A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

So you are moving the goalposts now? You introduce a 'universe from nothing' to argue against head death? As to whether i accept it, read my post.

You claim it all the time with time is eternal. So explain how you know this when the the world's leading cosmologists don't know anything prior to the Planck epoch.

So long as you acknowledge there is not absolute nothing as a result of head (sic) death, we can move on the the 'front end'.

You are just rephrasing the question you asked in your last post, so I give you the same answer. I never claimed of there being "evidence of events prior to the big bang", but merely point out that if absolute nothing is not a credible rational scientific proposition, then there has always been 'something' existing.

 

[ChristineM]

So long as you acknowledge there is not absolute nothing as a result of head (sic) death, we can move on the the 'front end'.

You are just rephrasing the question you asked in your last post, so I give you the same answer. I never claimed of there being "evidence of events prior to the big bang", but merely point out that if absolute nothing is not a credible rational scientific proposition, then there has always been 'something' existing.

Autocorrect error not spotted by dyslexia.

You read my post. If you don't comprehend it then i cant help that.

You state that time is external and none of your waffling and back sliding is going to change that fact

And it is you who states absolute nothing is not credible, not science so stop pretending science backs your cause.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Autocorrect error not spotted by dyslexia.

You read my post. If you don't comprehend it then i cant help that.

You state that time is external and none of your waffling and back sliding is going to change that fact

And it is you who states absolute nothing is not credible, not science so stop pretending science backs your cause.

Ok, I take it you now agree that there is still mass and energy in the system after heat death, not nothing.

Of course I understand that existence is eternal, no beginning and no end, I have never implied otherwise.

Scientific theory is not proof* per se, such as is found in maths and logic. So for example, if science says that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, then it follows as a matter of provable logic that a state of absolute nothing can not exist, and thus existence is forever. The logical proof of the eternal nature of existence is predicated on the the Law of Conservation of Mass Energy.

* Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

 

[gnostic]

Autocorrect error not spotted by dyslexia.

Last night, I used my iPad, and typed the word "late", and the bloody thing changed it to "Kate".

So I understand what you mean by the autocorrect function can be hinder at times.

 

[ChristineM]

Ok, I take it you now agree that there is still mass and energy in the system after heat death, not nothing.

Of course I understand that existence is eternal, no beginning and no end, I have never implied otherwise.

Scientific theory is not proof* per se, such as is found in maths and logic. So for example, if science says that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, then it follows as a matter of provable logic that a state of absolute nothing can not exist, and thus existence is forever. The logical proof of the eternal nature of existence is predicated on the the Law of Conservation of Mass Energy.

* Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

How many times do you need to be told? You should have read my post

I know you have never implied otherwise, which is why i am asking for your evidence of conditions prior to the bb. You cannot know whether anything is eternal because nothing is known prior to the Planck epoch and there is nothing in science to say that a universe from nothing is not a possibility.

And then you go into waffle mode because you know you have no such evidence but are too incredulous to admit you have nothing to back up your claim

 

[ChristineM]

Last night, I used my iPad, and typed the word "late", and the bloody thing changed it to "Kate".

So I understand what you mean by the autocorrect function can be hinder at times.

Its easy to do, being dyslexic i re read my posts several times before posting. I did try turning autocorrect off for a while but that caused more problems... c'est la vie.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How many times do you need to be told? You should have read my post

I know you have never implied otherwise, which is why i am asking for your evidence of conditions prior to the bb. You cannot know whether anything is eternal because nothing is known prior to the Planck epoch and there is nothing in science to say that a universe from nothing is not a possibility.

And then you go into waffle mode because you know you have no such evidence but are too incredulous to admit you have nothing to back up your claim

Ok, i am pleased to note that you agree that there is still mass and energy in the system after heat death, not nothing.

I have given you the logical evidence but you ignored it, If you think it is in error, please enlighten us. Here it is again....if science says that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, then it logically follows that existence itself must have existed forever.

 

[ChristineM]

Ok, i am pleased to note that you agree that there is still mass and energy in the system after heat death, not nothing.

I have given you the logical evidence but you ignored it, If you think it is in error, please enlighten us. Here it is again....if science says that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, then it logically follows that existence itself must have existed forever.

I am pleased to know that you are beginning to gain a little understanding of the term heat death.

No . you have given your opinion, how can your opinion be logical when you don't account for all possibilities?

