Fibonacci Algorithm = God?

[Arcesious]

Jae seemed to put it perfectly there...

 

I wasn't aware that your intention was to sprout fallacies.

 

So, Igos, what exactly are these fallacies? How can you be sure that they are false when you have no evidence that gives absolute proof that they're wrong?

 

There may be no 'aboslute equation'

 

This contradicts your previous statement:

 

Quote:

Everything in the universe that we currently know of has a mathematical explanation

 

Perhaps you could rephrase your argument - I'm a bit confused at your position right now.

 

A partial contradicion that i can well rephrase. Dont' forget I said 'may'. Perhaps my standing has changed a little. I a first considered that God has made the universe a perfectly organized system. But, when free will was considered, I accepted that he could use a chaotic system in unison with an organized one.

 

Stars are not "impossible to form". We've seen and studied its formation; I have no idea where you get this from.

 

Okay, tell me the recorded data of a star forming. What? you can't fidn any? did you forget that if science even does know how a star coudl form it would take millions of years for it to form, and therefore no scientist is goignt o watch a star form for a few million years? and they therefore have no proof? Heat make matter spread apart. cold makes matter more condensed.

Ever put a marshmellow in a microwave for two minutes? you'd be amazed at what happens. The air spread out so much that if you leave it in to long, it will explode. Now, think of hydrogen. The hydrogen is very hot, and it is expanding immensly. put the hydrogen inside a metalic core. the hydrogen will get hotter and hotter from the other gases it is mixed, with makign a chain reaction. the metallic core will slowly expand, and eventually, the hydrogen, which has expanded so much from the heat of the chemical reactions, will excape from the metalic core, and blow it appart, counteracting the gravity of the much denser, heavier metallic core. SAo hwo do stars form? Goddonit obviously... the only reason stars now stay together is because their metallic cores are melted, and are in unison with the hydrogen. Still, ever star goes supernova. Except for those that become white dwarfs. but even those white dwarfs even explode eventually, because they become so compressed together that the inplosion creates an explosion. that or a black hole, if there's enough nuetrons... still, if i'm wrong abotu white dwarfs, which i think i am sicne i'm nto entirely sure about them, you've got to give me credit for the exploding marshmellows comment...

 

Since the time of the Big bang is the first moment of time, there is no before. Therefore, it would be logically inconsistent to say that time didn't exist before the Big bang because it would require previous states to exist, and there exist none.

 

Time started with the Big bang. It cannot be created because creation requires time.

 

Igos answer me this: then what created time? what triggered the start of time, truly? how can a big bang start time without anything to start either time or the big bang?

[Igos]

So, Igos, what exactly are these fallacies?

 

No, that's a horrible case of "begging the question".

Exactly my intention

 

You said so yourself; begging the question is a logical fallacy. Your conclusion does not solve anything because the same question can be applied to it (IE: What created God?)

 

Okay, tell me the recorded data of a star forming. What? you can't fidn any?

 

Indeed I can't, and it's likely that no one will ever will, as it usually takes centuries. However, that doesn't make studying their formation impossible, and if we are able to understand the process, then it isn't "impossible" as you put it.

 

And I don't understand the following part of your post. You said that stars were impossible to form, but you provided no evidence, and we have the very convincing fact that they're there to prove otherwise.

 

what created time?

 

Time cannot be created. Time, as we know it, started with the Big bang, or with God's beginning; whichever you prefer.

 

how can a big bang start time without anything to start either time or the big bang?

 

What makes you think that there was "nothing to start the Big bang"?

[Arcesious]

You said so yourself; begging the question is a logical fallacy. Your conclusion does not solve anything because the same question can be applied to it (IE: What created God?)

 

Oh... I didn't realize that. I've never heard of that term efore. I only thought that beggign the question meant to 'beggingly' ask you to answer the question'.... lol.

 

Indeed I can't, and it's likely that no one will ever will, as it usually takes centuries. However, that doesn't make studying their formation impossible, and if we are able to understand the process, then it isn't "impossible" as you put it.

 

And I don't understand the following part of your post. You said that stars were impossible to form, but you provided no evidence, and we have the very convincing fact that they're there to prove otherwise.

 

what about my comment on exploding marshmellows?

 

Time cannot be created. Time, as we know it, started with the Big bang, or with God's beginning; whichever you prefer.

 

 

Quote:

how can a big bang start time without anything to start either time or the big bang?

 

 

 

What makes you think that there was "nothing to start the Big bang"?

 

so, you consider God as a possibility to have created a big bang. If you've read my previous posts, you'l notice i mentioned that i think as apossibility that God could have created and controlled a big bang, but from your 'no God created big bang' point of veiw, i see nothing that coudl create a big bang. everything has a logical explanation, whether understandable by our limited perception or not. But we do understand quite a bit, as far as we know.

