Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:If we can account in an explanation for the whole possibility of existance, which includes the beginning of the universe as well as the before the beginning other-verse, we have the 'rabbit-stew universe'.

I thought that was rabbit poo ,,!!!
But any way Lancek4 , I think I'm starting to come round to the idea ,
that you might have a brain after all ,
we can look at this from many angles ,
society is full of examples of what the majority thinks ,
main stream mentality , so for me the first step or key to getting it right ,
is don't assume the majority is right , quite the opposite ,
whatever the most people think is almost certain to be wrong,
it is those with the courage to step out of the line , and dare to be different ,
that change our society , playing follow the leader never changed anything ,
so you sound like me Lancek , you can and do think for yourself ,
which to my surprise seems too much to ask from the likes of Arising and ,
Notvacka ,
it's like the old religious , god is above and beyond our comprehension,
seems the bbt is the same for those two , !!!

Godfree wrote:... it's like the old religious , god is above and beyond our comprehension,
seems the bbt is the same for those two , !!!

I appear to not be making my position clear. What you are doing is not science nor philosophy. All you are doing is finding authorities that support whatever it is that drives you and talking about it as tho' you understand the issues. You don't, as you are not an astro nor mathematical physicist.

Things like the BBT theory are as of nothing to me and my life. As you say, its pretty much exactly the way I think about 'god', i.e. I don't. The difference is that I'm more likely to give credence to the physicists as they have an epistemology that I can at least understand but I'm not fool enough to think I can discern the truth in these matters as philosophy has taught me that such metaphysics is a juvenile waste of thought(not that it wasn't fun when I was one). I prefer Phenomenology to Metaphysics. But when I do decide to play with metaphysics with respect to reality I prefer mine digital and discrete.

For many Infinity is like a bottom line ,
if you want to engage me about a model for the universe ,
it has to be an infinite one , with no beginning or end ,
this is seen by myself and others in here as the only possible model ,
that a beginning to time is illogical nonsense ,
quote godfrees law "if there was ever nothing in the universe , then nothing is all there would ever be"
so I reject the bbt right from it's , "in the beginning"
I have mentioned that it sounds too much like religions ,"in the beginning"
and it seems we have another parallel
the bbt is above and beyond our comprehension ,
according to the bb fundamentalists ,,!!!

Its just the current theory that best fits the experimental data and the mathematical models. Its not a dogma to any physicist but appears to be one to the those who wish a metaphysical answer to existence.

You appear to ignore that the BBT theory also claims that the Universe will go on unto infinity, it'll just looks like it'll be without any light or heat in the end.

Godfree wrote:Cheers for the web address , I just joined and am waiting for my confirmation link so I can post

Have you been confirmed and posted yet? I'm intrigued to see how they respond to your "for those with a brain , it becomes obvious" revelations.

I suppose I am saying that to argue aspects about a beginning of the universe is metaphysical speculation at best, like arguing over what angel pushes which planet.

If this is what godfree is suggesting then I agee with him.

Arising_uk wrote:Its just the current theory that best fits the experimental data and the mathematical models. Its not a dogma to any physicist but appears to be one to the those who wish a metaphysical answer to existence.

You appear to ignore that the BBT theory also claims that the Universe will go on unto infinity, it'll just looks like it'll be without any light or heat in the end.

As I understand it there is no one bbt that is proven or fixed ,
ie ,there are several endings to the expansion ,
there is a big crunch , or expanding forever , accelerating forever,
I didn't think they had decided one way or the other ,
as they ad to the theory with such things as dark matter , string theories ,
the possibility's seem to be expanding , in other words ,
for any one issue , there is a choice of theory a b or c,
which then changes the outcome , I would choose the big crunch ,
everything returning to the singularity to do it all again ,
but I can't see that as the universe , just our wee corner of it ,,!!!

[/quote]A quick goggle finds problems with your tired-light theory.