Science says prior to the Planck epoch all bets are off. And you are still insisting that you know of conditions before then. Please provide evidence for your claim or admit it is only a guess.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am pleased to know that you are beginning to gain a little understanding of the term heat death.

No . you have given your opinion, how can your opinion be logical when you don't account for all possibilities?

Science says prior to the Planck epoch all bets are off. And you are still insisting that you know of conditions before then. Please provide evidence for your claim or admit it is only a guess.

Haha....that's a twist, are you denying that you thought that heat death resulted in nothing in that earlier post?

What other possibilities are there if science says that matter energy can not be created or destroyed?

 

[ChristineM]

Haha....that's a twist, are you denying that you thought that heat death resulted in nothing in that earlier post?

What other possibilities are there if science says that matter energy can not be created or destroyed?

I said it a single photon would be visible. Now considering you can currently see 13.8 billion light years of universe then a single photon is pretty thin.

Science says nothing prior to the Planck epoch... NOTHING

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I said it a single photon would be visible. Now considering you can currently see 13.8 billion light years of universe then a single photon is pretty thin.

Science says nothing prior to the Planck epoch... NOTHING

You are being ridiculous, what is it that will see a single photon? And where is your citation for this claim? And where is the proof that there is going to be a heat death?

Cosmological science is far from settled, there is much scientific discussion about existence pre-singularity and even no big bang....try this SciAm* article... The Myth Of The Beginning Of Time

* Dear metis, please note that I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

 

[gnostic]

Scientific theory is not proof* per se, such as is found in maths and logic. So for example, if science says that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, then it follows as a matter of provable logic that a state of absolute nothing can not exist, and thus existence is forever. The logical proof of the eternal nature of existence is predicated on the the Law of Conservation of Mass Energy.

Actually, you are missing half of Conservation of Mass and half of Conservation of Energy. It does say it cannot be created and cannot be destroyed.

What you are missing is that mass can be transformed and that energy can be transformed.

Second, these conservation are only true,

(A) if the system is "closed system" or isolated system,
(B) and if it is not affected by very high energy.​

So, conserving is not perfect. In a open system, there are whole lot of variables to take into account, such as if mass encounter high energy.

Third, the conservation of mass and energy, is old, meaning it is outdated in some areas, such as it doesn't take into account the Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity.

Scientific theory is not proof* per se, such as is found in maths and logic. So for example, if science says that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, then it follows as a matter of provable logic that a state of absolute nothing can not exist, and thus existence is forever. The logical proof of the eternal nature of existence is predicated on the the Law of Conservation of Mass Energy.

Scientific theory relies on scientific or empirical evidences, not proof.

Scientists see proof as merely a logical or mathematical statement. For example, a proof is a short description accompanied by mathematical equation or formula.

Evidence differed from proof, in the way it relies on observation that can be repeatedly verified or tested, something that can be seen, detected, quantified or measured, like in experiments.

proof ≠ evidence​

Most scientific theories include equation and formula of some sorts, but it is the evidence that make scientific theory "FACTUAL", not the equations (proof).

And it is mathematicians and theoretical physicists that rely heavily on proofs than evidences.

 

[Willamena]

I know you have never implied otherwise, which is why i am asking for your evidence of conditions prior to the bb. You cannot know whether anything is eternal because nothing is known prior to the Planck epoch and there is nothing in science to say that a universe from nothing is not a possibility.

It's not rational to request evidence of something you know the other person doesn't believe.

That they can't provide evidence of something they don't believe in doesn't mean diddley-squat. And if you don't believe in it, it means doubly diddley-squat.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, you are missing half of Conservation of Mass and half of Conservation of Energy. It does say it cannot be created and cannot be destroyed.

What you are missing is that mass can be transformed and that energy can be transformed.

I am missing nothing, here is the source from whence it comes.... Law of Conservation of Matter

Conservation of Mass-Energy – Mass-Energy Equivalence

Second, these conservation are only true,

(A) if the system is "closed system" or isolated system,
(B) and if it is not affected by very high energy.​

So, conserving is not perfect. In a open system, there are whole lot of variables to take into account, such as if mass encounter high energy.

The closed system is a given, nothing can leak out of the universe...whence would it go..

Third, the conservation of mass and energy, is old, meaning it is outdated in some areas, such as it doesn't take into account the Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity.

So what do you mean "outdated', are you saying that the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy are no longer valid? Conservation of Mass-Energy – Mass-Energy Equivalence

Scientific theory relies on scientific or empirical evidences, not proof.

