Philosophy Now Forum

nix wrote:the baby is quantum uncertainty,

There's nothing "quantum" about uncertainty, nix, and uncertainty does NOT imply that we must accept the metaphysically nonsensical notion of the uncaused event. Uncertainty is a fundamental property of the universe for the blindly obvious reason that the future remains unwritten. This comes from no less a metaphysical heavyweight than the great Doris Day who gave us "Que sera sera". It applies as much to the motion of planets as it does to the motion of quarks and no unification model will ever be possible until this point is understood. The New Horizons mission arrived safely at Pluto as planned but there was never a certainty that it would do so because there is no immutable law that required Pluto to be where the geeks had calculated it would be. Your "laws of physics" are a myth.

Scott Mayers wrote:What you don't understand is that the expansion of space does NOT directly produce energy nor matter and why you can't measure this in the same way.
I can't here argue what exactly the radiation is. I don't find this discovery fascinating since it is too probable to have been predicted under many different models. ...
I'm still confused at why anyone would declare this as an absolute disproof of Steady State as I don't see this theory dependent upon whether there is or is not background radiation. A Steady-State type of theory happens to leave no room for a god and I believe this is the most significant reason it has not been preferred.

You are not following how science comes to it's conclusions. That is why this is such a good example so I will try to explain my position...
1) Big Bang model:
I agree entirely that the expansion of space does not directly produce energy or matter. I think the entire mass-energy is there at the big bang but as the universe expands and cools the initial hot plasma of matter/radiation evolves: for example as the temperature falls (because of the expansion) below certain critical thresholds quarks coalesce into protons and neutrons, as it cools further atoms can form by there protons capturing electrons etc. (From simple atomic physics and nuclear physics known and measured in labs on earth we can determine at what temperatures atoms are stable, above that the electrons get stripped off etc. so we can predict what these critical temperatures would be). Gravity acts to amplify any small fluctuations of the distribution of matter in this early universe (the whole physics of star formation, nuclear processes which occur in stars to produce heavier elements is now quantitatively well known; i.e backed up by both theoretical and experimental data). Galaxy formation and clustering has been well studied in the last 20 years (I cant review all this here but see any bits by Carlos Frenk et al). Because we understand the basic physics of hot plasmas, and nuclear fusion reactions we can predict a temperature for the early hot ball of plasma. This ball will emit radiation, and if the radiation and matter are in thermal equilibrium we know that the spectrum will be a blackbody spectrum characterized by the temperature of the ball and described by plancks formula. At this point the expansion is thought to have been exponential (inflation). This light, from the early hot plasma, has been travelling since then and is only now arriving at earth (so it is the oldest light we see in the sky). Given the current size and age since the BB (deduced from Hubble's and more recent work ) we know the expansion during it's journey. So we can estimate how much it will have red shifted ('cooled') because of the expansion. Gamow made such a prediction in the 1920's shortly after Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe and suggested there would be this remanant radiation corresponding to a temperature of about 3K. In 1965 the CMBR was discovered and the latest satellite survey of it finds it is uniform across the sky to 1 part in 100,000 and has precisely a blackbody spectrum corresponding to a temperature 2.7K.
There are other independent indicators that there was a hot BB - cosmic abundances of light elements which are not efficiently produced in nuclear fusion reactions at the temperatures in stars but are at the temperatures of the hot big bang. (The observed abundances are accounted for quantitatively by the hot BB model).

2) Any other model: Must find a way to account for the observed characteristics of the CMBR and the cosmic abundances of elements. These now are the empirical data which have to be "predicted" by any model whatsoever, if it is to be taken seriously. If your model gets these predictions wrong then it is already in disagreement with nature and can be eliminated from consideration- i.e. it has already been falsified!

As you say many models might predict the presence of a background radiation. Your steady state model could be consistent with no radiation being emitted at all but that's no good: where is the observed CMBR coming from then since it is uniform from all directions it must be something to do with the expansion?

