Religion = Child; Science = Adult

[remez]

Fair enough. I just happen to have a different viewpoint.

Also I’m assuming, that when Hawking and Krauss wrote their books inferring theories of how the universe began, that they were assuming that the universe began. Further ex.

Irrelevant. Argument from authority.

Furthermore, ask any of your cosmologists friends if they believe that the universe can be accurately modeled by General Relativity at times less than t=10^-43 seconds. It's pretty common knowledge that before you get to a singularity quantum mechanics has to be taken into account. Currently there is no definitive scientific answer as to how to incorporate QM into GR,

I completely concur with that. A complete no brainer. But when you say “taken into account”…… I ask you taken into account to do or to know what? There is a goal in mind.

The goal would be to explain the nature of the universe before t=10^-43 seconds. Since we know the classical theory is incomplete, we cannot assume that the classical theory accurately predicts the conditions at t=0.

Currently there is no definitive scientific answer as to how to incorporate QM into GR, so our knowledge is still incomplete about what the state of the universe was at t=0.

Now that statement is a statement of inference. In your inference I see an assumption of “only absolute certainty” gives us knowledge.

When did I speak about "absolute certainty"?

Ironically there, you’re also assuming that all assumptions are wrong.

Sorry, I don't follow.

Another flavor of inference you have in your statement is this. Within the assumed context of the singularity, you’re inferring that since we don’t know the state of affairs for that last Planck second of past history that we can’t rationally infer from our position of 13.7 billion years of historical knowledge that the universe began to exist. Thus once again that inference is based on the assumption that knowledge is only absolute certainty.

I never said anything about "absolute certainty". I think you are projecting. What I'm saying is that if you know that the classical theory is incomplete in the parameter space in which you are trying to use it, it is not good practice to use it and "infer" that it is reflecting reality.

The ultraviolet catastrophe ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe) is a great example of how the classical theory breaks down and could only be reconciled by incorporating quantum mechanics.

Now think about this…. The assumption that knowledge is only absolute certainty is an assumption that is not absolutely certain.

I have not spoken of "absolute certainty".

Now I know this might be perceived as a massive word salad affair...

Then you should write more clearly.

For one, we know that the singularity is likely to be wrong because we don't have a quantum gravity theory.

You don’t have absolute certainty to say that.

Note the use of the word "likely".

You don’t even have a rational inference to say that. Because the singularity isn’t a theory it’s a fact of an expanding universe.

It's a "fact" of a classical theory that we know is incomplete with regard to the incorporation of modern physics. It's as much a "fact" as the ultraviolet catastrophe was.

Attempts have been made to avoid the singularity but they remain untenable.

Attempts are ongoing. We do not yet know if there is a solution that avoids the singularity at t=0.

So my point here was how you can say you know? When you don’t have certainty, and its "certainty" that seems to be your criterion of knowledge. At least that is the standard you hold my views to or else it simply assumed.
Hence my concern for your double standard?

I'm not saying I know. I'm saying that I don't know. I'm saying that I won't say that "before" t=0 there was a god that created the universe.

Then read what they say: "some new physics is *necessary*".

Some new physics is necessary to explain what?

Read the paper for your answer.

Hold on. If you going to say “we don’t know”, maybe some new physic can make the universe eternal, we just don’t know…..then you are simply filling the gap with your naturalism. A hope that rests on a single Planck second compared to a 13.7 billion year rational inference. Do the math……What is more plausible?

What's more plausible? You mean between filling the gap with more physics or filling the gap with a god? Which approach do you think has been more successful in explaining the universe?

But that does not mean all reasoning stops at the limit of science. Science is not the paradigm of all knowledge. And it doesn’t mean scientists should stop looking either.

You are welcome to reason beyond what you can scientifically prove. And I am welcome to disagree with you and believe that reasoning beyond what you can prove is speculative. And I am welcome to believe that filling the unknown with god is not a good approach.

And I didn’t just SAY goddidit. I presented an argument supported by science that concluded that God was the cause. An argument you’ve yet to dismiss with a reasonable fault.

And I have contended that the word "God" means so many different things to so many different people that it is not a useful explanation for anything. If you can give me a list of characteristics that are "supported by science" I'd like to see that summary.

Great post, but I'm out of time to respond right now. Later then. However the Ultraviolet catastrophe link would be valuable to me. Please recheck it because it really didn't go anywhere. Just to a page saying they don't have it. So I check back in later. Thanks.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Great post, but I'm out of time to respond right now. Later then. However the Ultraviolet catastrophe link would be valuable to me. Please recheck it because it really didn't go anywhere. Just to a page saying they don't have it. So I check back in later. Thanks.

