefits suffices.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
You'll have to explain that second one to me. I'm not sure I'm understanding you there.
The second class of theories are those that only treat the singularity as an illusion....and necessarily so.
Why is that "necessary"?
We can't put the Cosmos in a petri dish to repeat anything we observe. The inferences of Cosmology to any 'origin' of space and time are indifferent to expecting that you could in principle touch an edge to the universe. We are bound within it and so this limits the explanation of scientific theories based upon its empirical methods alone by necessity. For logic and geometric models alone, we also cannot accept extension of space and time within a 'universe' as a universal class for the same concerns regarding the logical Incompleteness or Undecidable theorems. Even in Zermelo-Frankel set theory that aims to repair this by extended assumptions proves within it that there is no absolute parent class nor members of the empty set class.

This might be going beyond your background? The point is that we cannot question a meaning to the singularity as a REAL limit that is a prerequisite for the Big Bang. Steady State theory lacks this defect for not requiring it to be real.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm
The first class types literally believe the evidence points to a real singularity in time and space. That is why they assert a unique age of the universe to be 14 Billion years old. The error is in treating time from our perspective of space further out as 'constant' by our local standards. The Steady State theory would hold that as you look further into space, just as it is "expanding" as a measure, you require "expanding" time as well. Note that space/time is also a rate as speed is. So to Steady State theories, 'c' has to be treated constant. When you look to what appears to have a larger space, the time in that apparent space has to be 'stretched' as well or you cheat as to Zeno's paradoxes do. [Zeno's paradoxes of movement, the wall, and Achilles race, all only fail because no actual matter nor space is ever non-moving and the wall and goal posts of Achilles race have a stop in space and time but still have known space and time beyond those points. If the wall was actually the 'end' of the universe, say, we could never 'touch' it because we are bound to be of that space. Similarly, for any singularity-based theory that treats the apparent point as 'real', would require knowing THAT there is more space and/or time before it.

Sounds similar to Hawking's theory in "A Brief History..." But that's been demonstrated untenable, I understand. The mathematics won't work with real numbers.
I'm not a fan of his. He still holds onto the Big Bang theory and even his books lack sufficient explanation for someone like my own inquisitive level. Many do understand the problem I believe if we extend faith in their apparent capacity to reason. That is why I am suspect of politics. Btw, the politics refers to scientific institutions that depend upon their own heroes as well. It doesn't fare well should one's university graduates of note be demonstrated to be in error.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm
It's essentially cyclical, because it posits an eternally-existing universe, with cycles of some sort of BB and "Big Crunch." The problems with this remain, though. One is that the amount of matter in the universe has exceeded escape velocity already, relative to everything else. There isn't nearly enough density of matter in the universe to produce any "Big Crunch" anymore.

Or have I missed your point somewhere here?
Yes. you're presuming a posited hypothesis that rationalizes speculatively. It is not necessary to have cycles. I actually demonstrated it here somewhere with an illustration to someone a few years ago here who believed in cycles. I showed how the nodes (singularity points) are indistinguishable whether they are parallel of connected linearly. But even such cycling is not a function of all infinite type linear worlds. The cycling theories assume the big bang's "material" singularity at least.

Again, as before, what remains of your post is answered in context of the above.

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:52 am
by Immanuel Can
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:26 pm
The 'conspiracy' is precisely the kind that assures most politicians everywhere require being tied to some religious background in order to get elected.
Oh, I find that highly doubtful. Are you suggesting that "being religious" is more likely to get people elected these days? There are an awful lot of counter-examples to that right now. In fact, having any firm "religious" convictions or background is likely to wreck your chances. People with very flexible morals are the ones getting elected right now...at least in North America and in the UK for sure.
Yes, people still prefer a religious leader. While more liberal leaders will keep this private, it is understood they appear secular only to evade discrimination BETWEEN different religious groups. We are only more secular recently and this novelty alone isn't sufficient to overthrow centuries of believers...
No, I don't find that plausible. Nominal religiosity can maybe be used to impart a shallow appearance of moral earnestness, but not profound religious convictions. In fact, there's a big debate in the US over whether or not a religious person can even be a public official. And in Canada, nobody in power right now shows any sign of religious conviction at all. As for the UK, nominal Anglicanism is maybe still palatable, but that's a national tradition only. In all of those jurisdictions, religion is an impediment not an asset when somebody's trying to get elected.

