This post came from another forum where talking about God is not allowed.
And you call positing extra universes that cannot be observed respectable science? Let’s see if you have the courage of your convictions to enter into a debate here. You suffer from a mistaken view of what science is. Science is simply certain knowledge. There can be no certain knowledge of first events.
why you whining about another forum here?
i googled micromass and found this post
physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3751
i thought it was a pretty good post
so, yes, maybe you’re right. maybe greg’s forum sucks. maybe greg’s forum has rules you don’t like. there are thousands of forums, at least, online that we could list that we think suck for one reason or another. why, kyle, should we care about greg’s?
FJ found the post that sums it up nicely.
Physics Forums is a homework site.
You can’t even ask a question about speculative ideas. You can’t ask about experiments which disprove a speculative idea. I’m not even talking about religious or creationist ideas. Questioning is discouraged. I don’t think that is the right approach to learning, science or innovation.
They can probably get help with your homework problems.
I met micromass there and because I can’t debate with him there I’m going to debate with here. But he probably won’t accept the challenge.
Talking about the multiverse (speculative) is allowed, but not Intelligent Design. I agree with you Phyllo, it’s not a good way to learn. You can’t ignore God. When you discuss the Big Bang, God is there.
I don’t really get what your problem is. You have read the rules to the forum before you registered and it explicitely says to discuss mainstream science, and not intelligent design and God. If you want to discuss these things, then not on that forum.
Why is multiverse theory allowed? Because it seems to be accepted by scientists as science, intelligent design isn’t. If you have problems with that, then I suggest you take it up with the scientists and string theorists out there, not with me.
I’m a mathematician by training, and not a physicist, so I can not comment on whether string theory is valid or not. As far as I know, there have been done no experiments to verify the theory. But that does not mean it’s not a respectable theory.
While you’re discussing, I see you love to use ad hominems a lot, so let me do the same thing back.
It’s funny that I have a mistaken view of science. How long have you been doing science exactly? You didn’t even know calculus at the beginning of this year (and judging from your posts, you still don’t), and yet you seem to know all about what should be accepted as science and what not. Furthermore, one should absolutely be completely unbiased in doing science, you should bend over backwards in honesty. That is: instead of giving evidence that supports your theory, you should try to give everything that would discard your theory as well. This bending over backwards is what makes science so succesful these days. You, however, seem to want to make science fit your worldview. This is not acceptable science.
Also, let me discard the notion that everything in science must be observed in order to be true. In physics, we do a lot of problems with forces. But do forces actually exist?? They have never been observed?? They are accepted in physics, because it works. That is: one can predict in theory what should happen if one accepts the view of forces and one can check in reality whether this really happens. If the experiments coincide with your prediction every time, then you have a good theory.
Same thing with those things called photons. Again, I’m no physicist but I don’t think one has ever directly observed a photon. Still, all the models work, so the photon theory is acceptable science.
I guess the same thing must be true for string theory. Do strings and those multiverses and those curled up dimensions actually exist? We will never know. But we can still work with the theory as a theoretical model of reality and see what happens. If our experiments agree with with the facts, then our theoretical model can be accepted. Multiverses may still not exist, but that is not the point at all. The point is that we want a theory that makes accurate predictions of the future. Whether those things actually exist is totally besides the point.
Again: there have, to my knowledge, not been any accurate predictions of string theory. But that is because string theory is quite difficult, not because those predictions are impossible.
Intelligent design and God are hypotheses that are much harder to make precise in science. Accepting that “God did it all” does not give us experiments that can be done to accept or reject the hypothesis. Neither does it give accurate predictions of the future. And it’s not that the theory is too difficult, it’s because of the nature of the theory. So God is not an acceptable theory in science.
Also, intelligent design is a case of “bad science”. They accept the concept of a creator beforehand and then they try to fit everything to fit into this model. This is not how science works. Science will try to do every single thing to reject a hypothesis. They will try to do everything to discover the limits of a certain scientific theory. Even now, experiments of the theory of relativity are still being done!! The most exciting thing that will happen if if one actually finds an experiment that falsifies relativity!!
