Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm
@Age,
Sorry again for not answering quicker. I'm not online as much in the last few days but WILL try to respond to as much as I can as long as you are not in a hurry. You write a lot to respond to and I need time to get through them bit by bit.
I'll jump first to respond to the point of linking you to the "Cosmological Principle" earlier. [I actually agree to your point about redirecting to links. I felt it was sufficient and clear of one to explain matters I did not need to rewrite.] But...
The principle is an "assumption" of convention for science. Because science is only a group project, people have to agree to a minimal set of conditions before moving forward.
And one of those conditions, before moving forward, could be let us just LOOK AT 'that' what it IS that we have observed and seen, only, BEFORE we make any 'assumption' at all, always.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pmThe principles are just conventions that require assuming first that what we live in the SAME world that we have to assume is consistent universally.
But "we" do NOT have to assume that at all.
In fact, if we DID assume that, then this may effect the way we LOOK AT 'that' what we have observed and seen. We may, after all, start "interpreting" 'that', what has actually been observed and seen, through a distorted vision, and then SEE things that are NOT really and actually the Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pmThis means that we need to separate subjective beliefs about reality, such as religious Cosmological origin stories from the activity of observing the skies.
1. WHY have ANY "BELIEF" to start with?
2. If there is NO "BELIEF" nor "ASSUMPTION", then there is nothing to separate, nor even a "need" to do any such thing.
3. WHY remove SOME "stories" but leave other ones behind?
The general Cosmological Principle is that we are not in any 'special' place such that the physics here is the same everywhere in this Universe. We ran into problems in previous times of believing that Earth was the center of the Universe and that the Universe itself was 'made' FOR us specifically.[/quote]
If people STILL believe or disbelieve either, then they will STILL continue to run into, what you call, "problems".
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm So this is just a set of statements that say first and foremost that the universe is perceptibly the same no matter where you are in SPACE and that the distribution is assumed to be the same.
The distribution of 'what' EXACTLY is ASSUMED to be the same?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm The Steady State theorists felt this was not sufficient and opts to add that TIME as also something we have to add to make the principle of assumption more complete. We thus, cannot assume that in time NOR space that reality was different than our local capacity to understand things. If not, we could include the religious miracles believed about the past, for instance. If we place Adam and Eve as our literal first humans with some God that created us in a time where magic was 'normal', then this kind of thinking would defeat the universality of the study of science.
The study of the Universe has been and is continually being defeated by all of these BELIEFS (believing and NOT believing in and of things) that are currently being held, which are also being passed onto "others" to either BELIEVE or NOT BELIEVE.
ALL of the truths AND falsehoods within ALL of these "stories" about adam and eve, God, created human beings, steady states, static Universe, multiple universes, one beginning Universe, evolution, et cetera, et cetera CAN already bee SEEN and KNOWN, almost instantly. But this can NOT happen if one already BELIEVES or ASSUMES that they ALREADY KNOW what thee Truth IS.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pmBecause evolution is understood as a 'fact', some think that the Big Bang CAN still possibly be determined to have a different past than it is now. This enables the Big Bang to be viable.
If I recall correctly it was you who stated the big bang means that it was the beginning. So, what do you mean by the big bang CAN still possibly be determined to have a different past than it is now? What "past" is it "now"?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm I personally think that this was a politically intentional convention because it still allows all science we study for most purposes to be valid regardless of any actual Cosmic origin 'stories'.
This is twice you have mentioned here in this post about studying 'science'.
Do human beings actually study science, or, do human beings actually study 'things', through a scientific process, which could be known as 'science'?
Is 'science' the systematic study of things, or do people study 'science'?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pmSince science, as an institute involves the need to raise money and political supports, if you include the Perfect Cosmological Principle (that's what the Steady State Theory added of time), that there is little room for ANY religious origin story.
WHY?
It was, after all, religious origin stories, which has helped lead so many human beings to now still having the ASSUMPTION, and the BELIEF, that there was even a beginning to the Universe. LOOKING AT the Truth about WHERE the origin ASSUMPTION and BELIEF came from, then UNDERSTANDING WHY that ASSUMPTION and BELIEF still remains within some human beings helps to SHOW what the actual and real Truth IS.
Absolutely EVERY thing needs to be LOOKED AT and questioned IF the Truth is what people are LOOKING FOR.
"Making" room for some stories and NOT others does NOT help in discovering the actual Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm This tends to piss people off and make them NOT want their personal, corporate, religious, or governments to fund the effort as well.
To SEE what the Truth IS does NOT take money. TRYING TO raise money, is just another attempt at "justification" for greed, just to fill one's own pockets is NOT needed at all.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pm Belief still has a role in moral conventions and as long as it is deemed less important to worry about, such as what is or is not true about the Universe as a whole, then allowing for flexibility of science in these areas concerning historical facts about it should not be as big a concern. I disagree but think this
may be why the Perfect Cosmological Principle and the Steady State theory is preferentially undesired by many.
The REASON WHY these things are NOT preferred or undesired IS because they do NOT fit in with the BIG picture, which is thee Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:36 pmSo, I'll leave on this point for now and get back to you later on the rest.