As for science funding, do you actually have any evidence that religious people are attempting and succeeding in preventing any secular science funding right now? I'd be interested in seeing that. I've never seen anything like that.
Certainly, at least as far as the origins of the BB are concerned, note who originated it:
In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law.

History of the Big Bang
Yeah, but that's a case of what we call "the genetic fallacy." You can't reasonably discredit a theory because of its source. (Even a practiced liar tells the truth at least 50% of the time, just to succeed in being liar.) So one must judge the theory on its own merits, not by where it started.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm

Oh, I think that's very evidently not so. There is very little (if any) religious influence in science funding these days...at least anywhere I know of. Most Western governments are functionally secular, and almost all the universities are. But maybe you live in a place where that's not so?
This is not just about formal 'governments' but also for organizations of any large groups. The colliders are funded through individuals, institutes, and governments alike. Same goes with NASA.
Again, I'd like to see your evidence that somebody's discriminating on a religious basis there, Scott. My intuition is that it's not happening. I certainly see no evidence that it is. But I'm open to being shown something I haven't seen.
Would you vote for an atheist, for instance?
For what role? For PM or President, or Secretary of the Treasury? Sure, so long as I liked his policies. For some religious office, or role in managing religion? Probably not...he wouldn't know what he was talking about, obviously. For a science grant, I wouldn't care, so long as he was honest and didn't embezzle or fritter away taxpayer money. Competence would matter: ideology wouldn't.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm
The second class of theories are those that only treat the singularity as an illusion....and necessarily so.
Why is that "necessary"?
We can't put the Cosmos in a petri dish to repeat anything we observe.
Right, absolutely.
This might be going beyond your background?
Yeah, a bit. I know about it, but I don't know it deeply. My area is moral theory.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm
Sounds similar to Hawking's theory in "A Brief History..." But that's been demonstrated untenable, I understand. The mathematics won't work with real numbers.
I'm not a fan of his. He still holds onto the Big Bang theory and even his books lack sufficient explanation for someone like my own inquisitive level. Many do understand the problem I believe if we extend faith in their apparent capacity to reason. That is why I am suspect of politics. Btw, the politics refers to scientific institutions that depend upon their own heroes as well. It doesn't fare well should one's university graduates of note be demonstrated to be in error.

Yeah, I agree. Science definitely has a "politics" to it, especially when it comes to unpalatable results. I understand the Red Shift observations were, for a long time, quite contested because of ideological resistance from entrenched beliefs about cosmology. But in the end, the facts seem to have won that one. I'm sure it wasn't nice for those involved.

I remember seeing an old TV show called "Longitude," that went over the history of the inventor of the chronometer. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--b0eaKGWwE). Its real message is, "Gee, it's often really hard to get scientists to believe you're right, even when you most definitely are." Political inertia in the scientific community is always a roadblock to new theories. Of course, Kuhn made a similar case...
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm
Or have I missed your point somewhere here?
Yes. you're presuming a posited hypothesis that rationalizes speculatively. It is not necessary to have cycles.
It depends what you mean by "cycles," I suppose. No, it's not necessary for the world to repeat itself. Not "cyclical" in that sense.

But the cosmos cannot be eternal itself unless it's non-linear. If time is linear, then inevitably it will have to have had a beginning. And that's deducible from basic logic and mathematics, without any need at all for metaphysics.

