That is impossible considering translation symmetry.
That is not possible either.
That is not possible either.
Yes. That is possible.
Yes.
That is impossible considering translation symmetry.
That is not possible either.
That is not possible either.
Yes. That is possible.
Yes.
Translation symmetry of which quantities and across which axes?
How and why have you dismissed this? Everything you know about "the universe" is based on the experiments you have inferred from the part we live in (the observable universe).
Mass for example and across all axes.
Because of translation symmetry. Everything was uniform in large scale. There was only quantum fluctuation in smaller scale.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:21 pmHow and why have you dismissed this? Everything you know about "the universe" is based on the experiments you have inferred from the part we live in (the observable universe).
To make any claims about the INFINITE unobservable universe, based on observations made in the FINITE observable universe is strictly untestable conjecture and grave misunderstanding of the limits of probability theory/statistical mechanics.
*sigh*
Are you familiar with the concept of scale invariance?
Time is not really our concern here.
You missed my point.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:49 pmAre you familiar with the concept of scale invariance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance
To say "translation symmetry" in one sentence and then appeal to "scale invariance".
Is called a contradiction.
Everything you say is true when you ignore time.
You are appealing to translation symmetry as some sort of universal law in order to justify your assumption that mass is evenly distributed. You are appealing to Noether's theorem.
If true then noted.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:55 pmI have a PhD in condensed matter physics but I study cosmology and particle physics to good extend. What I am trying to say here is related to transnational symmetry at the beginning.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:32 amYou post as if you have a PhD is AstroPhysics.
If you are not, at least provide the relevant references.
I am sure I have corrected you on this point on a number of times, yet you keep ignoring this feedback.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:26 am To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method.
Depending on your definition of 'proofs'Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:51 amI am sure I have corrected you on this point on a number of times, yet you keep ignoring this feedback.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:26 am To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method.
The scientific method does not and can not prove anything.
You are going to have to define "truth" and "evidence" for your definition to mean anything.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:10 am Depending on your definition of 'proofs'
Mine;
Scientific proofs are conclusions generated via the Scientific Method based on empirical evidence and arguments.
- Proof
-evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
-anything serving as such evidence:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
Don't try to be a too-smart-ass.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:14 amYou are going to have to define "truth" and "evidence" for your definition to mean anything.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:10 am Depending on your definition of 'proofs'
Mine;
Scientific proofs are conclusions generated via the Scientific Method based on empirical evidence and arguments.
- Proof
-evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
-anything serving as such evidence:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
My definition of "proof" is as is commonly used in Proof theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory ).
There is no logical connection whatsoever between proof theory and scientific empiricism.
Mathemaical models are merely tools of science.
As such science does not prove anything. It tests hypothesis.
We make up a story (called a hypothesis) if a story withstands rigorous scrutiny, agrees with experiment for long enough and produces good predictions it becomes a theory. But even theories are not considered to be proofs of anything, for every theory can be falsified with new discoveries.
The scientific method disproves, but does not prove!
You are playing apologetics now. Most scientist do not refer to their theory as "proof" of anything, or "truth" of any sort either.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:35 am Note Popper asserted a scientific theory is at best a polished conjecture, thus ultimately a conjecture. This is a fact, but most scientists do not refer their theory as a conjecture or polished conjecture.
That may very well be a true statement in a general, but in the particular context of "God" the statement you made is total bullshit.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:35 am Conventionally what is a scientific proof is obvious and understood by all. The critical point here is, whatever is called a scientific proof, theory or polished conjecture cannot escapes all the necessary procedures and compliance to the scientific method and the peer review.
Not just to date.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:35 am To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method.
I am aware of that. Our discussion just deviated.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:26 amIf true then noted.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:55 pmI have a PhD in condensed matter physics but I study cosmology and particle physics to good extend. What I am trying to say here is related to transnational symmetry at the beginning.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:32 am
You post as if you have a PhD is AstroPhysics.
If you are not, at least provide the relevant references.
If you have a PhD is Physics, then you should understand whatever theory is
produced from Science or Physics, such a theory is conditioned by human-made-Scientific-Method.
Thus you cannot make the leap from Physics [human-based] to insist God exists [God-based] but not subject to this conclusion to be proven via the Scientific Method.
To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method.
Not me, but the majority of theists claim their God [whatever that it] to be empirically real.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:31 amNot just to date.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:35 am To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method.
The scientific method can NEVER prove the existence of God. Not today, not ever.
Because nobody (to date) has come up with any conjecture (polished or unpolished) about what God is; how to test it; or how to falsify it.
Even worse: any polished-yet-untestable/unfalsifiable God-conjecture that suddenly becomes a testable/falsifiable conjecture as science progresses is necessarily a God-of-the-gaps argument.
You do know that there is part of empiricism that is beyond scientific reach, right?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:42 am Not me, but the majority of theists claim their God [whatever that it] to be empirically real.
Whatever empirical qualify for scientific "proof".
Many theists rely on existing scientific theory to prove their God exists.
Anybody who tries to "prove" anything outside of Mathematics is very misguided.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:42 am Therefore on that basis, there is nothing wrong in my statement as addressed to the theists [not you], i.e.
"To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method."