Here is a nice video: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw[/youtube]
It seems that you both have a misunderstanding about Science. Science is about verification of hypotheses through independent empirical observations. The “scientific method” is designed specifically for that purpose. Science does not directly seek truth, but merely verification of theory. In the God issue, Science can provide no means to verify it. But many other issues such as calling forces “fundamental”, Science cannot verify those assertions either. Science cannot prove truth, only falsity.
The logic and mathematics involved in Science is the field of philosophy and metaphysics, a field scientists typically can not handle well thus wildly imaginary and irrational theories pop up quite often.
But now, what was this “debate” supposed to be about?
Isn’t creationism usually reserved for Religion boards? I’m just sayin…
Not really, creationism is isolated to only certain boards. 
My problem is being given a lecture without a chance to defend myself and having to listen to you make such absurd claims without the chance to submit your flawed theses to examination so as to wake you up from your dogmatic slumber.
If the rules say do A, then later say don’t do A, then one is unable to follow them correctly. That is the case with physicsforums. It clearly says: “Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter (religion), there are no hard and fast moderation rules that apply over all possible cases.”
Again, the issue is not what the rules are but whether or not they are rational rules. By ruling out theses by fiat and wrongly believing that science’s domain extends onto territory that it does not belong you cut yourself off to the truth.
Let’s see if you’re not coward. … You suffer from a mistaken view of what science is.
This is an appeal to authority and hence invalid. How much philosophy have you studied? Does that disqualify you from engaging in a philosophical debate?
Number one, unbiased is a loaded term. All biased means is thoughts that one thinks are false. So to call someone’s thoughts biased is merely to beg the question that they are wrong. You have to prove someone is wrong, not merely assume that they are. Number two, it’s impossible to do science without biases. Every time we do science we assume that numerous theories which we have not checked are correct. The most widespread unprovable assumption that we all take for granted is that the laws of nature are fixed and will remain essentially unchanged. All of us are biased in favor of that unprovable assumption. This is called the Duhem-Quine thesis and I urge you to look it up.
You didn’t even bother to attempt to demonstrate this. This is yet more proof of your inability to understand what an argument is.
Agreed.
I’m still waiting for someone to show me how string theory necessitates other universes. Susskind certainly does not make that in his book the Cosmic Landscape, rather he merely proposes it as a way to make sense of fine-tuning. Let me quote him: “The large number of lucky accidents I’ve described so far, including the incredible fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, make a strong case for at least keeping an open mind to anthropic arguments. But these accidents alone would not have persuaded me to take a strong position on the issue. The success of Inflation (Inflation implies an enormous universe) and the discovery of a bit of vacuum energy made the Anthropic Principle appealing, but in my own mind, the “straw that broke the camel’s back” was the realization that String Theory was moving in what seemed to be a perverse direction. Instead of zeroing in on a single, unique system of physical laws, it was yielding an ever-expanding collection of Rube Goldberg concoctions. I felt that the goal of a single unique string world was an ever-receding mirage and that the theorists looking for such a unique world were on a doomed mission. But I also sensed an extraordinary opportunity in the approaching train wreck: String Theory might just provide the kind of technical framework in which anthropic thinking would make sense. The only problem is that String Theory, while it had a lot of possibilities, didn’t seem to have nearly enough. I kept asking my friends, “Are you sure that the number of Calabi Yau manifolds is only a few million?” Without the mathematical jargon, what I was asking them was whether they were quite certain that the number of String Theory vacuums (in other words, valleys in the Landscape) was measured in the millions. A few million possibilities when you are trying to explain the cancellation of 120 decimal places is of no real help.”
You see there’s nothing in String Theory that necessitates other landscapes which Susskind calculates are 10^500, rather it just means that 10^500 other landscapes are possible. In order to know if something is necessary you have to understand the conditions prior to the Big Bang which, if information cannot transfer from our universe to that state, is in principle unknowable.
