Philosophy Now Forum

sthitapragya wrote: And don't make the mistake of assuming that infinite is a number
it simply means that the temperature was hot but undefined.

Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

=======

socratus wrote: Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.

There is no crisis in Physics, there is only a crisis among a few who do not understand the principles of physics.

thedoc wrote:

socratus wrote: Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.

There is no crisis in Physics, there is only a crisis among a few who do not understand the principles of physics.

What's your background? I'm asking because I'm a bit fed up with the crap being pushed of the Big Bang AND the fact that there's hardly anyone in our skeptic community questioning this.

I can't argue for this OP here as I am not sure of his/her background. But there are initial questions that should be asked that no one is asking. Or, where they are, there is a tendency to accuse those of simply lacking sufficient qualifications (authority).

Now, as a skeptic, the fact that 'we' question things like religion AND in specific ways, I'm finding it odd that the same rationality isn't being applied with the Big Bang Theory. That is, we have to assume nothing as a base to begin with but there seems to be a lot of prerequisite effort to "read the Bible", so to speak that is hypocritical of the intent of being skeptical.

So I want to challenge someone here who is apparently WITH qualifications sufficient to argue on the physics if only to test other 'friendly' skeptics with the same justification we question other claims. Certainly if one is actually qualified to 'know' they should be able to argue the evidence as a religious person is to the same.

Any takers?

P.S. I just realized this is NOT skepticforum.com as I assumed [Their software is the same and I look at threads from both simultaneously.] However, as philosophy is concerned with questioning things as a skeptic, I extend this challenge to here still. Thank you.

The idea that the universe started out very small was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre; he called the original tiny universe the primeval atom or, more poetically the 'cosmic egg'. The thing that the hypothesis was meant to account for was the observed red shift of distant galaxies, first noted by Vesto Slipher, but made famous by Edwin Hubble.
The Red Shift is almost certainly due to the Doppler Effect. There are alternative explanations, 'tired photons' being one, but they are very much on the fringe and the overwhelming probability is that distant galaxies really are moving away and the universe is getting bigger. By reversing the process, there is no obvious point to stop and say the universe began with any particular size; so you keep going until it has no size at all.
Ironically the Big Bang got its name from one of its most vocal critics. The English astronomer, Fred Hoyle, was a cantankerous Yorkshireman, think Harbal with a telescope. He was an atheist and didn't like the suggestion that the universe had a moment of 'creation'; the fact that Georges Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest probably didn't help.

socratus wrote: ...
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
=======

Strong agreement, as well as 1 / infinity... Both do not exist in the real world :(

uwot wrote:The idea that the universe started out very small was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre; he called the original tiny universe the primeval atom or, more poetically the 'cosmic egg'. The thing that the hypothesis was meant to account for was the observed red shift of distant galaxies, first noted by Vesto Slipher, but made famous by Edwin Hubble.
The Red Shift is almost certainly due to the Doppler Effect. There are alternative explanations, 'tired photons' being one, but they are very much on the fringe and the overwhelming probability is that distant galaxies really are moving away and the universe is getting bigger. By reversing the process, there is no obvious point to stop and say the universe began with any particular size; so you keep going until it has no size at all.
Ironically the Big Bang got its name from one of its most vocal critics. The English astronomer, Fred Hoyle, was a cantankerous Yorkshireman, think Harbal with a telescope. He was an atheist and didn't like the suggestion that the universe had a moment of 'creation'; the fact that Georges Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest probably didn't help.

I completely understood expansion but it doesn't support a Big Bang interpretation strictly. Hoyle suggested an extension of time as a requirement for the "Cosmological Principle" to which I agree. What needs to be asked though begins with logic and to Zeno's paradoxes[Source for all his paradoxes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes.