When will you realise that your thinking is pointless if you wish to actually contribute to this subject? A philosophy forum is not the place for this any more as we've realised long-ago that such metaphysics is futile, as the Newtonians proved. You want to convert them? Learn physics and maths and then you can philosophise as they do.[/quote,

I noticed a few references to the Newtonians in your posts ,
didn't think much of it at the time , but my law is pure Newtonian ,
basically replace galaxy with object and it is Newtons law of gravity,
which is why I state in the original post that we can see the mechanics of the universe at work ,
Newtons law of the mechanics of space ,
we know what gravity does , just ask Newton , I'm just extending that law to galaxies , as well as stars planets and everything smaller,
so the Newtonians would challenge the tired light,,???
photon decay , you might say is a more modern question ,
involving technology and equipment to make that call ,

The problem with that is that Newton's Laws are relatively local events. At the distances you talk about Einstein's Laws hold.

By "Newtonians" I mean those philosophers who gave their metaphysics an epistemology that all could follow and made maths the language to talk in, they became the 'scientists'.

John wrote:

Godfree wrote:Cheers for the web address , I just joined and am waiting for my confirmation link so I can post

Have you been confirmed and posted yet? I'm intrigued to see how they respond to your "for those with a brain , it becomes obvious" revelations.

I first jumped on a thread titled , "Are galaxies moving faster than the speed of light"
my answer was no , quoted my law of galaxy motion and basically gave them my version or model for the universe ,
one reply , rather sarcastic , and the post was deleted ,
I posted again , with less claims but still concluding the bb was busted ,
I'm banned from the site , censorship is alive and well ,
so when one visits that site , you will think they were interested in science ,
and discussion , but obviously they are a good example of ,
a site dedicated to promoting the bb , and anything else is censored ,,!!!
a very good example of how the bbt is still alive ,
we are being conned , and that site proves it ,,!!!

lancek4 wrote:I suppose I am saying that to argue aspects about a beginning of the universe is metaphysical speculation at best, like arguing over what angel pushes which planet.

If this is what godfree is suggesting then I agee with him.

I accept that we aren't going back in time to watch it ,
that there will probably never be an answer that will please everybody ,
but of course we could say that about anything ,
So how could we know about "Deep Time"
we can use existing laws and try to apply them ,
"to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
so the bb if there was one ,was a reaction to the time before the bang,
that there was an event equal to the bang providing the energy,
or inertia , the series of chain reactions that resulted in something going bang,
if it was a large black hole that went bang , it's easy to see the energy going into constructing the black hole , being released when it bangs ,
if the was a big bang , I tend to think little bang ,
so the bbt goes against accepted science theory/fact
to suggest nothing before the bang ,
is throwing everything away that we know about the universe ,
so rather than turn science on it's head to make the fantasy fit ,
I would rather throw the bbt away , it's going to happen sooner or later ,
why wait , why not move on and get real now ,
it's a bit like the argument I use for religion ,
we will never persuade the fundementalists to give up their religion ,
if we are waiting for the religious to grow a brain and get real ,
it will never happen , so we change the position at the top ,
government has to step in and pronounce the bb dead,
they have to stop funding the research into it ,and start funding reality,
just like I think they should do with religion ,
stop funding it and get real , it's not much to ask really is it,,???

Arising_uk wrote:The problem with that is that Newton's Laws are relatively local events. At the distances you talk about Einstein's Laws hold.

By "Newtonians" I mean those philosophers who gave their metaphysics an epistemology that all could follow and made maths the language to talk in, they became the 'scientists'.

I also remember from those posts you suggested you lost the debate ,
to the Newtonians , what was your claim that they disproved ,??
I got the feeling that you were suggesting you were putting up my argument ,
and the Newtonians won the debate ,
trying to apply Newtons laws to the bbt ,
don't fit , Newtons law of universal gravity , like my law of galaxy motion ,
equal and opposite reaction , don't fit ,
third law , a stationary object will remain stationary until an external force moves it , don't fit , none of Newtons laws/science fits the bb,
the observational data , don't fit , logic , don't fit ,,
the only thing that fits the bbt , is the religious moment of creation,,!!!
one of the most popular questions asked about the steady state ,
"in a steady state model , where is there room for devine intervention ,"
so don't tell me there isn't an awareness of the need for the bbt
the religious amongst us need the bbt to be true ,
or they have nowhere to turn , creation would be busted,,!!!

