Philosophy Now Forum

xenuwonder wrote:I'll chime in here and rein you kids in a bit.

I don't know if I'm included in this, but I'll stick my oar in anyway as it is such a presumptuous, pompous thing to say that anyone who has eyes should be offended.

xenuwonder wrote:Ignorance is bliss and it is a common trait in the world of science and cosmology as it is the underlying reason for the popular belief in the BBT.

Ignorance is clearly not bliss to the people involved in science and cosmology or they wouldn't bother. The underlying reason for the popular belief in the BBT is that it is consistent with the observed phenomena and is supported by the best mathematical descriptions we have of the behaviour of matter.

xenuwonder wrote:Because we can't ever know of what happened before "our" bing bang we choose to not comment on it at all. We feel safe and warm doing this.

How EGOTISTICAL of HUMANS to think like this.

Do some research, there are plenty of theories about what 'caused' the big bang.

xenuwonder wrote:Give up your armchair science and commentary and come up with something credible please.

Practise what you preach.

xenuwonder wrote:And a little less in the way of personal attacks would be most welcomed on this thread. Atributing someones knowledge to replying to your posts Godfire, I mean, Godfree is not required around here, we're not in the business of hurting Wyman's feelings or anyone elses for that matter.

I agree with the sentiments, but if one behaves like a self-righteous p****, someone else is bound to say so.

Godfree wrote:Is getting a "real and honest understanding of other people" my aim here ,,???
or is it to get a real and honest understanding of reality ,

You tell me.

Godfree wrote:are other people the key to understanding reality ,,??
or are they just headless chickens ,

When those people have access to the best equipment and data, have to support their ideas against rigorous and often hostile peer review as well as nutters who believe utter cobblers, when they can develop consistent mathematical models that support those ideas, they would be my people of choice to ask rather than some loon on an internet forum.

Godfree wrote:if I was to base my view of the world on ,"other people"
I might as well sign in at my local church now ,

Or you could ask people who know what they are talking about.

Godfree wrote:to know reality , is to stand up against the tide of ignorance , most people are ignorant ,
most peoples grasp of reality is very poor ,

Most people have more pressing issues than whether there was a big bang or not.

Godfree wrote:lets face it most of the people even in the west , are religious , and know little of reality ,,!!!

Nobody 'knows' reality, all anyone can do is generate the best model they can using all the information they can gather and be 'honest' enough not to ignore the bits that don't support what they happen to think. For instance, why do you think the universe doesn't collapse under gravity?

,,!!![/quote] Nobody 'knows' reality, all anyone can do is generate the best model they can using all the information they can gather and be 'honest' enough not to ignore the bits that don't support what they happen to think. For instance, why do you think the universe doesn't collapse under gravity?[/quote]

I know reality , it isn't just about the bb ,
evolution is an important part of our understanding ,
we can see that humans had an ancestor ,...
all the way back to the first forms of life ,
so why would space be any different ,,??
why would we not assume a process , a cycle of life ,
Stars are born and they die , , we can understand the process at work , why then do we assume ,
there was a time when this didn't happen ,,??
we can see it now , why assume something different,??
to accept it is as we see it , it's a steady state ,
we have to invent the bbt , we have to claim it changed,??
that it wasn't always like this ,
and from what I can gather from my hunting recently ,
the red shift is the only thing they claim as proof ,
for the expansion idea , there is no other evidence ,

"Why doesn't the universe collapse under gravity"
interesting question , my answer, it is ,it does ,
we call them black holes ,,!!!
where were you thinking the universe would ,
collapse into ,,?? is there a center ,,??
the reason the "universe' doesn't collapse ,
is because there are large voids in between each galaxy,
and one black hole doesn't have to pulling power ,
to grab matter off the other black holes ,,

So I answered your question, could you try this ,
Why do we need a beginning ,??
a lot of what we call reality is theory anyway ,
so what is the problem with a theory of what was before
some bb the imagine , we can't see black holes ,
we can see things responding to their gravitational pull ,
but we can't see them , we can't see the bit at the center
of each atom , but we can theorize it exists ,
in the same manner we theorize a black hole exists,
we can't see back in time to infinity , but we can theorize it exists , what is the problem with doing that ,
society prefers a complete fantasy called religion ,
god is the ultimate "unknowable"
but it seems nobody wants to embrace
an unknowable called infinity ,,???