Sorry. I misused the wiki tags. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

 

[Malintent]

What does gravity operate on? …Matter?
Our best science thus far infers that matter began.
Thus gravity also began.

what does temperature operate on? Nerve endings on the skin?
Our best science thus far infers that nerve endings began.
Thus, temperature also began (when nerve endings began, of course).

What we have here, friends, is a failure to form a logical conclusion.

 

[remez]

Sorry for the delay…..vacation duty was grueling.

The goal would be to explain the nature of the universe before t=10^-43 seconds. Since we know the classical theory is incomplete, we cannot assume that the classical theory accurately predicts the conditions at t=0.

I get that. I’m not asking you to assume. But you’re ignoring 13.7 billion years of inference pointing to a complete beginning.

It's a "fact" of a classical theory that we know is incomplete with regard to the incorporation of modern physics. It's as much a "fact" as the ultraviolet catastrophe was.

Yes science evolves to match our observations of nature. But the context here is the origin of nature itself not some small subset of it.

Here is the notion of contention…… We are both looking back with science, the laws of physics. It is our vision into the past. By definition science is limited to nature. Thus here is the conundrum I see of your worldview. If nature/universe totally began to exist then science is limited to that singularity as well. You are holding out for the wishful hope that science can find the beginning of itself. It like saying….. “Give me more time and I'll discover that I gave birth to my own mother!” So it really comes down to your wishful hope vs. 13.7 billion years of rational inference.

Just consider for a moment that the universe had a complete beginning. Really ponder it. What would it look like to us right now 13.7 billion years from its genesis? Well……It would look like what we have right now. When you look back and create a gap by claiming that the laws of classical physics breakdown at the singularity thus we can’t infer anything. I look back through 13.7 billion years of inference and see that is exactly the moment in time that the entire universe began, thus I would expect the laws of physics to begin as well. I would not expect that the laws of physics themselves could explain how the laws of physics came to be. You see a breakdown, I see a beginning with the rational understanding that science, the laws of physics, will be unable to explain its own beginning.

Also I’m assuming, that when Hawking and Krauss wrote their books inferring theories of how the universe began, that they were assuming that the universe began. Further ex.

Irrelevant. Argument from authority.

Be fair. You’re way out of context there. It goes back several pages. You asked for evidence where cosmologists infer that the universe began to exist.

Attempts have been made to avoid the singularity but they remain untenable.

Attempts are ongoing. We do not yet know if there is a solution that avoids the singularity at t=0.

But we have 13.7 billion years of rational inference that infers that the universe began to exist. Do we have absolute knowledge…..no. Do we have enough evidence to reasonably infer that the universe began….most definitely? Your worldview is less plausible.

Then read what they say: "some new physics is *necessary*".

Some new physics is necessary to explain what?

Read the paper for your answer.

I have. It’s the BGV theorem itself. My question was there because you seem to be twisting what they meant by some new physics is needed. Needed for what?

Hold on. If you going to say “we don’t know”, maybe some new physic can make the universe eternal, we just don’t know…..then you are simply filling the gap with your naturalism. A hope that rests on a single Planck second compared to a 13.7 billion year rational inference. Do the math……What is more plausible?

What's more plausible? You mean between filling the gap with more physics or filling the gap with a god? Which approach do you think has been more successful in explaining the universe?

See you shifted off the math to metaphysics. Ouch! Your sequence of questions is metaphysically fallacious. Q1 simply reinstates my question to established context…Good. Q2 is a false dilemma. Only you wishfully see a gap. I rationally infer a beginning, no gap. God comes along further down the rational trail of inference and thus is not relevant to our point here. Q3 Categorical fallacy based upon your false dilemma in Q2. Cool, two fallacies in one. You’re assuming that only mechanistic explanations exist.

But that does not mean all reasoning stops at the limit of science. Science is not the paradigm of all knowledge. And it doesn’t mean scientists should stop looking either.

You are welcome to reason beyond what you can scientifically prove. And I am welcome to disagree with you and believe that reasoning beyond what you can prove is speculative.

Here is the big issue with your statement there. It is philosophical not scientific. Thus you are reasoning beyond what you can scientifically prove. Yet you espouse that your reasoning is true even though you can’t scientifically prove it. Scientism is completely self-refuting. Good philosophy is the stronger paradigm of knowledge.

 

[remez]

What does gravity operate on? …Matter?
Our best science thus far infers that matter began.
Thus gravity also began.

what does temperature operate on? Nerve endings on the skin?
Our best science thus far infers that nerve endings began.
Thus, temperature also began (when nerve endings began, of course).

What we have here, friends, is a failure to form a logical conclusion.

Ridiculous analogy. Gravity is a force. Temp is not a force it is a measurement.
What we have here, folks, is a failure to match a logical premise.

