Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[blü 2]

I don’t think that any of us need to take anything on blind faith. The most intellectually honest option is to accept the reality of our ignorance. Yes, we may have some very creative hypotheses, but what is the likelihood that we actually know what we’re talking about yet?

That seems rather too broad for me. The justification for science is not that it possesses absolute truths (there being none) but that it works; and works very well and keeps opening new doors.

Events appear as “chance” because we cannot comprehend the complex chain of causality.

Don't overlook a variety of QM events that have no cause in the classical sense, and are dealt with in physics statistically. Examples are the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay, and each example of the phenomena that generate the Casimir effect (usually described as the spontaneous formation and instant mutual annihilation of particle-anti-particle pairs).

Have you ever made a choice without a reason?

Well, having chosen to toss a coin, I've been known to abide by the result.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don’t think that any of us need to take anything on blind faith. The most intellectually honest option is to accept the reality of our ignorance. Yes, we may have some very creative hypotheses, but what is the likelihood that we actually know what we’re talking about yet?

Events appear as “chance” because we cannot comprehend the complex chain of causality. Have you ever made a choice without a reason?

" The most intellectually honest option is to accept the reality of our ignorance. "


I am an ordinary man in the street.
We humans explore the Universe with the help of our present knowledge and we get to know something as to how it was created but soon we come to a stage that we have to admit that we are still ignorant. Right, please?

Regards
_______________

[2:33] قَالُوۡا سُبۡحٰنَکَ لَا عِلۡمَ لَنَاۤ اِلَّا مَا عَلَّمۡتَنَا ؕ اِنَّکَ اَنۡتَ الۡعَلِیۡمُ الۡحَکِیۡمُ ﴿۳۳﴾
They said: ‘Holy art Thou! No knowledge have we except what Thou hast taught us; surely, Thou art the All-Knowing, the Wise.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 2: Al-Baqarah

 

[paarsurrey]

The time to believe something is when there is good evidence for it, not merely when it can't be absolutely ruled out. Thus the rationally justified position is lack of belief, until such time as good evidence comes along.

Isn't it like a chain, please?:
knowledge >* ignorance >*knowledge>*ignorance
Right, please?

Regards
______________
* leads to

 

[MikeF]

"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of extremely high density and high temperature, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure." Big Bang - Wikipedia

The forces of gravity and expansion must be in incredibly precise proportions. If gravity was too much greater than expansion, the universe would collapse back onto itself. If the force of expansion was too much greater than gravity, the universe would fly apart.

The precision of the balance between the forces is 10 to the 60 power. That's a chance of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. To put it another way, it would be like aiming at and hitting a 1 inch target located at the opposite end of the universe!

I just read something about the gullibility of Christians for having faith in intelligent design. Of course it would have been written by someone who apparently has no problem in believing in such mind boggling and overwhelming odds in the "chance" appearance of our universe. It would also be by "chance" that an explosion would end up with sentient beings that could even ponder said explosion.

So who is taking what by blind faith?

These debates are silly and pointless.

The need for human beings to fill in the gaps of understanding of the universe with the supernatural can only be solved in the realm of psychology and behavioral science. A lecture in astrophysics or evolutionary biology on issues at the boundaries of our understanding will never dissuade those who seek justification and refuge for a belief in the supernatural. As the boundary of what we know expands, there should be no other expectation than to see ideas of the supernatural continue to fall away. This is the well established pattern we observe as we look back to humanities earliest beginnings, steeped in animism and superstition.

Psychotherapy is the solution to the supernatural, not astrophysics.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Quantum Mechanics science did not exist at that time (if time existed then), please? Right, please?

Wrong.

History of quantum mechanics
Scientific inquiry into the wave nature of light began in the 17th and 18th centuries,
Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia
Please elaborate.

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Quantum Mechanics science did not exist at that time (if time existed then), please? Right, please?

History of quantum mechanics
Scientific inquiry into the wave nature of light began in the 17th and 18th centuries,
Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia
Please elaborate.

Regards

LOL! Gravity existed before we wrote the formal laws explaining it. And QM existed before we explained it too. It is not as if material did not react at that level until someone did the math.

 

[paarsurrey]

Quantum Mechanics does not exist, It is the descriptive science of the nature of our physical existence at the Quanta scale.

Does one mean it is our effort of understanding of the scenario as to how G-d set the Universe to work? Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does one mean it is our effort of understanding of the scenario as to how G-d set the Universe to work? Right, please?

Regards

Nope. One need not assume a God. And if you want to claim a God the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[paarsurrey]

LOL! Gravity existed before we wrote the formal laws explaining it. And QM existed before we explained it too. It is not as if material did not react at that level until someone did the math.

But how does gravity gets created in the first place. Nobody tells us. Right, please?
And, how did QM come to exist in nature? Nobody tells it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

But how does gravity gets created in the first place. Nobody tells us. Right, please?
And, how did QM come to exist in nature? Nobody tells it. Right, please?

Regards

Why assume that it was"created". Again, drop the loaded language.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Scratch is not science.

May I quote you on that nugget of wisdom?

 

[Regiomontanus]

But how does gravity gets created in the first place. Nobody tells us. Right, please?
And, how did QM come to exist in nature? Nobody tells it. Right, please?

Regards

Yes they (atheists) want a free lunch, so to speak ;-)

 

[firedragon]

The time to believe something is when there is good evidence for it, not merely when it can't be absolutely ruled out. Thus the rationally justified position is lack of belief, until such time as good evidence comes along.

So please explain, what is your belief?

 

[paarsurrey]

Nope. One need not assume a God. And if you want to claim a God the burden of proof is upon you.

I don't feel a burden, if one doesn't tell us, Who did it, please?
One may like to see my post #27 again please. Right, please?
Science doesn't as it starts exploring "how" but sooner or later comes to admit "ignorance", and then there is nothing but paradoxical jargon or "gibberish". Is it admittance that science is unnecessarily overburdened by the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, please? It is beyond science!

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't feel a burden, if one doesn't tell us, Who did it, please?
One may like to see my post #27 again please. Right, please?
Science doesn't as it starts exploring "how" but sooner or later comes to admit "ignorance", and then there is nothing but paradoxical jargon or "gibberish". Is it admittance that science is unnecessarily overburdened by the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, please? It is beyond science!

Regards

That is not my problem. And no, there is no overburden. Try again. All you have is failure after failure here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes they (atheists) want a free lunch, so to speak ;-)

Where did you get that claim from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that is the question I asked, please don't put it to me again. I asked the question after reading from the NASA site, I am an ordinary man in the street like millions and millions others . Please

Regards

And I am betting that he cannot support that claim. It appears to be a falsehood and possible projection on the poster's part.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is not my problem. And no, there is no overburden. Try again. All you have is failure after failure here.

If one likes to enjoy a win, I don't grudge one. I don't discuss to win. If my failure please one, please be happy with it a hundred times. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

If one likes to enjoy a win, I don't grudge one. I don't discuss to win. If my failure please one, please be happy with it a hundred times. Right, please?

Regards

I am not looking for a win. I am interested in promoting rational thought and discourse.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Have you ever made a choice without a reason?

No. I always had a reason, even if the reason later may have been proved wrong.