I'll chime in here and rein you kids in a bit.

I
Because we can't ever know of what happened before "our" bing bang we choose to not comment on it at all. We feel safe and warm doing this.

How EGOTISTICAL of HUMANS to think like this.

Godfree is not required around here, we're not in the

well if we waited for you to keep us entertained ,
it would be a long wait between posts ,
and we would have gone elsewhere by now ,,
while I think your sort of right about your"bing bang"
if you post a little more often , you might see ,
that debates aren't won or lost on a single post ,
this should be a democracy ,
nobody is here to be dictated to ,
points are won the hard way , you put the time and effort in , and let the punters react as they may ,
if you like me believe you have something worth saying,
then say it more often , get the word out there ,,!!

thedoc wrote:

xenuwonder wrote: And a little less in the way of personal attacks would be most welcomed on this thread. Atributing someones knowledge to replying to your posts Godfire, I mean, Godfree is not required around here, we're not in the business of hurting Wyman's feelings or anyone elses for that matter.

Xenu.

Don't you know that hostility and abuse are S.O.P. on an internet forum, that's the only way a participant can show that they have a bigger dick than other posters.

Oh, and most of us do not have access to a very large astronomical telescope to make the necessary observations on which to base cosmology. We rely on the expertise of others.

Question for the bbt believers ,
do you believe the bb created "time and the universe"
so before the bb there was no time and no space ,,???
do you really believe that is the most likely ,,??
and how is that different to creation ,,???
there was no universe , and then god made one ,,??
there was no universe , and the bb made one ,
why does there have to be no universe ,
if we are to keep an open mind , looking back in time we would have to assume more of the same ,
to imagine a beginning is to put forward a theory ,
but we are told that we can not know what was before the bb , so how is it that the bbt can state nothing ,??
no space and no time , thats an assumption ,
about time before the bb , and we are told ,
we can't do that ,,???
so if before the bb is unknowable ,
then what is , must be the presumption ,
more of the same , not some fantasy about it ,
radically
changing, being nothing , is not observed ,
there is no example of nothing , this idea of nothing ,
is a nonsense to fit their fantasy ,
I don't care how many times or how much matter you want to take out or blow up in space ,
the space remains ,,!!!

Godfree wrote:I know reality ,

Do yourself a favour and learn the first lesson of philosophy: you don't know. The Apology is believed to be the first book that Plato wrote, it is an account of the trial of Socrates that led to his conviction and execution. In it Socrates tells how his friend had asked the oracle at Delphi who the wisest person was. Socrates is amazed to hear that it is him and, convinced it isn't true, decides to find people wiser than him. A lot of Plato's subsequent works are dialogues in which some hapless boob that claims to know something is cross examined by Socrates who systematically demolishes their argument.

Godfree wrote:it isn't just about the bb ,
evolution is an important part of our understanding ,
we can see that humans had an ancestor ,...
all the way back to the first forms of life ,
so why would space be any different ,,??

Evolution is fairly specific, it is different combinations of genes being brought together and the resulting organism taking their chance in the world. There is no evidence of this sort of process going on on a cosmological scale.

Godfree wrote:why would we not assume a process , a cycle of life ,
Stars are born and they die , ,

Yeah, but they don't get jiggy with each other

Godfree wrote:we can understand the process at work , why then do we assume ,
there was a time when this didn't happen ,,??

We don't understand the process at work; we can describe some of the events and extrapolate, but our beliefs are, or should be, subject to revision.

Godfree wrote:we can see it now , why assume something different,??

Come on Godfree, why not assume an omlette has always been an omlette?