The reason the Achilles and Tortoise paradox is not paradoxical is because it has an endpoint such that there is MORE beyond it. He also argued similarly with the Dichotomy using just a wall to which one approaches it but never reaches it. But while the wall is a limit, it is still only a relative limit knowing that there is something beyond that wall. So you have to ask yourself whether in respect to the universe we see, does our perception that derives a singularity mean that it is an "origin" in the same sense? If time and space itself 'begins' there, unlike the resolution of the Zeno paradoxes, the singularity is a very extreme limit just as a wall that has nothing behind it. If we came to some limit of space, we should never see a wall because it begs there is some means for us to actually sense it in some direct way at that place. This is irrational and so you have to default to assuming that the appearance of an origin at a singularity is just that: an appearance.

It IS more rational to conclude with more certainty that such a point would NOT exist on another ground: that from any perfectly non-existent time/space point, anything after that infinitesimally is instantly infinite in any interpretation, Big Bang, Steady State, or other.

Then, since no point is 'special' even given our present time, we HAVE the evidence that definitively outrules the Big Bang no matter WHAT else could possibly be true. No extra presumptions added can qualify as standing as more support for the Big Bang. So even if one trusts the Steady State as 'disproved', you can be most certain still that the Big Bang is CERTAINLY NOT 'true' from the get go.

You are right, though, about the religious favor for the Big Bang. And I suspect that the theory as it stands is more about politics, not actual science.

uwot wrote:The idea that the universe started out very small was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre; he called the original tiny universe the primeval atom or, more poetically the 'cosmic egg'. The thing that the hypothesis was meant to account for was the observed red shift of distant galaxies, first noted by Vesto Slipher, but made famous by Edwin Hubble.
The Red Shift is almost certainly due to the Doppler Effect. There are alternative explanations, 'tired photons' being one, but they are very much on the fringe and the overwhelming probability is that distant galaxies really are moving away and the universe is getting bigger. By reversing the process, there is no obvious point to stop and say the universe began with any particular size; so you keep going until it has no size at all.
Ironically the Big Bang got its name from one of its most vocal critics. The English astronomer, Fred Hoyle, was a cantankerous Yorkshireman, think Harbal with a telescope. He was an atheist and didn't like the suggestion that the universe had a moment of 'creation'; the fact that Georges Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest probably didn't help.

Nice summary. If the universe is expanding then it must have once been much smaller. Same for us and everything else for that matter. However, while we all start out small, none of us seemingly we start out as a Planck scale singularity. The singularity is widely acknowledged to be just a theoretical construct, a placeholder in lieu of understanding. I personally lean towards the "white hole" model because the ∞ would be due to to an inside-out dynamic leading to another reality that is entirely inaccessible and out reach of this universe's physical laws. The "singularity" would then be a point of flow rather than an exploding point.

I don't mind the idea of "tired light". Everything degrades and loses energy, even black holes. It's possible that degraded photons or other phenomena that interferes with perception of light over vast differences exaggerate the assessed rate of expansion, but my understanding is that the observational science and math behind the fact of its expansion is pretty watertight.

Scott Mayers wrote:I completely understood expansion but it doesn't support a Big Bang interpretation strictly.

The thing about data is that it supports any hypothesis that is consistent with that data.

Scott Mayers wrote:Hoyle suggested an extension of time as a requirement for the "Cosmological Principle" to which I agree.

Sorry, I can't comment on that, I've no idea what Hoyle suggested.

Scott Mayers wrote:What needs to be asked though begins with logic and to Zeno's paradoxes...The reason the Achilles and Tortoise paradox is not paradoxical is because it has an endpoint such that there is MORE beyond it.

Personally, I don't think it's a paradox, because Zeno forgot about 'time'. For a more familiar example than ancient Greek gods, modern movie cameras film 24 (I think) frames per second, which is enough for the human brain to smooth the edges and create a continuous flow. If the film is slowed down, then it becomes apparent that the action jumps from image to image. Originally, there were over 40 versions of Zeno's argument. 7 (again, I think) have come down to us, but they're much of a muchness. In the context of film, the argument would be that for completely smooth action, there would have to be an infinite number of frames, but an infinite number of frames would take forever to show. Well, it would if you played it back at less than the speed you filmed it.