So you have to think of some process which will emit radiation, somehow associated with the expansion. The emission must be everywhere the same to allow for the detected uniformity of it across the sky. You may think up some fancy mechanism for the emission, but whatever the mechanism, your prediction of the spectrum of frequencies detected will not reproduce the observed black body spectrum. This is because as I argued previously every point in the expanding space behaves like every other so whatever the spectrum of radiation produced there, by whatever mechanism, it will be detected by us red shifted by an amount proportional to the distance from us. All the contributions from different points add up and destroy the possibility of producing the very specific black body distribution that we observe. This Spectrum is thus a critical test of any model.

That is why the steady state model is now discounted. It fails this test.

This failure alone would falsify the model. But it also cannot account for the cosmic abundances of light elements. (It also violates conservation of mass-energy). It fails multiple tests that the BB model passes. This is why BB is accepted; nothing to do with theology, or conspiracy!

Steady state- "a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact" as Mark Twain would have it.

nix wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:What you don't understand is that the expansion of space does NOT directly produce energy nor matter and why you can't measure this in the same way.
I can't here argue what exactly the radiation is. I don't find this discovery fascinating since it is too probable to have been predicted under many different models. ...
I'm still confused at why anyone would declare this as an absolute disproof of Steady State as I don't see this theory dependent upon whether there is or is not background radiation. A Steady-State type of theory happens to leave no room for a god and I believe this is the most significant reason it has not been preferred.

You are not following how science comes to it's conclusions. That is why this is such a good example so I will try to explain my position...
1) Big Bang model:
I agree entirely that the expansion of space does not directly produce energy or matter. I think the entire mass-energy is there at the big bang but as the universe expands and cools the initial hot plasma of matter/radiation evolves: for example as the temperature falls (because of the expansion) below certain critical thresholds quarks coalesce into protons and neutrons, as it cools further atoms can form by there protons capturing electrons etc. (From simple atomic physics and nuclear physics known and measured in labs on earth we can determine at what temperatures atoms are stable, above that the electrons get stripped off etc. so we can predict what these critical temperatures would be). Gravity acts to amplify any small fluctuations of the distribution of matter in this early universe (the whole physics of star formation, nuclear processes which occur in stars to produce heavier elements is now quantitatively well known; i.e backed up by both theoretical and experimental data). Galaxy formation and clustering has been well studied in the last 20 years (I cant review all this here but see any bits by Carlos Frenk et al). Because we understand the basic physics of hot plasmas, and nuclear fusion reactions we can predict a temperature for the early hot ball of plasma. This ball will emit radiation, and if the radiation and matter are in thermal equilibrium we know that the spectrum will be a blackbody spectrum characterized by the temperature of the ball and described by plancks formula. At this point the expansion is thought to have been exponential (inflation). This light, from the early hot plasma, has been travelling since then and is only now arriving at earth (so it is the oldest light we see in the sky). Given the current size and age since the BB (deduced from Hubble's and more recent work ) we know the expansion during it's journey. So we can estimate how much it will have red shifted ('cooled') because of the expansion. Gamow made such a prediction in the 1920's shortly after Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe and suggested there would be this remanant radiation corresponding to a temperature of about 3K. In 1965 the CMBR was discovered and the latest satellite survey of it finds it is uniform across the sky to 1 part in 100,000 and has precisely a blackbody spectrum corresponding to a temperature 2.7K.
There are other independent indicators that there was a hot BB - cosmic abundances of light elements which are not efficiently produced in nuclear fusion reactions at the temperatures in stars but are at the temperatures of the hot big bang. (The observed abundances are accounted for quantitatively by the hot BB model).

2) Any other model: Must find a way to account for the observed characteristics of the CMBR and the cosmic abundances of elements. These now are the empirical data which have to be "predicted" by any model whatsoever, if it is to be taken seriously. If your model doesn't predict these things then it is already in disagreement with nature and can be eliminated from consideration- i.e. it has already been falsified!

As you say many models might predict the presence of a background radiation. Your steady state model could be consistent with no radiation being emitted at all but that's no good: where is the observed CMBR coming from then since it is uniform from all directions it must be something to do with the expansion?

