Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[shunyadragon]

Yes, please stop.

No please stop.

I did, see #3,362

That was not a response. Very evasive on your part. Still waiting . . .

 

[Polymath257]

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

Only in the sense that there is no 'outside of the universe'.

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!"?

As we get closer and closer to t=0, it gets hotter and denser, which means more high energy photons.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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!"?

We can only see that if we are not humans as we are humans now.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Which was identified with the firmament of Genesis 1. A solid dome over the Earth on which the stars were placed.

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.

It is completely out of harmony with the original intent of the scriptures. Remember that the main viewpoint in the early stage was that the Earth was flat, the sky was a dome over it, that it was surrounded by water and God lived above the dome.

Some later writings understand that the Earth is a sphere, but still have it 'hanging' in space (which is definitely NOT what it does). This happened primarily after the Greek influences became more significant.

 

[Polymath257]

So you say. Now show evidence for that. You are confusing your subjective norms with evidence. You are stating an opinion.

Do those subjects test their ideas by observation, developing tests specifically to challenge the ideas?

If not, they are not science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do those subjects test their ideas by observation, developing tests specifically to challenge the ideas?

If not, they are not science.

That is a subjective process in you and that "are" is not an observational case of the verb to be. It is the case of the verb to be for means.

"to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as" - Science means objective observation and the rest of the norms for natural science.
" to have a specified qualification or characterization" - The cat is multicolored.

You are conflating two different definitions of the verb be.
That is my field of science and that is not hard natural science.

I test your subjectivity by observing how you subjectively use words.

 

[Polymath257]

That is a subjective process in you and that "are" is not an observational case of the verb to be. It is the case of the verb to be for means.

Yes, it is objective. it is the very definition of the term 'science': that it uses the scientific method.

It is sort of like saying a robin is not a mammal. It doesn't fit the definition of the term.

"to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as" - Science means objective observation and the rest of the norms for natural science.
" to have a specified qualification or characterization" - The cat is multicolored.

You are conflating two different definitions of the verb be.
That is my field of science and that is not hard natural science.

To be called a science requires the subject use the scientific method. Otherwise, saying it is a science is simply dishonest.

I test your subjectivity by observing how you subjectively use words.

It is simply the definition.

The best argument is that there is more than one common definition. But, what I have found is that those in some subjects *want* their subject to be called a science. But the only reason they do so is because they want the status without doing the actual work.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your view of science goes far beyond the insane including self imposed ignorance of science. Since you have posted here you have never posted anything concerning science ti support your assertions. You simply back up with the assertion ''The Bible says so .'

By the way science does not propose any sort of Creation from .absolute nothing.'

Your view of science and religion tells me by this time that neither you nor your view of science in these areas knows what it's talking about. Bye for now. You and others have convinced me that you are not understanding reality. Bye for now.

 

[ratiocinator]

That was not a response.

Of course it is. Nothing of what you posted contains current science that says anything about a "quantum matrix" beyond space-time or that space-time isn't continuous at the "quantum scale".

I really don't understand. A lot of what you post makes a lot of sense but then there is this sort of weird tangential stuff that seems to have no basis and that you can never back up. I just don't get it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which was identified with the firmament of Genesis 1. A solid dome over the Earth on which the stars were placed.


It is completely out of harmony with the original intent of the scriptures. Remember that the main viewpoint in the early stage was that the Earth was flat, the sky was a dome over it, that it was surrounded by water and God lived above the dome.

Some later writings understand that the Earth is a sphere, but still have it 'hanging' in space (which is definitely NOT what it does). This happened primarily after the Greek influences became more significant.

The Bible is not a science textbook but offers great insight. "Science" changes even though the projections can come across as being the answer, despite the fact that scientists discover more, overturning what was believed before that.
For a while I did not believe in God. Before I understood the Bible and realized there is a God, I never thought that Genesis described the earth as flat. To say the earth hangs in space is a reasonable way of describing it before the postulations came up about gravity. Yes, it hangs in space. No suspenders showing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, it is objective. it is the very definition of the term 'science': that it uses the scientific method.
...