 

What factor made time create a big bang? Time is a constant, not a form of matter or something that can on it's own trigger anything. Therefore, there is no chemical reaction or anything else besides God to create and corridinate a big bang.

 

When i think about it, i do now think that there was a big bang. One created and corridnated by God, that uses an organized and a chaotic system at the same time. that explaisn why it's constantly expanding.

 

...

 

...

 

edit: Hey I've got a new idea! What if God is in fact time? soemthing to think about... sure i know it contradicts what i just said, but it's soemthing to consider.

[ET Warrior]

what about my comment on exploding marshmellows?

Your exploding marshmallows analogy has absolutely not bearing on the formation of a star, as a star is not being created inside of a microwave. Nor is it generally being created in the presence of any appreciable source of heat. Space is exceptionally cold.

[deathdisco]

Quantum physics anyone? The rules change(randomness) at the atomic/sub-atomic level.

[Achilles]

This thread is years away from being prepared to deal with uncertainty principle, et cetera.

[Arcesious]

Your exploding marshmallows analogy has absolutely not bearing on the formation of a star, as a star is not being created inside of a microwave. Nor is it generally being created in the presence of any appreciable source of heat. Space is exceptionally cold.

then you're sayign stars can't form then... sure there's the chemical ractions between gases, but the chemical reactions make heat, and the heat couneracts gravity...

 

Quantum physics anyone? The rules change(randomness) at the atomic/sub-atomic level.

 

I wouldn't object to discussing that. Everything related to how intelligent design would work needs to be laid out here, and dicussion of qunatum physcis coudl yield soem new ideas. Sure i don't know how quantum physics work, but i bet wikipedia could give me the basics...

 

This thread is years away from being prepared to deal with uncertainty principle, et cetera.

 

How, exactly? We're already discussing the probability/uncertainty principle in relation to this, and I don't see how we aren't prepared to deal with it.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

what created time?

Time is a human-made measuring concept. Asking who created time is like asking who created length or weight.

[Achilles]

then you're sayign stars can't form then... sure there's the chemical ractions between gases, but the chemical reactions make heat, and the heat couneracts gravity...

Actually, friction creates heat (for the purposes of this point). This friction is caused by gravity.

 

I wouldn't object to discussing that. Everything related to how intelligent design would work needs to be laid out here, and dicussion of qunatum physcis coudl yield soem new ideas. Sure i don't know how quantum physics work, but i bet wikipedia could give me the basics...

His point is that the principles of quantum physics rule out design. Everything is based on probabilities, therefore the idea that everything is predestined doesn't hold to scrutiny in light of the evidence.

 

How, exactly? We're already discussing the probability/uncertainty principle in relation to this, and I don't see how we aren't prepared to deal with it.

This is a numerology thread, right? Pseudoscience to quantum physics is quite the learning curve.

[Jae Onasi]

I repeat: I am not saying that another universe exists at the same time with ours. I am saying our universe could be different, had something changed at the time of the Big bang.

You're saying a couple different things then. You brought up the multi-universe hypothesis, and I'm saying there is no evidence for the multi-universe hypothesis. You appear now to be saying that if something different had happened at the Big Bang, then our universe would be different. That I would agree with--if the amount of heat or mass created had been the slightest bit different, we very likely would not exist.

 

My point is that you cannot hold up the multi-universe hypothesis as science, because there is zero scientific evidence for any universe outside our own. It is nothing more than a metaphysical concept.

 

 

 

Because creating X implies that X did not exist, and then exists. How is that possible without time? Short answer: it isn't. That process requires a chronological sequence. Therefore, time.

We can't conceive existence without time since we live in that paradigm. Within our universe, your comment is true. Outside of our universe, that doesn't necessarily apply. The singularity existed prior to the Big Bang and thus prior to space-time creation. We don't know how that came into being and probably never will. If you're working within the space-time universe, then yes, creation requires time. If you're working outside space-time prior to the Big Bang (and even 'prior' is an inaccuracy since there was no time then), then our current physical laws may not apply since they didn't exist then, either.

 

 

 

Since the time of the Big bang is the first moment of time, there is no before. Therefore, it would be logically inconsistent to say that time didn't exist before the Big bang because it would require previous states to exist, and there exist none.

Einstein, Hawkings, and other have stated time and space were created at the Big Bang and that it came from a singularity exploding. That singularity existed "prior" (for lack of a better word) to the Big Bang.

 

Time started with the Big bang. It cannot be created because creation requires time.

Then you are in disagreement with most cosmologists.

 

Quantum physics anyone? The rules change(randomness) at the atomic/sub-atomic level.

 

The rules don't really change at the atomic level, but our ability to predict where something is at a specific moment does become random. We can't predict exactly where an electron will be at any given moment as it moves around the nucleus, but we know that it will exist within a specific range/cloud around the nucleus.

