Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Obviously you think that you, by virtue of 'them,' know something irrefutable, but I say that we only know that we know nothing. ...

Then you'd know this how?

Especially with respect to the topic at hand. And apparently Godfree has decided to reopen the conversation as to space and time as it pertains to philosophy. Feel free to move along if you want only to speak of philosophy as 'they' say you should. I'm sorry that you feel compelled to cease. Obviously, we here, in this thread, are not.

You're free to spout whatever nonsense you like just as I'm free to point out that in the subject of Philosophy history has shown us that this type of Aristotelian metaphysical ontology is a busted flush as the Newtonian metaphysicians showed us by adding a working epistemology to their thoughts and zooming off to do something useful in the world. But then you'd not know this as the subject of philosophy is an irrelevance to you and yet you appear to be able to talk much about nothing you know?

tillingborn wrote:Personally I think it's a bit rich of physicists to say philosophy is irrelevant and at the same time practice what is essentially metaphysics. Philosophers have always tried to put the information they have before them into context, to understand what is behind their experiences.That is exactly what the Big Bang theory is, same with atomic theory, same with dark matter and dark energy, same with string theory. ...

Well, until we can come up with an alternative epistemology as rigorous as the Newtonian metaphysicians then I guess they have a point with respect to many philosophers who wish to comment upon the physicists thoughts.

... My personal quackery is that I believe there is a substance that does exactly what the physicists say it does.

Mine is that Fredkin is correct and we should listen to the quantum particle guys. Its all a SIM I TELL YOU!! or is that an emulation?

Digital Physics and Digital Philosophy roolz.

Arising_uk wrote:Digital Physics and Digital Philosophy roolz.

Bollocks to that! I'll eat my (possibly holographic) hat if it ain't all real.

Wait a minute...

Arising_uk wrote:Newtonian metaphysicians

???


Are you taking the piss? The whole point about Newton, me old mucker, hypotheses non fingo and all that, is that there is no metaphysics. I hope you're not getting mixed up with that alchemical flim flam he was into, or that religious silly sausagery. He kept all that very quiet, particularly keen that the Royal Society didn't get wind of it. Physicists are brilliant at doing things like making our phones work, because it is their business to how the world works; any philosopher who thinks they can tell a physicist how the world works is an idiot. However, what the world is, like you say, is meaningless ontology, but frankly, once the data is public, it's fair game and physicists, being human, are as prone to fruit loopery as anyone else, Newton and Fredkin being examples.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:... That first they conceive a theory, in their minds eye, then create equations until they work, then test, yet this does not necessarily indicate that the picture they conceived is correct, only that the math exemplifies (models) what ever it might actually be.

I agree but not quite. First they make lots and lots of observations and notice a correlation then they postulate a theory that might explain them and then they propose experiments that may confirm or refute the theory. Maths is the language they use to frame theory and the experiments..

That's what I said, I left off the first that you mentioned, because it's a 'no brainer, it's a given. I listed things in order, you didn't. You have listed math after the proposition of experiment, which I say is wrong, as math is what validates their theories, and gives way to the efficacy of any given experiment. Why/how would one devise an experiment unless the math panned out? It would be doomed to failure; here let's flip a coin.

So it's: No Brainer -> theory -> math -> experiment. (As I said)

Which does not mean that the arrows I provided are a solid end of one and beginning of another phase, use the word 'dither' to understand those arrows, as each phase slowly transforms into the next. And lets not forget the phrase "back to the drawing board" which means they can cycle through the above phases, over and over again, until things work out. While one can think, that the need for adjustment, necessitates belief, that one in ensuring, the illumination of the truth of the matter, it could merely be an indicator of how off we really are, which lends to...

...My main point, which seems to have maybe escaped some, is that, a 'theory' is the 'first' step that we use on a quest to validate what we 'believe' our senses are telling us, that math 'follows' the initial concept (theory), as we try to prove this thing that we 'believed' we sensed. Where the math, along with the experiment, is 'supposed' to prove the theory, but that the math, in the end, can only 'model' the truth of what we 'believe' we see, such that an experiment could validate the mathematical model, but that it's not 'necessarily' true, to the theory.

Hubble's law states not only that (most) galaxies are moving apart, it tells you how fast they are doing so.
,
but all the evidence I am aware of contradicts it.