So you have to think of some process which will emit radiation, somehow associated with the expansion. The emission must be everywhere the same to allow for the detected uniformity of it across the sky. You may think up some fancy mechanism for the emission, but whatever the mechanism, your prediction of the spectrum of frequencies detected will not reproduce the observed black body spectrum. This is because as I argued previously every point in the expanding space behaves like every other so whatever the spectrum of radiation produced there, by whatever mechanism, it will be detected by us red shifted by an amount proportional to the distance from us. All the contributions from different points add up and destroy the possibility of producing the very specific black body distribution that we observe. This Spectrum is thus a critical test of any model.

That is why the steady state model is now discounted.

This failure alone would falsify the model. But it also cannot account for the cosmic abundances of light elements. (It also violates conservation of mass-energy). It fails multiple tests that the BB model passes. This is why it is accepted; nothing to do with theology!

Steady state- "a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact" as Mark Twain would have it.

Hmmm, already you skimmed beautifully over the theory of inflation as an ad hoc assumption being used to allow some logical 'fit' to the BB theory. As to the black-body thing, I haven't interpreted yet whether this is a discovery interpreted when using something to measure black-body radiation OR to whether it is simply meaning that what they can measure only appears as heat such that it measures only as a black-body by default?

Note that there really are literal harmonic factors to literally everything such that repetition of one perceiving something may be interpreted falsely as what it could be for mistaking it as perfectly defined. A pattern, for instance, like "0, 1, 9, 7, 5, 3.5, 2, 1, 0 " could appear as distinctive formula example of some given reality. But while this may be so, some such patterns repeat akin to fractals if you expand some set of data to another perspective in the form of "0x, 1x, 9x, 7x, 5x, 3.5x, 2x, 1x, 0x". This is partially understood with respect to determining distance through Doppler. But even the range itself can be potentially repeated.

I've also questioned certain presumptions about light to which lacked any notice. For a starter, since all we know of light locally from Earth requires energy translation from matter, AND that we don't locally notice light creating matter...only absorbing and/or reflecting existing light, any assumption of an early Universe to consist of only light lacks justification to even propose. In creating experiments using light locally, as is used in the Michelson Morley experiment, for instance, sends light beams derived from its source and is thus reflective of its relative source in any possible movement. That is, if a background existed, (an aether), it couldn't possibly be measured no matter how complex our motion of the apparatus is with respect to it as the very limit of light's speed through such a background would be effected just as differently in each direction with respect to the apparatus sending a light source. Also, knowing that the longer light waves appear less energetic doesn't imply that such quantum measure of a photon of it is actually any different than other waves but that its contact energy in the general vector direction of the wave has a lower frequency capable of creating the same energy upon contact. But its informational content of a photon also contains energy in other directions....like the perpendicular points of them as they travel through space. The very proof that light really does get pulled down by gravity as witnessed by large objects proves this missing factor true.

Then there is the point I made earlier with you (I believe) regarding the idea of absorption of material in the spaces between far away objects that would represent a potential black body appearance to even galaxies further out that can't directly be seen regardless. If the sources of energy being emitted from all matter contains ever higher frequency potentials we can't measure locally, any energy we measure of the most distant objects could represent extreme ultra-high gamma rays that have slowed down sufficiently to have slowed down to within a microwave radio range. We could predict this solely based on the fact that we can't normally see anything there normally as 'light'. And as to its "uniformity" should this emission be a product of galaxies even further away, it should also be more uniform from our perspective simply on the limitation of the speed of light (electromagnetic waves).

If you question the vastness of space between the quasars and this background, just as light only fits within a certain range of the EM spectrum, any gaps in devices (like of sight to radio receivers) that measure them could only do so if actual matter has created that light in patterns associated with the matter's capacity. So you should see gaps in space the further and further out.

Also, things like quasars SHOULD appear as point-like and more intensified if such radiation of matter in it which we witness is originated as other forms of ultra-high gamma rays (less so than the CMBR). They are more intensified because where smaller rays can be formed, more of them can pass through a given area of space as well as volume in natural densities that we cannot possibly witness locally. [We are limited to witness certain local rays beyond a certain frequency that may exist since we require they either be directly observed or indirectly through tools which may be limited as well.