Godfree wrote:to accept it is as we see it , it's a steady state ,

And the Earth looks flat.

Godfree wrote:we have to invent the bbt , we have to claim it changed,??
that it wasn't always like this ,
and from what I can gather from my hunting recently ,
the red shift is the only thing they claim as proof ,
for the expansion idea , there is no other evidence ,

Red shift is sound evidence if you believe that photons do not lose energy as they travel; Olber's paradox is side-stepped if you think they do. The cosmic microwave background radiation is consistent with big bang predictions. You don't have to introduce a fudge into Einstein's field equations or even Newtonian gravity. There is a lot more to the big bang than a few slightly red galaxies.

Godfree wrote:"Why doesn't the universe collapse under gravity"
interesting question , my answer, it is ,it does ,
we call them black holes ,,!!!
where were you thinking the universe would ,
collapse into ,,?? is there a center ,,??

the reason the "universe' doesn't collapse ,
is because there are large voids in between each galaxy,
and one black hole doesn't have to pulling power ,
to grab matter off the other black holes ,,

In an infinite time, even the tiniest force is enough to move galaxies, no matter how big the voids.

Godfree wrote:So I answered your question, could you try this ,
Why do we need a beginning ,??

As I said to Xenuwonder, there are many theories about what happened before the big bang, including some that posit cyclical expansions and collapses, though as I said somewhere these are harder to maintain given that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. No credible scientist would claim to 'know' what happened before the big bang.

Godfree wrote:a lot of what we call reality is theory anyway ,

Everything we call reality is theory.

Godfree wrote:so what is the problem with a theory of what was before
some bb the imagine , we can't see black holes ,
we can see things responding to their gravitational pull ,
but we can't see them , we can't see the bit at the center
of each atom , but we can theorize it exists ,
in the same manner we theorize a black hole exists,
we can't see back in time to infinity , but we can theorize it exists , what is the problem with doing that ,

Nothing, but you need to explain how any theory fits the observed phenomena.

Godfree wrote:society prefers a complete fantasy called religion ,

Honestly Godfree, society is not just religious nutters.

Godfree wrote:god is the ultimate "unknowable"
but it seems nobody wants to embrace
an unknowable called infinity ,,???

If you ask me, the second lesson of philosophy is Occam's Razor, 'don't multiply entities beyond necessity'. Much the same as Newton's rule of parsimony, it means that the simplest solution to a problem is the best in that it requires the least explaining: there was a big bang and until the evidence proves otherwise, there is no god and no infinity.

Godfree wrote:Question for the bbt believers ,
do you believe the bb created "time and the universe"

Well....

Godfree wrote:so before the bb there was no time and no space ,,???

Oi! Give us a chance to answer!

Godfree wrote:do you really believe that is the most likely ,,??
and how is that different to creation ,,???
there was no universe , and then god made one ,,??
there was no universe , and the bb made one ,
why does there have to be no universe ,

Stop putting words into people's mouths. Personally, I don't believe space and time 'exist'. I think that because not everything is in the same place you can measure the distance between them and because not everything happens at once you can count as series of events, clocks ticking for example, that happen between one phenomenon and another. Space and time are the gaps between things, they are not things themselves. The big bang was the start of things happening and things being seperated, but there was no 'time' or 'space' created.

Godfree wrote:if we are to keep an open mind , looking back in time we would have to assume more of the same ,

I hope I have an open mind and I can allow the possibility of more of the same, but I see no compulsion to assume so.

Godfree wrote:to imagine a beginning is to put forward a theory ,
but we are told that we can not know what was before the bb , so how is it that the bbt can state nothing ,??
no space and no time , thats an assumption ,
about time before the bb , and we are told ,
we can't do that ,,???
so if before the bb is unknowable ,

You'd have to ask someone who believes in space and time.

Godfree wrote:then what is , must be the presumption ,
more of the same , not some fantasy about it ,
radically
changing, being nothing , is not observed ,
there is no example of nothing , this idea of nothing ,
is a nonsense to fit their fantasy ,

Can't follow this bit.