Here is the false assumption you’re making: “all phenomena can be understood scientifically.” Science is simply certain knowledge and the best way to prove that someone is certain about something is to make a prediction and have it confirmed. That’s all science is. Freudianism is unscientific precisely because its predictions fail, second Freudianism applies to the human mind which is unique. Predictions have the structure if A then B. With the human mind there is no such thing as A because every human mind is different. With physics we can make successful predictions because the elements are qualitatively identical to each other. The problem I have with you scientists is that you arrogantly and foolishly trespass on territory that is not yours. You ridiculously attempt to extend your domain into realms that cannot be known with any certainty and you assume by fiat that everything will eventually come under your purview. This is false. Let’s discuss the two types of motion, only one of which can be known scientifically. There are many ways to call them. I prefer to call them semantic and syntactic motion, or intentional and lawlike motion. Syntactic motion occurs when one entity approaches the state of another entity and the resulting motion is entirely dependent on the properties of those entities and the space they are occupying. This motion can be predicted and described in an input-output format which is to say it is lawlike. Semantic or intentional motion occurs when a conscious entity observes another entity then moves an entity according to its intentions. So let’s take the example of the Eiffel Tower: photons activate certain rhodopsin molecules in my eyes which then fire certain neurons, all of that is syntatic motion. My consciousness observes this motion then moves the sodium ions in the extracellular fluid through the appropriate ion gates so as to cause my body to move towards the Eiffel Tower. That’s semantic motion. Science has no explanation of why I decided to move towards the Eiffel Tower. And here’s why. Let’s briefly bring up the nature of explanation. Explanation is composed of two things an explanans (that which explains) and the explanandum (the thing explained). Quite often the explanans is a law of nature, yet since for the moment it appears that some laws of nature are irreducible they therefore cannot be explained with any certainty. As Leonard Mlodinow said in a debate with Deepak Chopra here (paraphrasing)
fora.tv/2011/10/06/Deepak_Chopra … Worldviews :“Science accepts the laws merely as postulates, it gives no explanation as to why they are they way they and if you want to call that God, go ahead.” However, laws of nature only explain syntatic motion, intentions explain semantic motion. The reason why Shakespeare wrote Hamlet is because he decided to, there is no deeper explanation than that. He may have been influenced by a few things but ultimately the final decision rested with him. Shakespeare was the prime mover in the script of his play and since that decision cannot be broken down into anything further, then there can be no certain knowledge of why he did it. Here is how all this relates to God. God was the prime mover in the creation of the universe. The reason why the laws of nature are the way they are is because God intended them to be that way so that life could arise. Let’s now discuss why this is a better explanation than the contrary thesis.
Now, what evidence do we have in favor of this thesis? What are the characteristics of intentions? Intentions rarely take place without making use of interlocking parts. In order to carry out one’s intentions one needs to successfully synthesize a huge array of diverse parts into an integrated, persistent whole. Do we have evidence that the parts that arose from the Big Bang are interlocking? The evidence is overwhelming and is hardly debated. Second, intentions have goals. Is there one thing that the laws of nature point towards? There is indeed, namely, life. Change any of the parameters just a little bit and life no longer exists.
Now what evidence is there in favor of the thesis that the BB was due to chance. Let’s review the numerous false predictions of atheism. Atheism predicts that the BB was the result of chance, let’s see if there is any evidence to support that.
I want to reiterate the most astonishing failed prediction of the atheist hypothesis: chance predicts no interlocking parts. The sheer enormity of the interlocking parts that the universe is composed of boggles the imagination.
While we’re at it, let’s briefly address the argument from evil.
This only applies to an omnipotent God. There is no a priori reason why a limited God cannot create a universe. In fact we have a priori reasons that a perfect God cannot create a universe.
Further:
[/quote]
The hypocrisy of your claim is so blatant that it’s not even funny. Didn’t you just give me an infraction for discussing a hypothesis? It is you that accept the nonexistence of God beforehand and reject it. It is you that dismisses this theory as an explanation for why the laws are the way they are beforehand. It is you that is not even willing to consider this hypothesis beforehand, not me. Intelligent Design is the best explanation after reviewing all the scientific facts, it is not taken as a given.
Yeah, that says enough about you. I’m glad we banned you.
Good luck on your further endeavours!
The problem in Science is two fold;
Thus the scientists merely say, “we aren’t going to talk about it.”
…which invariably becomes, You aren’t allowed to talk about it (since we are the moniker of Truth).
Science has usable applications in industry, a god does not… subscribing to a faith is a personal choice which I respect, but I don’t have to listen to others preaching about it.
This is a classic non-sequitor. At issue here is whether the Big Bang can be explained as unintentional or due to chance. Thus the structure of your logic is:
Faith is used in two ways, one, belief in things for which there is no evidence, we’ll call that blind faith, two, belief in things for which the evidence is not conclusive, we’ll call that confidence. Blind faith is completely absurd. And one will die if one applies blind faith on a large scale. Confidence is simply explanation to the best explanation under a different name. God is the best explanation for the Big Bang.
I define God as the person that intended the Big Bang.
And science has shown us that no “intender” is necessary.
Prove it, Buffalo
Sounds like that over-familiar theist taunt, “Prove there is no God.” I find the prospect of entering into another pissing match with the uneducated (and apparently uneducatable) to be overwhelmingly boring. But I will point you in the right direction for self improvement, and perhaps if you are really as open minded as you say you are you will try to do a little “remedial physics”:
Lawrence M. Krauss, “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing”, Free Press (January 10, 2012)
from Amazon (amazon.com/Universe-Nothing- … 708&sr=8-1)
"Lawrence M. Krauss is director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. He is the author of more than 300 scientific publications and nine books, including the bestselling The Physics of Star Trek, and the recipient of numerous international awards for his research and writing. Hailed by Scientific American as a “rare scientific public intellectual,” he is also a regular columnist for newspapers and magazines and appears frequently on radio and television.
"Krauss reveals that modern science is addressing the question of why there is something rather than nothing, with surprising and fascinating results. The staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories are all described accessibly in A Universe from Nothing, and they suggest that not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing.
“…Krauss takes us back to the beginning of the beginning, presenting the most recent evidence for how our universe evolved—and the implications for how it’s going to end.”
"As Richard Dawkins has described it: This could potentially be the most important scientific book with implications for supernaturalism since Darwin. "
"A fascinating antidote to outmoded philosophical and religious thinking, A Universe from Nothing is a provocative, game-changing entry into the debate about the existence of God and everything that exists. ‘Forget Jesus,’ Krauss has argued, ‘the stars died so you could be born.’
Buffalo,
You have completely demonstrated your inability to fight for your atheism in the court of reason. When challenged you easily wilt into ad hominem attacks and abrogate the use of reason to justify your beliefs. You have failed to philosophize. As for Krauss, I’ve read him. Let me quote him: “By nothing, I do not mean nothing, but rather nothing—in this case, the nothingness we normally call empty space. That is to say, if I take a region of space and get rid of everything within it—dust, gas, people, and even the radiation passing through, namely absolutely everything within that region—if the remaining empty space weighs something, then that would correspond to the existence of a cosmological term such as Einstein invented.” This is the classic fallacy of equivocation. Krauss is talking about a quantum vacuum, not nothing. The book is mostly 90% science with 10% atheism thrown in. Krauss commits what I call the Jack in the Box fallacy. It goes like this:
And the authors foolishly forget all the design that went into creating that Jack. It’s the same with universe at time 10^-43 up until the period of inflation. The atheists foolishly think that inflation occurs from just a random quantum fluctuation. That material that inflated was specifically designed to start a chain reaction that ultimately culminated in all the galaxies that populate the universe. The atheists ridiculously think that the laws of nature were just randomly stamped on matter at the time of the Big Bang without any planning.
There’s my inference to the best explanation, now let’s see yours.
God, by anyone’s definition, isn’t the son of anyone; “per-son”.
And only to a very few is God a person in the sense of a human.
And then if not a human type per-son, then what type of person? What does it mean to be a person, but not human, an alien?
If God means a divine being, then God is certainly not a person.
But my point was merely that SCIENCE doesn’t have an adequate definition so as to proceed with investigation and wouldn’t do it even if they had one do to the trouble it would cause socially throughout the world.
“Necessary” isn’t the issue. Truth is the issue.
And Science actually hasn’t shown that at all.
They STILL talk about “fundamental laws”… ie. “we have no idea where these laws came from… MAYBE they are just chance happenings”
I DO know where they came from. But then, I can also rationally define “God”.
Up to there was excellent, but;
A few problems with that reasoning.