You state, "2) Any other model: Must find a way to account for the observed characteristics of the CMBR and the cosmic abundances of elements."

This claim proves the bias here. You ask me to disprove a confirmed-only theory that I've yet to even be convinced has a sound level of appropriate input premises everything is based on. If I observe a town in the distance, there are an infinite set of routes I can imagine that consistently get me there. The BB model evolves in similar as follows. You see the town you want to get to but are appeared blocked by a river you have no boat to cross safely in, so you opt to go left, say, along the river until you hopefully find a bridge to cross. Later you do find such a bridge and then discover tools and material on the other side to build a boat. But its too late as you already got to that side. So you trek on back towards the town you originally intended to go to but are now blocked by a mountain to which you must circumnavigate first. You get there only to realize that even now the thick and dense forest there prevents you from determining which direction that town was. A compass might be helpful. But you don't have one. Only once you finally get through this forest do you recognize a village that has a compass for you.

With many more such evolving stages, you forget where you actually came from but remain adamant that if you could go back, you would still not be able to find an alternate shorter path. You eventually get to this town and presume that the very path you took is the only appropriate one to take again no matter how windy or long. You define it as the only path and therefore the simplest.

But what if you now recognize how boats are made and can go back to that start? Is it just possible to find a shorter path given what we now know? Our present paradigm strictly declares a NO. And you seem to agree. So you place the onus on me to have to disprove that your path is unique given that we are now in the same town. But the onus is unusually great since I'd have to take two treks (double the effort) to go back to the original point AND demonstrate how using the tools we now have to find a shorter path.

CMBR is a type of town where BB is the confirmed route taken. This does not prove that BB is all that fits with CMBR or any other extended routes. The initial uncrossable river is pretended still to be proven uncrossable and so is disallowed by the leaders who got us to CMBR. I might happen to have discovered the idea of a balloon to which I may have floated up high enough in to witness a clear and distinct path that could have been taken from the original home town. But when I try to argue it, it gets rejected out of hand because they've already closed the issue on their path. They also invested heavily in the infrastructure of the roadways in their BB path and so would also find political motive to resist going back as new paths threaten the profit they make from selling us their route maps and retreats of interest of their own.

What's worse, is that we are no longer allowed to suggest mathematical/logical arguments to suggest that even shorter paths are possible now. Why? Because logic or math is no longer a sufficiently believed concept (except with respect to their own map making logic), I am still forced to take the whole original route presented back to the original town as no one would care to risk venturing another reconstructed effort by any other direction. But if you are already in the town of CMBR, you don't even care to go back with me either.

You say, "These now are the empirical data which have to be "predicted" by any model whatsoever, if it is to be taken seriously. If your model doesn't predict these things then it is already in disagreement with nature and can be eliminated from consideration- i.e. it has already been falsified!"
False. If everyone believes in a particular Christian God, are we required to provide a model that initially predicts their interpretation of what 'God' means to them? We can argue how their reasoning fails to interpret 'God' consistently. But if they further respond, "look man, logic isn't real as it can be used to prove anything!", how do I have a chance in hell of using reasoning (logic) that satisfies their fixation to their present beliefs? Also, just because it may be possible that one can find a match to some prediction and its outcome, this doesn't mean that a better yet less complete argument can answer all the present conditions without just as great a length of time needed to get where the present science lies. All that matters is whether you can demonstrate any essential supporting structure in the line of reasoning is faulty. But we are not allowed to do this by command. These "other theories", whether it be Steady State or not, are not falsified for lacking an explanation of all interpretations included in the path of a generally growing theory. To falsify, one only has to prove that one of the essential premises within it is absolutely false! If Steady State theory didn't bother with even posing a given prediction that the BB had, it is not affected by the 'gaps' in its presentation.

Some Christian:"So tell me, which came first, the chicken or the egg? You are required to either confirm and accept irreconcilable solution or deny it and disprove that neither occurs or both simultaneously."

