First Cause

[Birdjaguar]

Wow, you are the first person to consider that "easy". You must be a genius.

Flattery will not get you anywhere, but I will take that as a compliment. Or were you being sarcastic? Alas, probably so.
Easy is a relative term. Walking or cycling from NY to LA is a long and difficult trip and not for the faint of heart or those intimidated by work. Such a trip is not to be taken lightly. But with maps and cell phones, and credit cards, most likely you will get there or divert to a new destination when enticed by a carload of pretty girls or propects of a great job in Bozeman MT. Enoute you will probalby discover all kinds of things you didn't know before.

The task of explorers such as Lewis an Clark was entirely different. They had no map and only a vague idea of where they might end up. There were no convenient stop overs or refueling stations. They were led and misled and most of the time didn't really know where they were or if they were close to their goal.
This is the distinction I was trying to make. Much of modern scientific discovery is routine work of testing and data analysis. The creative work that happens along the edges of accepted knowledge is much more like exploring.

Of course finding truth is dificult without any mechanism to decide truthfullness, but you need not find truth. You can BS all you want and the results would still be essentially indistinguishable from the results of your attempting to find truth. Of course, your findings may not be neccesarily wrong as long as you stay off reality (which is testable), but they are also not neccesarily relevant.

These standards are one of the things that make the scientific path "easier". As I've said before, your unwillingness to accept any reality, but your own definition of it, says more about you than anything else. And as for BS, it's everywhere from new age mumbo jumbo to cold fusion to bible thumping bigots.

Traditional battle lines? What are those? They also call up witchdoctors and exorcists to rid the body of demons. What's your point? Science is very much in the now.

My point was that it's common practice to juxapose modern medicine with christian science or faith healing. I was pointing out that we are finding that our well being is determined by more than traditional physical ailments. Our mental and emotional selves play a significant role in our physical health. for years doctors ignored such things.

I'm not aware of such "non-physical elements". Could you name some of them?

How about bio feedback, imaging techniques to fight cancer and touching and being touched to both enhance healing and establish a healthy mind. If you look you will find more.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Besides the fact that you can't substantiate any of this, how is this relevant?
At some point one must state one's assumptions so the other person can understand the discussion. I was merely stating mine. Since you have never stated any assumptions, I assume you have no position worth mentioning.

Stop using words you either don't know or don't bother to clarify. What does "finite" mean in this case?

Don't you mean words you don't understand?

Main Entry: fi·nite
Pronunciation: 'fI-"nIt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English finit, from Latin finitus, past participle of finire
1 a : having definite or definable limits <finite number of possibilities> b : having a limited nature or existence <finite beings>
2 : completely determinable in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought <the finite velocity of light>
As in our universe is finite.

You realize that if it can interact with us then it is not really beyond our universe, beyond the set of entities we can potentially interact with?

I would agree. The connections just are hard to quantify scientifically. Maybe the interaction is ongoing all the time at every level and we are just blind. Kinda like the matrix. But don't take that analogy any further.

It's not as if you can specify with any degree of plausibility. But even at this stage it is still indistinguishable from any random set of claims I can dream up about things outside our realm of existence.

Sure you can dream up any claims you want. And I cannot disprove them, but do they fit with current scientific models? Do they help explain any unanswered questions? Are they scaleable past you?

 

[Mrogreturns]

@ Birdjaguar.

I really wish you would stop avoiding the question that a number of people have put to you in this and other threads.

If you find reasoning and evidence to be unsatisfactory and limiting then what are your proposed alternatives? Unless your quest for answers simply consists of cataloging all possibilities that can be imagined, then you need some way of distinguishing what is from what is not.

So what is your method?

 

[Birdjaguar]

That's where you are wrong. During our time here on this universe, we have never seen any demonstration of matter created or destroyed, so it is currently quite unreasonable to assume that matter can be initially created or ultimately destroyed.