Godfree wrote:why do we have to attach a religious moment of creation to the story ,

Clearly I have failed to persuade you that the Big Bang is not the work of religious nutters conspiring to brainwash people into accepting Genesis. Oh well.[/quote]

"Hubbles Law" please excuse my ignorance , which law is that , ???
have you visited the website , thebigbangneverhappened.org , ??
there you will find a physicist that agrees with a lot of what I'm saying ,
and I agree with a lot of what he is saying ,
which is why I have quoted him several times in these blogs ,
you seem like a bright chappy tillingborn ,
but when it comes to popular science ,
you seem like a bit of a fundamentalist ,
you take the written word literally ,and accept without question it would seem ,
were you a rebel at school , or did you sit up the front and were a geek ,
are you comfortable taking on poplar opinion , some tackle religion because their friends do ,
but when shit hits the fan and our jobs or popularity are at stake ,
it's amazing how many are a bit more diplomatic about how they phrase things ,
I don't say these things off the top of my head ,
I'm 56 and have been an Atheist for 50 years ,
I have also been exploring the idea that the bbt is wrong ,
for most of that 50 years ,
just as an intellectual exercise ,
lets start again , in the beginning , well , thats an assumption , who said there has to be a beginning ,???
god/the big bang , created the universe ,
who said it needed to be created , why wasn't it always there , another assumption ,
the red shift indicates the universe is expanding ,
no it doesn't , the red shift has several explanations or theories as to whats causing it ,
it is an assumption to claim the shift is caused by movement ,
assumptions wishful thinking ,
put it any way you like ,
Hubble saw what he wanted to see ,
an explanation of the moment of creation ,
and like Neandertol DNA it will just be a matter of time , and space maybe ,
before the proof is here ,,

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Obviously you think that you, by virtue of 'them,' know something irrefutable, but I say that we only know that we know nothing. ...

Then you'd know this how?
Exactly, now apply it to yourself!

Especially with respect to the topic at hand. And apparently Godfree has decided to reopen the conversation as to space and time as it pertains to philosophy. Feel free to move along if you want only to speak of philosophy as 'they' say you should. I'm sorry that you feel compelled to cease. Obviously, we here, in this thread, are not.

You're free to spout whatever nonsense you like just as I'm free to point out that in the subject of Philosophy history has shown us that this type of Aristotelian metaphysical ontology is a busted flush as the Newtonian metaphysicians showed us by adding a working epistemology to their thoughts and zooming off to do something useful in the world. But then you'd not know this as the subject of philosophy is an irrelevance to you and yet you appear to be able to talk much about nothing you know?

Ditto, you should heed your own words. What escapes you is that you claim to know what they have shown 'us' to be true, (do you have a mouse in your pocket?), well apparently not everyone is convinced, case in point, so who do you think you are, to try and sell Godfree, like you've been sold, as if only you can know what is worth buying. And you wonder why I call you an elitist. You do not try to convince someone through argument, as if you understand what the so called authorities have said, you merely say that they've said so. It would seem you know not what you're talking about. Obviously if you did you would take on a method like tillingborn, as he at least tries to explain his understanding in a mostly kindly way, where you only want to fight and win, by spouting, 'he said and she said, so listen to me, I'm right!' Who cares, Godfree seeks talking about such topics with those that equally likes talking about such topics, get off your imaginary high horse, and try being social and polite in conversation about such topics. You come off nasty. You're a bitter person, it would seem, that you pride yourself only when you think you're besting someone, as you try and cram he said and she said down their throats. The last time you picked on godfree you told him you could abuse him, because your educational credentials gave you the right to do so, what a loser you truly are. Go and get a loving life, person, you desperately need one. And take your 'thought police' mentality and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

"With great knowledge, comes great responsibility" You seem to have missed how it pertains to treating people, not that you necessarily have great knowledge, as it's all relative isn't it.

Deep space or a large scale view of the universe , looks a bit like the group of smilies on your left ,
a pattern of round voids with strings and chains of galaxies clumping together in the gaps ,
the galaxies are not all moving apart , that is complete nonsense ,
we know our galaxy is heading for it's nearest galaxy ,
so is every other galaxy , moving together , not apart ,
The red shift needs no explanation ,
the further away things are , the more red shifted they are , it makes perfect sense to me ,
why do we have to attach a religious moment of creation to the story ,
what breed of dog shit would you prefer ,,???[/quote][/quote][/quote]
It is true that I saw a documentary where physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists stated that one day the milky way and Andromeda would collide. Though I cannot provide a copyright date, or the name of the documentary for that matter, I watch so many!