Lets try again.

Godfree wrote:I accept that we aren't going back in time to watch it ,

Thats exactly what we are doing when we observe the far reaches of the Universe.

that there will probably never be an answer that will please everybody ,
but of course we could say that about anything ,

And yet this is exactly what you seek!?

So how could we know about "Deep Time"
we can use existing laws and try to apply them ,

We got the phrase from Geology.

"to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
so the bb if there was one ,was a reaction to the time before the bang,
that there was an event equal to the bang providing the energy,

No, this is where you show a shocking lack of understanding of the current BBT. Look-up 'inflation theory'. You also appear not to understand that the current theory and physicists don't talk about 'before' as its not possible to discuss such things. Only godbotherers and metaphysicians like yourself wish to talk such nonsense.

or inertia , the series of chain reactions that resulted in something going bang,
if it was a large black hole that went bang , it's easy to see the energy going into constructing the black hole , being released when it bangs ,
if the was a big bang , I tend to think little bang ,
so the bbt goes against accepted science theory/fact
to suggest nothing before the bang ,
is throwing everything away that we know about the universe ,

No, its to exactly talk about the only things we can, this Universe. Yours is metaphysical speculation of the worst sort, in fact its pretty much religious.

Black holes are still just a theory.

so rather than turn science on it's head to make the fantasy fit ,
I would rather throw the bbt away , it's going to happen sooner or later ,
why wait , why not move on and get real now ,
it's a bit like the argument I use for religion ,
we will never persuade the fundementalists to give up their religion ,
if we are waiting for the religious to grow a brain and get real ,
it will never happen , so we change the position at the top ,
government has to step in and pronounce the bb dead,
they have to stop funding the research into it ,and start funding reality,
just like I think they should do with religion ,
stop funding it and get real , it's not much to ask really is it,,???

You are delusional. There is no conspiracy. You understand nothing about how science works if you think govt can decide by dictat which theory is the currently acceptable one. You sound like the worst of the religious theocrats that you say you dislike and you sound as brain-dead as the fundamentalists you say you abhor.

Godfree wrote:I also remember from those posts you suggested you lost the debate ,
to the Newtonians , what was your claim that they disproved ,??

You have read no philosophy it appears and yet you post in a philosophy forum!?

My phrase is to describe those metaphyscians in philosophy who left with a clear epistemology and maths as the modelling language to become the scientists. Because of their success we philosophers left have given-up the kind of metaphysical 'thinking' that you are doing as a waste of thought.

I got the feeling that you were suggesting you were putting up my argument ,
and the Newtonians won the debate ,
trying to apply Newtons laws to the bbt ,
don't fit , Newtons law of universal gravity , like my law of galaxy motion , ...

You have no 'Law' in any sense nor do you have any 'argument'.

equal and opposite reaction , don't fit ,
third law , a stationary object will remain stationary until an external force moves it , don't fit , none of Newtons laws/science fits the bb,
the observational data , don't fit , logic , don't fit ,,
the only thing that fits the bbt , is the religious moment of creation,,!!!
one of the most popular questions asked about the steady state ,
"in a steady state model , where is there room for devine intervention ,"
so don't tell me there isn't an awareness of the need for the bbt
the religious amongst us need the bbt to be true ,
or they have nowhere to turn , creation would be busted,,!!!

Fred Hoyle's steady-state idea was a model in science once but all the experimental data now leads them to think otherwise. Its a heat-death for all. Did you not bother to watch the link I posted of the talk by Krauss?

