Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:41 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:25 pm
devans99 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:24 am
There is the argument that the universe was created by something (God?). If it was created by something, it is designed and a well made design is just as complex as needed for the task and no more. So when considering the universe, if you believe in a designer, then Occam's Razor is still applicable.
Devans99,

If you were to actually peruse my OP, i.e. take the trouble to understand it, you will realize that I'm proposing a criterion that is superior to Occam''s simplistiic Razor. which is all about minimizing the quantity of hypotheses. As a result we have two stupid hypotheses about the origin of the universe-- either an omnipotent all-powerful God did it, or some nonsensical "physical singularity" spontaneously appeared out of nowhere and blew up, giving us all the mass-energy in the universe plus the principles of interaction and 26 essential "constants" needed to make it work properly.

Both of these "everything from one" hypotheses are extremely complex, and if examined objectively, will be seen to be functionally identical.

Russell's criterion is closer to Aristotle's original in that it is attentive to the QUALITY of the hypotheses. If you actually understood the point of the OP we might have an intelligent conversation, which I would welcome.

Greylorn
I favour the cyclical universe model:

- Where in the universe can you get all the matter/energy for the Big Bang?
- Only place is the Big Crunch

You quote Russell, 'Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.'. I have done so above; the Big Bang now is caused by a known entity (the Big Crunch). This model is also very Occam's Razor; a nice simple finite circle of time.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:13 pm

devans99 wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:41 pm
I favour the cyclical universe model:

- Where in the universe can you get all the matter/energy for the Big Bang?
- Only place is the Big Crunch

You quote Russell, 'Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.'. I have done so above; the Big Bang now is caused by a known entity (the Big Crunch). This model is also very Occam's Razor; a nice simple finite circle of time.
You are shitting me right?

In the other thread you vehemently defended a "finite universe" and rejected any notions of infinity.

If you subscribe to the "cyclical universe" model then can you tell me if we are currently in the 1st or 10th cycle?
Since time is finite, how many cycles left until the Final Crunch?

"Finite circle" is an oxymoron :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

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

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:50 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:54 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:25 pm
Russell's criterion is closer to Aristotle's original in that it is attentive to the QUALITY of the hypotheses. If you actually understood the point of the OP we might have an intelligent conversation, which I would welcome.
Gaylord, are you familiar with the Munchausen trilemma, and the problem of criterion in epistemology?

The only criterion which remotely resembles an objective standard for 'hypothetical QUALITY' is the predictive power of a hypothesis. Does it agree with experiment?

A hypothesis that only explains, yet predicts nothing OR everything is less useful than toilet paper.

And so you have a bit of a problem when it comes to any hypothesis about how the universe "began". You can't test it!

Further. Are you familiar with the Halting problem in computer science? It's not only unsolved, it is UNSOLVABLE.

Now, as far as theories go "God did it" is about as simple as it gets and it explains EVERYTHING, but since it's not good enough for you then clearly you have some other criteria in mind.

What would a "good enough" theory look like? What properties will it have? How will you know that your search for "explaining the beginning of the universe" is over?

When will the search halt?
Hey, Dipstick.
In the OP to this thread I requested that nitwits not post here. You're a nitwit. Even worse, you're a crackpot, unrelenting in your mindless pursuit of bullshit. Please muster up enough intelligence to go away. You have nothing to contribute here. Thank you.
Greylorn

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

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:57 pm

devans99 wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:41 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:25 pm
devans99 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:24 am
There is the argument that the universe was created by something (God?). If it was created by something, it is designed and a well made design is just as complex as needed for the task and no more. So when considering the universe, if you believe in a designer, then Occam's Razor is still applicable.
Devans99,

If you were to actually peruse my OP, i.e. take the trouble to understand it, you will realize that I'm proposing a criterion that is superior to Occam''s simplistiic Razor. which is all about minimizing the quantity of hypotheses. As a result we have two stupid hypotheses about the origin of the universe-- either an omnipotent all-powerful God did it, or some nonsensical "physical singularity" spontaneously appeared out of nowhere and blew up, giving us all the mass-energy in the universe plus the principles of interaction and 26 essential "constants" needed to make it work properly.