Godfree wrote:I don't care how many times or how much matter you want to take out or blow up in space ,
the space remains ,,!!!

What is space?

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:I know reality ,

If reality is that which is susceptible to our senses, then we all know reality. If fact everything with a sensation also knows reality,even a worm. That would mean that reality relates to the amount and type of senses we have and those machines we use to extend those senses.
But that would also mean that reality is relative to those things which provide us with the sensations and sensory information from we we construct or view of reality.
But given the fact that a worm is blind, though it has a more sensitive skin than us. We would have to conclude that on some levels we have a poorer and a finer view of reality than other creatures.
Given that it is highly likely that we are deficient in some senses we would have to conclude that some creature know reality better than us.
However, is reality is not to be seen as hopelessly relativistic and idealistic; the statement "I know reality", is either mis-conceived or to be understood as partial reality.

I submit it is highly likely that our conception of reality is that of a worm compared to some of those millions of undiscovered alien life-forms that we may never meet.

tillingborn wrote: Evolution is fairly specific, it is different combinations of genes being brought together and the resulting organism taking their chance in the world. There is no evidence of this sort of process going on on a cosmological scale.

Given the basic conditions in which we find evolution; competition for resources, variability & reproduction, evolution is a necessary consequence. Where there is live there is evolution. It's what life does.
Saying there is no evidence for it is not relevant.
It is unthinkable that, the universe being so large and the number of planets thought to exceed the number of start that life has not evolved elsewhere.

tillingborn wrote:Evolution is fairly specific, it is different combinations of genes being brought together and the resulting organism taking their chance in the world. There is no evidence of this sort of process going on on a cosmological scale.

chaz wyman wrote:Given the basic conditions in which we find evolution; competition for resources, variability & reproduction, evolution is a necessary consequence. Where there is live there is evolution. It's what life does.

Well, it's what life does in the one example we have of it.

chaz wyman wrote:Saying there is no evidence for it is not relevant.

That's a slippery slope.

chaz wyman wrote:It is unthinkable that, the universe being so large and the number of planets thought to exceed the number of start that life has not evolved elsewhere.

I agree, but the post you are refering to continues:

Godfree wrote:why would we not assume a process , a cycle of life ,
Stars are born and they die , ,

tillingborn wrote:Yeah, but they don't get jiggy with each other.

I was being silly; there is no evidence of stars or galaxies reproducing sexually.

claim it changed,??
that it wasn't always like this ,
and from what I can gather from my hunting recently ,
the red shift is the only thing they claim as proof ,
for the expansion idea , there is no other evidence ,[/quote]
Red shift is sound evidence if you believe that photons do not lose energy as they travel; Olber's paradox is side-stepped if you think they do. The cosmic microwave background radiation is consistent with big bang predictions. You don't have to introduce a fudge into Einstein's field equations or even Newtonian gravity. There is a lot more to the big bang than a few slightly red galaxies.

Olbers Paradox ,,???come on now , you seem brighter than that , Olbers paradox claims,
light should reach us from infinity if it existed ,,!!!
that light should reach us from every where and from every time , if the universe was infinite ,
but today we know this is complete bollocks,
as discussed earlier on this thread ,
light fades to red and then radio waves ,
by about 13.7 billion light years ,
photon decay , is a reality , light is not a constant ,,!!
therefore it decays ,,!!!

Godfree wrote:a lot of what we call reality is theory anyway ,

Everything we call reality is theory.

Godfree wrote:so what is the problem with a theory of what was before
some bb the imagine , we can't see black holes ,
we can see things responding to their gravitational pull ,
but we can't see them , we can't see the bit at the center
of each atom , but we can theorize it exists ,
in the same manner we theorize a black hole exists,
we can't see back in time to infinity , but we can theorize it exists , what is the problem with doing that ,

Nothing, but you need to explain how any theory fits the observed phenomena.

Godfree wrote:society prefers a complete fantasy called religion ,

Honestly Godfree, society is not just religious nutters.