[Igos]

You're saying a couple different things then. You brought up the multi-universe hypothesis, and I'm saying there is no evidence for the multi-universe hypothesis.

 

Please point out where I did so.

 

My point is that you cannot hold up the multi-universe hypothesis as science, because there is zero scientific evidence for any universe outside our own. It is nothing more than a metaphysical concept.

 

Indeed. And I have repeatedly say that I did not support that notion.

 

Outside of our universe, that doesn't necessarily apply

 

What is "outside our universe"? You made it very clear that other universes coexisting with ours is unfounded.

 

The singularity existed prior to the Big Bang and thus prior to space-time creation.

 

How can you prove that something existed prior to the Big Bang? There exists no previous states to the creation of our universe.

 

then our current physical laws may not apply since they didn't exist then, either.

 

That is assuming that something existed prior to the Big bang, which sounds like circular logic to me.

 

Einstein, Hawkings, and other have stated time and space were created at the Big Bang and that it came from a singularity exploding.

 

I don't know about Einstein, but Hawking did certainly not state that. In Hawking's own words: "Asking what was before the Big bang is meaningless; like asking what lies North of the North pole".

 

Clearly then, Hawking stated that there was nothing no "before" the Big bang.

In that sense, time could not be "created" as creation requires a previous state in which the creation doesn't exist and then it does.

[Achilles]

What is "outside our universe"? You made it very clear that other universes coexisting with ours is unfounded.

Actually, that's not true. String theory allows for multiple universes, so to categorically dismiss them as "unfounded" is jumping the gun. While it is absolutely true and accurate to point out that we do not have any evidence to support an argument that they actually do exist (outside of the mathematical models that show that they are possible), one would have to provide evidence that ruled them out (and thereby turn decades of string research on its head) in order to accurately state that they don't.

 

@Jae: Since multiple universes are allowable within string theory and would be subject to the laws of physics, multi-verse hypothesis, by definition, isn't "metaphysical". I hope that helps.

 

I don't know about Einstein, but Hawking did certainly not state that. In Hawking's own words: "Asking what was before the Big bang is meaningless; like asking what lies North of the North pole".

Right, because "time" on the Planck scale is arbitrary and meaningless. Hence why quantum physics gives so many people headaches

[ET Warrior]

You're saying a couple different things then. You brought up the multi-universe hypothesis,

Actually, he did not, you seem to have misunderstood the point he was attempting to make, and continue to see it in this incorrect light.

 

He was merely making a point of showing that while our universe existing in its current state is exceptionally unlikely, it is no more unlikely than it having existed in some other state. In the same way of his analogy of randomly picking a single human out of the entire planetary population, if you are picked it will seem like the odds were highly against you being chosen. You would not posit that there had to have been some kind of higher power guiding the choosing process, would you? In the same way, there are so many different ways the universe could have formed, but it had to form in SOME way, so it was equally likely to be this way as any other.

 

then you're sayign stars can't form then... sure there's the chemical ractions between gases, but the chemical reactions make heat, and the heat couneracts gravity...

...No, I am not saying stars can't form. I am well aware that stars can form, on any given night I can point at an entire sky full of them to support that.

 

If heat were enough to prevent gravity from holding things together the Earth itself would have exploded outwards long ago. Also, cooking on a stove would be inordinately difficult if the pans kept floating up away from the heat...

 

It seems dishonest to make definitive claims about anything that you obviously have very little knowledge about.

[Arcesious]

Whoa... lots of stuff happens overnight.

 

Here i go...

 

I don't know about Einstein, but Hawking did certainly not state that. In Hawking's own words: "Asking what was before the Big bang is meaningless; like asking what lies North of the North pole".

 

Clearly then, Hawkings stated that there was nothing no "before" the Big bang.

In that sense, time could not be "created" as creation requires a previous state in which the creation doesn't exist and then it does.

 

What Hawkings said was one opinion, a possibility, but not an absolutely proven thing. Also, consider that Einstein's conclusions are about the universe are much more valid than Hawkings's, as he pretty much revolutionized the way we look at physics and math.

 

That is assuming that something existed prior to the Big bang, which sounds like circular logic to me.

 

How can you prove that something existed prior to the Big Bang? There exists no previous states to the creation of our universe.

 

What is "outside our universe"? You made it very clear that other universes coexisting with ours is unfounded.

 

Actually, that's not true. String theory allows for multiple universes, so to categorically dismiss them as "unfounded" is jumping the gun. While it is absolutely true and accurate to point out that we do not have any evidence to support an argument that they actually do exist (outside of the mathematical models that show that they are possible), one would have to provide evidence that ruled them out (and thereby turn decades of string research on its head) in order to accurately state that they don't.