Alas where are all the CFC physcists who usually settle these discussions with unvarnished authority. I'm not sure what you are arguing.
Are you claiming the big bang is false and that the steady state is the correct model?
Are you claiming that the universe had no beginning?

Furthermore, if you can demonstrate that your theory of an entity creating our universe is more probable than the theory that matter simply existed, then you have nothing to demonstrate that the theory that there must be an entity creating that entity which created us as being less probable than your theory. Your theory of something had to create us at some point is merely a case of displacement of responsibility with regard to the question of eternal-ness. Instead of dealing with it, you offload the question to said god to deal with, which really isn't a satisfactory answer to many.

I assume that the universe is not infinite and had a beginning and I accept the current model (big bang) as the most likely scenario. I postulate that there is a most basic, permanent, unchanging, eternal and infinite reality which encompasses and is the source of our finite universe. Can I prove it? Of course not.

You start with different assumptions, use a different methodology and therefore arrive at a different conclusion. BTW, since the universe is expanding, it cannot be infinite.
I post again the shortcomings of the steady state model:

Because only very little matter needs to be formed, roughly a few hundred atoms of hydrogen in the Milky Way Galaxy each year, it is not a problem of the theory that the forming of matter is not observed directly. Despite violating conservation of mass, the steady state theory had a number of attractive features. Most notably, the theory removes the need for the universe to have a beginning.

Problems with the steady-state theory began to emerge in the late 1960s, when observations apparently supported the idea that the universe was in fact changing: quasars and radio galaxies were found only at large distances (i.e., redshift, and thus, because of the finiteness of the speed of light, in the past) not in closer galaxies. Halton Arp, also since the 1960s, has been taking a different view of the data, claiming that evidence can also point to quasars existing as close as the local Virgo cluster.

For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the big bang theory. Within the steady state theory this background radiation is the result of light from ancient stars which has been scattered by galactic dust. However, this explanation has been unconvincing to most cosmologists as the cosmic microwave background is very smooth, making it difficult to explain how it arose from point sources, and the microwave background shows no evidence of features such as polariziation which are normally associated with scattering.

As of 2004, the big bang theory is the one that the majority of astronomers consider the best approximation to describing the origin of the universe. In most astrophysical publications, the big bang is implicitly accepted and is used as the basis of more complete theories. At the same time, after the unexpected observation of an accelerating universe in the late-1990's, there were efforts to develop quasi-steady state theories, in which there is not a single big bang but rather multiple big bangs over time which create matter.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So now what you are telling me, is there is a force beyond time and space... that created time and space?

Why go into a further dimension? Why not just stop at time, which is difficult enough as it is to comprehend, and let time be the infinite force?

Current thinking says that time as space are finite. Space is limited to our universe and time began when the universe was created. I choose to incorporate both into my model. If these are true, then for me the puzzle is what was before time time and space. I see two choices: nothing (which makes it a poor source for our universe) and something. One could add many layers of something, but I choose to say that the next layer is the ultimate layer: most basic, most fundamental etc.

My model of Reality organizes my world and provides a focus on how I interact with others. If you are serious about yours, it will do the same.

 

[Neomega]

Current thinking says that time as space are finite. Space is limited to our universe and time began when the universe was created. I choose to incorporate both into my model. If these are true, then for me the puzzle is what was before time time and space. I see two choices: nothing (which makes it a poor source for our universe) and something. One could add many layers of something, but I choose to say that the next layer is the ultimate layer: most basic, most fundamental etc.

My model of Reality organizes my world and provides a focus on how I interact with others. If you are serious about yours, it will do the same.

Sure, I have my own life philosphy. It's really not about infinity or cause. It's people who claim they know.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@ Birdjaguar.

I really wish you would stop avoiding the question that a number of people have put to you in this and other threads.

If you find reasoning and evidence to be unsatisfactory and limiting then what are your proposed alternatives? Unless your quest for answers simply consists of cataloging all possibilities that can be imagined, then you need some way of distinguishing what is from what is not.

So what is your method?