Wikipedia:

"Certainty

Up to 2012, there was no way to know whether the possible collision was definitely going to happen or not.[9] In 2012, researchers came to the conclusion that the collision is definite after using the Hubble Space Telescope between 2002 and 2010 to track the motion of Andromeda.[1] Such collisions are relatively common. Andromeda, for example, is believed to have collided with at least one other galaxy in the past,[10] and several dwarf galaxies such as SagDEG are currently colliding with the Milky Way and being merged into it.

These studies also suggest that M33, the Triangulum Galaxy – the third largest and brightest galaxy of the Local Group – will participate in this event. Its most likely fate is to end up orbiting the merger remnant of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies to merge with it in an even farther future, but a collision with the Milky Way before our galaxy collides with M31 or being ejected from the Local Group cannot be ruled out.[11]"[/quote]

Full marks Sob ,, most of the exciting stuff coming from the likes of Hubble etc ,
is from this century , our new knowledge is changing the way we view the universe continually ,
and so I am like an investor in the stock market ,
I'm looking ahead to see which one I think will be the winner then ,
it is always easy to back popular opinion and go with what we accept now ,
but that is not necessarily what will be accepted in the future .

Godfree wrote:Deep space or a large scale view of the universe , looks a bit like the group of smilies on your left ,
a pattern of round voids with strings and chains of galaxies clumping together in the gaps ,
the galaxies are not all moving apart , that is complete nonsense ,
we know our galaxy is heading for it's nearest galaxy ,
so is every other galaxy , moving together , not apart ,
The red shift needs no explanation ,
the further away things are , the more red shifted they are , it makes perfect sense to me ,
why do we have to attach a religious moment of creation to the story ,
what breed of dog shit would you prefer ,,???

[/quote][/quote]
It is true that I saw a documentary where physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists stated that one day the milky way and Andromeda would collide. Though I cannot provide a copyright date, or the name of the documentary for that matter, I watch so many!

Wikipedia:

"Certainty

Up to 2012, there was no way to know whether the possible collision was definitely going to happen or not.[9] In 2012, researchers came to the conclusion that the collision is definite after using the Hubble Space Telescope between 2002 and 2010 to track the motion of Andromeda.[1] Such collisions are relatively common. Andromeda, for example, is believed to have collided with at least one other galaxy in the past,[10] and several dwarf galaxies such as SagDEG are currently colliding with the Milky Way and being merged into it.

These studies also suggest that M33, the Triangulum Galaxy – the third largest and brightest galaxy of the Local Group – will participate in this event. Its most likely fate is to end up orbiting the merger remnant of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies to merge with it in an even farther future, but a collision with the Milky Way before our galaxy collides with M31 or being ejected from the Local Group cannot be ruled out.[11]"[/quote]

Full marks Sob ,, most of the exciting stuff coming from the likes of Hubble etc ,
is from this century , our new knowledge is changing the way we view the universe continually ,
and so I am like an investor in the stock market ,
I'm looking ahead to see which one I think will be the winner then ,
it is always easy to back popular opinion and go with what we accept now ,
but that is not necessarily what will be accepted in the future .[/quote]
Yes I hear you. Note that what they have come to know, as of 2012, is in our locality, not so far off, I think that sometimes man tries to take bigger steps than he's capable, it's best to take it in stride, with a bit of humility.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Exactly, now apply it to yourself!

Since I don't make such an absurd and contradictory statement and think it has meaning, I think I'll pass thanks.

Ditto, you should heed your own words. What escapes you is that you claim to know what they have shown 'us' to be true, (do you have a mouse in your pocket?), well apparently not everyone is convinced, case in point, so who do you think you are, to try and sell Godfree, like you've been sold, as if only you can know what is worth buying. ...

Nope, anyone can know this, they just have to read some Philosophy and discover the history of such thoughts. All you are doing is re-inventing the wheel and then running pointlessly around it, mainly I think because you actually hold the subject of philosophy in disdain and think it of little use as you appear to think its not come to any conclusions about certain thoughts.

And you wonder why I call you an elitist. ...

I don't wonder at all because I find this the usual refrain from those who can't be bothered to study the subject but think themselves at the same time an authority upon it.

You do not try to convince someone through argument, as if you understand what the so called authorities have said, you merely say that they've said so. ...