That is your social inter-subjective definition of science. That is a case of cultural relativism and indeed if you were trained it that, you would know that.
Your definition is an useful opinion to you. It is not an objective fact as you can't observe it and it is subjective because you can choose based on personal interpretation which definition you find useful.
Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

That science is that to you is a personal opinion. It is also so to mine. I just have another opinion.

 

[Polymath257]

The Bible is not a science textbook but offers great insight.

Not for science, it doesn't. Not even close.

"Science" changes even though the projections can come across as being the answer, despite the fact that scientists discover more, overturning what was believed before that.
For a while I did not believe in God. Before I understood the Bible and realized there is a God, I never thought that Genesis described the earth as flat. To say the earth hangs in space is a reasonable way of describing it before the postulations came up about gravity. Yes, it hangs in space. No suspenders showing.

No, it does not 'hang'. It moves. Nowhere in the Bible is there any hint that the Earth moves. So, no, it is NOT a reasonable way to describe it at all.

Now, it *is* a reasonable way to describe the ancient Greek view of the Earth as the center of the universe in which the Earth was immobile and the sun and all the planets went around the Earth.

 

[Polymath257]

That is your social inter-subjective definition of science. That is a case of cultural relativism and indeed if you were trained it that, you would know that.
Your definition is an useful opinion to you. It is not an objective fact as you can't observe it and it is subjective because you can choose based on personal interpretation which definition you find useful.
Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

That science is that to you is a personal opinion. It is also so to mine. I just have another opinion.

Yes, there is a useful distinction between those subjects that use the scientific method and those that do not. The subjects that do are called sciences. Those that do not are not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, there is a useful distinction between those subjects that use the scientific method and those that do not. The subjects that do are called sciences. Those that do not are not.

Yeah, that is all in your mind and different in mine for the human behavior of doing science. But I still like objective evidence for it being useful and not just your opinion.

 

[gnostic]

Well, it is:
Natural science
Social science
Human science
Humanities
History
Logic and math
Science of science.

All are part of what is called videnskab in Danish.

No, we have both humanities and human science.

Just so you know. There are many types of studies and disciplines that “are not scientific”.

Let us start Humanities.

Humanities is academic studies that are not scientific at all. The following are fields within Humanities:

• Arts, eg drawing, painting, sculptures, engraving, photography, architecture, etc
• The mixture of art & crafts, eg fashion, fashion design, interior design, etc
• Performing arts, eg music, singing & song writing, acting, etc
• Literature, poetry
• The studies of Language, eg philology, translation, etc

There are no science here, as it doesn’t require science at all, but it all make up for without being scientific, but by being creative, imaginative.

Then there mathematics and logic. These can be categorized as Formal Sciences, and can be used in most disciplines - in non-scientific disciplines and scientific disciplines.

Social Sciences are very broad multi-disciplines that we often referred to as “soft science”, because these disciplines don’t require to strictly follow the requirements, which are necessary in Methodological Naturalism of “hard science”:

• Falsifiability,
• Scientific Method
• Peer Review.

Sure, there are Peer Review in disciplines of Social Sciences, but they are not the same Peer Review as used in hard sciences.

Social Sciences are sciences that involved the studying of human behaviour (eg behavioral science, psychology), human cultures (eg sociology, anthropology) and human activities (eg archaeology, political science, economics).

Hard science is informal name for Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences.

There are many overlapping between Physical Sciences & Natural Sciences, because what work in Physical Sciences would work in Natural Sciences.

Basically, the main focuses for Physical Sciences are physics and chemistry, which are the basis of all Natural Sciences (Earth Sciences, Astronomy and Life Science), which have to do with "nature", physics and chemistry are the basis of non-natural phenomena, such as everything artificial or man-made, such as technology, engineering, medicine.

The points are real sciences are Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences, because no hypotheses are "science" unless they passed the 3 requirements that I have already mentioned:

• Falsifiability,
• Scientific Method (formulation of hypothesis, testing the hypothesis)
• Peer Review

Failing even the 1st requirement (Falsifiability), will disqualify any idea, concept or framework as being hypothesis, as it would most likely not testable, and a scientist would be able to test the idea or concept or framework.

None of the disciplines or studies of Humanities definitely isn’t science.