Hmm I never thought was avoiding any question. Sorry. I certainly don't feel that reasoning and evidence are not worthwhile endeavors. I agree fully with science as the best path to knowledge and understanding of the physical world. The problem comes when one reduces knowledge down to only what can be proven. To paraphrase a previous post I made somewhere; we will soon analyze love into photons and dopamine and a few other components that tie closely to our genetic dispostions for survival. I believe that what they discover will be true, but not the whole truth. We are just beginning to understand what a magnificent creation the mind is and understanding consciousness is still way off. I think that there are things going on in the universe we cannot grasp as being possible given what we know. Therefore, we claim they are not possible.

The "I need proof" trap keeps you from asking certain questions or allowing that non scientific data could be true. My goal on this forum is to argue for ideas that expand the thinking of what is possible and break down traditional lines of thinking. Answered or not?

 

[nihilistic]

Much of modern scientific discovery is routine work of testing and data analysis. The creative work that happens along the edges of accepted knowledge is much more like exploring.

Lots of stuff science can be done routinely, and there is a significant proportion that cannot. I don't know what are you trying to get here.

These standards are one of the things that make the scientific path "easier".

And without adherence to logical reasoning, stuff is much easier to fake.

As I've said before, your unwillingness to accept any reality, but your own definition of it, says more about you than anything else.

As I've said so many times, I have no emotional atachment to my opinions and believes. If you can show me where I am wrong (with evidence), I will shamelessly join your side. You simply haven't presented to me a theory worth considering.

And as for BS, it's everywhere from new age mumbo jumbo to cold fusion to bible thumping bigots.

I know of bible thumping bigots but have no idea what "new age mumbo jumbo" is. However, cold fusion is definitely possible. In fact, it has been done essentially. The reason that no actual cold fusion reactors have been built yet is that we still weren't able to contain the reaction in a way that the containment system eats up less energy than the reaction produces. Cold fusion is not BS.

My point was that it's common practice to juxapose modern medicine with christian science or faith healing. I was pointing out that we are finding that our well being is determined by more than traditional physical ailments. Our mental and emotional selves play a significant role in our physical health. for years doctors ignored such things.

So? What are you trying to get at?

How about bio feedback, imaging techniques to fight cancer and touching and being touched to both enhance healing and establish a healthy mind. If you look you will find more.

Touching would be very physical, emotional (hormonal) states are chemistry, and chemistry is just physics.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Sure, I have my own life philosphy. It's really not about infinity or cause. It's people who claim they know.

It doesn't have to be about "infinity or cause", but if you include such inquiries into your thinking, you might change your philosophy and how you act. Those who believe that the world is a work of happenstance and evolution only, must either draw their moral values (or lack of them) from our genetic heritage or import them from some outside social entity. Time is irrelevant to a hindu. It is an illusion. But to a fundamentalist christian awaiting the second coming of jesus, it is of vital importance. They have answered key questions differently and hence behave differently.

 

[Mrogreturns]

The "I need proof" trap keeps you from asking certain questions or allowing that non scientific data could be true. My goal on this forum is to argue for ideas that expand the thinking of what is possible and break down traditional lines of thinking. Answered or not?

Sorry- not answered.

Lets say you ask these different questions (the ones you see as not limited by an evidence-based approach)- how do you evaluate the answers? Is asking the question your final goal? Is simply having every possible answer to the question the final goal? Is there any sense in which you regard some answers as being closer to the truth than others- if so how do you propose to make that determination?

 

[nihilistic]

Don't you mean words you don't understand?

Main Entry: fi·nite
Pronunciation: 'fI-"nIt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English finit, from Latin finitus, past participle of finire
1 a : having definite or definable limits <finite number of possibilities> b : having a limited nature or existence <finite beings>
2 : completely determinable in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought <the finite velocity of light>
As in our universe is finite.

You still have not explained what do you mean when you apply the qualifier "finite" tot he noun "universe".