Scientists see proof as merely a logical or mathematical statement. For example, a proof is a short description accompanied by mathematical equation or formula.

Evidence differed from proof, in the way it relies on observation that can be repeatedly verified or tested, something that can be seen, detected, quantified or measured, like in experiments.

proof ≠ evidence​

Most scientific theories include equation and formula of some sorts, but it is the evidence that make scientific theory "FACTUAL", not the equations (proof).

And it is mathematicians and theoretical physicists that rely heavily on proofs than evidences.

Did you read the article or no? It explains the misconceptions about the nature and practice of science, including those held by some respectable practicing scientists and teachers themselves. Take it up with your teacher... Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

 

[gnostic]

Did you read the article or no?

I already have two physics and one chemistry textbooks at home.

Beside that I already know what proof and evidence are, and I knows the distinction between the two, and I have years before I had joined RF...

As I stated many times before proof are mainly relied upon by mathematicians and theoretical physicists.

Most of the other science, the non-theoretical kind - relied on empirical evidences, through field works or lab works (e.g. experiments).

I don't considered myself as a physicist, but the two courses I did do (civil engineering in mid-80s and computer science in late 90s), rely on applied physics, physics that I required to know to do my jobs. So my subjects fall under the experimental physics, not theoretical physics (so I didn't need to know string theory or multiverse model). I used observation and evidences (something that I can or measure), not mathematical proofs.

Science are worked on evidences, which depends on probability, not absolute proof. Only when you have enough evidences, would you know if any theory is false or true.

And the article agree with me about the distinction:

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.

I have been telling you and other creationists about this distinction all the time (not just in this thread, but in number of others)...you and other creationists don't seem to be able to grasp the distinction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I already have two physics and one chemistry textbooks at home.

Beside that I already know what proof and evidence are, and I knows the distinction between the two, and I have years before I had joined RF...

As I stated many times before proof are mainly relied upon by mathematicians and theoretical physicists.

Most of the other science, the non-theoretical kind - relied on empirical evidences, through field works or lab works (e.g. experiments).

I don't considered myself as a physicist, but the two courses I did do (civil engineering in mid-80s and computer science in late 90s), rely on applied physics, physics that I required to know to do my jobs. So my subjects fall under the experimental physics, not theoretical physics (so I didn't need to know string theory or multiverse model). I used observation and evidences (something that I can or measure), not mathematical proofs.

And the article agree with me about the distinction:

I have been telling you and other creationists about this distinction all the time (not just in this thread, but in number of others)...you and other creationists don't seem to be able to grasp the distinction.

So why did you respond to my post in a critical mode without indicating that with respect to that part, you were in agreement with me?

Most of that which you post is copy and paste or repeating what you read basic physics, and not relevant to my posts, so I mostly don't even read it, besides which, I am mostly very familiar with it. You really need to learn to be and stay relevant in any exchange, and to be succinct and to the point.

Scientific knowledge and understanding is not determined by a person's color, gender, race, or creed, so wake up and cease with the ignorant bigotry.

 

[ChristineM]

It's not rational to request evidence of something you know the other person doesn't believe.

That they can't provide evidence of something they don't believe in doesn't mean diddley-squat. And if you don't believe in it, it means doubly diddley-squat.

But he does believe and repeatedly stomps his foot that only he is right that time is eternal.

To make such a claim without evidence means doubly diddley-squat.

 

[ChristineM]

You are being ridiculous, what is it that will see a single photon? And where is your citation for this claim? And where is the proof that there is going to be a heat death?

Cosmological science is far from settled, there is much scientific discussion about existence pre-singularity and even no big bang....try this SciAm* article... The Myth Of The Beginning Of Time

* Dear metis, please note that I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

And i thought you had actually garnered some understanding of the concept of heat death.

I will provide proof after you. Which means it wing going to happen

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But he does believe and repeatedly stomps his foot that only he is right that time is eternal.

To make such a claim without evidence means doubly diddley-squat.

It is logical proof I provide, not just evidence, If mass and energy can not be created or destroyed according to the science you believe in, it was never created to begin with and thus is eternal.

Now if you do not agree with the logic, it is not enough to just deny its validity, you are required to explain what you think is in error in the logic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And i thought you had actually garnered some understanding of the concept of heat death.

I will provide proof after you. Which means it wing going to happen

You did not answer my question, what and who is it that sees one electron at heat death?