But in a nut-shell the above exactly portrays your motivation for this tirade against the BBT of yours. You are fighting your religious wars against the faithful and have chosen science as your background because now some of the religious are accepting the BBT theory as proof of their 'God'. But they, like you, misunderstand what it says with respect to 'creators' and both of you misrepresent it and what science has to say about such things, i.e. NOTHING!

Science has never and never can prove or disprove religions claims about 'God'. Mainly because they not even bothering to look but essentially because such things are not a matter of empirical evidence.

Stop posting your nonsense in the phil of Science section and go back to the religious or metaphysics section where this all belongs.

Arising_uk wrote:Lets try again.

Godfree wrote:I accept that we aren't going back in time to watch it ,

Thats exactly what we are doing when we observe the far reaches of the Universe.

that there will probably never be an answer that will please everybody ,
but of course we could say that about anything ,

And yet this is exactly what you seek!?

So how could we know about "Deep Time"
we can use existing laws and try to apply them ,

We got the phrase from Geology.

"to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
so the bb if there was one ,was a reaction to the time before the bang,
that there was an event equal to the bang providing the energy,

No, this is where you show a shocking lack of understanding of the current BBT. Look-up 'inflation theory'. You also appear not to understand that the current theory and physicists don't talk about 'before' as its not possible to discuss such things. Only godbotherers and metaphysicians like yourself wish to talk such nonsense.

or inertia , the series of chain reactions that resulted in something going bang,
if it was a large black hole that went bang , it's easy to see the energy going into constructing the black hole , being released when it bangs ,
if the was a big bang , I tend to think little bang ,
so the bbt goes against accepted science theory/fact
to suggest nothing before the bang ,
is throwing everything away that we know about the universe ,

No, its to exactly talk about the only things we can, this Universe. Yours is metaphysical speculation of the worst sort, in fact its pretty much religious.

Black holes are still just a theory.

so rather than turn science on it's head to make the fantasy fit ,
I would rather throw the bbt away , it's going to happen sooner or later ,
why wait , why not move on and get real now ,
it's a bit like the argument I use for religion ,
we will never persuade the fundementalists to give up their religion ,
if we are waiting for the religious to grow a brain and get real ,
it will never happen , so we change the position at the top ,
government has to step in and pronounce the bb dead,
they have to stop funding the research into it ,and start funding reality,
just like I think they should do with religion ,
stop funding it and get real , it's not much to ask really is it,,???

You are delusional. There is no conspiracy. You understand nothing about how science works if you think govt can decide by dictat which theory is the currently acceptable one. You sound like the worst of the religious theocrats that you say you dislike and you sound as brain-dead as the fundamentalists you say you abhor.

As I have said often ,"reality is an individual experience"
it's like your determined to draw nonsense from sense ,
so lets correct your incorrect assumptions about my post ,
"I accept that we aren't going back in time to watch it"
the bb , we were talking of proof for what was before the bb ,
so my response , were not going back to watch it ,
nobodies going to build a space craft and time travel back to the bb ,
you REALLY think I don't know we look back in time the further out we look,
like your parting with this big wisdom I didn't have,,?????????
you are a simpleton ,
"we can't please all of the people"
no that is not what I seek , never claimed to have been , your very confused,
"physicists don't talk about "before"as it's not possible to discuss such things,"
as I said , we aint going back to watch it,,,DUH ,!!!!!
what happened to "that is exactly what were doing when we observe the far reaches of the universe"
"black holes are still just a theory"
so I take it from that that your not impressed by theory,,???
JUST theory doesn't do it for you,,???
obviously it depends on which theory ,
if it's the bb theory , there is no other option or real alternative ,
I would pressume far more Newtonians would back black holes over the bbt,
any day , far more probable and likely , that black holes exist ,
than the bbt is true ,
we can see the stars circling something , and it has to have a massive ,
gravitational pull to hold all those stars in it's grip,
we have observational evidence to support the black hole theory,,!!
you appear to be trying to pull apart anything you can of my posts,
with no real purpose or motive it seems ,
I don't get the sense your trying to make sense ,
your just trying to make nonsense of my sense,,!!!