Scott Mayers wrote:He also argued similarly with the Dichotomy using just a wall to which one approaches it but never reaches it. But while the wall is a limit, it is still only a relative limit knowing that there is something beyond that wall. So you have to ask yourself whether in respect to the universe we see, does our perception that derives a singularity mean that it is an "origin" in the same sense?

Well, in terms of what we can actually 'see', there is a wall at about 300 000 years after the big bang. Before that, there were no free photons; the cosmic microwave background radiation is the fading embers of that flash. Some of the excitement about the detection of gravity waves is that we might now be able to probe back even further, possibly to the big bang itself. At the moment though, all talk of big bangs is inferential, but the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive. As for singularities, or white holes, Greta, you're back to the point above; any hypothesis that isn't flatly contradicted by the evidence, could be true.

Scott Mayers wrote:If time and space itself 'begins' there...

Well things in our 'universe' began to happen.

Scott Mayers wrote:...unlike the resolution of the Zeno paradoxes, the singularity is a very extreme limit just as a wall that has nothing behind it. If we came to some limit of space, we should never see a wall because it begs there is some means for us to actually sense it in some direct way at that place. This is irrational and so you have to default to assuming that the appearance of an origin at a singularity is just that: an appearance.

Is there any reason to assume that because we are rational, that the universe behaves in a way we find agreeable?

Scott Mayers wrote:You are right, though, about the religious favor for the Big Bang. And I suspect that the theory as it stands is more about politics, not actual science.

I don't think religion has much to do with acceptance of the big bang theory; I know too many atheists who believe it.

Greta wrote:Nice summary.

Thank you.

Greta wrote:I don't mind the idea of "tired light".

One of the attractions of the big bang theory is that it solves the problem of why the universe isn't collapsing under gravity. Newton proposed that the universe is infinite, so there was an equal pull in every direction. But, regardless of whether the universe is infinite, it is demonstrably the case that gravity isn't uniform. Einstein famously had to invent a force that exactly counterbalanced gravity, the cosmological constant. He later called it his greatest blunder, because without it, he could have predicted that the universe is expanding with general relativity. Some people equate dark energy with the cosmological constant, but they're not quite the same thing.

Greta wrote:...my understanding is that the observational science and math behind the fact of its expansion is pretty watertight.

It's pretty compelling, but throw in tired light and the sums don't add up.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Now, as a skeptic, the fact that 'we' question things like religion AND in specific ways, I'm finding it odd that the same rationality isn't being applied with the Big Bang Theory. That is, we have to assume nothing as a base to begin with but there seems to be a lot of prerequisite effort to "read the Bible", so to speak that is hypocritical of the intent of being skeptical.

You do not have to assume nothing as a base to begin with from what I have understood, as we look back, we come to a place where there was no space at all between all the matter and energy in the universe. The nothing misconception seems to have started when people misunderstood Hawking when he said that since there can be no transfer of information between our universe and whatever existed before the big bang, we might just as effectively say that there was nothing. And everyone seems to have run with just the nothing part.

uwot wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:I completely understood expansion but it doesn't support a Big Bang interpretation strictly.

The thing about data is that it supports any hypothesis that is consistent with that data.

I was talking about the fact that the 'strongest' initial claim of 'support' for the Big Bang to this day is still Hubble expansion. This presumption ignores the Steady State theory OR any others when it is sold as relevant when it isn't. It is as though I assert a 'theory' about the source of someone entering my house with some claim like, "Since the person came through my front door, this is the most astounding evidence that SUPPORTS my theory that they just came from their home prior to that." In other words, it is NOT such a unique 'support'. It is most likely that the person coming in my front door HAS a home and so it is at least safe to say this as I can later adjust any proof that they were somewhere else just before they came in by pushing my claim to be interpreted further back. "Prior to that" simply means ANY time before that person entered my house, right? But we can safely assume they have a home but this is NOT relevant as "support".