Both of these "everything from one" hypotheses are extremely complex, and if examined objectively, will be seen to be functionally identical.

Russell's criterion is closer to Aristotle's original in that it is attentive to the QUALITY of the hypotheses. If you actually understood the point of the OP we might have an intelligent conversation, which I would welcome.

Greylorn
I favour the cyclical universe model:

- Where in the universe can you get all the matter/energy for the Big Bang?
- Only place is the Big Crunch

You quote Russell, 'Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.'. I have done so above; the Big Bang now is caused by a known entity (the Big Crunch). This model is also very Occam's Razor; a nice simple finite circle of time.
D,
So much for my hopes of an intelligent conversation. Didn't know that you got your cosmology and probably a lot of other nonsense from documentary TV.

The Crunch is entirely speculative. You are not informed. Genuflect before you sit down to watch your TV. End of conversation.
Greylorn

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

I'm unrepentantly ignorant & stupid, but this thread is dead-ending anyway, so...

Post by henry quirk » Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:00 am

"Let's figure out how the universe began, and how it works, by using the real information, the physics, that we actually know about it instead of philosophical principles that are subject to the interpretation of those with agendas."

Simplified (for folks like me): Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

If what's in your head doesn't align with what 'is': rejigger your head.

Fire burns whether you like it or not.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:17 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:50 pm
Hey, Dipstick.
In the OP to this thread I requested that nitwits not post here. You're a nitwit. Even worse, you're a crackpot, unrelenting in your mindless pursuit of bullshit. Please muster up enough intelligence to go away. You have nothing to contribute here. Thank you.
Greylorn
Care to be transparent about your criterions for:
* nitwit
* bullshit
* intelligence
* contribution

I bet you can't. So lets not pretend like you care about any "intelligent debate" when you just want to engage in group masturbation with people who think like you.

If you are going to subscribe to any principle, then let it be falsification. Be ready to abandon all of your prior models/beliefs at the drop of a hat when you encounter a Black Swan. But that's just too much hard work, isn't it ? ;)

After all, Planck noted that old farts don't really change their minds about anything. They just die. Russel was wrong. The world has moved on.

All physics is model-building. Use a better tool than set theory. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10258

If you cared about having an INFORMED opinion, you would have spent some time understanding information, decision and systems theory. They are kinda fundamental for learning HOW to learn!

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:33 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:57 pm
D,
So much for my hopes of an intelligent conversation. Didn't know that you got your cosmology and probably a lot of other nonsense from documentary TV.

The Crunch is entirely speculative. You are not informed. Genuflect before you sit down to watch your TV. End of conversation.
Greylorn
OK so you've dismissed my theory, where is your theory for the cause of the big bang?

Where exactly do you magic up all that matter and energy from if not the big crunch?

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:52 am

devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:33 am
OK so you've dismissed my theory, where is your theory for the cause of the big bang?

Where exactly do you magic up all that matter and energy from if not the big crunch?
I don't have one. And I am perfectly happy to admit that I don't know. I prefer not knowing to having answers that are bullshit.

It's way more fun figuring it out than making it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo
https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:02 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:52 am
devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:33 am
OK so you've dismissed my theory, where is your theory for the cause of the big bang?

Where exactly do you magic up all that matter and energy from if not the big crunch?
I don't have one. And I am perfectly happy to admit that I don't know. I prefer not knowing to having answers that are bullshit.

It's way more fun figuring it out than making it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo
https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword
Where is the bullshit in the:

every moment must have a moment before it to be defined

If you think about it, the only topology that fits the above is a closed loop.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:04 am

devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:02 am
every moment must have a moment before it to be defined

If you think about it, the only topology that fits the above is a closed loop.
I DON'T KNOW!

The bullshit is in that you have pre-supposed:
1. Time is linear
2. The arrow of time.

I don't know what time is. I only know how I experience it. And I have some intuitions from parallel computing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.[1] This problem raises the question of what time really is in a physical sense and whether it is truly a real, distinct phenomenon. It also involves the related question of why time seems to flow in a single direction, despite the fact that no known physical laws seem to require a single direction

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:16 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:04 am

The bullshit is in that you have pre-supposed:
1. Time is linear
2. The arrow of time.