See how staging a confirmed belief prevents them from even looking at other evidence unfairly. The Creationists might accept Macro-evolution (that involving sex, for instance) but then further demonstrates that we require closure to how pond scum can even derive the simpler previous life forms. See how evolution still stands true even without being able to provide a perfect prediction about our origins? This is what you impose by demanding I require a function in my own theory to prove everything before even one thing.

Scott Mayers wrote:[
You state, "2) Any other model: Must find a way to account for the observed characteristics of the CMBR and the cosmic abundances of elements."

This claim proves the bias here. You ask me to disprove a confirmed-only theory that I've yet to even be convinced has a sound level of appropriate input premises everything is based on.

No! The CMBR is an empirical observation of radiation coming from all space which has a particular observed distribution of frequencies. It is an observable fact of the universe we live in and doesnot depend on any theory of the origin or otherwise of the universe. It is the thing we must test our theories against.

Any model of the universe must account for this observation. Any model which gives a prediction of what this radiation should look like which does not agree with the observations is not a model of the universe we live in.

The steady state model, inevitably gives a prediction which disagrees with observation. So it is not a model of the universe we live in! (the fact that you did not make the prediction is irrelevant since the logic of the model leads to the prediction). At that point you start special pleading about how light does all sorts of funny things or dust clouds might "save the phenomena". But each of these is testable and would be noticed in the distribution of light from the observed stars and galaxies which can act as an internal check if is such effects are observed for the CMBR. No such effects lead to a prediction of the CMBR spectrum in agreement with observation.

The BB model can account for the observation. This of course doesn't mean BB is true, but it hasn't failed the test against observation, so it is still a viable model of our universe.

Your whole analogy with the God concept is spurious in this context: God is not a physical observable! The CMBR is.

nix wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:[
You state, "2) Any other model: Must find a way to account for the observed characteristics of the CMBR and the cosmic abundances of elements."

This claim proves the bias here. You ask me to disprove a confirmed-only theory that I've yet to even be convinced has a sound level of appropriate input premises everything is based on.

No! The CMBR is an empirical observation of radiation coming from all space which has a particular observed distribution of frequencies. It is an observable fact of the universe we live in and doesnot depend on any theory of the origin or otherwise of the universe. It is the thing we must test our theories against.

Any model of the universe must account for this observation. Any model which gives a prediction of what this radiation should look like which does not agree with the observations is not a model of the universe we live in.

The steady state model, inevitably gives a prediction which disagrees with observation. So it is not a model of the universe we live in! (the fact that you did not make the prediction is irrelevant since the logic of the model leads to the prediction). At that point you start special pleading about how light does all sorts of funny things or dust clouds might "save the phenomena". But each of these is testable and would be noticed in the distribution of light from the observed stars and galaxies which can act as an internal check if is such effects are observed for the CMBR. No such effects lead to a prediction of the CMBR spectrum in agreement with observation.

The BB model can account for the observation. This of course doesn't mean BB is true, but it hasn't failed the test against observation, so it is still a viable model of our universe.

Your whole analogy with the God concept is spurious in this context: God is not a physical observable! The CMBR is.

I can only say I completely disagree with you here. "empirical observation" is begging "Imperial observation" as it is redundant to say otherwise. You still have not mentioned what particular essential Steady State premise has been disproved. Is there some premise that declares that "There cannot possibly be any measure of CMBR?" I don't see any connection. I DO and have demonstrated, however, that an even more significant premise that ALL theories scientific or otherwise is dependent upon: that the tools one uses necessarily requires being soundly a function of the reality of anything being measured. As such, the only-empirical approach disrespects logic and math and so have no rational sincerity to arguing using these as tools.

I give 'God' examples to show ones' own comparable irrationality as a hypocritical point for those feigning a superior mindset of the status quo. The "God" concept derived originally as a sincere secular one [ancient 'empirical science'] in various times throughout history. "God" was both a mere 'variable' meaning UNKNOWN SOURCE and for those using it, a presumed extended default VALUE meaning, "good" (like presuming only a something = a good thing like myself; but never a nothing = a bad thing like death, pain, and suffering). Each stage of civilization abandons the intellectual pursuit at the stages they disrespect logic and often do whatever it takes to destroy clarity using it.