Scott Mayers wrote:Hoyle suggested an extension of time as a requirement for the "Cosmological Principle" to which I agree.

Sorry, I can't comment on that, I've no idea what Hoyle suggested.

He presumed a default to the "Perfect" Cosmological Principle. To continue from above,

Not only does the expansion of the universe NOT support Big Bang theory, the implication of it is better suggested to favor the Steady State theory. You mention that you weren't aware of the particular Cosmological Principle involved. To the Big Bang model, they support the idea that anywhere in space at any point at some GIVEN time would look the same everywhere. But they dislodge the full principle to include all times. Steady State theory suggested the PERFECT Cosmological Principle that assumes by default that reality would appear consistently the same ALSO in all times. This means, for instance, that if we went back 10 billion years, all the appearance of everything would remain consistent such that the Universe would STILL look as though it were 14 billion years old then too. By extension, even the Cosmic Background should appear the same.

Note that while this too may not be 'true' either, we cannot assume anything beyond what we can assert from even our present capacity looking back. The form of arguments used to support the Big Bang versions were to presume a type of "evolution" because of how it is suitable in kind to Biological Evolution. Thus, they pretended to imagine what the past would be like IF a Big Bang WERE 'true'. Then they just have to look for evidence of supporting cases that 'fit' with their unique evolutionary explanation. This is where one 'prediction' would be to look for evidence that space should show that phenomena observed at greater distances should APPEAR different, since this is like looking at fossils to demonstrate that there were creatures that were alive on Earth that no longer existed as support for biological evolution.

That was initially where the quasar objects of pin-like intensities were used to first justify support for the Big Bang. But it erred in that while it suggests a 'confirmation', just because a lack of explanation may have been non-existent of the Steady State theory, this doesn't qualify there case over the Steady State for LACKING an explanation. It also turns out, that even on a logical basis, objects further out MUST appear different regardless of which theory is or is not true. Yet this was used as fodder to 'add' support as if each such circumstantial evidence had equal weight. Reality is NOT democratic that gives equal weight to the types of information that circumstantially support anything. The pin-like intensity of those distant objects don't necessarily mean that WHAT we observe of those distances represent proof of them BEING different in the same way fossils do.

I'll get back to the continuation of this to the Cosmic Background later. But note that the type of reasoning I'm pointing out is that we can't default to assume the past as distinctively different without having present forms of at least 'sample' evidence that we can use to extend back in time. For instance, the chemistry we know and can experiment with can rationally support that fossils DO represent real past creatures and we don't assume that some god-like being simply planted them there to trick us because we lack such 'sample' of the godlike entities presumed to be 'true' today. In space though, certain phenomena witnessed lack the power we have to determine evolution in the same respect. As such, we have to presume that whatever we witness in space IS WHAT IT IS and expect more varied possible explanations to 'fit' with whatever we discover. There will always be PREDICTIONS we can interpret that 'fit' successfully with spacial observation with a larger degree of variability as there are failed ones.

But note that to me, this is all a distraction of the initial logic that must be addressed of Zeno:

Scott Mayers wrote:What needs to be asked though begins with logic and to Zeno's paradoxes...The reason the Achilles and Tortoise paradox is not paradoxical is because it has an endpoint such that there is MORE beyond it.

Personally, I don't think it's a paradox, because Zeno forgot about 'time'. For a more familiar example than ancient Greek gods, modern movie cameras film 24 (I think) frames per second, which is enough for the human brain to smooth the edges and create a continuous flow. If the film is slowed down, then it becomes apparent that the action jumps from image to image. Originally, there were over 40 versions of Zeno's argument. 7 (again, I think) have come down to us, but they're much of a muchness. In the context of film, the argument would be that for completely smooth action, there would have to be an infinite number of frames, but an infinite number of frames would take forever to show. Well, it would if you played it back at less than the speed you filmed it.