Unfortunately, that gives a political, non-scientific motive for someone to prefer an eternal universe over a chronologically-linear one. However, that wouldn't be a good reason for preferring that.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:11 am
by Logik
Are you two tin-foil-haters aware of this statistical truth: A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

If your model doesn't predict something testable AND falsifiable then it's useless.

It's just poetry.

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:07 am
by Ginkgo
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:06 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:44 pm
This is the core of the measurement problem.
I've recognized the measurement problem. As I say, when it comes to origins, we're projecting backward from available data. That's never a 100% reliable process. And it's even more difficult when we get to asking "What came before the universe (and its present laws) existed?"

But then, no science has ever produced the complete set of possible experiments, even for one hypothesis. So all science is a matter of probability, not absolute certainty...even before we get to the problem of interpreting the data. Admitting that is still not a decisive problem, because it's the best we've got. And it sure beats random guess-making.
We now know that we live in a flat universe. In a flat universe all objects will continue to accelerate at an ever increasing rate and will continue to expand forever. According to physicists such a Lawrence Krauss the total energy in our universe is zero. In such a universe the negative energy of gravity equates with the positive energy of matter. Such a situation allows the universe to begin with quantum fluctuations just prior to the Big Bang. This theory is backed up by mathematical measurements and observations.

BTW the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space, not an explosion.

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:31 am
by Immanuel Can
Ginkgo wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:07 am
BTW the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space, not an explosion.
You know what you call a really rapid expansion produced purely by chance?

An "explosion."

However, if you're willing to suggest that it was not governed purely by chance, and hence wasn't genuinely an explosion, we have a discussion about whatever it might have been that constrained the expansion to be something-other-than-chance.

So, I guess, how do you want to roll?

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:24 am
by Ginkgo
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:31 am
Ginkgo wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:07 am
BTW the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space, not an explosion.
You know what you call a really rapid expansion produced purely by chance?

An "explosion."

However, if you're willing to suggest that it was not governed purely by chance, and hence wasn't genuinely an explosion, we have a discussion about whatever it might have been that constrained the expansion to be something-other-than-chance.

So, I guess, how do you want to roll?
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:29 am
by Immanuel Can
Ginkgo wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:24 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:31 am
Ginkgo wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:07 am
BTW the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space, not an explosion.
You know what you call a really rapid expansion produced purely by chance?

An "explosion."

However, if you're willing to suggest that it was not governed purely by chance, and hence wasn't genuinely an explosion, we have a discussion about whatever it might have been that constrained the expansion to be something-other-than-chance.

So, I guess, how do you want to roll?
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
I'm not "getting at" anything, except to say that if you object to my characterization of the word "explosion," you must have in mind some feature of the BB that you think makes that characterization unfair. I just wonder what that particular feature is.

Ordinarily, an accidental expansion of extreme rapidity, accompanied by things like intense heat, particle dispersion and so on, would be called an "explosion." Why, in your estimation, is the BB somehow not that?

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:37 am
by Ginkgo
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:29 am
Ginkgo wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:24 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:31 am


You know what you call a really rapid expansion produced purely by chance?

An "explosion."

However, if you're willing to suggest that it was not governed purely by chance, and hence wasn't genuinely an explosion, we have a discussion about whatever it might have been that constrained the expansion to be something-other-than-chance.

So, I guess, how do you want to roll?
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
I'm not "getting at" anything, except to say that if you object to my characterization of the word "explosion," you must have in mind some feature of the BB that you think makes that characterization unfair. I just wonder what that particular feature is.


Ordinarily, an accidental expansion of extreme rapidity, accompanied by things like intense heat and rapidity, would be called an "explosion." Why, in your estimation, is the BB somehow not that?

i think there is a big difference between and explosion and a faster than light expansion of space.

Re: The Wrong God

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:44 am
by Immanuel Can
Ginkgo wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:37 am
i think there is a big difference between and explosion and a faster than light expansion of space.
What do you think that "difference" is? Can you pin it down?