 

The proof that there must have been a singularity before the big bang is that we and the universe exist! Matter cannot be created or destroyed within time. It can only be changed. A Big bang could not happen unless if there was something to cause it that was outside of time, before the universe existed. There is no evidence to disprove that there couldn't have been a singularity before the universe, because the proof that there was is because there IS a universe. perhaps multiple universes. On brainstorming multiverse theory, I thought of this: according to the Bible, there is a first heaven, second heaven, and third heaven. The locations of these heavens is unknown. But, i would bet my bottom dollar that the first heaven is our current universe, the universe wherein earth exists. The Bible says that the first heaven and first earth with pass away, and then a new heaven and new earth will be formed. By theory, I now believe that multiverse theory could work, as i think the three heavens are three separate universes, hence, a multiverse system. Obviously according to my beliefs something will destroy our universe, and the destruction would eventually form a new one, or multiple new ones. The bible never said there couldn’t be more than three heavens either...

 

...No, I am not saying stars can't form. I am well aware that stars can form, on any given night I can point at an entire sky full of them to support that.

 

If heat were enough to prevent gravity from holding things together the Earth itself would have exploded outwards long ago. Also, cooking on a stove would be inordinately difficult if the pans kept floating up away from the heat...

 

It seems dishonest to make definitive claims about anything that you obviously have very little knowledge about.

 

I see how I am wrong about stars. I rest my case about that. Obviously stars formed by chemical reaction, and the friction made heat. Solid matter wouldn’t be directly compatible with gases, but the metallic cores would be melted to a liquid state, liquid and gas being very miscible, hence the way a star would form. Sorry for the ignorance about stars...

 

..............................

 

So basically there had to be a singularity before time and the universe in order for the universe to exist, as in all testable and known scientific theory and method, there has to be a cause for anything to do anything. time is a constant but not a physical thing, so time could not be what made the possible big bang. There ha to be something beyond time, as scientific method will not work with any other way. All we have to do is take away time in order for God, the 'singularity', to exist before the universe existed... It doesn't matter what the laws of physics are when it comes to this 'singularity', because we exist and therefore there must have been a singularity in beginning (pardon the metaphor since time didn't exist at the singularity, and therefore there was no exact 'beginning') , a singularity beyond the laws of physics, space, and time, and no matter how we try to figure out how it worked with science, it will never work since there were no physics or anything to dictate the existence of anything at that 'time'

[Achilles]

What Hawkings said was one opinion, a possibility, but not an absolutely proven thing. Also, consider that Einstein's conclusions are about the universe are much more valid than Hawkings's, as he pretty much revolutionized the way we look at physics and math.

Huh? "Einstein's conclusions are about the universe are much more valid than Hawkings'" How do you get that?

 

The proof that there must have been a singularity before the big bang is that we and the universe exist! Matter cannot be created or destroyed within time. It can only be changed. A Big bang could not happen unless if there was something to cause it that was outside of time, before the universe existed.

I don't know how this is related to the section of my post that you quoted.

 

There is no evidence to disprove that there couldn't have been a singularity before the universe, because the proof that there was is because there IS a universe.

Gee, with that reasoning, then it would seem that Creation is impossible. If the universe being here means that there *must* have been a singularity and there *must* have been a big bang, then we don't need any folk stories about a magic sky daddy making everything as we see it 6,000 years ago (not to mentional all the required mental gymnastics necessary to explain modern cosmological observations, etc).

 

perhaps multiple universes. On brainstorming multiverse theory, I thought of this: according to the Bible, there is a first heaven, second heaven, and third heaven. The locations of these heavens is unknown. But, i would bet my bottom dollar that the first heaven is our current universe, the universe wherein earth exists. The Bible says that the first heaven and first earth with pass away, and then a new heaven and new earth will be formed. By theory, I now believe that multiverse theory could work, as i think the three heavens are three separate universes, hence, a multiverse system.

Except your brainstorming doesn't even come close to describing what brane cosmology suggests. Kudos that you're thinking about these things, however I don't think you'll get far just making stuff up. I can brainstorm that the night sky is big woolly blanket and the stars are pinpoints of light that breakthrough from a giant flashlight being held by a colossal Maytag salesman standing on the other side, but that doesn't tell me anything about reality.

 

Obviously according to my beliefs something will destroy our universe, and the destruction would eventually form a new one, or multiple new ones. The bible never said there couldn’t be more than three heavens either...

Best of luck with that.

 

So basically there had to be a singularity before time and the universe in order for the universe to exist, as in all testable and known scientific theory and method, there has to be a cause for anything to do anything. time is a constant but not a physical thing, so time could not be what made the possible big bang.

Space-time is the product of the big bang. Time, as we are capable of understanding it at this juncture, did not exist before hand. The singularity existed on the Planck scale, therefore "time" had no relevance. Don't take my word for it, pick up Elegant Universe or Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene (I recommend the latter) and read up on it yourself. Subject matter is a little steep, but Greene puts a lot of work into making it a relatively light read.