Zeno wasn't being stupid as it may appear. It was as obvious to him that Achilles would catch up to the tortoise or that a flying arrow IS in fact 'moving', etcetera. What he was pointing out was based on what becomes the basis for "limits" in Calculus. To give you a better example of the problem by restricting ourselves with a two-dimensional construct, think of two different squares that represent some two distinct 'areas', say 1m square and a 2m one.

Though we have an understanding of area, lets test something out. We know that we can divide a 1 x 1 m square into two halves such as 1/2 x 2 m. We can further divide this new rectangle into a (1/4 x 4)m rectangle. The question is if we kept doing this infinitely, we'd have a rectangle of (1/infinity x infinity), correct? So basically, we would be creating a line segment that is an infinite length, right?

Now do this again for the 2 x 2 m square. Again, you'd still end up with a line of what appears to be the same length. How can this be unless you have distinctly different 'kinds' of infinities? A solution to this is to bring time into the picture, as you noticed of Zeno. But note how this example doesn't even seem to require this in the same way because we are basically trying to determine area of something two dimensional reduced to one dimension. It turns out to simply be the derivative of x^2 which is 2x, assuming we begin with both squares at the same time and divide this up. the larger area square becomes a 1m x inifinity and a 2m x infinity line, treating "infinity" as a unit in common. But this shows that you can think the same with a moving object such that the velocity stands as a piece of information unique to each point. Just don't confuse this with being the derivative of a velocity in the same way because each different velocity would be derived as 0 using that. Rather the information of velocity must be as data contained in each point. Each point of a frozen frame, unlike the movie frame, has any velocity that is twice as fast as another, to have twice as much information IN THE IDENTICAL SAME FRAME as the other. IT PROVES that another 'dimension' IS of time itself as a line is. But ALSO that such lines require being infinite as the extra units I've shown above.

It differs if such 'time' as a line is limited (having a beginning or end). Notice too that where we treat the 'lines' actually AS finite segments for the squares, we can do this ONLY where we have contrasting areas that exist. For our Universe, this requires MULTIPLE universes for us to assure there is a comparative LIMIT. That is, we cannot assume our Universe like a finite segment without being able to even witness a secondary world to contrast it with. In that case, we are left with a type of 'area' of ONLY one exact kind in existence, which would simply be represented as 1m x infinity. So...

Scott Mayers wrote:He also argued similarly with the Dichotomy using just a wall to which one approaches it but never reaches it. But while the wall is a limit, it is still only a relative limit knowing that there is something beyond that wall. So you have to ask yourself whether in respect to the universe we see, does our perception that derives a singularity mean that it is an "origin" in the same sense?

Well, in terms of what we can actually 'see', there is a wall at about 300 000 years after the big bang. Before that, there were no free photons; the cosmic microwave background radiation is the fading embers of that flash. Some of the excitement about the detection of gravity waves is that we might now be able to probe back even further, possibly to the big bang itself. At the moment though, all talk of big bangs is inferential, but the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive. As for singularities, or white holes, Greta, you're back to the point above; any hypothesis that isn't flatly contradicted by the evidence, could be true.

The 'wall' I'm referring to a 'real' wall, not the 'perceptual' one. The difference is that to those even using the term, Big Bang, implies a BELIEF that a beginning origin exists contrary to denials of asserting this by some. If 'time' itself originates AT the singularity, it acts as a definite wall, even theoretically for speaking it. Then we have to default to the logic of acceleration from the start, not the 'constant' assumed velocity interpreted from expansion originally. But this was (a) added post hoc AND (b) only suggested as being witnessed in 1999 as being minimally necessary to treat the Big Bang hypothesis as remotely valid. That is, the Cosmic Background was inappropriately credited as overthrowing Steady State when discovered because the logic still requires proving how an origin of 'time' could even be possible.