No, what I say is that I've studied the subject and from that I say so.

It would seem you know not what you're talking about.

Given that I've studied the subject I'd say I do. What grounds do you base your opinions on?

Obviously if you did you would take on a method like tillingborn, as he at least tries to explain his understanding in a mostly kindly way, where you only want to fight and win, by spouting, 'he said and she said, so listen to me, I'm right!' ...

Nope, in this recent conversation all I first said was one line answering Godfree who said he couldn't imagine how there could be an infinite bounded space. he then asked me to expound so I did.

On this matter Godfree, I have thought of a kind of analogy, think of a sphere whose inner surface is a fractal, this would be a bounded infinite space.

I note that Godfree uses authorities as his source but apparently you don't find this an issue?

Tillingborn has more patience than me I suspect. But then he's not been here long.

Who cares, Godfree seeks talking about such topics with those that equally likes talking about such topics, get off your imaginary high horse, and try being social and polite in conversation about such topics. ...

Unlike you Godfree is actually serious about his subject and that subject is that Physics is the tool of the Religious right and the BBT is all a plot by the theists. So all his discussion is to overthrow what mainstream Physics claims. My take and advice to him is to become a Physicist if this is his aim, nothing more nothing less. That he tries to do this in a philosophy forum then leads me to tell him why what he is doing is not done anymore in philosophy and why.

That you appear to have appointed yourself as the knight on his shining charger rushing to the defense of those you think I'm attacking is just your psychological hang-up. Get over yourself. Godfrees a big boy now and I'm pretty sure he doesn't need your help.

You come off nasty. You're a bitter person, it would seem, that you pride yourself only when you think you're besting someone, as you try and cram he said and she said down their throats. The last time you picked on godfree you told him you could abuse him, because your educational credentials gave you the right to do so, what a loser you truly are. Go and get a loving life, person, you desperately need one. And take your 'thought police' mentality and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

No, I didn't. He got shirty and asked me why I thought I was qualified to say such things to him so I told him. Your psycho-babble is the result of your psychological hang-ups. Its no wonder you could not stick a philosophy course, you've not the temperament.

"With great knowledge, comes great responsibility" You seem to have missed how it pertains to treating people, not that you necessarily have great knowledge, as it's all relative isn't it.

Then I don't have to apply such a maxim do I! Still, no its not all relative, in the main its a hierarchy. But lmao at you telling me how to treat others when the majority of your posts fall into rancour and abuse.

Godfree wrote:"Hubbles Law" please excuse my ignorance , which law is that , ???

The best cure for ignorance is research. Hubble's Law is the name given to the findings of Edwin Hubble. When he looked at galaxies in the 1920's he found that the light from all but a few in our local group was red shifted. Being a scientist, he was familiar with the Doppler effect and putting two and two together, he concluded that apart from those few galaxies in our local group, the other hundreds of millions are moving away. The Hubble constant H, is the speed per megaparsec that they are receding at. Constant is a bit of a misnomer, because it is constantly being refined.

Godfree wrote:have you visited the website , thebigbangneverhappened.org , ??

Give us a minute......Ah! Eric J Lerner. Actually yes I have, can't remember when or why, but I did go through it with more care than I am prepared to now. He's a clever bloke with impressive credentials, but just to take the first argument he put: "The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements." No it doesn't. It is a theory based on the observation that galaxies display red shift. Predicting 'the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements' is a completely different thing.
Generally he is subject to confirmation bias; he has some bee in his bonnet and is being unscientific; you don't insist something is true because your (probably dodgy) logic says so. The thing that is true is the observation, a lesson that science learned from philosophy. Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am'. He worked out that any old bollocks is consistent with him having experiences, he thought it possible that an evil demon was deceiving him, a more modern take is the film The matrix, so I gather, never seen it. Descartes did a bit of logic and decided that because he was having the experiences, he necessarily exists, it's logically faultless. The British empiricists though said: Hold up, all that is absolutely necessary is that there are experiences, you, Monsieur Descartes, are an a priori construct. In other words it doesn't follow from feelings of Descartesness, that Descartes exists. A bit nitpicky, but an example of the sort of rigour proper philosophers are capable of; innit so Arising? By and large, physicists have learned the lesson and stick to describing what they see, that is what physics is about. You can nail your observations to any metaphysical framework you like, but for that framework to become physics, it has to make predictions that give rise to observable phenomenon. If you have some maths to go with it, all well and good, but it is not the maths that makes it true, it is the maths that makes it physics.
The Catholic church got itself in a tizzy because it had taken a mathematical model and told everyone it was the case. Ptolemy's refinement of Aristotle's heavenly sphere's is a really good model for mapping the movement of the planets that are visible to the naked eye. It had done perfectly well for nearly 2000 years, then Galileo got a telescope and proved it was a load of bollocks, much to the chagrin of the church who banged him up for the rest of his life. Mathematical and/or physical models may or may not be true, but if everyone looking sees red shift, you have to treat it as real.
I can't be bothered with the rest of your post, it's based on the premise that I am a bright, but fundamentalist crank. We're not really here to talk about me.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Exactly, now apply it to yourself!