Logic has to be recognized as the most fundamental truth one actually 'observes' as true prior to being able to determine meaning to anything else being observed. It appears that people either jump to being perfectly solipsistic OR perfectly anti-subjective in the least [only everything else outside of me is real].

Scott Mayers wrote: I DO and have demonstrated, however, that an even more significant premise that ALL theories scientific or otherwise is dependent upon: that the tools one uses necessarily requires being soundly a function of the reality of anything being measured.

Therefore the earth lies at the centre of the universe because Ptolemy's epicycles can be used to model the orbits of the planets. I'll keep it in mind.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote: I DO and have demonstrated, however, that an even more significant premise that ALL theories scientific or otherwise is dependent upon: that the tools one uses necessarily requires being soundly a function of the reality of anything being measured.

Therefore the earth lies at the centre of the universe because Ptolemy's epicycles can be used to model the orbits of the planets. I'll keep it in mind.

This doesn't follow. I already accept logic as a means to determine that there are many multiple interpretations that operate within any one universe. It was the very fact of Ptolemy's epicycles to 'work' (a fitting of an "empirical" interpretation of observations to what works in practice.) It doesn't respect logic in its day as it only restricted logic to be used as a 'tool' just as modern empiricism does.

Note that there was also a premise in that theory that restricted reality to fit with ONLY the emotionally favorable mathematical objects of Euclid without respecting the infinite possible other objects. They missed recognizing that ellipses were the more general 'form' of circles for instance. All circles are a form of ellipse where the focal points are one and the same. This is what Kepler struggled with before recognizing his error. It wasn't anything in math or its logic that dictated one think of nature as requiring being of perfect equilateral forms. They also had a premise that placed the Earth as the center of their universe. These are faults due to errors in lacking a recognition that there are other equally valid input premises that relate to how we err in our actual capacity to interpret "observations" appropriately.

Scott Mayers wrote: These are faults due to errors in lacking a recognition that there are other equally valid input premises that relate to how we err in our actual capacity to interpret "observations" appropriately.

You got this bit right, at least. There could well be an infinite possible number of different ways in which we could model the world around us and to arbitrarily pick one out and declare that "this is it" is plain bullshit. Do you seriously think that ET in a different galaxy who reaches the same technological level as us will be modelling his world in the same way that we do. Will he have particles and atoms and forces and fields, etc. or are we simply indulging an anthropocentric vanity by assuming this?

Scott Mayers wrote:I can only say I completely disagree with you here. "empirical observation" is begging "Imperial observation" as it is redundant to say otherwise. You still have not mentioned what particular essential Steady State premise has been disproved. Is there some premise that declares that "There cannot possibly be any measure of CMBR?"

WTF! When I take my microwave detector and point it at the sky and measure the intensity of microwave radiation at each frequency there, and then do the same for all the different directions in space I collect the basic data that any theory of the universe has to account for if it is to describe what I see. What is "imperialistic" about the measurement I have made?

Firstly all theories, to even be considered, have to be logically consistent within themselves. But that doesn't mean they haven't assumed something which does not agree with how things behave in nature. If the theory makes a quantitative prediction about something I can go and measure and I find the prediction is wrong (after all stringent efforts have been made to remove all sources of error in my measurements); then I can discount the theory without having to point out the specific premise which is wrong. But I may be interested to find out where and why it failed.

The premise of your theory which is wrong (does not agree with how nature behaves) is that the universe's expansion is correctly described by the steady state hypothesis. That is why the prediction that this theory can provide, of what the CMBR should look like if it exists, does not agree with the observed CMBR.

you say: Is there some premise that declares that "There cannot possibly be any measure of CMBR?" No! Nor have I asserted that!

I carefully tried to explain to you why any steady state model could give a prediction of CMBR radiation but the characteristics of that radiation, while being isotropic as observed, would not have the distribution of frequencies that are observed in nature because of the steady state hypothesis.

Scott Mayers wrote:.. the only-empirical approach disrespects logic and math and so have no rational sincerity to arguing using these as tools....