 

There ha to be something beyond time, as scientific method will not work with any other way.

Sure it will. The scientific method is in no way, shape, or form dependent upon pre-big bang anything. It's a process that is used to investigate what we can observe.

 

All we have to do is take away time in order for God, the 'singularity', to exist before the universe existed...

Please Google "singularity" before proceeding further with this train of thought. Unless of course you really do want to posit that "god" was a ball of energy less than a Planck-length in size that was more or less destroyed 13.7 billion years ago when the universe was created.

 

It doesn't matter what the laws of physics are when it comes to this 'singularity', because we exist and therefore there must have been a singularity in beginning (pardon the metaphor since time didn't exist at the singularity, and therefore there was no exact 'beginning') , a singularity beyond the laws of physics, space, and time, and no matter how we try to figure out how it worked with science, it will never work since there were no physics or anything to dictate the existence of anything at that 'time'

I'm sure that all the quantum physicists that have worked so hard on this subject and have built careers based on 100 years of research will be quite disappointed to hear that you've decided to pull the plug on their party.

[Arcesious]

Huh? "Einstein's conclusions are about the universe are much more valid than Hawkings'" How do you get that?

 

Einstein pretty much 'founded', or 'advanced' advanced math and physics. Sure Hawkings is smart too, but Einstein was there first.

 

I don't know how this is related to the section of my post that you quoted.

What does it matter? i was trying to make another point in my arguement.

 

Gee, with that reasoning, then it would seem that Creation is impossible. If the universe being here means that there *must* have been a singularity and there *must* have been a big bang, then we don't need any folk stories about a magic sky daddy making everything as we see it 6,000 years ago (not to mentional all the required mental gymnastics necessary to explain modern cosmological observations, etc).

 

I don't blame you for brignign up the timeframe problem with the Bible and creation... This is a very common misconception, due to a translation error in the bible. The Bible mentions 'days' in creation, as this is translated from greek and hebrew. Day is the dominant meaning of the greek and hebrew words that were trnaslated, but the real translation shoudl be 'Age'. So it really shoudl say 'God vcreated the heavnes and the Earth in 7 Ages.

Many people misinterpret the creation timeframe because of this mistranslation that occurs in every Bible, in every book of Genesis, and it still hasn't been fixed in a new bible version, which i would consider to be ignorance of the non-scientific Christians/Catholics/etc, etc. Overall, i believe that the Earth and th euniverse are billions and trillions of years old, and that God created the universe in 7 ages, the lengths of each age being unspecific, but in conclusion agreeign with the universe-is-very-old fact.

 

Except your brainstorming doesn't even come close to describing what brane cosmology suggests. Kudos that you're thinking about these things, however I don't think you'll get far just making stuff up. I can brainstorm that the night sky is big woolly blanket and the stars are pinpoints of light that breakthrough from a giant flashlight being held by a colossal Maytag salesman standing on the other side, but that doesn't tell me anything about reality.

 

I don't disagree with this. After wiki-ing it, I agree with brane cosmology soemwhat. I still think that God soemhow would have to be outside of time though... Interesting to think about... Since apparently in brane Cosmology the dimensions go on forever, each dimension inside another dimension, like a big box that goes on forever on the outside and many smaller boxes inside of smaller boxes in the big box, if i interpreted the concept correctly...

 

Best of luck with that.

We'll just have to see what happens I guess. I'm not going to argue about that, as i have no evidence the universe won't be destroyed or will be destroyed in any way. I'm fine with waiting to see what happens.

 

Space-time is the product of the big bang. Time, as we are capable of understanding it at this juncture, did not exist before hand. The singularity existed on the Planck scale, therefore "time" had no relevance. Don't take my word for it, pick up Elegant Universe or Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene (I recommend the latter) and read up on it yourself. Subject matter is a little steep, but Greene puts a lot of work into making it a relatively light read.

Hmm... Not that hard to grasp... I think i got the basic jist of this Planck Scale thing from wiki...

I wonder if we could measure God's power with the Planck Scale... This Planck Scale does seem to explain a lot though... I don't undertstand what Gravity and Energy have to do with time though...

 

Sure it will. The scientific method is in no way, shape, or form dependent upon pre-big bang anything. It's a process that is used to investigate what we can observe. So you're sayign the scientific method can test and prove what happened before time existed? how can it test and prove anything when there was technically nothing there when there was no time? Right now i don't really want to say anything else as this is starting to go beyond my understanding... I'm goign to need to read up soem more on stuff liek this before I can complete my arguement, so consider this post incomplete.