Since I don't make such an absurd and contradictory statement and think it has meaning, I think I'll pass thanks.

Ditto, you should heed your own words. What escapes you is that you claim to know what they have shown 'us' to be true, (do you have a mouse in your pocket?), well apparently not everyone is convinced, case in point, so who do you think you are, to try and sell Godfree, like you've been sold, as if only you can know what is worth buying. ...

Nope, anyone can know this, they just have to read some Philosophy and discover the history of such thoughts. All you are doing is re-inventing the wheel and then running pointlessly around it, mainly I think because you actually hold the subject of philosophy in disdain and think it of little use as you appear to think its not come to any conclusions about certain thoughts.

And you wonder why I call you an elitist. ...

I don't wonder at all because I find this the usual refrain from those who can't be bothered to study the subject but think themselves at the same time an authority upon it.

You do not try to convince someone through argument, as if you understand what the so called authorities have said, you merely say that they've said so. ...

No, what I say is that I've studied the subject and from that I say so.

It would seem you know not what you're talking about.

Given that I've studied the subject I'd say I do. What grounds do you base your opinions on?

Obviously if you did you would take on a method like tillingborn, as he at least tries to explain his understanding in a mostly kindly way, where you only want to fight and win, by spouting, 'he said and she said, so listen to me, I'm right!' ...

Nope, in this recent conversation all I first said was one line answering Godfree who said he couldn't imagine how there could be an infinite bounded space. he then asked me to expound so I did.

On this matter Godfree, I have thought of a kind of analogy, think of a sphere whose inner surface is a fractal, this would be a bounded infinite space.

I note that Godfree uses authorities as his source but apparently you don't find this an issue?

Tillingborn has more patience than me I suspect. But then he's not been here long.

Who cares, Godfree seeks talking about such topics with those that equally likes talking about such topics, get off your imaginary high horse, and try being social and polite in conversation about such topics. ...

Unlike you Godfree is actually serious about his subject and that subject is that Physics is the tool of the Religious right and the BBT is all a plot by the theists. So all his discussion is to overthrow what mainstream Physics claims. My take and advice to him is to become a Physicist if this is his aim, nothing more nothing less. That he tries to do this in a philosophy forum then leads me to tell him why what he is doing is not done anymore in philosophy and why.

That you appear to have appointed yourself as the knight on his shining charger rushing to the defense of those you think I'm attacking is just your psychological hang-up. Get over yourself. Godfrees a big boy now and I'm pretty sure he doesn't need your help.

You come off nasty. You're a bitter person, it would seem, that you pride yourself only when you think you're besting someone, as you try and cram he said and she said down their throats. The last time you picked on godfree you told him you could abuse him, because your educational credentials gave you the right to do so, what a loser you truly are. Go and get a loving life, person, you desperately need one. And take your 'thought police' mentality and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

No, I didn't. He got shirty and asked me why I thought I was qualified to say such things to him so I told him. Your psycho-babble is the result of your psychological hang-ups. Its no wonder you could not stick a philosophy course, you've not the temperament.

"With great knowledge, comes great responsibility" You seem to have missed how it pertains to treating people, not that you necessarily have great knowledge, as it's all relative isn't it.

Then I don't have to apply such a maxim do I! Still, no its not all relative, in the main its a hierarchy. But lmao at you telling me how to treat others when the majority of your posts fall into rancour and abuse.

All wrong, you obviously don't know what Socrates meant. It seems to have gone over your head. You're also wrong, with your analysis of others, as you see it only as a comparison to yourself as if you've chosen the only correct course. In this way you are a fool. The reason we don't agree is for the same reason many philosophers don't. So I'll put it to you so you can no longer argue with me and it shall prove you to be the idiot, that you exude.

