What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[ryan]

That is why we use instruments, to detect things the brain can't or doesn't.

The paper tries to explain that the effects we detect today in the universe on our instruments are what we would expect from A, B, C and an infinite past. This isn't the only possible explanation for what we understand today regarding our universe, but like all theories it general fits.

Maybe A, B, C and a finite past does not give as good of an explanation of how we have today's universe, probably wouldn't; scientists usually want to avoid infinities whenever they can. There's a reason they chose infinity and not finite. Wouldn't you think, especially since peer reviewers would have been licking their lips to try to find unnecessary claims of infinity?

So they create the expectation and then confirm what they have created.

The expectation is what we observe; they don't create it. You meant the explanation that leads to the expectation/observations, right?

It isn't evidence of much except humans generally find what they want to find.

Because it already happened, they presented a possible model to explain how everything cosmologically came to be in the universe.

Tell me about this expectation.

What would we expect from an infinite past?

And how did you come up with this expectation?

I don't know what you mean.

 

[untermensche]

Tell me about this expectation.

What would we expect from an infinite past?

And how did you come up with this expectation?

I don't know what you mean.

You claimed they have evidence that matched some expectation.

What expectation are you talking about?

 

[ryan]

I don't know what you mean.

You claimed they have evidence that matched some expectation.

What expectation are you talking about?

I already told you weeks ago. It explains conditions seen today, namely dark energy. It's appealing because it solves problems of traditional Big Bang theories.

Read, http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning .

 

[fromderinside]

This is just another example for how one defines finite, things explained with parameter bounds. Beginnings and endings necessarily leave parameters, maybe all parameters unbound which to me suggests a starting point for coming to some agreement on the nature of "logical possibility".

 

[ryan]

This is just another example for how one defines finite, things explained with parameter bounds. Beginnings and endings necessarily leave parameters, maybe all parameters unbound which to me suggests a starting point for coming to some agreement on the nature of "logical possibility".

Agreement? Logical possibility is just applying logic to the real world and leaving everything else out. In other words, logically possible is just applying logic to an ideal world limited to its axioms.

 

[untermensche]

You claimed they have evidence that matched some expectation.

What expectation are you talking about?

I already told you weeks ago. It explains conditions seen today, namely dark energy. It's appealing because it solves problems of traditional Big Bang theories.

Read, http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning .

You are not telling me shit!!

You are hemming and hawing and not telling me anything.

I don't want a link.

I want you to explain yourself.

You haven't explained anything. I have a lot of trouble believing you have a point.

 

[ryan]

I already told you weeks ago. It explains conditions seen today, namely dark energy. It's appealing because it solves problems of traditional Big Bang theories.

Read, http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning .

You are not telling me shit!!

You are hemming and hawing and not telling me anything.

I don't want a link.

I want you to explain yourself.

You haven't explained anything. I have a lot of trouble believing you have a point.

Read the paper, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381 . Just read it even if you don't understand it because I will try to explain what they are saying and why they are saying it.

This is a model using corrected quantum equations (math). It's a way of explaining how cosmological observations came to be.

You can model systems with math as you know from pharmacology. This is like the small chemical reactions that we had to model except on a much larger scale. The universe is their breaker; except they are in the beaker. And they observe changes through time and model them. They even sense EM in similar ways that we do with spectroscopy techniques.

I cannot tell you exactly why their equations work better than others; I can only assume and trust in the peer-reviewed system.

 

[fromderinside]

This is just another example for how one defines finite, things explained with parameter bounds. Beginnings and endings necessarily leave parameters, maybe all parameters unbound which to me suggests a starting point for coming to some agreement on the nature of "logical possibility".

Agreement? Logical possibility is just applying logic to the real world and leaving everything else out. In other words, logically possible is just applying logic to an ideal world limited to its axioms.

Agreement comes from things like peer review of proposed axioms. So more in tune with you it's agreement on the nature of axioms such as bound and unbound attributes of parameters.

 

[untermensche]

I cannot tell you exactly why their equations work better than others; I can only assume and trust in the peer-reviewed system.

I have zero trust in the publication review, not peer review, process.

Peer review begins after publication.

 

[ryan]

I cannot tell you exactly why their equations work better than others; I can only assume and trust in the peer-reviewed system.

I have zero trust in the publication review, not peer review, process.

Peer review begins after publication.

I think you have it backwards. Usually, in order to be published for real science, it must be peer reviewed. You might be thinking of "publication" as in magazines like Scientific American Magazine. But that's not really what a "published" article means in terms of adding to the world bank of scientific knowledge.