 

Please Google "singularity" before proceeding further with this train of thought. Unless of course you really do want to posit that "god" was a ball of energy less than a Planck-length in size that was more or less destroyed 13.7 billion years ago when the universe was created

that was a possibility i suggested. Now I think that God must have created the singularity, He isn't the signularity... duh. *embarrassed look on face*

 

I'm sure that all the quantum physicists that have worked so hard on this subject and have built careers based on 100 years of research will be quite disappointed to hear that you've decided to pull the plug on their party.

Well we haven't discovered and answered everything yet, but there's been times in the past where very famous scientists have had their theories proven wrong. Sure I havent't really proven anything wrong, but if I or someone else proves something wrong that they researched very hard for a very long time, too bad. All that matter sis that the correct theory had been found, and the false, flawed theory had been disproved, makign our understanding of the universe better. I highly boubt this will happen though, and I don't intend to ruin a hard working qunatum physicist's life's work. After all I have a lot to thank them for.

 

........................

 

Now I'm going to go watch TV... Someone else please take over my position in this thread for the rest of the night.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Einstein pretty much 'founded', or 'advanced' advanced math and physics. Sure Hawkings is smart too, but Einstein was there first.

Please say you're about to watch a biography on Einstein.

[Achilles]

Einstein pretty much 'founded', or 'advanced' advanced math and physics. Sure Hawkings is smart too, but Einstein was there first.

So Hawking's work was somehow invalid? I'm don't understand your argument.

 

What does it matter? i was trying to make another point in my arguement.

Usually when someone quotes a post and then types some stuff beneath it, the part they type is somehow related to the part they quote. When they aren't related it's kinda sorta confusing for the people trying to follow along. My 2 cents.

 

I don't blame you for brignign up the timeframe problem with the Bible and creation... This is a very common misconception, due to a translation error in the bible. The Bible mentions 'days' in creation, as this is translated from greek and hebrew. Day is the dominant meaning of the greek and hebrew words that were trnaslated, but the real translation shoudl be 'Age'. So it really shoudl say 'God vcreated the heavnes and the Earth in 7 Ages.

And "age" equals? While you're breaking down Genesis for me, please explain what a "kind" is too. Thanks in advance.

 

Many people misinterpret the creation timeframe because of this mistranslation that occurs in every Bible, in every book of Genesis, and it still hasn't been fixed in a new bible version, which i would consider to be ignorance of the non-scientific Christians/Catholics/etc, etc. Overall, i believe that the Earth and th euniverse are billions and trillions of years old, and that God created the universe in 7 ages, the lengths of each age being unspecific, but in conclusion agreeign with the universe-is-very-old fact.

Oh, so this explanation is arbitrary? Ok then.

 

I don't disagree with this. After wiki-ing it, I agree with brane cosmology soemwhat. I still think that God soemhow would have to be outside of time though... Interesting to think about... Since apparently in brane Cosmology the dimensions go on forever, each dimension inside another dimension, like a big box that goes on forever on the outside and many smaller boxes inside of smaller boxes in the big box, if i interpreted the concept correctly...

Sure, but if we're going to go there, we can't do so in half-measures. If the christian god gets to exist outside of time, then so does allah, yahweh, zeus, hera, ra, osiris, odin, thor, the flying spaghetti monster, invisbile pink unicorns...and singularities. Surely you can see that once we open that door, the room fills up pretty fast. If we decide that we're going to monitor who's allowed in and who isn't, it probably behooves us to use reason rather than superstitious wishful thinking to determine our criteria.

 

We'll just have to see what happens I guess. I'm not going to argue about that, as i have no evidence the universe won't be destroyed or will be destroyed in any way. I'm fine with waiting to see what happens.

Yep, jury is still out.

 

Hmm... Not that hard to grasp... I think i got the basic jist of this Planck Scale thing from wiki...

I wonder if we could measure God's power with the Planck Scale... This Planck Scale does seem to explain a lot though... I don't undertstand what Gravity and Energy have to do with time though...

Measure god's power with unit of measure used to determine size? Not sure I follow.

 

So you're sayign the scientific method can test and prove what happened before time existed?

No, I'm saying that your assertion that the scientific method is somehow dependent upon "time" before the big bang would seem to show a complete lack of understanding regarding what the scientific method is or what it does or how it works.

 

how can it test and prove anything when there was technically nothing there when there was no time? Right now i don't really want to say anything else as this is starting to go beyond my understanding... I'm goign to need to read up soem more on stuff liek this before I can complete my arguement, so consider this post incomplete.

Looking forward to your follow up.

 

Well we haven't discovered and answered everything yet, but there's been times in the past where very famous scientists have had their theories proven wrong. Sure I havent't really proven anything wrong, but if I or someone else proves something wrong that they researched very hard for a very long time, too bad. All that matter sis that the correct theory had been found, and the false, flawed theory had been disproved, makign our understanding of the universe better. I highly boubt this will happen though, and I don't intend to ruin a hard working qunatum physicist's life's work. After all I have a lot to thank them for.

