"Symmetry breaking is equally important in the world of particle physics. ... Physicists believe that just after the big bang, all of the forces of nature were identical and all elementary particles were the same. But within an instant, symmetry was broken."
Yes, thank you.
The poster was referring to forces, not particles, which also experienced symmetry breaking.
From Wiki: "
The Higgs mechanism, the spontaneous symmetry breaking of gauge symmetries, is an important component in understanding the superconductivity of metals and the origin of particle masses in the standard model of particle physics."
So science is a belief system?
The word science means many things. Within formal science (I describe informal science below), one is the method used to determine how nature works in laboratories and observatories, and another is the body of knowledge extracted by that process.
The scientific method is based in philosophical principles such as skepticism, empiricism, falsifiability and reproducibility. You can call that a belief system if you like.
When scientists discovered that the galaxies should not be gravitationally stable based on known science, and that the universe appeared to be accelerating in its expansion, it modified the narrative to account for this new evidence. Same process.
Do you realize what you´re saying and claiming here? Of course galaxies are stable in their own right and formational stage! This has NOTHING to do with any human theory in the first place! The point is HOW humans INTERPRET the galactic imageries and motions.
That wasn't my point. My point is that it is a strength of science, not a defect, that it modifies its narrative to conform to new evidence. The galaxy thing was one example.
The creation myths are mutually exclusive and contain no truth. The only creation story with any truth content is the scientific one, which even the religious recognize as authoritative when they strain to show conformity between the scientific and mythical accounts with a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy - emphasizing the small amount of overlap between the two while downplaying or ignoring the considerable differences.
The creation myths are excluded by you because you don´t understand these and the astronomical and cosmological descriptions.
What I said is that these myths are mutually exclusive. I reject them, which you might call excluding them, but that isn't what mutually exclusive means. It means that if any one is correct, all of the rest are wrong - a contradiction to your claim that they reinforce one another and collectively reveal some truth other than how human beings think and behave.
How can you judge myths and religions at all when you don´t bother to care more and investigate what you´re talking about?
Why do you assume that because people don't agree with you that it is due to failure to look at the material? You seem to rule out the possibility that one can look at some of these myths and religions and justifiably reject them all as being wrong ideas about reality simply because of the process used in generating them - faith. I reject all faith-based, insufficiently evidenced claims including those in myths and religions.
A logical test for you: What´s the similarities and differences between these two galaxies?
That's not a logical test. A logical test would require reasoning. The answer to your question would be a list of known facts.
Or maybe you're asking only about the difference in appearance between the two pictures rather than all differences. You can describe those differences yourself. I see two spiral galaxies with different configurations of their spiral arms (shape and number) and a difference in the shape of the central areas of the two, one more circular and the other more elongated.
The answer you are looking for would not be relevant to the discussion of whether myths have value or how science adapts its models to account for new, unexpected data.
Why can´t you se any truth in this even when " . . . light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths" is mentioned in the Norse Mythology?
I don't need ancients to tell me the trivial fact that stars emit light.
And what they? Some pantheon? Sorry, but I have no reason to believe that any such thing exists. So much for truth.
Is it just pure mumbo jumbo when it´s said in the Mesopotamian version that: "He created the moon to guard the heavens, and set it moving back and forth, on endless patrol."?
That's meaningless to me. As far as we know, nobody created the moon. The moon has no purpose.
Those words regarding the motions of the moon are also inaccurate. It doesn't go back and forth. Whether we are talking about absolute motion or apparent motion, the moon only moves in one direction in its orbit.
I don't see why you find value there apart from any poetic appeal myths may hold.
The problem here is that you, per biased automatism, refuse the ancient knowledge and don´t even take factual astronomical descriptions in myths seriously because you can´t connect the correct myth to the correct astronomical or cosmological issues.
I see no problem here. I have no need to connect these myths to science or anything else except human nature.
I don't feel the same as you about ancients having hidden or lost knowledge of any value today. Maybe, but I see no examples. I'd like to tell them about antibiotics and electricity. They have no equivalent knowledge to offer us.
Also, bias is a good thing if it's rational. Every time somebody decides that one thing is better than another, that's bias. It's irrational biases that are a problem.
It is on this unconscious and disconnected level that you conclude ancient myths to be nonsense and claim modern science to be objective facts.
My judgments are quite conscious, evidence-based, and are connected to reality through empiricism - what we can reproducibly experience - and pragmatism - what works to help us accomplish our goals.
I conclude that ancient myths are stories with no value to science, just the humanities, and that the only useful knowledge about the world comes from empiricism, which includes not just formal science (laboratories and observatories), but informal also the science we all do every day collecting data from the senses, applying reason to this input (interpreting its possible meanings), hypothesis formation and testing, revision of hypotheses where needed, etc.. That s what scientists are doing as well. This is how we learn most of the important knowledge we hold such as how to get home, not from science books.
But it's all empirical, and no idea not rooted in empiricism can be called knowledge
If only you had the courtesy to ask before you refuse what you don´t understand, that would in itself be a huge step forward
But I do understand. I question whether you do. I think you give too much importance to these stories.
Actually, I have quite a bit of education and exposure to the liberal arts both in school and thereafter, as with those two cosmology books I referred to that I also read in the eighties when in a self-teaching mode. I've been through all of this decades ago. I purchased and enjoyed the entire Joseph Campbell series, The Power of Myth also in the eighties.
I didn't find much value in myth in my life at that time either, and your views haven't changed that any, either. I don't know what this subject does for you, or why you are so enthusiastic about it, but it does little for me.