I don't know what time is. I only know how I experience it. And I have some intuitions from parallel computing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.[1] This problem raises the question of what time really is in a physical sense and whether it is truly a real, distinct phenomenon. It also involves the related question of why time seems to flow in a single direction, despite the fact that no known physical laws seem to require a single direction
1. Time is a series or sequence; that series has a topology. I have not presupposed time is linear. It cannot be linear open ended as that requires actual infinity. It cannot be linear closed-ended because what then would be before the start of time? So it must be a circular by process of elimination.

2. What have I presupposed about the arrow of time?

Re the Wikipedia page, QM is just plain wrong on time; we know the speed of light is constant and relativity follows from just that (plus laws of physics constant across reference frames). Past/Present/Future are all real as Einstein said.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:22 am

devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:16 am
1. Time is a series or sequence; that series has a topology. I have not presupposed time is linear. It cannot be linear open ended as that requires actual infinity. It cannot be linear closed-ended because what then would be before the start of time? So it must be a circular by process of elimination.
Series of sequences? So you are claiming that time is discrete and NOT continuous?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretization

You are also claiming that two events cannot happen simultaneously but independently!
devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:16 am
2. What have I presupposed about the arrow of time?
Its direction. What if time flows backwards?
devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:16 am
Re the Wikipedia page, QM is just plain wrong on time; we know the speed of light is constant and relativity follows from just that (plus laws of physics constant across reference frames). Past/Present/Future are all real as Einstein said.
Ahh well, Those idiot physicists! Why don't you go and tell them!

devans99
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by devans99 » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:26 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:22 am
devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:16 am
1. Time is a series or sequence; that series has a topology. I have not presupposed time is linear. It cannot be linear open ended as that requires actual infinity. It cannot be linear closed-ended because what then would be before the start of time? So it must be a circular by process of elimination.
Series of sequences? So you are claiming that time is discrete and NOT continuous?
devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:16 am
2. What have I presupposed about the arrow of time?
Its direction. What if time flows backwards?
devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:16 am
Re the Wikipedia page, QM is just plain wrong on time; we know the speed of light is constant and relativity follows from just that (plus laws of physics constant across reference frames). Past/Present/Future are all real as Einstein said.
Ahh well, Those idiot physicists! Why don't you go and tell them!
I think time is discrete. Consider:
- 1 second of time
- 1 year of time
According to the definition of continuous, both intervals must be graduated to the same precision and thus have the same information content. But 1 year has more information than 1 second - contradiction, so time must be made of discrete moments.

Continuous leads to paradoxes like Zeno's. Discrete is not paradoxical.

Time does not flow backwards as far as I'm aware.

Most Physicist's believe in Special Relativity I think.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:27 am

devans99 wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:26 am
I think time is discrete. Consider:
- 1 second of time
- 1 year of time

According to the definition of continuous, both intervals must be graduated to the same precision and thus have the same information content. But 1 year has more information than 1 second - contradiction, so time must be made of discrete moments.

Continuous leads to paradoxes like Zeno's. Discrete is not paradoxical.

Time does not flow backwards as far as I'm aware.

Most Physicist's believe in Special Relativity I think.
Seconds/years are man-made units.

If two things can happen simultaneously AND independently from each other is time is a vector not a plane?

You wouldn't be AWARE if time was flowing backwards. The Big Bang (I mean Crunch) is yet to happen!

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:32 am

Nor do I care what 'scientists think'. That's an apeal to authority.

Show me what pre-suppositions you started with and how you worked your way up to the position you hold.

You don't seem to understand the implications of this problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

ANY concept we invent (mass, time, energy) is just that - a CONCEPT. Science only ever observes the consequences of 'mass' and 'energy' not 'mass' and 'energy' themselves.

Asking 'What is mass and energy?' is an ontological question.
Asking 'Where do quarks come from?' is an ontological question.

Science doesn't deal with ontology!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest