we were struggling with a production defect. We gathered our subject matter experts and we said, “okay, we have this problem. We need to know the fundamental mechanisms so we can establish the root cause.”
- So we go around the room and we determine what facts we have on the table. What do we know already. What is the defect, when does it happen, what does it happen to, how much does it happen, is it getting worse over time?
- Then we ask, “what could possibly cause that?” And we brainstorm a list. Brainstorming means, get as many ideas as possible. Don’t judge, don’t solve, just ideate. It can be far-fetched, that’s okay, we’ll interrogate later.
Yes I do understand, and would you include in the many ideas, which may seem far fetched ideas, brainstorming genuine investigative interests, without religion, without being judged,; the notion that there's the possibilty that there was an
intentional 'physical' universe begininning?
The brainstorming allows all ideas. And you don’t get to cross them off until later, because sometimes associative creativity can spark a good idea off of an idiotic one. So we write them all down.
Interestingly, in 30 years of engineering, do you know that
not once has one of my Christian colleagues suggested that “goddidit” is the reason for the defect? We’ve had some pretty far out ideas, but divine intervention was a step too far for every person in all that time. Notwithstanding I have had to endure some pretty ridiculous prayer stoppages from time to time. Someone wanting us all to hold hands and pray before starting up the new equipment.
But yeah all ideas suggested are written down unless the team starts t get goofy and then we conclude we have gotten all of the ideas And we move to the next step.
I understand there are processes to go through, and you have conclusions and results from tried and tested experimental methods.
But I do not see the same conclusions are possible yet, if at all, in regards to what came before the singularity.
Why not? They are examining what happens when matter gets very very dense. And hypothesizing what could make it so dense. And have we ever seen extreme densification elsewhere. And what happened then. And testing, do we see that heppening elsewhere?
If you want to examine an extreme, you can absolutely gain clues from things that are near-extreme, or approaching extreme, or treding in the direction of extreme. It’ll tell you a lot.
If trending toward mega-dense creates observations that are the
opposite of what you claimed mega dense would behave like, then you are barking up the wrong tree, and you have evidence to say so.
So I'd therefore ask the question: What material matter, or method was tried and tested, giving the same solid conclusions, i.e., the same "estabished route cause," to the singularity?" Otherwise this seems to me, to be a tad misleading.
I’ve already explained this, but I will explain it again.
You gather data that establishes a
trend. You look at stars. They are pretty dense, and pretty hot. Then you look at neutron stars, which are still denser. Then you look at black holes that are denser still. Then you look at massive black holes. And you see, what led to their formation, how do they behave. Is there a
trend as objects get denser and more massive? How do they influence the universe around them.
We have observatons for all of these and we can use that trend to build a projection - an extrapolation - and predict what would happen if it were denser still, and more massive still. And by golly, the prediction
is accurate when we find the next more massive black hole.
And that is how physicists could tell you what is possible beyond a singularity. They never promised to prove it to you, but they did propose things that could work, and do not have any reason to not work.
The claim you seem to be making here, is
merely an acceptable idea, among other theoretical ideas, but.... that is NOT in the same way, or manner, an "established route cause explanarion", resulting from a similar method described in your engineer processes & investigations of
tangible matter.
I explained that the root cause never promises to PROVE. It cannot. It only establishes a good reason to keep moving in that direction. A good reason to feel that the probability of a solution is at hand. An economic justification that we are
probably not making a mistake.
That’s what overwhelming evidence and consilience of disparate fundamentals provides: reliability, not proof.
That’s what you were asked to do in this discussion. Propose some ideas on how your god could interact. Any scientist or engineer would pull out a green pad and start thinking, crossing off things that aren’t possible, seeing what’s left. A religionist has no curiosity beyond, “because he’s god,” and no concern that the implication has elements that are not possible.
It's an excellent post.