Now to the Cosmic Background. I had only recently learned (and am still catching up) with the rational justifications behind this. It began with noticing that magnets formed from molten metal as it cooled had the property that when it reaches the point of being magnetic it had 1/2 odds of orienting between North or South poles without certain cause. It was assumed by some that this implied that the force of magnetism (or electromagnetism) among all other forces might verge into one when they get hotter, rather than colder (at absolute 0 K). Although I have still yet to learn of anything Hoyle or other Steady State theorists have said on this, I'm guessing the implication is that the Steady State theorists may have suggested some counterargument based on whether there is left over heat we could measure at some 'origin' for a Big Bang theory. Either that, or the Big Bang theorists had already guessed this AS WELL based on assuming a fixed amount of energy(matter) by conservation to exist at such a point.

In contrast, what I DO know of the Steady State theory is that it suggested matter and energy as being derived everywhere in space which to many seemed conflicting with Conservation. In the Steady State theory, it doesn't require asserting whether Cosmic Background radiation is necessary but this is the pretense being espoused for discovering it. To the Big Bang theorists, they assume that this radiation represented the heat of such an origin when they reverse time to 14 billion years to some 'predicted' expectation of what temperature the energy and matter at some point near (note they don't commit to the actual point) to the singularity.

It was argued that since the Steady State theorists had NO EXPLANATION, the Big Bang 'wins' with closure. This means absence of evidence is evidence of absence? This irrational on that point alone when I hear it so often. But note that matter CAN form everywhere in space and it would be justified BASED on the mere expansion of it alone!! That is, the information provided as 'new' space suggests that each point in space is itself energy and that its 'entry' is rationally justified. Yet this is either not even notice or is completely ignored. I can't even find any scientific inquiry of this nature reported online for this all to obvious suggestion. Why?

Some explanation for the CBR? Could be many things. One I thought of as possible is that to objects further in space, what we witness of things like quasars could be the effect of energies we wouldn't or couldn't notice up close that DO exist in galaxies and stars that can require such great distances enough to be red-shifted to be noticed at all. For any 'photons' that do reach us from great distances also should have a greater concentration in contrast to closer objects because higher frequency radiation occurs more 'dense' that larger ones by default. And the further back we go, the 'fog' we see could be the remnant of anything relatively too small 'close' up to possibly witness.

The further back we look too, requires what we see, to 'appear' bigger, as well as to represent MORE matter. That CBR should represent what we would see if we could take a snapshot of the activity from all directions of a subatomic particle of energy coming from without it (from other distant energy hitting that particle at that time 14 Billion years ago).

Scott Mayers wrote:If time and space itself 'begins' there...

Well things in our 'universe' began to happen.

Scott Mayers wrote:...unlike the resolution of the Zeno paradoxes, the singularity is a very extreme limit just as a wall that has nothing behind it. If we came to some limit of space, we should never see a wall because it begs there is some means for us to actually sense it in some direct way at that place. This is irrational and so you have to default to assuming that the appearance of an origin at a singularity is just that: an appearance.

Is there any reason to assume that because we are rational, that the universe behaves in a way we find agreeable?

And thus we circle back to a religious justification for a God too! That it (He) works in "mysterious ways"!

Scott Mayers wrote:You are right, though, about the religious favor for the Big Bang. And I suspect that the theory as it stands is more about politics, not actual science.

I don't think religion has much to do with acceptance of the big bang theory; I know too many atheists who believe it.

I don't think it requires a forceful 'conspiracy' although this too would likely be a part of it at many times and places. I think though that all religion evolved as original 'science' and/or secular society and politics that were based on contemporary reality distinct from the irrationality we default to presume upon our ancestors. When we become better at understanding our world at some stage, AND the real economic, political, and cultural climate of the times find 'truth' too threatening as a reality, the tendency is to reinterpret the last era of wisdom in authoritative ways that turn into formal religions when we lose the information that inevitably gets destroyed to serve those changes in practice.

For instance, I could argue with severe clarity of our reality to BE completely nihilistic and uncaring. But if the status of the population as a whole actually understood this, we become 'cursed', as the Adam and Eve story about biting into the Tree of Wisdom, to self-destruct. As such, another phase takes over to attempt to hide this and foster more religiosity among the masses to stabilize us in light of everyone becoming too self-centered and lacking moral solidarity.