But anyways, I am using a peer-reviewed library Elsevier, Science Direct.

 

[fromderinside]

Formally in scientific publication peer review has meant experts in the area review a proposed publication prior to being published. However it is obvious that peers also review and leverage off existing publications when they are working on their own publications prior to either experiment or submission for publication.

So rather than wrapping around a wheel why not get at what is trust. Peers are reviewing untermenche's example of what he means by trust right now. So far he's not supported it with anything objective so it's probably best to set his claim aside until such time he chooses to provide objective support for it. My observation rests on his lack of objective justification.

Begin.

 

[untermensche]

I have zero trust in the publication review, not peer review, process.

Peer review begins after publication.

I think you have it backwards. Usually, in order to be published for real science, it must be peer reviewed. You might be thinking of "publication" as in magazines like Scientific American Magazine. But that's not really what a "published" article means in terms of adding to the world bank of scientific knowledge.

But anyways, I am using a peer-reviewed library Elsevier, Science Direct.

If a study does not change current understandings nobody gives a damn about it.

If it is some obscure meaningless hypothesis nobody gives a damn about it.

It is never really reviewed.

 

[fromderinside]

We once published a parer on sensory phenomenon called common fate. Either moving sounds and lights or apparent moving sounds and light (sequential switching of fixed sources) are either going in the same direction, opposite direction or one is not moving at all. Its actually a case of sensory dominance, but, we chose to evaluate a publication using a nineteenth century term, common fate, as the demonstrated result noting all subjects reported sounds and lights going the same direction. They accepted it and published it. No review.

Later we submitted the same data to another journal where we presented the data in terms of sensory perceptual dominance where we showed that independent on which sense was considered primary to the observers moving lights resulted in responding that sounds were moving in the same direction. Paper was reviewed with all reviewers noted this was yet another demonstration that common fate construct is deficient. A bit more than common fate

....or was it reviewer Common fate?

 

[ryan]

I think you have it backwards. Usually, in order to be published for real science, it must be peer reviewed. You might be thinking of "publication" as in magazines like Scientific American Magazine. But that's not really what a "published" article means in terms of adding to the world bank of scientific knowledge.

But anyways, I am using a peer-reviewed library Elsevier, Science Direct.

If a study does not change current understandings nobody gives a damn about it.

It's a theory that does change our current understanding about what's possible in the universe and its past.

If it is some obscure meaningless hypothesis nobody gives a damn about it.

It is never really reviewed.

Well, if this is what your argument has come to, then you should think hard about why you still hold your position.

 

[untermensche]

If a study does not change current understandings nobody gives a damn about it.

It's a theory that does change our current understanding about what's possible in the universe and its past.

If it is some obscure meaningless hypothesis nobody gives a damn about it.

It is never really reviewed.

Well, if this is what your argument has come to, then you should think hard about why you still hold your position.

Bottom line, if you can't put this "theory" into clear and concise language nothing can be done with it.

So either explain it or drop it.

You have not explained it.

A link is not an explanation.

 

[ryan]

It's a theory that does change our current understanding about what's possible in the universe and its past.

If it is some obscure meaningless hypothesis nobody gives a damn about it.

It is never really reviewed.

Well, if this is what your argument has come to, then you should think hard about why you still hold your position.

Bottom line, if you can't put this "theory" into clear and concise language nothing can be done with it.

So either explain it or drop it.

You have not explained it.

A link is not an explanation.

Contradicting a simplified explanation is not going to convince me or anyone that you have falsified their claim. The jump is too big for you to fully understand and appreciate the claim from just a summary, and it's too big for me to give it a proper summary.

My issue is that you do not understand the article, yet you think their claim is foolish and impossible.

 

[fromderinside]

...or so you claim ....

 

[Kharakov]

Bottom line, if you can't put this "theory" into clear and concise language nothing can be done with it.

Says the AI that talks about their theory about infinities without using mathematics.

 

[ryan]

...or so you claim ....

What am I claiming? I am not making a definite claim that an infinite past does or doesn't exist. My only claim is that UM's definite claim is not justified.

 

[untermensche]

Bottom line, if you can't put this "theory" into clear and concise language nothing can be done with it.

Says the AI that talks about their theory about infinities without using mathematics.

I do not talk about the splendid mathematical theories involving infinity because they are meaningless to my claims. The fact that you can't see that is a problem.

I have never claimed infinity is not a useful mathematical concept.

But a real world infinity is not mathematics. It is nothing.

No such thing exists.