Logic has to be recognized as the most fundamental truth one actually 'observes' as true prior to being able to determine meaning to anything else being observed.

I don't advocate disrespecting logic and math!

You seem to think that you can use pure thought or logic to come to a correct model of the universe. But you must make some assumptions as to how nature behaves as part of your axioms. You seem to be then attempting to use pure logic to get at these behaviours. This is exactly the method of the Medieval scholastics towards nature who despised experiment and thought a rational universe could be understood by pure reason. Their project failed because where they thought "nature has to behave this way because it is the only reasonable way it could behave" was not how nature behaved at all!

nix wrote:But you must make some assumptions as to how nature behaves as part of your axioms.

Quite so. In my philosophy I strenuously maintain that for a physical model to have any explanatory authority it must satisfy two conditions. Firstly it must accord with a theory which can be inductively extrapolated from empirical observational data, as our modern models of physics do. Secondly this same theory must also be deducible from metaphysical first principles by using the ordinary tools of formal logic. In other words the theory must make sense, which our modern models of physics don't do. However herein lies the rub. The metaphysical first principles from which the formal logic proceeds must first be stated in the form of axioms which are not further reducible. In other word we've got to start somewhere or we'll never get anywhere. It is for precisely these reasons that both the inductive and deductive conclusions must meet on common ground. They act to confirm each other and reduce the risk of tautology and confirmation bias.

Obvious Leo wrote: In my philosophy I strenuously maintain that for a physical model to have any explanatory authority it must satisfy two conditions. Firstly it must accord with a theory which can be inductively extrapolated from empirical observational data, as our modern models of physics do. Secondly this same theory must also be deducible from metaphysical first principles by using the ordinary tools of formal logic.

But what metaphysical first principles are acceptable? Do you have to modify these principles in the light of experience?

Your two conditions are sometimes in fatal tension. For example in consideration of what identical particles are. The usual metaphysical notion of identity conflicts with the quantum mechanical notion of identity (which comes out of your first consideration). Unless you change your metaphysical axioms about identity, then you will not get a theory that exhibits Fermi- dirac statistics rather than Maxwell-boltzman statistics in a theory deduced from your metaphysics.

"this same theory must also be deducible from metaphysical first principles by using the ordinary tools of formal logic" this is exactly medieval scholasticism.

nix wrote:"this same theory must also be deducible from metaphysical first principles by using the ordinary tools of formal logic" this is exactly medieval scholasticism.

No it isn't and I make this point quite emphatically in my philosophy. I maintain that philosophy without science is just as useless as science without philosophy. I regard them as inseparable.

nix wrote: But what metaphysical first principles are acceptable?

This is a very tricky question which yields no easy answer. In my philosophy I maintain that Simplicity is Truth and thus assume only two such axioms.

1. The universe is everything that exists

2. All effects must be preceded by a cause.

I regard these axioms as not further reducible, i.e they cannot be logically derived from more fundamental first principles because they ARE fundamental first principles. My entire philosophy can be derived by logical deduction from only these two metaphysical first principles along with the normal scientific methodology of inductive inference from observation.

nix wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:I can only say I completely disagree with you here. "empirical observation" is begging "Imperial observation" as it is redundant to say otherwise. You still have not mentioned what particular essential Steady State premise has been disproved. Is there some premise that declares that "There cannot possibly be any measure of CMBR?"

WTF! When I take my microwave detector and point it at the sky and measure the intensity of microwave radiation at each frequency there, and then do the same for all the different directions in space I collect the basic data that any theory of the universe has to account for if it is to describe what I see. What is "imperialistic" about the measurement I have made?

Firstly all theories, to even be considered, have to be logically consistent within themselves. But that doesn't mean they haven't assumed something which does not agree with how things behave in nature. If the theory makes a quantitative prediction about something I can go and measure and I find the prediction is wrong (after all stringent efforts have been made to remove all sources of error in my measurements); then I can discount the theory without having to point out the specific premise which is wrong. But I may be interested to find out where and why it failed.

