Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[Dan From Smithville]

It all depends upon how one defines "nothing". From my understanding the total energy of the universe is zero. So at least as far as where energy and mass came from and universe from nothing does not violate any laws of physics.

I have heard that too. I am not sure I fully understand it, but failing to violate a physical law is not the same as creating itself from nothing is it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some views were not held 100 years ago and were proven by experience or more research to be wrong. Regardless, based on the replies here, I can see we obviously do not agree that just because science says something, it does not make it true. Anyway, have a nice day-evening. Wherever you are. What time zone, etc.

I am in Missouri. The Twilight Zone.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am.

Well, in some instances I suppose I am, too.
Have a nice night.
(I certainly don't trust everything the doctor tells me. Anyway.)

 

[YoursTrue]

I am in Missouri. The Twilight Zone.

LOL...aw...

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I am saying that astronomers have measured the total energy of the universe. It is as close to zero as they can measure. There is both positive and negative energy in the universe and they appear to be balanced. There is no energy that needs to be created.

Well it will take me a while to believe exactly that astronomers have measured the total energy of the universe. Then you say there is no energy that needs to be created. It's a conundrum. And why? Because apparently it just happened all to come from--nothing, or something.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well it will take me a while to believe exactly that astronomers have measured the total energy of the universe. Then you say there is no energy that needs to be created. It's a conundrum. And why? Because apparently it just happened all to come from--nothing, or something.

Not saying, the way, that (1) things don't happen (like tsunamis and earthquakes) or that (2) an "intelligent force" could not move along some energy in a way He/It wants to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL...aw...

What's your 20? Roughly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have heard that too. I am not sure I fully understand it, but failing to violate a physical law is not the same as creating itself from nothing is it?

You need to define "nothing". At the quantum level matter is constantly popping into and out of existence from "nothing". The law of conservation of energy does still seem to apply which is why the concept of negative and positive energy is so important.

Have you watched A Universe From Nothing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well it will take me a while to believe exactly that astronomers have measured the total energy of the universe. Then you say there is no energy that needs to be created. It's a conundrum. And why? Because apparently it just happened all to come from--nothing, or something.

Not having an answer has not worked in the past as a reason to invoke a god.

This explains it far better than I can:

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You need to define "nothing". At the quantum level matter is constantly popping into and out of existence from "nothing". The law of conservation of energy does still seem to apply which is why the concept of negative and positive energy is so important.

Have you watched A Universe From Nothing?

I have not seen that. I am sort at a disadvantage right now, since--the sound isn't really out on my computer--I have no speakers currently hooked to my computer, cannot find earbuds and have not bought replacement speakers yet.

 

[Jim]

Well, in some instances I suppose I am, too.
Have a nice night.
(I certainly don't trust everything the doctor tells me. Anyway.)

I’m denying all the claims that people make of knowing anything, in public debating, including everything that they think they know, that they call “science.” I’m saying the whole idea of believing things because they’re “scientific” or “evidence based” is wrong. I’m saying that in public debating, using “science” and “evidence” is as fallacious as using religious scriptures. That what I mean by saying that I’m denying science. I’m denying the validity of all arguments from “science” and “evidence,” in public debating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have not seen that. I am sort at a disadvantage right now, since--the sound isn't really out on my computer--I have no speakers currently hooked to my computer, cannot find earbuds and have not bought replacement speakers yet.

When you get some speakers it is a must. Or you could buy the book. He goes into more detail in the book and it will present the concept more thoroughly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When you get some speakers it is a must. Or you could buy the book. He goes into more detail in the book and it will present the concept more thoroughly.

Thanks.

I have to get a monitor too. I dropped this one. It still works but the screen is broken along the top. 90% visible.

I have some earbuds somewhere. If I can't find them, I can get a cheap pair to hold me over.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've only 'put on ignore', the worst hecklers.. if you want to be included with your comrades, you'll have to up your game.

If you'd like to debate the topic, i am game, but the rule of civility and reason still applies.. you seem to prefer to join with the hecklers.. the mob mentality is hard to resist..

That's nice.

Meanwhile, there is another post of mine that is addressed to you and which is actually on-topic.
Let's focus on the points.

 

[Polymath257]

Which reminds me -- is there really nothing?

Well, that is part of the problem. No, pure nothingness does not exist and has never existed.

The Big Bang theory does NOT say the universe came from nothing. In fact, it is a description of what has happened to the universe *after* the start of the current expansion phase.

What, if anything, happened before that is not known. There are several hypotheses, but we cannot test between them because we don'thave the data from the times involved.

It is possible that time started at some point and that it is simply meaningless to talk about 'before' that.

It is possible that there was a previous universe that underwent a 'Big Crunch'.

It is possible that the universe alternatively expands and contracts forever.

It is possible that universes 'bud off' from a larger expansion that is ongoing.

There are many other options, but I don't need to go into them all.

The point is that we don't have the data to distinguish which, if any, are correct.

 

[Polymath257]

Well it will take me a while to believe exactly that astronomers have measured the total energy of the universe. Then you say there is no energy that needs to be created. It's a conundrum. And why? Because apparently it just happened all to come from--nothing, or something.

Again, it depends somewhat on what you mean by 'nothing'. If what you mean is 'a state of the universe where there are no particles, no space, and no time', but where the laws of physics still apply, then it is quite possible for something (the universe) to come from nothing (that state).

The point about 'negative energy' is that gravity is, in essence, a curvature of spacetime. And in the equations for energy conservation (which includes mass), the curvature also appears, but as a negative contribution. Furthermore, the relevant equation says that the total energy plus the energy of curvature is zero. In other words, it all cancels out.

This has been recognized for a long time and is the basis of many speculations of how the 'pure vacuum state' where there are no particles, space, or time can lead, through quantum tunneling to a state where there *are* particles, space, and time and with curvature to offset the energy balance. Such tunneling is allowed in quantum mechanics and *is* an example of 'something coming from nothing'.

But, ultimately, this is speculation. it is consistent with the physical laws as we know them, but there is no way currently to test this in detail. And it is far from being the only speculation that deals with these matters that is consistent with our understanding of physics.

The one thing that we do have to re-evaluate is the dogma that 'something cannot come from nothing'.

 

[Polymath257]

I’m denying all the claims that people make of knowing anything, in public debating, including everything that they think they know, that they call “science.” I’m saying the whole idea of believing things because they’re “scientific” or “evidence based” is wrong. I’m saying that in public debating, using “science” and “evidence” is as fallacious as using religious scriptures. That what I mean by saying that I’m denying science. I’m denying the validity of all arguments from “science” and “evidence,” in public debating.

What about in scientific debate?

 

[Jim]

What about in scientific debate?

I don’t know what you mean by “scientific debate.”

 

[Polymath257]

I don’t know what you mean by “scientific debate.”

Well, debate in scientific journals or at scientific conferences between researchers in the relevant fields.

 

[Jim]

Well, debate in scientific journals or at scientific conferences between researchers in the relevant fields.

I did a search on it with Google Scholar. Most of the results are about disagreements between researchers. Do researchers have mock debates with each other where they call their own views “scientific” and “evidence based,” and opposing views “unscientific,” and call each other “science deniers”? I would need to see some examples of how they use the words “science” and “evidence” in discussing their disagreements with each other in professional journals and conferences.