Answer me which theory of truth is correct?

One of the Substantive theories, either Correspondence, Coherence, Constructivist, Consensus, or Pragmatic.
OR
One of the Minimalist (deflationary) theories, Performative, Redundancy.
OR
Pluralist theories
OR
One of the formal theories, either logic mathematics, Semantic or Kripke's

Now do you understand, now please shut up. In the future, I'll merely say, "Your wrong, as I, like you, believe otherwise, as Socrates said, 'we only know that we know nothing,' do you understand, possibly not. Enough said. Move along." And that about sums it up. Unlike you, that assumes you know it all, my argument has always been that you cannot say with certainty, however fools like you would have it otherwise. You're nothing but ego, that uses what you've been told, merely as a weapon, and a means of self stroking, and I don't. Which is why I say you don't understand Socrates at all.

And you can take your psycho babble and stick it up your psycho ass, as you fear psychology because it nails you to the ground, and makes you equal to every one else, and you can't stand that because you're an elitist, a megalomaniac, with visions of grandeur as to your potency. So in other words, a psychotic fool. You figure that if you deny the very thing that defines you, then you can believe you're not definable. An ostrich with its head in the sand. Further you are a would be slave owner, that desires to beat people over the head with any weapon that you can muster, while trying to ensure that it can't happen to you. In other words a coward to boot.

And as to tillingborn, I don't think he's as shallow or jaded as you. I think that he's smart enough to know that if you choose to engage someone, it's because you choose to, and in so choosing, it is incumbent upon you, to maintain the same dignified decorum, as if you were face to face, a diplomat caring as much for the other as you do yourself, you fucking wanker, sure patience is a part of it, on 'both' sides of the fence. You, one way freak, you. And don't you dare whine, just because we take each other on differently, you passive aggressively, and me active aggressively. Any fool can see what you words are loaded with, you pompous selfish idiot.

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:"Hubbles Law" please excuse my ignorance , which law is that , ???

The best cure for ignorance is research. Hubble's Law is the name given to the findings of Edwin Hubble. When he looked at galaxies in the 1920's he found that the light from all but a few in our local group was red shifted. Being a scientist, he was familiar with the Doppler effect and putting two and two together, he concluded that apart from those few galaxies in our local group, the other hundreds of millions are moving away. The Hubble constant H, is the speed per megaparsec that they are receding at. Constant is a bit of a misnomer, because it is constantly being refined.

Godfree wrote:have you visited the website , thebigbangneverhappened.org , ??

Give us a minute......Ah! Eric J Lerner. Actually yes I have, can't remember when or why, but I did go through it with more care than I am prepared to now. He's a clever bloke with impressive credentials, but just to take the first argument he put: "The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements." No it doesn't. It is a theory based on the observation that galaxies display red shift. Predicting 'the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements' is a completely different thing.
Generally he is subject to confirmation bias; he has some bee in his bonnet and is being unscientific; you don't insist something is true because your (probably dodgy) logic says so. The thing that is true is the observation, a lesson that science learned from philosophy. Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am'. He worked out that any old bollocks is consistent with him having experiences, he thought it possible that an evil demon was deceiving him, a more modern take is the film The matrix, so I gather, never seen it. Descartes did a bit of logic and decided that because he was having the experiences, he necessarily exists, it's logically faultless. The British empiricists though said: Hold up, all that is absolutely necessary is that there are experiences, you, Monsieur Descartes, are an a priori construct. In other words it doesn't follow from feelings of Descartesness, that Descartes exists. A bit nitpicky, but an example of the sort of rigour proper philosophers are capable of; innit so Arising? By and large, physicists have learned the lesson and stick to describing what they see, that is what physics is about. You can nail your observations to any metaphysical framework you like, but for that framework to become physics, it has to make predictions that give rise to observable phenomenon. If you have some maths to go with it, all well and good, but it is not the maths that makes it true, it is the maths that makes it physics.
The Catholic church got itself in a tizzy because it had taken a mathematical model and told everyone it was the case. Ptolemy's refinement of Aristotle's heavenly sphere's is a really good model for mapping the movement of the planets that are visible to the naked eye. It had done perfectly well for nearly 2000 years, then Galileo got a telescope and proved it was a load of bollocks, much to the chagrin of the church who banged him up for the rest of his life. Mathematical and/or physical models may or may not be true, but if everyone looking sees red shift, you have to treat it as real.
I can't be bothered with the rest of your post, it's based on the premise that I am a bright, but fundamentalist crank. We're not really here to talk about me.