I believe your statements was something to the effect of, "it doesn't really matter because quantum physics isn't important anyway". I was merely pointing out that because it might not seem that important to you, it doesn't mean that it isn't important.

 

Take care.

[Jae Onasi]

Please point out where I did so.

Indeed. And I have repeatedly say that I did not support that notion.

 

This is what I read where I got the idea that you supported it:

That was the whole point of my post: The universe we live in is a possibility among infinite others,

If that's not what you meant, then I misunderstood.

 

What is "outside our universe"? You made it very clear that other universes coexisting with ours is unfounded.

I don't know what happened prior to the Big Bang, other than the singularity. How the singularity came into being will be debated a long time.

How can you prove that something existed prior to the Big Bang? There exists no previous states to the creation of our universe.

I can't, other than I think God had a hand in it.

 

That is assuming that something existed prior to the Big bang, which sounds like circular logic to me.

Other than the singularity, I don't know if anything did.

 

 

I don't know about Einstein, but Hawking did certainly not state that. In Hawking's own words: "Asking what was before the Big bang is meaningless; like asking what lies North of the North pole".

He's certainly done a lot of work on cosmology, including the Penrose-Hawking singularity theory which addresses singularities, including the one required for the Big Bang

 

Clearly then, Hawking stated that there was nothing no "before" the Big bang.

In that sense, time could not be "created" as creation requires a previous state in which the creation doesn't exist and then it does.

I can live with that definition.

 

@Jae: Since multiple universes are allowable within string theory and would be subject to the laws of physics, multi-verse hypothesis, by definition, isn't "metaphysical". I hope that helps.

 

String theory is a mathematical concept and doesn't meet the criteria we require for something to be called science, thus it falls under metaphysics at this time. That may change in the future. From wikipedia entry on string theory:

 

Although historically string theory is an outgrowth of physics, some contend that string theory should (strictly speaking) be classified as something other than science. For a scientific theory to be valid it must be verified empirically, i.e. through experiment or observation. Few avenues for such contact with experiment have been claimed.[20] With the construction of the Large Hadron Collider in CERN some scientists hope to produce relevant data, though it is widely believed that any theory of quantum gravity would require much higher energies to probe directly. Moreover, string theory as it is currently understood has a huge number of equally possible solutions.[21] Thus it has been claimed by some scientists that string theory may not be falsifiable and may have no predictive power.[22][23][24][25]

 

String theory remains to be confirmed. No version of string theory has yet made an experimentally verified prediction that differs from those made by other theories. The energy scales at which it would be possible to see the stringy nature of particles is much greater than that experimentally accessible. It possesses many features of mathematical interest and naturally incorporates all the gross features of the Standard Model, such as non-abelian gauge groups and chiral fermions. Because string theory may not be tested in the foreseeable future, some scientists[26] have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory; it is not falsifiable in the sense of Popper.

 

Arcesious--the Hebrew for 'day' in Genesis can be translated as a literal 24 hour day or as an indeterminate amount of time, similar to how we use 'day' in the phrase "In my grandfather's day...."

[Achilles]

String theory is a mathematical concept and doesn't meet the criteria we require for something to be called science, thus it falls under metaphysics at this time.

Since science is a process (more or less), I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Going out on a limb, I'm guessing you mean to say something more along the lines of, "Since string theory (lower case "t") is a hypothesis, it should not be generally accepted the way that a bona fide scientific Theory (upper case "T") should". This is absolutely correct and I would agree with it wholeheartedly. To somehow suggest that something isn't "science", or "scientific" or part of the "scientific process" just because it is still a hypothesis though would be incorrect.

 

As to the 2nd part of your point: "meta" = beyond; "physics" = a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions. String theory doesn't fit this definition, as I pointed out earlier. We're still talking about the natural universe(s) and the rules that operate within it (them). No part of string theory that I'm familiar with has violated this. Again, just because something is a hypothesis does not mean that it is not part of science.

 

That may change in the future.

Indeed it might. Unfortunately, human beings currently lack the technological sophistication to be able to test our models at the scale required. We've been there before and I'm sure that we'll be there again.

 

Please see books I recommended earlier if you would like delve deeper than a wiki regarding the subject. Considering your background, I suspect that you would probably understand the concepts better than most.

[Jae Onasi]

Since science is a process (more or less), I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Going out on a limb, I'm guessing you mean to say something more along the lines of, "Since string theory (lower case "t") is a hypothesis, it should not be generally accepted the way that a bona fide scientific Theory (upper case "T") should". This is absolutely correct and I would agree with it wholeheartedly.

This is what I meant, yes. Thanks.