If you meant "1 a : having definite or definable limits <finite number of possibilities>", then I'll remind you that having a definite limit has nothing to do with having a finite number of states. Furthermore, "having definite or definable limits" is better expressed as the word "bounded", as I have suggested before to DP. Even so, there is nothing to suggest that there are limits to space.

If you meant "b : having a limited nature or existence <finite beings>", then you are BSing. You have no idea whether that is true or not. Why must there be a finite number of beings? And how does that tie i with the original topic anyway?

If you meant "2 : completely determinable in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought <the finite velocity of light>", then let me remind you that the example you gave has nothing to do with the definition they gave. You simply have no idea what "completely determinable in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought" means.

The connections just are hard to quantify scientifically.

When did you establish that the must be a connection? When did you establish that there is something to connect to?

Maybe the interaction is ongoing all the time at every level and we are just blind. Kinda like the matrix. But don't take that analogy any further.

Science turns out verifiable, repeatable results. What do you have again?

Sure you can dream up any claims you want. And I cannot disprove them, but do they fit with current scientific models? Do they help explain any unanswered questions? Are they scaleable past you?

yes, possible, and no. I can dream up essentially an arbitrarily large amount of theories that will fit with all current scientific models. They can answer unanswered questions, not neccesarily with the correct answers, and any sensible person would be able to demonstrate I'm BSing but won't be able to disprove me. I'm claiming that your theories are just as useless.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Lots of stuff science can be done routinely, and there is a significant proportion that cannot. I don't know what are you trying to get here. And without adherence to logical reasoning, stuff is much easier to fake.

I hardly remember myself. I merely said that a defined path of checks and balances as is common with scientific methodology is easier to follow and prove results with than one that is not.

As I've said so many times, I have no emotional atachment to my opinions and believes. If you can show me where I am wrong (with evidence), I will shamelessly join your side. You simply haven't presented to me a theory worth considering.

I have no interest in converting you to my or any side. I don't believe such a thing is possible. Again, I'm not sure what you are arguing.

Are you claiming the big bang is false and that the steady state is the correct model?
Are you claiming that the universe had no beginning?
Are you just claiming I'm wrong unless I show proof of being right?

I know of bible thumping bigots but have no idea what "new age mumbo jumbo" is. However, cold fusion is definitely possible. In fact, it has been done essentially. The reason that no actual cold fusion reactors have been built yet is that we still weren't able to contain the reaction in a way that the containment system eats up less energy than the reaction produces. Cold fusion is not BS.

I was referring to the specific cold fusion scandal a few years ago. i hope is does show up as real. Here is a new age site that you might enjoy:
http://home.istar.ca/~starman/crystal-1.shtml

So? What are you trying to get at? Touching would be very physical, emotional (hormonal) states are chemistry, and chemistry is just physics.

Yes, but until recently it was completely ignored by doctors, not even on their radar, irrelevant to their thinking.

If you have a wife or girlfriend, make sure you explain to her tonight that your love is merely a series of galvanic skin reactions and hormonal infusions that are best conveyed by a college chemistry book rather then flowers, chocolate, poetry or those stale overused words "I love you."

 

[nihilistic]

Alas where are all the CFC physcists who usually settle these discussions with unvarnished authority. I'm not sure what you are arguing.

I'm arguing against your claim that matter was somehow created. CFC physicists? Bring them on.

Are you claiming the big bang is false and that the steady state is the correct model?

Nowhere did I say anything about the Big Bang model being incorrect.

Are you claiming that the universe had no beginning?

Essentially.

I assume that the universe is not infinite and had a beginning and I accept the current model (big bang) as the most likely scenario.

So you are using "infinite" to mean going on forever with respect to both directions of time? Seriously, you should stop applying the same adjective to multiple concepts. That, by the way, is called equivocation, subset of BSing.

I postulate that there is a most basic, permanent, unchanging, eternal and infinite reality which encompasses and is the source of our finite universe. Can I prove it? Of course not.

