Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

You did the same of others. I can justify my judgment.

Yes your honor.

 

[Polymath257]

No. I accept that you believe current BB theory is complete, but I am not so sure. I suspect future science will clarify any flaws in the current model/s and am patient in that regard.

Tell me why there was a BB, and explain where the BB energy came from, and you will have my attention, until then it is just an unproven theory.

Where did I ever say that the BB theory is complete? There are well-known issues that still need to be resolved, such as the matter-anti-matter asymmetry.

You seem to have difficulty with the idea that there was (possibly) no 'before' so the energy didn't 'come from' anywhere. No, it also didn't 'just appear'.

Yes, 100 years and yet still does not have an answer as to why and how the BB began. The future will eventually reveal the truth, however long it takes, we have eternity.

Because that is literally not part of the scientific theory. Yes, people are investigating this and related questions, including whether the question makes sense at all (which you seem to assume it does).

In the state of non-duality, there is no ego self present to be deluded. So yes, it is true that any ego self that claims it had attained the state of non-duality is deluded.

I agree that you learn about the world by looking "out", but you learn about what and who it really is looking out, by looking in. The ego self has a source, in the state of non-duality, the ego self is united with the source.

Yes, I know the story. But that is only subjective experience. That doesn't make it true. In fact, it is subject to self-delusion.

 

[viole]

Yes, 100 years and yet still does not have an answer as to why and how the BB began. The future will eventually reveal the truth, however long it takes, we have eternity.

I am totally baffled at theists denying the BB. That is the closest to some deity having started the whole shebang in the entire edifice of science.
Obviously, being the closest does not entail being close. Nevertheless, it is not entirely clear to me why they reject it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

scientific theory, systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

A theory may be characterized as a postulational system (a set of premises) from which empirical laws are deducible as theorems. Thus, it can have an abstract logical form, with axioms, formation rules, and rules for drawing deductions from the axioms as well as definitions for empirically interpreting its symbols. In practice, however, theories are seldom structured so carefully.

Scientific theory | Definition, Characterization, & Empirical Law

Of course.

I'm a retired anthropologist btw.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, I understand your position, and I acknowledge your excellent understanding of contemporary BB science, but I absolutely can not and will not accept a universal theory that has no idea about how and why the universe began. Something is not right imho, but the answer will come in the future I am sure.

In other words, if a theory doesn't address the issue you deem important, even though you can't show the issue is even a real issue, then you will reject the theory no matter what evidence there is in support of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am totally baffled at theists denying the BB. That is the closest to some deity having started the whole shebang in the entire edifice of science.
Obviously, being the closest does not entail being close. Nevertheless, it is not entirely clear to me why they reject it.

Ciao

- viole

It is a form of science denial. Sometimes science for some reason refutes a belief near and dear to us is threatened by the sciences. For me it was AGW for a while. I could not stand Al Gore (that is usually pronounced as if it was one word "Algore"). He was not the brightest of men and when a fool preaches it causes resentment in me. Now he was not right either. It is a serious problem but he was a doom and gloomer in his approach. By what he preached it was too late about ten years ago. At any rate I eventually saw that the anti global warming nuts were arguing in the same way that creationists do and I really had to take a deeper look. I was wrong.

Right now @Ben Dhyan cannot openly admit that he was wrong. Even when he changes his arguments because he was shown to be wrong he won't admit it. A favorite idea of his is wrong and deep down he knows it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Where did I ever say that the BB theory is complete? There are well-known issues that still need to be resolved, such as the matter-anti-matter asymmetry.

You seem to have difficulty with the idea that there was (possibly) no 'before' so the energy didn't 'come from' anywhere. No, it also didn't 'just appear'.



Because that is literally not part of the scientific theory. Yes, people are investigating this and related questions, including whether the question makes sense at all (which you seem to assume it does).


Yes, I know the story. But that is only subjective experiee. That doesn't make it true. In fact, it is subject to self-delusion.

Ok, you consistent remind religious folk that a subjective experience does not make it true.
Now reflect on BB theory wrt the beginning whereby you think that there was maybe no "before" the BB, Now that conception is a subjective mind ideation, there is absolutely no objective evidence that there was no "before", it is a mental conception only, thus a subjective ideation does not make it true, quote, "in fact it it is subject to self-delusion". No "before" the BB is self delusion, you want so much to avoid the truth that science has not a clue why or how a theoretical BB happened, so they make up an cock and bull story of no "before".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am totally baffled at theists denying the BB. That is the closest to some deity having started the whole shebang in the entire edifice of science.
Obviously, being the closest does not entail being close. Nevertheless, it is not entirely clear to me why they reject it.

Ciao

- viole

Please provide the objective evidence of a BB instead of a self deluded concept of no before the BB, and then you will have my attention.
Have you ever contemplated that there was no beginning of existence, existence is eternal, only the material forms science studies have beginnings and endings?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course.

I'm a retired anthropologist btw.