 

 

As to the 2nd part of your point: "meta" = beyond; "physics" = a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions. String theory doesn't fit this definition, as I pointed out earlier. We're still talking about the natural universe(s) and the rules that operate within it (them). No part of string theory that I'm familiar with has violated this. Again, just because something is a hypothesis does not mean that it is not part of science.

 

I was working more with this definition of metaphysics:

met·a·phys·ics /ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[met-uh-fiz-iks]

–noun (used with a singular verb)

1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.

2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches.

3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry.

4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.

At this point, since there's no scientific proof for string theory in cosmology, I think it's as much a philosophical stance as the idea of 'God as creator' is. Mathematicians are using this complex set of equations to try to explain cosmology, which is why I think it ends up in the metaphysical realm. If that changes in the future and string theory is able to be supported scientifically, I'll be happy to place it into the science category. There are a lot of mathematical theories and equations that might in the future have application in science, but I can't call them science until I see that application actually happen. I'm happy to call them mathematical theories until then. My cut-off point for what is/isn't science may be stricter than yours, however.

 

Indeed it might. Unfortunately, human beings currently lack the technological sophistication to be able to test our models at the scale required. We've been there before and I'm sure that we'll be there again.

With the way science has developed explosively in the last 100 years or so (no cosmological pun intended), I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen, though I don't know if that'll happen in my lifetime.

 

Please see books I recommended earlier if you would like delve deeper than a wiki regarding the subject. Considering your background, I suspect that you would probably understand the concepts better than most.

And it'll likely be more interesting than Atlas Shrugged.

Wiki's not my favorite source, but it's a convenient starting point for a lot of things. The sources that that entry quotes will be far more useful than the entry itself--there's some interesting things there.

[Achilles]

This is what I meant, yes. Thanks.

My pleasure. Glad to hear that we're on the same page.

 

I was working more with this definition of metaphysics:

If the current hypothesis had no basis in observation, I might be inclined to agree, however since we do have a framework built firmly in science, I cannot concede that it is metaphysics (in any sense). Scientific hypothesis? Absolutely. Lay usage "theory"? Absolutely. Metaphysics? Not even close.

 

At this point, since there's no scientific proof for string theory in cosmology, I think it's as much a philosophical stance as the idea of 'God as creator' is.

Again, I acknowledge that we currently lack the technological sophistication to test any of the models and/or predictions, but that does not mean that the hypothesis (plural?) aren't scientific. I don't think the comparison to "god as creator" is accurate or equitable considering that "explanation" it isn't scientific by any stretch of the imagination. Apples and radial tires, as it were.

 

Mathematicians are using this complex set of equations to try to explain cosmology, which is why I think it ends up in the metaphysical realm. If that changes in the future and string theory is able to be supported scientifically, I'll be happy to place it into the science category.

It is supported scientifically. It's just not currently testable. Again, building hypothesis is still part of the scientific process. Just because something hasn't been established at a generally accepted scientific Theory does not mean that it belongs in the same category as astrology and palm reading.

 

There are a lot of mathematical theories and equations that might in the future have application in science, but I can't call them science until I see that application actually happen. I'm happy to call them mathematical theories until then. My cut-off point for what is/isn't science may be stricter than yours, however.

I suspect it comes down to how we define "science". It would appear that you only consider generally accepted Theories as science, whereas I consider the entire process of scientific discovery science. Knowing your stance on these things, I'm not going to take up anymore of your time explaining the difference.

 

With the way science has developed explosively in the last 100 years or so (no cosmological pun intended), I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen, though I don't know if that'll happen in my lifetime.

Greene talks at length about potential experiments that could conceivably take place in the not-too-distant future in later chapters of Fabric of the Cosmos. I think it would be great to see a breakthrough in my lifetime, but considering that it took approximately 350 years to get from the apple falling out of the tree to E=MC^2, I think I shouldn't get my hopes up.

 

...especially considering that the second string revolution was only about a decade ago.

 

And it'll likely be more interesting than Atlas Shrugged.

Wiki's not my favorite source, but it's a convenient starting point for a lot of things. The sources that that entry quotes will be far more useful than the entry itself--there's some interesting things there.

Just to show what a fun loving guy he is, Greene uses Simpson's characters in a lot of his explanations. He is also considerate enough to warn you when you're about to enter a section which might cause your eyes to glaze over and recommends page numbers for those that want to jump ahead (skipping all the mumbo-jumbo).

[Arcesious]

I'll admit I've been defeated in this thread purely because of the possibility theory and because it's now over my head. All I've got to say now is:

 

So, what are the limits of science then?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I'll admit I've been defeated in this thread purely because of the possibility theory and because it's now over my head. All I've got to say now is:

 

So, what are the limits of science then?

If you're referring to science in general, then there aren't any. If you're referring to right now, I don't quite know.

[Achilles]

So, what are the limits of science then?

Conceivably, there aren't any. This question is akin to asking "What are the limits of learning then?".