See, another attempt of displacement. Why do we have to offset the eternal exactly 1 step away from us? Why not 0 and consider our universe eternal? Why not 2 and consider the entity that created the entity that created us eternal? Why 1?

BTW, since the universe is expanding, it cannot be infinite.

I'm not going to guess what you meant by infinite this time, but I'll point out to you that we only observe that matter we can observe seem to be spreading apart in the universe. There is nothing to suggest that maybe 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 meters away away from earth, there wouldn't be another clump of mass that pretty much stays stationary. When scientists say that "the universe is expanding", they meant "the mass we can observe in the universe seem to be spreading apart".

I post again the shortcomings of the steady state model:

What steady state model? I only claimed that matter has probably always been here, not that they have stayed in a constant state all the time. If you meant that, shop for better adjective. My theory has nothing to do with the theory given by wiki.

 

[nihilistic]

I hardly remember myself. I merely said that a defined path of checks and balances as is common with scientific methodology is easier to follow and prove results with than one that is not.

So are you against the idea of checking to see if the predictions of your theories come out correctly?

Are you just claiming I'm wrong unless I show proof of being right?

No, I'm claiming that your claims about things that we cannot test are irrelevant. Since you like wikipedia so much, I recomend you read this article on Falsifiability

I was referring to the specific cold fusion scandal a few years ago.

How does a scandal somehow make cold fusion fairy tale?

Yes, but until recently it was completely ignored by doctors, not even on their radar, irrelevant to their thinking.

And before Maxwell, Telsa, and Edison nobody really thought that "lightning material" can be used to do work (actually it only transfers power).

If you have a wife or girlfriend, make sure you explain to her tonight that your love is merely a series of galvanic skin reactions and hormonal infusions that are best conveyed by a college chemistry book rather then flowers, chocolate, poetry or those stale overused words "I love you."

You'll never know. I'm definitely geeky enough to say that. And trust me, I know girls who would actually agree to that statement, just not the "best conveyed by a college chemistry book" part. Science is still some distance away from being able to do that.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Sorry- not answered.

Lets say you ask these different questions (the ones you see as not limited by an evidence-based approach)- how do you evaluate the answers? Is asking the question your final goal? Is simply having every possible answer to the question the final goal? Is there any sense in which you regard some answers as being closer to the truth than others- if so how do you propose to make that determination?

For me the questions are answered. I am currently satisfied with my understanding of the universe, how it operates and in what context it exists. I have explained the broad outlines of that on many occasions. I believe my answers to be true. How I got there is something else and I am unwilling to share it on a public forum. Would my experiences help you? Probably not. Paths of discovery cannot be revisited as if they are undiscovered. I did "point directly" once in a post on one of the "prove god exists" threads, if you are a glutton for punishment and enjoy fereting out oblique messages. (They are each over 1000 posts long).

Is asking the question your final goal? No, the right questions merely expand your capacity to see more.
Is simply having every possible answer to the question the final goal? No, understanding who you are and how you should live life is the goal.
Is there any sense in which you regard some answers as being closer to the truth than others- if so how do you propose to make that determination? From a cosmic view, No; from a practical standpoint, yes. For me it's a done deal. I don't know you well enough to define the process of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Better?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm arguing against your claim that matter was somehow created. CFC physicists? Bring them on.

I am self taught in physics and I know there are many more knowledgeable folks who post here. Within the universe the laws of physics apply and matter is not created or destroyed. Since I place a starting point for the universe, I have a time zero in which all matter, energy and time came into existence. The creation of matter etc. is the start of the universe. Once in play, all rules apply. The how and why of such a starting point is speculation at best.

Nowhere did I say anything about the Big Bang model being incorrect.

I inadvertenly tarred you with the bush I used for Neomega who was arguing for a steady state universe. Simply a case of misplaced indentity. Mea culpa.

So you are using "infinite" to mean going on forever with respect to both directions of time? Seriously, you should stop applying the same adjective to multiple concepts. That, by the way, is called equivocation, subset of BSing.