And while fields in Social Sciences may be called “science”, it don’t require to follow the requirements of Scientific Method, so most of these fields aren’t “scientific” at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course it is. Nothing of what you posted contains current science that says anything about a "quantum matrix" beyond space-time or that space-time isn't continuous at the "quantum scale".

I really don't understand. A lot of what you post makes a lot of sense but then there is this sort of weird tangential stuff that seems to have no basis and that you can never back up. I just don't get it.

Reference in post #3341 is a specific reference describing 'Quantum nothingness, Quantum used as a descriptive adjective for the 'nothing.' and you are ignoring playing Duck, Bob and Weasel.

Pleading ignorance on your part is indeed ignorance, and apparent lack of knowledge and willingness to get references to support your assertions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just so you know. There are many types of studies and disciplines that “are not scientific”.

Let us start Humanities.

Humanities is academic studies that are not scientific at all. The following are fields within Humanities:

• Arts, eg drawing, painting, sculptures, engraving, photography, architecture, etc
• The mixture of art & crafts, eg fashion, fashion design, interior design, etc
• Performing arts, eg music, singing & song writing, acting, etc
• Literature, poetry
• The studies of Language, eg philology, translation, etc

There are no science here, as it doesn’t require science at all, but it all make up for without being scientific, but by being creative, imaginative.

Then there mathematics and logic. These can be categorized as Formal Sciences, and can be used in most disciplines - in non-scientific disciplines and scientific disciplines.

Social Sciences are very broad multi-disciplines that we often referred to as “soft science”, because these disciplines don’t require to strictly follow the requirements, which are necessary in Methodological Naturalism of “hard science”:

• Falsifiability,
• Scientific Method
• Peer Review.

Sure, there are Peer Review in disciplines of Social Sciences, but they are not the same Peer Review as used in hard sciences.

Social Sciences are sciences that involved the studying of human behaviour (eg behavioral science, psychology), human cultures (eg sociology, anthropology) and human activities (eg archaeology, political science, economics).

Hard science is informal name for Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences.

There are many overlapping between Physical Sciences & Natural Sciences, because what work in Physical Sciences would work in Natural Sciences.

Basically, the main focuses for Physical Sciences are physics and chemistry, which are the basis of all Natural Sciences (Earth Sciences, Astronomy and Life Science), which have to do with "nature", physics and chemistry are the basis of non-natural phenomena, such as everything artificial or man-made, such as technology, engineering, medicine.

The points are real sciences are Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences, because no hypotheses are "science" unless they passed the 3 requirements that I have already mentioned:

• Falsifiability,
• Scientific Method (formulation of hypothesis, testing the hypothesis)
• Peer Review

Failing even the 1st requirement (Falsifiability), will disqualify any idea, concept or framework as being hypothesis, as it would most likely not testable, and a scientist would be able to test the idea or concept or framework.

None of the disciplines or studies of Humanities definitely isn’t science.

And while fields in Social Sciences may be called “science”, it don’t require to follow the requirements of Scientific Method, so most of these fields aren’t “scientific” at all.

Yeah, I am from another culture than you and we are playing cultural relativism for in effect the different subjective versions of the definition of science is X and not Y or is Y and not X.
Now you will either get that or defend that your subjective thinking is objective. Mine is not objective, I just belong to a different culture than you.

 

[ratiocinator]

Reference in post #3341 is a specific reference describing 'Quantum nothingness, Quantum used as a descriptive adjective for the 'nothing.' and you are ignoring playing Duck, Bob and Weasel.

"Quantum nothingness" (referring to the vacuum within space-time) is not what I'm asking you to back up. It's a "quantum matrix" beyond space-time and that space-time isn't continuous at the "quantum scale".

 

[ratiocinator]

The Bible is not a science textbook...

Yet you continue to insist on treating a literal reading of it as superior to endless, overwhelming scientific evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Quantum nothingness" (referring to the vacuum within space-time) is not what I'm asking you to back up. It's a "quantum matrix" beyond space-time and that space-time isn't continuous at the "quantum scale".

I have made no reference to Christian nothingness, which is philosophical foolishness. I am referring Quantum nothing which is the nature of the Hawking 'Nothing'

Slap yourself in the face as often as you like failing to provide a coherent response. You obviously failed to read the whole reference.

How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything
How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything | Quanta Magazine

Quantum Nothingness​