I believe the Big Bang is just another stage of this going into a future religion because it appeals to the masses better in a world of intensified struggle. The theory and general support now may 'appear' to be non-religious. But it is just more universally appealing to more cultures of the religions we have today in practice as long as it remains remote from being 'disprovable'. It is when the Steady State theory was dropped, to which I believe is our downfall because it is ACTING as a strict taboo to disrespect more now than ever. That is, there literally is 'blaspheming' policy against even raising doubt lately. If you don't believe this, go to a science forum site and witness how those even representing remote doubt are considered as nutcases without being extremely cautious!

sthitapragya wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:
Now, as a skeptic, the fact that 'we' question things like religion AND in specific ways, I'm finding it odd that the same rationality isn't being applied with the Big Bang Theory. That is, we have to assume nothing as a base to begin with but there seems to be a lot of prerequisite effort to "read the Bible", so to speak that is hypocritical of the intent of being skeptical.

You do not have to assume nothing as a base to begin with from what I have understood, as we look back, we come to a place where there was no space at all between all the matter and energy in the universe. The nothing misconception seems to have started when people misunderstood Hawking when he said that since there can be no transfer of information between our universe and whatever existed before the big bang, we might just as effectively say that there was nothing. And everyone seems to have run with just the nothing part.

No, I don't base anything on Hawking on this. My "nothing" assumptions are also most broad to include questioning the nature of logic too which goes beyond just science as a practice. The act of assuming nothing as a skeptic for science or philosophy is necessary if we are to try to understand reality without bias. But I understand it isn't easy for us considering it also implies that we too are insignificant to nature if we remove those biases. I think if we all had it perfectly 'favorable' to us, we'd all default to preferring ignorance and bliss, not science nor any rationalizing.

Scott Mayers wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:
Now, as a skeptic, the fact that 'we' question things like religion AND in specific ways, I'm finding it odd that the same rationality isn't being applied with the Big Bang Theory. That is, we have to assume nothing as a base to begin with but there seems to be a lot of prerequisite effort to "read the Bible", so to speak that is hypocritical of the intent of being skeptical.

You do not have to assume nothing as a base to begin with from what I have understood, as we look back, we come to a place where there was no space at all between all the matter and energy in the universe. The nothing misconception seems to have started when people misunderstood Hawking when he said that since there can be no transfer of information between our universe and whatever existed before the big bang, we might just as effectively say that there was nothing. And everyone seems to have run with just the nothing part.

No, I don't base anything on Hawking on this. My "nothing" assumptions are also most broad to include questioning the nature of logic too which goes beyond just science as a practice. The act of assuming nothing as a skeptic for science or philosophy is necessary if we are to try to understand reality without bias. But I understand it isn't easy for us considering it also implies that we too are insignificant to nature if we remove those biases. I think if we all had it perfectly 'favorable' to us, we'd all default to preferring ignorance and bliss, not science nor any rationalizing.

Oh, I am sorry. I thought you meant the assumption people make about the universe beginning from nothing.

As far as the big bang theory is concerned, I think everyone who studies it realizes that it is not necessarily the answer but when answering questions or entering a debate on the subject itself, one enters with the assumption that the data is true and the debate is usually about any misinterpretation. I am pretty sure that no one here assumes that the big bang theory is true and the answer to everything. We have seen science get a lot of things wrong in the past and there is no reason to believe that it cannot happen now. But so far, the theory does seem to have got a lot of things right and so the signs seem encouraging.

I don't understand the part about how removing biases implies we are insignificant to nature. We ARE insignificant to nature. That is the reality. IF people do not or cannot accept it, that is their problem.

uwot wrote:
The thing that the hypothesis was meant to account for was the observed red shift of distant galaxies first noted by Vesto Slipher

I thought that that was Fritz Zwicky so did Slipher discover red shift before he did [ I have never actually heard of him before ]