Godfree wrote:god is the ultimate "unknowable"
but it seems nobody wants to embrace
an unknowable called infinity ,,???

If you ask me, the second lesson of philosophy is Occam's Razor, 'don't multiply entities beyond necessity'. Much the same as Newton's rule of parsimony, it means that the simplest solution to a problem is the best in that it requires the least explaining: there was a big bang and until the evidence proves otherwise, there is no god and no infinity.

Godfree wrote:Question for the bbt believers ,
do you believe the bb created "time and the universe"

Well....

Godfree wrote:so before the bb there was no time and no space ,,???

Oi! Give us a chance to answer!

Godfree wrote:do you really believe that is the most likely ,,??

See the bbt claims , "No Space Time"
so not a continuation , not the result of the ,
previous cycle ,
unless you are going to say , time and space disapeared down the last big black hole ,
that had devoured all the other ones,
and then re-emerged with the bang ,
you ask what is space , ??
space is a box , you can take things out and put things back , but the box remains ,
space is the space in the box ,
not the box , the box is the known universe ,
but I can imagine a box of infinite size,
a box that is so big there are no sides ,
and if there are no sides ,
then there can be no center ,
if there are no sides from which to measure,
so if you accept the bbt ,
you accept that before the bang , "no space time"

Godfree wrote: Olbers Paradox ,,???come on now , you seem brighter than that ,

Thanks!

Godfree wrote: but today we know this is complete bollocks,

Aw!

Godfree wrote:as discussed earlier on this thread ,
light fades to red and then radio waves ,
by about 13.7 billion light years ,
photon decay , is a reality , light is not a constant ,,!!
therefore it decays ,,!!!

And I still disagree with you. Here's a thought, if light is not a constant, why is the speed of light?

Godfree wrote: See the bbt claims , "No Space Time"
so not a continuation , not the result of the ,
previous cycle ,

Nope, that's just my version of it. You apparently don't appreciate that, like you, I am just some partially informed forum botherer who does not represent any group of people, certainly not proper cosmologists, most of whom would tell you I am talking utter nonsense. Mind you, I have no doubt they would say the same to you.

Godfree wrote:you ask what is space , ??
space is a box , you can take things out and put things back , but the box remains ,
space is the space in the box ,
not the box ,

I'm confused; is space the box or the stuff inside it? As far as I can tell, when you take everything out of the box, you have a box of nothing. Why do you need a box to put it in?

Godfree wrote:the box is the known universe ,
but I can imagine a box of infinite size,
a box that is so big there are no sides ,

I'm struggling to imagine a box with no sides.

Godfree wrote:so if you accept the bbt ,
you accept that before the bang , "no space time"

Actually Godfree, I don't believe in space time before, during or after the big bang, but those crazy professional cosmologists disagree (most of them).

[

Godfree wrote:a lot of what we call reality is theory anyway ,

Everything we call reality is theory.
[
No not everything we call reality is theory ,
the Earth is billions of years old , we call this a fact ,
we evolved , regarded by most sane people as fact ,
so Atheism as I see it basses it's understanding/model,
on the facts , as apposed to the mythology ,,

Why is light a constant speed , but not a constant ,,???
was your question I believe ,,??
because to produce light you need energy ,,
unless you have an infinitely powerful light ,,??
it's not going to reach infinity .
energy is required to generate the brightness ,
the more energy you put in the brighter it gets ,
so eventually your light will run out of energy,
Also nutrino's go faster than light , but are light ,
a different part of the light/energy at a different speed ,
Einsteins postulated that light was the constant ,
and time was the variable ,,??.</,;'[/..,/?????
say what ,,??, do you buy that ,
I certainly don't ,
and try , curved space time ,
now that has to be Einsteins most stupid, apart from
the bbt it self ,
curved space time , the light travels around the curved space ,
not that gravity pulls on the light as it goes by a large body such as a star ,
oh no , it's curved space time
and the space is curved , and the light follows ,,!!??
Sounds like you are indeed a bit like me tillingborn ,
a law unto yourself , mix and match philosophy ,
good on you , keep it up ,
I have my own model of how the universe came to be ,
if everybody did ,
I think life and conversation would be a lot more interesting ,
but the ancient rulers saw their power being eroded ,
if they couldn't claim , the right knowledge ,
one way man , every religion claims to be the one ,
pagan days of many gods and lots of belief systems ,
didn't offer enough control over the masses ,
so they came up with the idea of one god ,
a man god , because until then gods had been the animals ,thunder,earth , etc
one god , and then the head priest ,
so we now have a pecking order ,
god , the head priest , and then so on down the ladder,
so religion was just a tool to control the masses ,
just in the same way we have royal , kingdoms ,
it's a have ,a con ,a pile of crap,
So keep standing up for you and YOUR belief ,
the world needs more individuals ,
being individual ,,!!!!