The premise of your theory which is wrong (does not agree with how nature behaves) is that the universe's expansion is correctly described by the steady state hypothesis. That is why the prediction that this theory can provide, of what the CMBR should look like if it exists, does not agree with the observed CMBR.

you say: Is there some premise that declares that "There cannot possibly be any measure of CMBR?" No! Nor have I asserted that!

I carefully tried to explain to you why any steady state model could give a prediction of CMBR radiation but the characteristics of that radiation, while being isotropic as observed, would not have the distribution of frequencies that are observed in nature because of the steady state hypothesis.

Why are you holding back? What IS THIS PARTICULAR STEADY STATE HYPOTHESIS you are only indirectly referring to but not stating?

Why can no such distribution of frequencies exist following any Steady-State type model? You accept the SS as being able to recognize isotropy but seem to be implying it asserts some contradiction in homogeneity?

I suggest one such possibility for black body radiation AND its spread: potential matter in between that both creates the black body effect from something prior to it AND (if nature somewhere else suggests any uneven distribution expected), such matter would also smear the distinction of the sources spreading the appearance out just as clouds can disperse light evenly across the sky without being able to interpret the distinct location of the sun. This is just one thought on the top of my head.

No theory is required to supply prediction beyond its scope. Many guesses of BB theorists based on mere guessing could coincidentally map onto a reality and then be reflectively interpreted that the 'owners' of the theory were correct. Even inflation is a post hoc interpretation that doesn't map onto anything we can presently witness. If some religious nut predicted that some particular star will go Super Nova in some specific day, while it may be highly unlikely, this really could come true by mere accident. Would you then have to accept their interpretation and/or give it credible authority to their source theory? Also, considering that there are many variable guesses within a theory, given sufficient variable guesses, someone within the theory is going to guess correctly by chance and everyone will ignore the misses.

And, to top it off, the nature of the very large universe doesn't allow us to repeat anything because such things that far away remain relatively long-lived and 'fixed'!

What kind of evidence could possibly disprove the Big Bang theory?

nix wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:.. the only-empirical approach disrespects logic and math and so have no rational sincerity to arguing using these as tools....

Logic has to be recognized as the most fundamental truth one actually 'observes' as true prior to being able to determine meaning to anything else being observed.

I don't advocate disrespecting logic and math!

You seem to think that you can use pure thought or logic to come to a correct model of the universe. But you must make some assumptions as to how nature behaves as part of your axioms. You seem to be then attempting to use pure logic to get at these behaviours. This is exactly the method of the Medieval scholastics towards nature who despised experiment and thought a rational universe could be understood by pure reason. Their project failed because where they thought "nature has to behave this way because it is the only reasonable way it could behave" was not how nature behaved at all!

I see that we actually CAN use the nature of initially using observations to prove logic real. This is what Descartes began using the perfect observer, the subject reading the argument using the simplest of undoubted assumptions. It is only where particular people have not consistently related what they experience in such arguments through philosophy in some error without recognizing it, that such thinking fails. I also don't dismiss practical science (empirical methodology) to hint at what premises we should be seeking for. You are in error if you assume most do not respect logic and math though. To state that NO such potential argument can be found to connect a pure logic to empirical nature is what I'm troubled with here. Just because it may not have been found yet does not mean that it couldn't be. When we generalize laws in physics, we then reverse this process using these laws as input premises to test its logic by its predictions. I know we can reduce this to some argument beginning in nothingness itself ... and should, considering even whether the BB or the SS theories are true, both come from a source that we agree is nothing itself in some form.

The confusion is that most of us presume logic doesn't care about the nature of the premises in all cases. While using observations as premises helps, the interpretations of them are often mistakenly drawn upon by some other assumption that doesn't get recognized as being interpreted variably.

I assume NOTHING as a starting premise. And even while I make a good argument, most cannot accept that NOTHING is itself a real thing. I find this the very cause of why others presume a god. Today's scientists, even if non-religious still default to presume meaning only to what we directly witness without recognizing the many ways we indirectly infer nothing in reality. An empty pocket to many means something but people don't grant such emptiness as a real property itself. ??