Interesting career metis. I often wondered if the human mind is so conditioned to the beginnings and endings, births and deaths, creation and destruction all around us, that they naturally presume existence itself, the cosmos, must have had a beginning. Iow, the human mind has difficulty conceiving of an eternity, as with infinity. However an eternal universe/God imho makes perfect sense, both subjectively and objectively, only the manifested forms of the eternal universe have beginnings, and endings. Read Genesis, it is only talking about the forms, galaxies are created, stars are created, planets are created, humans are created, only God/eternal universe has no beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In other words, if a theory doesn't address the issue you deem important, even though you can't show the issue is even a real issue, then you will reject the theory no matter what evidence there is in support of it.

The BB theory would be credible if science could get a handle on why and how it happened, the beginning, but it can't and so my position is the theory is not credible.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Right now @Ben Dhyan cannot openly admit that he was wrong. Even when he changes his arguments because he was shown to be wrong he won't admit it. A favorite idea of his is wrong and deep down he knows it.

Please explain to me, why and how the BB began, no subjective conception, but objective evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain to me, why and how the BB began, no subjective conception, but objective evidence?

You screwed up. You have yet to admit it and do your homework After that you can ask questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The BB theory would be credible if science could get a handle on why and how it happened, the beginning, but it can't and so my position is the theory is not credible.

You are unqualified to make any such judgement. You cannot even begin to learn until you admit your previous errors.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, you consistent remind religious folk that a subjective experience does not make it true.
Now reflect on BB theory wrt the beginning whereby you think that there was maybe no "before" the BB, Now that conception is a subjective mind ideation, there is absolutely no objective evidence that there was no "before", it is a mental conception only, thus a subjective ideation does not make it true, quote, "in fact it it is subject to self-delusion". No "before" the BB is self delusion, you want so much to avoid the truth that science has not a clue why or how a theoretical BB happened, so they make up an cock and bull story of no "before".

Actually, that is a *prediction* from the mathematical theory. The basic: we have general relativity, which is the best description of gravity we have. When that was applied to the universe as a whole, we had our first scientifically justified theory of cosmology. THAT is where the BB theory came from. It is also what predicts that there was no 'before the BB' because time literally cannot be extended past that point. If you understood the math, you would know this. The analogy with 'no north of the north pole' is actually mathematically accurate in this case.

So, no, it is not simply a mental subterfuge to get around an objection that many have upon first seeing this theory. It is a part of how the theory works mathematically. And, frankly, it is the fact that this theory works so well that the idea of 'no before' is taken seriously.

So, yes, there is objective evidence. That is what supports general relativity. It is what supports the overall BB description. And, let's face it, the fact that we have not been able to see anything previous to about 13.8 billion years ago is itself evidence for some sort of start at that time.

 

[Polymath257]

The BB theory would be credible if science could get a handle on why and how it happened, the beginning, but it can't and so my position is the theory is not credible.

And, given that you obviously don't understand either the theory nor the evidence for it, why should anyone take your disagreement seriously?

If you understood some differential geometry, if you understood some physics (general relativity), if you understood the evidence (no, scattering by massive particles doesn't produce a red shift---the articles you gave are garbage), if you actually show any actual understanding past popular press fluff, then you could be taken seriously. But you have not put in the time and effort to actually understand.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You screwed up. You have yet to admit it and do your homework After that you can ask questions.

I will read take that as "I don't have a clue".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are unqualified to make any such judgement. You cannot even begin to learn until you admit your previous errors.

I take that also as a "I don't have a clue why or how a BB happened".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, that is a *prediction* from the mathematical theory. The basic: we have general relativity, which is the best description of gravity we have. When that was applied to the universe as a whole, we had our first scientifically justified theory of cosmology. THAT is where the BB theory came from. It is also what predicts that there was no 'before the BB' because time literally cannot be extended past that point. If you understood the math, you would know this. The analogy with 'no north of the north pole' is actually mathematically accurate in this case.

So, no, it is not simply a mental subterfuge to get around an objection that many have upon first seeing this theory. It is a part of how the theory works mathematically. And, frankly, it is the fact that this theory works so well that the idea of 'no before' is taken seriously.

So, yes, there is objective evidence. That is what supports general relativity. It is what supports the overall BB description. And, let's face it, the fact that we have not been able to see anything previous to about 13.8 billion years ago is itself evidence for some sort of start at that time.

A prediction from mathematical theory is not objective evidence.
Even if universal expansion is correct, not knowing the why and how of the BB leaves the theory questionable. For example, the universe may in fact be a multiverse and an essence already existed that became this expanding universe. This would make more scientific sense than a one off universe from essentially nothing without a clue as to why or how theory.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And, given that you obviously don't understand either the theory nor the evidence for it, why should anyone take your disagreement seriously?

If you understood some differential geometry, if you understood some physics (general relativity), if you understood the evidence (no, scattering by massive particles doesn't produce a red shift---the articles you gave are garbage), if you actually show any actual understanding past popular press fluff, then you could be taken seriously. But you have not put in the time and effort to actually understand.

That is all smoke and mirrors to avoid admitting that there is no objective evidence as to show how the BB began. By objective, I mean energy and mass from nothing evidence, not mathematical predictions.

 

[We Never Know]

I take that also as a "I don't have a clue why or how a BB happened".

No one "knows" why or how the big bang happened.
-It could have been a fairy waving her wand
-It could have been a unicorn farting
-It could be a natural event(maybe even reoccurring)
-It could have been a god

Do you have objective evidence for a god or even that a god created the big bang?