Godfree wrote:a lot of what we call reality is theory anyway Everything we call reality is theory.
No not everything we call reality is theory ,
the Earth is billions of years old , we call this a fact ,
we evolved , regarded by most sane people as fact ,
so Atheism as I see it basses it's understanding/model,
on the facts , as apposed to the mythology ,,

Many theists also abide by rational thought instead of mythology...get off your high horse Godfree, atheism has no mandate on science.

attofishpi wrote:

Godfree wrote:a lot of what we call reality is theory anyway Everything we call reality is theory.
No not everything we call reality is theory ,
the Earth is billions of years old , we call this a fact ,
we evolved , regarded by most sane people as fact ,
so Atheism as I see it basses it's understanding/model,
on the facts , as apposed to the mythology ,,

Many theists also abide by rational thought instead of mythology...get off your high horse Godfree, atheism has no mandate on science.

Rational thought, ,I think your getting irrational ,
if you think that you can perceive god rationally ,
the irrational belief in god ,
is one of the main stumbling blocks in the way ,
of the advance of civilization .
So lets define rational ,,
reasoned ,?? ,,sane ,,?? ,,considered ,,??
basically , thought about ,
Irrational ,
impulsive ,,thoughtless ,,unfounded ,,
Religion is irrational , through and through ,
a leap of faith is required ,
to leap over the mountain of rational thought ,
that would otherwise , prevent you ,
from doing such a thing . or accepting such nonsense,
I havn't ridden my horse in awhile ,
cheers for putting me back in the saddle ,,

chaz wyman wrote:

tillingborn wrote: Evolution is fairly specific, it is different combinations of genes being brought together and the resulting organism taking their chance in the world. There is no evidence of this sort of process going on on a cosmological scale.

Given the basic conditions in which we find evolution; competition for resources, variability & reproduction, evolution is a necessary consequence. Where there is live there is evolution. It's what life does.
Saying there is no evidence for it is not relevant.
It is unthinkable that, the universe being so large and the number of planets thought to exceed the number of start that life has not evolved elsewhere.

An interesting point Chaz , but ,
we were actually referring to planets and stars ,
the evolution or the life cycle of the cosmos ,

But like a good muso , we can work with your mistake ,
is there life out there , sure why not ,
BUT ,, a bit like the argument for what was before the bb
how will we ever know ,,??
we can theorize , and in the absence of proof ,
thats all we can do , we fall back on ,
"the most probable"
as what we base life and science and logic , on ,
when they give the weather report ,
we don't want to hear that there is a ,
very small chance of sunshine , almost impossible,
but lets embrace the day as if was going to happen ,
No , we want to know what the most likely is ,
the most probable weather not the most desirable ,
And yet this is what they do with religion ,
the chance of one religion being right ,
and the others wrong ,
which is the claim of nearly all the religions ,
can not be seen as the most probable ,
you could more likely argue all or any religion ,
have the idea that there is a god right ,
but to be exclusive and claim just your religion,
in terms of probability , makes it a very low probability ,
and even uniting all religions to my mind ,
is still a very low probability ,
The most probable , that we/life evolved ,
no god required ,,!!!