Rather than say the universe is not infinite, how about if I say the universe is finite. It is limited in size and in time. It has a starting point.

See, another attempt of displacement. Why do we have to offset the eternal exactly 1 step away from us? Why not 0 and consider our universe eternal? Why not 2 and consider the entity that created the entity that created us eternal? Why 1?

IMO an eternal universe does not fit well with current models. If you can post such a link I will be happy to read it. I choose a 1 step displacement because it is my model and displacing things more only pushes back the final solution. It does not change the ultimate outcome, just adds unnecessary complications.

I'm not going to guess what you meant by infinite this time, but I'll point out to you that we only observe that matter we can observe seem to be spreading apart in the universe.

I'm happy to explain. I used infinite to mean all encompassing, without limit or constraint, no edges or places where it is not present.

There is nothing to suggest that maybe 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 meters away away from earth, there wouldn't be another clump of mass that pretty much stays stationary.

And there is nothing to suggest that such a clump does exist either.

What steady state model? I only claimed that matter has probably always been here, not that they have stayed in a constant state all the time. If you meant that, shop for better adjective. My theory has nothing to do with the theory given by wiki.

Dealt with above.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So are you against the idea of checking to see if the predictions of your theories come out correctly?

No, absolutely not. All scientific research should be thoroughly vetted. For those things that cannot be currently proven or disproven through science, you have to make a choice: accept, reject or ignore.

No, I'm claiming that your claims about things that we cannot test are irrelevant.

Then I suggest you choose ignore.

How does a scandal somehow make cold fusion fairy tale?

The specific cold fusion findings I referred to were a fairy tale and not reproducible. And I did say previously, that I was not saying all cold fusion research was false.

And before Maxwell, Telsa, and Edison nobody really thought that "lightning material" can be used to do work (actually it only transfers power).

That was my whole point; what was magic and voodoo and science fiction and fairy tales in the past are commonplace in today's world. What peopleu see as stupid and impossible today, may be just their own lack of vision.

You'll never know. I'm definitely geeky enough to say that. And trust me, I know girls who would actually agree to that statement, just not the "best conveyed by a college chemistry book" part. Science is still some distance away from being able to do that.

Didn't ask to know, but it seems you may have fund a good match.

 

[nihilistic]

The creation of matter etc. is the start of the universe. Once in play, all rules apply. The how and why of such a starting point is speculation at best.

And that is exactly the point I'm disputing. I do not think a special case should be made for that spontaneous creation.

Rather than say the universe is not infinite, how about if I say the universe is finite. It is limited in size and in time. It has a starting point.

"Limited in size", "limited in time", and "possesses a starting point" are 3 seperate claims, and should not be lumped together by only 1 adjective used interchageably.

IMO an eternal universe does not fit well with current models. If you can post such a link I will be happy to read it. I choose a 1 step displacement because it is my model and displacing things more only pushes back the final solution. It does not change the ultimate outcome, just adds unnecessary complications.

Which "current model" might that be?

I'm happy to explain. I used infinite to mean all encompassing, without limit or constraint, no edges or places where it is not present.

That is very vague. Wait ... are you saying that the universe has an edge?

 

[Birdjaguar]

And that is exactly the point I'm disputing. I do not think a special case should be made for that spontaneous creation.

Please expound upon your version of this monentous event then.

"Limited in size", "limited in time", and "possesses a starting point" are 3 seperate claims, and should not be lumped together by only 1 adjective used interchageably.

"Possessing a starting point" was my unsuccessful attempt to clarify "limited in time" and not another parameter. In discussing the nature of the universe, for me, finite encompasses both and others I did not feel appropriate to the disucssion. As we define terms, these things work themselves out.

Which "current model" might that be?

Yours or what ever model you think supports the position of an eternal universe.

That is very vague. Wait ... are you saying that the universe has an edge?

No, I said that one of the qualities of an infinite thing was that it has no edges. Yes, words sometimes do a poor job of describing things we do not fully understand and have never witnessed.