 

[Juma]

Sorry for the delay…..vacation duty was grueling.

I get that. I’m not asking you to assume. But you’re ignoring 13.7 billion years of inference pointing to a complete beginning.

It's a "fact" of a classical theory that we know is incomplete with regard to the incorporation of modern physics. It's as much a "fact" as the ultraviolet catastrophe was.

Yes science evolves to match our observations of nature. But the context here is the origin of nature itself not some small subset of it.

Here is the notion of contention…… We are both looking back with science, the laws of physics. It is our vision into the past. By definition science is limited to nature. Thus here is the conundrum I see of your worldview. If nature/universe totally began to exist then science is limited to that singularity as well. You are holding out for the wishful hope that science can find the beginning of itself. It like saying….. “Give me more time and I'll discover that I gave birth to my own mother!” So it really comes down to your wishful hope vs. 13.7 billion years of rational inference.

Just consider for a moment that the universe had a complete beginning. Really ponder it. What would it look like to us right now 13.7 billion years from its genesis? Well……It would look like what we have right now. When you look back and create a gap by claiming that the laws of classical physics breakdown at the singularity thus we can’t infer anything. I look back through 13.7 billion years of inference and see that is exactly the moment in time that the entire universe began, thus I would expect the laws of physics to begin as well. I would not expect that the laws of physics themselves could explain how the laws of physics came to be. You see a breakdown, I see a beginning with the rational understanding that science, the laws of physics, will be unable to explain its own beginning.

Also I’m assuming, that when Hawking and Krauss wrote their books inferring theories of how the universe began, that they were assuming that the universe began. Further ex.

Irrelevant. Argument from authority.

Be fair. You’re way out of context there. It goes back several pages. You asked for evidence where cosmologists infer that the universe began to exist.

Attempts have been made to avoid the singularity but they remain untenable.

Attempts are ongoing. We do not yet know if there is a solution that avoids the singularity at t=0.

But we have 13.7 billion years of rational inference that infers that the universe began to exist. Do we have absolute knowledge…..no. Do we have enough evidence to reasonably infer that the universe began….most definitely? Your worldview is less plausible.

Then read what they say: "some new physics is *necessary*".

Some new physics is necessary to explain what?

Read the paper for your answer.

I have. It’s the BGV theorem itself. My question was there because you seem to be twisting what they meant by some new physics is needed. Needed for what?

Hold on. If you going to say “we don’t know”, maybe some new physic can make the universe eternal, we just don’t know…..then you are simply filling the gap with your naturalism. A hope that rests on a single Planck second compared to a 13.7 billion year rational inference. Do the math……What is more plausible?

What's more plausible? You mean between filling the gap with more physics or filling the gap with a god? Which approach do you think has been more successful in explaining the universe?

See you shifted off the math to metaphysics. Ouch! Your sequence of questions is metaphysically fallacious. Q1 simply reinstates my question to established context…Good. Q2 is a false dilemma. Only you wishfully see a gap. I rationally infer a beginning, no gap. God comes along further down the rational trail of inference and thus is not relevant to our point here. Q3 Categorical fallacy based upon your false dilemma in Q2. Cool, two fallacies in one. You’re assuming that only mechanistic explanations exist.

But that does not mean all reasoning stops at the limit of science. Science is not the paradigm of all knowledge. And it doesn’t mean scientists should stop looking either.

You are welcome to reason beyond what you can scientifically prove. And I am welcome to disagree with you and believe that reasoning beyond what you can prove is speculative.

Here is the big issue with your statement there. It is philosophical not scientific. Thus you are reasoning beyond what you can scientifically prove. Yet you espouse that your reasoning is true even though you can’t scientifically prove it. Scientism is completely self-refuting. Good philosophy is the stronger paradigm of knowledge.

It you that are assuming too much: it is you that infer a more complex thing than that which needs to be explained.

 

[remez]

It you that are assuming too much: it is you that infer a more complex thing than that which needs to be explained.

Parsed

It you that are assuming too much: it is you that infer

I’m not assuming. I’m inferring, huge difference. You are wrong to conflate the two. Thus your objection is seriously flawed because you are conflating the two.

it is you that infer a more complex thing than that which needs to be explained.

- I’m inferring that the universe began to exist based on 13.7 billion years of rational inference from the laws of physics. He is wishing that the universe is eternal based on an IDK, Planck second. Do the math.

- God’s existence is further down the inferential trail. Irrelevant here at this stage.

- Finally. Please explain your philosophy as to why the explanation has to be less complex than the thing it’s explaining. Seems way too narrow an approach.

 

[Malintent]

I just can't help myself critique the format of the OP...

Parable = Child
Explanation = Adult