OK tillingborn, I'm asking 'you.' How can 'you' know, that those spectral lines indicate, what they say they do?

tillingborn wrote:

Godfree wrote:"Hubbles Law" please excuse my ignorance , which law is that , ???

The best cure for ignorance is research. Hubble's Law is the name given to the findings of Edwin Hubble. When he looked at galaxies in the 1920's he found that the light from all but a few in our local group was red shifted. Being a scientist, he was familiar with the Doppler effect and putting two and two together, he concluded that apart from those few galaxies in our local group, the other hundreds of millions are moving away. The Hubble constant H, is the speed per megaparsec that they are receding at. Constant is a bit of a misnomer, because it is constantly being refined.

Godfree wrote:have you visited the website , thebigbangneverhappened.org , ??

Give us a minute......Ah! Eric J Lerner. Actually yes I have, can't remember when or why, but I did go through it with more care than I am prepared to now. He's a clever bloke with impressive credentials, but just to take the first argument he put: "

I must be pretty ignorant because I thought laws were proven fact , not "theory"
are you saying that Hubbles theory on the red shift is regarded as fact ,??
by who ,??
do you equally and blindly accept Olbers Paradox as proof the universe is finite,??
I am familiar with Hubbles work , I presumed it was all still regarded as theory ,
now as regards observational data ,
the observational data does not fit or confirm the bbt ,
more and more we are getting images that shouldn't be there according to the bbt ,
are you familiar with the term red and dead , pertains to old galaxies at the end of their cycle ,
problem is they are 10 billion light years away/old ,
care to have a go at explaining that ,,??

It would seem you know not what you're talking about.

Given that I've studied the subject I'd say I do. What grounds do you base your opinions on?

Obviously if you did you would take on a method like tillingborn, as he at least tries to explain his understanding in a mostly kindly way, where you only want to fight and win, by spouting, 'he said and she said, so listen to me, I'm right!' ...

Nope, in this recent conversation all I first said was one line answering Godfree who said he couldn't imagine how there could be an infinite bounded space. he then asked me to expound so I did.

On this matter Godfree, I have thought of a kind of analogy, think of a sphere whose inner surface is a fractal, this would be a bounded infinite space.

I note that Godfree uses authorities as his source but apparently you don't find this an issue?

Tillingborn has more patience than me I suspect. But then he's not been here long.

Who cares, Godfree seeks talking about such topics with those that equally likes talking about such topics, get off your imaginary high horse, and try being social and polite in conversation about such topics. ...

Unlike you Godfree is actually serious about his subject and that subject is that Physics is the tool of the Religious right and the BBT is all a plot by the theists. So all his discussion is to overthrow what mainstream Physics claims. My take and advice to him is to become a Physicist if this is his aim, nothing more nothing less. That he tries to do this in a philosophy forum then leads me to tell him why what he is doing is not done anymore in philosophy and why.

That you appear to have appointed yourself as the knight on his shining charger rushing to the defense of those you think I'm attacking is just your psychological hang-up. Get over yourself. Godfrees a big boy now and I'm pretty sure he doesn't need your help.

I'm here to debate , Spheres has been the most understanding and friendly of the responses ,
Arisings idea that I'm blogging/posting/thinking , WRONG , is a bit precious ,
I am the lazzy jock from the back of the class , couldn't be bothered doing my homework ,
and was bored with most subjects , apart from sport ,
but when it came time for the schools chess tournament , I cleaned up there to ,
I have a brain , and I know how to use it , but I'm self taught ,
my teachers used to get frustrated with me not showing my working out ,
I often had the answer correct , but had done the thinking in my head ,
you will find me equally short on proof and evidence but I am confident I have the answer right ,
the thing I do/did with monotonous consistency , was be the fastest ,
right or wrong I nearly always got the answer first ,
so thats why I leap ahead with little support or evidence to prove things ,
cos thats how you get there first , you explore the theories ,
and take your punt ,
well guess what , I just happen to be one of those really annoying individuals ,
who just seem to fluke it , one would think ,
I have been blogging for years that white man was Neandertol , Caucasian
and in 2010 they confirmed it ,
So in the future soon they will confirm ,
the universe is a lot older than 13.7 billion years .
the universe is not expanding .
there was no big bang ,,!!!