Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[mikkel_the_dane]

That could explain a lot and opens the door to a whole host of possible misunderstanding.


I didn't say it did. There are, however, means and organisations that support international cooperation and collaboration in science, and they are the standard that the world uses.

There is no way that humanities are science, and, for entirely different reasons, neither are mathematics and logic. They don't use the scientific method.

So you claim because some people agree with you, that your view is universal yet it is not as I have shown. Do you understand what you are doing?

You are declaring that a limited group of people hold truth over other humans, because what they say, is the truth. Do you recognize that one?
We are playing cultural relativism and you are doing truth by saying it is the truth, because you say it is so for a group of people. You are doing an ad populum.

 

[ratiocinator]

So you claim because some people agree with you, that your view is universal yet it is not as I have shown. Do you understand what you are doing?

You are declaring that a limited group of people hold truth over other humans, because what they say, is the truth. Do you recognize that one?
We are playing cultural relativism and you are doing truth by saying it is the truth, because you say it is so for a group of people. You are doing an ad populum.

You really are off on another pointless tangent and wanting to have an argument over the meaning of words but trying to make it more profound. Meanwhile, the international community gets on with doing science.

Sorry, it's pointless - lost interest now. As you were, back in your own little world.

 

[Zwing]

I suspect it's more of a translation problem. Whatever word you are translating to 'science' probably doesn't have exactly the same meaning as the strict technical usage in English. Probably not your fault, a direct translation may not exist.

Well, no, it is not. The book clearly explain the difference between science in English and videnskab in Danish.
Now try using Google translate on humanistisk videnskabsteori and no it is not humanities. It is humanistic.

Academically there is no difference in science in any language.

I say we revert to writing all academic papers in Latin…solve the translation problem 1,2,3!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, the universe did not begin from an idea.

The article says: This final definition of nothing, while it certainly feels the most philosophically satisfying, may not have a meaning at all. It could just be a logical construct borne out of our inadequate human intuition.

You said "And I agree this definition is an idea that has nothing that corresponds to it.
Let's not talk about the Big Bang

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The concept of 'an idea' has to many anthropomorphic implications.

I know, but that's Polymath's language.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Does CMBR dating (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) give us that look far back to a beginning of spacetime?
The light at the end of the tunnel, or the light at the beginning of the tunnel ?

At a mere 380, 000 years from the BB beginning, it is close.

 

[Polymath257]

The article says: This final definition of nothing, while it certainly feels the most philosophically satisfying, may not have a meaning at all. It could just be a logical construct borne out of our inadequate human intuition.

You said "And I agree this definition is an idea that has nothing that corresponds to it.
Let's not talk about the Big Bang

Exactly. it has no meaning at all. Just like what your quote said. The idea is given by the definition.

 

[Polymath257]

Evidence for the bold. We are playing culture.

Those subjects that do not use the scientific method are not sciences. If there is no testing by observation, there is no science.

So, no, history is not a science. Neither is philosophy.

 

[Polymath257]

They are professors in psychology or in Danish psykologi/human videnskab.
Now just because you have a cultural standard doesn't mean it is universal, because you say it is.
You do know of the term cultural relativism. That is what is going on here.

Over here, psychology likes to think of itself as a science, but it really isn't except in very rare cases.

 

[Polymath257]

I know, but that's Polymath's language.

No, you misunderstood. The idea of 'nothing' has no correlate. It is literally meaningless. I am NOT saying the universe came out of an idea. I am also NOT saying the universe came out of nothing.

More accurately, I am NOT saying the universe 'came out of' at all.

 

[Polymath257]

I say we revert to writing all academic papers in Latin…solve the translation problem 1,2,3!

Unfortunately, that won't solve the problem. There are too many concepts that didn't exist in Latin that we would have to invent words for. And that brings in the possibility of misunderstanding again.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Exactly. it has no meaning at all. Just like what your quote said. The idea is given by the definition.

