The Big Bang: Why is it still being taught?

[Kyriakos]

Even if god does not exist, Babel obviously did. Plently of evidence in all threads.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. Statements of the kind: Carrots are blue, therefore all bananas vote Democrat, are formally logically true statements.

They don't, however, have much practical value, it seems to me.

The Tower of Babel was full of people making lots of noise and not listening to each other. That's nothing like CFC.

Ah. No. Wait.

 

[warpus]

All true. However saying 'toast created the universe', you could just as well say 'god - who can shapeshift into a toast - created the universe'. You only are adding the possibility that god can shapeshift into a toast. Though that's rather likely if god exists.

Yeah, but in the end you are creating a variable - God - and inserting it into the equation without justification. What I wrote was basically me saying: "You could do that with any other entity, God or not", be it toast, Klingons, magical aliens, or whatever. It doesn't really prove anything nor is it a good logical exercise, because in the end all it is is a variable X that can stand for anything. It doesn't tell us anything.

 

[Borachio]

And yet, you know, toast as a deity is rather appealing. Does it come with butter and marmalade?

As for eating buttered toast and marmalade, eating one's deity is all too common, I think.

 

[Dralix]

I'm interested in warpus' proof that Klingons are "better" than toast. Not that I disagree, I'm just interested in the math.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure about better at all.

But I would agree that Klingons are potentially more versatile than toast, which, frankly, is a little bit limited in its sphere of activity.

Other things than God can be toast. Consider the well-known phrase or saying: "So and so is now toast".

 

[Tahuti]

They don't, however, have much practical value, it seems to me.

Do note you have plenty of other methods available to test these assumptions. God, not so much.

 

[Borachio]

God, if he exists, is said to dwell within (and is yet also transcendent? A most peculiar entity, is God.), and is therefore accesible to, everyone.

I'd have thought there are methods (though for what those methods might be you'll have to consult somebody religious) to find out about God that are more immediately available than are investigations into the properties of carrots.

 

[El_Machinae]

The essence of the egg dwells within the yolk, but is also transcendent to the yolk?

 

[Borachio]

Well. Could be, I suppose.

 

[Harv]

Even if god does not exist, Babel obviously did. Plently of evidence in all threads.

Work stopped on the Tower of Babel because most of the world uses SI units and some people do not and they refuse to change?

 

[illram]

The essence of the egg dwells within the yolk, but is also transcendent to the yolk?

I don't know, that just seems scrambled to me.

 

[Souron]

The world, and even science, would not work if the scientific method was the only source of knowledge. There are many question where you cannot rely on an answer validated by the scientific method. There can be various reasons for that:
- the question cannot be addressed by the scientific method (right now)
- a scientific validation would be require unethical procedures
- the problem could be addressed by science, but not by you or anyone willing to work with you
- you could test it with the scientific method but you lack the time and/or resources to perform the validation.

If you considered science as the only source of knowledge you would either have to give up or make a totally random decision. However you are far better of if you consider other sources of knowledge, whatever they may be.

It's true that sometimes we don't have enough evidence for something to be accepted by the scientific community, but is none the less a reasonable guess at how things work. Such a guess must necessarily be minimalist however, with every detail serving to explain nature. That's still a scientific approach. Of course we have less confidence in such guesses than established science, and that too is right and proper; some things we don't know.

 

[timtofly]

Which is to say: based in bullcrap and thus immune to logic, therefore the premise does not apply.

We can hem and haw all day about how sacred and indescribable people's beliefs are, but it's biases and assumptions all the way down.

And your info has no bias or assumptions any where in it's trajectory?

 

[Crezth]

And your info has no bias or assumptions any where in it's trajectory?

Of course it does, unfortunately that doesn't make my assertion self-invalidating. If anything it strengthens my point.

 

[timtofly]

It strengthens your point, and then you assume that everything is self validating?

 

[El_Machinae]

Of all the interesting ideas there could have been about an origin of the universe, the idea that it started with something but you cannot get to the start but you can make models to supposedly verify how it was an infinitesimal amount of time after that mysterious start, is in my view the most boring (and likely the best suited for a dead-end, even by definition).

That's only true with the 4D maths. With higher dimensional maths, they don't run into that problem. The problem is designing experiments to test hypotheses from those theories.

 

[Kyriakos]

That's only true with the 4D maths. With higher dimensional maths, they don't run into that problem. The problem is designing experiments to test hypotheses from those theories.

By 4d Math you mean this space?

Ie the one Einstein used in his special theory of relativity (Poincare system/"Minkowski spacetime")?

If so, can you post an example of a more dimensional math model used? Cause (i haven't looked it up) i was of the view that the above system is still used in Physics of the macrocosm.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can recommend this book.
http://leesmolin.com/writings/three-roads-to-quantum-gravity/
I greatly, greatly enjoyed it. It's not just a discussion of Smolin's theory, but of the other mainstream theories. It's not an easy read, but I'd give it an A+ for interesting.

 

[illram]

I second Lee Smolin's Quantum Gravity, even though 3/4 went in and out my tiny little mind. And thank you El Mac for recommending it to me years ago also!

Lee Smolin did have an excellent little bit in there about God/a creator vis a vis the set of physical rules that make our Universe possible, and why they are what they are.