Nevertheless, it is this 4th definition of nothing that applies to the BB that you believe in.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you misunderstood. The idea of 'nothing' has no correlate. It is literally meaningless. I am NOT saying the universe came out of an idea. I am also NOT saying the universe came out of nothing.

More accurately, I am NOT saying the universe 'came out of' at all.

I know what you believe, but science still sees it as the 4th kind of nothing definition.
Theoretically, it may be possible to see the BB beginning from within spacetime by looking back in time. As a thought experiment, if we could see the very beginning, would we see the lights go out at T=0, and see a black screen, or would we see an old man with a grey beard shout "Let there be light!"?

 

[shunyadragon]

Does it? It doesn't say that in any parts you quoted. So again, where is the reference?

Yes it does.

Neither did it say anything about space and time being quantised at the "smallest scale".

No meaningful dialogue, and you have offered nothing just static.

 

[shunyadragon]

I say we revert to writing all academic papers in Latin…solve the translation problem 1,2,3!

No need roughly 99%+ of meaningful academic articles are translated in English, German, Spanish and French.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you claim because some people agree with you, that your view is universal yet it is not as I have shown. Do you understand what you are doing?

You are declaring that a limited group of people hold truth over other humans, because what they say, is the truth. Do you recognize that one?
We are playing cultural relativism and you are doing truth by saying it is the truth, because you say it is so for a group of people. You are doing an ad populum.

Science does not describe anything in terms of claims of 'Truth.'

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, the book is about humanistisk videnskabsteori. It is not about naturalistisk videnskabsteori. Google translate the 2.

Academically there is no difference in science in any language. All the universities of the world translate their work in science in most if not all languages of the world without changing the science. Science remains science across cultural and linguistic boundaries.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which is tending towards word salad, but before you said:-

So what has the Hawking Hartle no boundary hypothesis got to do with some "quantum matrix" beyond space-time?

This may help: How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything | Quanta Magazine

How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-physics-of-nothing-underlies-everything-20220809/#comments

Quantum Nothingness​

Nothing started to seem like something in the 20th century, as physicists came to view reality as a collection of fields: objects that fill space with a value at each point (the electric field, for instance, tells you how much force an electron will feel in different places). In classical physics, a field’s value can be zero everywhere so that it has no influence and contains no energy. “Classically, the vacuum is boring,” said Daniel Harlow, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Nothing is happening.”

Abstractions navigates promising ideas in science and mathematics. Journey with us and join the conversation.

---

See all Abstractions blog​

But physicists learned that the universe’s fields are quantum, not classical, which means they are inherently uncertain. You’ll never catch a quantum field with exactly zero energy. Harlow likens a quantum field to an array of pendulums — one at each point in space — whose angles represent the field’s values. Each pendulum hangs nearly straight down but jitters back and forth.

Left alone, a quantum field will stay in its minimum-energy configuration, known as its “true vacuum” or “ground state.” (Elementary particles are ripples in these fields.) “When we talk about the vacuum of a system, we have in mind in some loose way the preferred state of the system,” said Garcia Garcia.

Most of the quantum fields that fill our universe have one, and only one, preferred state, in which they’ll remain for eternity. Most, but not all.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Those texts compare the sky to a tent--in other words a covering over the Earth. That tent is what is being spread out. That has nothing to do with the modern observations of universal expansion.

In Scripture there is the mid-heavens were the birds fly. There is the heaven of outer space - Psalm 147:4
And there is the ' heaven of heavens '- 1st Kings 8:27,39 - which heaven can Not even contain God.
Yes, there is the heavenly sky as a tent covering over Earth but also the *starry* heaven above the Earth - Isaiah 40:26; Psalm 147:4; 102:25
I find the plural of heaven at Jeremiah 10:11 and at Zech. 12:1.
Plus, more than the sky is mentioned at Job 9:8-9; Job 38:31-33
So, the expanding heavens is not out of harmony with Scripture.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What in earth are you talking about "spawned by energy"? You need something to have energy. You can't make things out of it.

To me the 'something to have energy' comes from God's spirit - Psalm 104:30