This says, in essence, if you can't make the physical laws go away, and you can't bypass them, you will be bound by them. Seen in the light of your other posts on the subject, you are determined to make the laws go away. The logic of wishful denial. U see more promise in finding the way around the laws, recognizing how scientific theories ha e developed in the past. Not by a frontal assault, but finding the condition for which those laws bend enough to change our view of the universe. It might BE impossible. But there is no way to prove that. All you can prove is there are conditions that make it possible. Still, we know enough about the physical laws to begin enumerating ways that are not possible.
No I'm making a point that some of you are bound and determined to prove theories as facts by using laws that were developed with Earth and it's physical characteristics in mind, and projecting them on to subjects that are unearthly. So if you are prepared to live by the sword, then I can use those same principals against your arguments, which means you must also die by the sword.
@JJ_Maxx : Actually, I was careful to avoid ad ignorantium fallacy, because I didn't say that it is true or isn't true. I simply observed that the premise is unprovable, so any logical argument stemming from that premise is not very robust. I would certainly not accept it in a debate. I need to point a logical fallacy in your argument, though, when you say 'there are great many things we do know therefore your conclusion is invalid' is a classic non-sequitur, ie. the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Just because we know a lot of other things, doesn't mean that we know this particular thing. Anyways, that was a nice flashback to my highschool logic classes, but I'll leave it at that because from here on, it just becomes a circular argument (another fallacy btw )
Hawking's theories were based on quantitative cosmological observations and the questions they raised about prior theory. He developed equations consistent with those observations and quantum physics. Both astronomical data and particle accelerator data have marched predictions arising from that mathematics. No one as ever proven a scientific theory. Evidence accumulates supporting the theory, until someone uncovers a situation that deviates fron the predicted behavior, At that pont new theories are developed, and the predictions tested until competing theories are eliminated. Rinse and repeat.
You know, my friend and I believe this is a very real possibility. If you consider that everything in the universe is vibration, the entire system of reality being based on vibrations, is it not fair to consider that the physical universe may have a vibrational/wave/oscillatory function? Likewise, I question the presumption that the physical universe we inhabit is all that exists of the universe as a whole. Could in not instead be a finite function of an infinite system? It could be that the physical nature of our universe has a beginning and perhaps an end, but maybe it happens in cycles. Or maybe our physical 3D univers is the result of something in a larger 4D reality. So many theories and possibilities once you remove the audacity that is human logic.
Indeed, however a cyclic model of the origin of the Universe has it's own issues. The biggest problem is entropy, which is inescapable. Newtons Law of Thermodynamics would mean the expand-contract cycles of the universe would get longer and longer, and conversely, they would get smaller and smaller going back through time. Indeed, even astronomer Joseph Silk has said that while an oscillation theory would continue infinitely into the future, it would be finite into the past. All models eventually run into the same issue of having a definite beginning. But the issue is moot, because you did not refute either of the premises or the conclusion. If you reject one of the premises, then state it, and give the reasons why you reject it. What you have here is just you setting up a straw man argument and not refuting or accepting the premise or the conclusion. (You're like, 'I'm not going to discuss your argument, but I will make a new one for you and show you how silly it is.') Again, pick a premise, or pick a conclusion and let's have a reasoned discussion about it.
Sorry Max, but you apparently completely misunderstood what I was saying. I never rejected any premises, and your demanding a black and white answer or yes or no position in order to continue the discussion, is a logical fallacy in itself. Also, I never distorted anything you said, so your allusion to 'straw man argument' is misplaced. I was clear enough in my previous comments and I won't be discussing things I didn't say.
Fallacious. Emptiness in a box is defined by the boundaries of the box. Pure nothingness is meaningless because it is not defined by anything.
Why do people insist on saying something had to come from nothing. Please explain why it's any easier to believe that there was first nothing, then something, as opposed to always something. The latter case, at least, if you understand that the notion of "nothing" makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever, works.
Are you referring to this as your answer? That my premises are not 'verifiable truths'? I would suggest you read what Cogito said regarding scientific theories: Just as we can't prove what is at the center of a black hole, or what happened at t-1, we can create theories and test them against what we currently know. Every scientific field does this all the time, in fact, it is the basis of what they do. How is that difficult to understand? Your answer is just, 'We don't know empirically, therefore any premise isn't worth discussing.' It's fine if you only want to discuss things such as, 'The sun is a star.' and 'The earth is a planet.' but that's not what we're doing here. Again, if you don't want to discuss current scientific theories, then don't. It's simple. But don't claim that my theories are any different than any of the other unknowable theories posited here.
I don't agree. When you get back before the Planck Time in the current expansion (if an oscillating universe is true), our knowledge and application of physical laws breaks down. So you simply can't make statements like this with any degree or certainty or support behind them. It's just speculation. We have no knowledge of the ultimate question, and may never have.
That's just it, it's entirely observational (From 1,000 upon thousands of light years away I might add, and the things being observed are in fact thousands upon thousands of years' old data.). There is no actual scientific method being done to collect 'true' data, where all elements involved i.e. temperature, gravity, what elements are involved, or any other numerous factors are taken into account. It would be like watching a silent film of cavemen and deducing how human society works based upon it. Let me add that despite the argument I am making here, I do in fact believe in aliens. I have my own idea of how things have happened over time, and how the universe was created. It is just my opinion, but in this thread we are talking hypotheticals and how people are trying to apply them to totally unknown situations. If anyone would be interested in knowing my opinion of the start of the universe and mankind, I would be more than willing to discuss it in a different thread or in PM.
@JJMax: No that's not my premise at all. Now you are distorting my words and using straw man argument. Also, you are trying to use argument by authority by evoking Cogito, and by insisting, and persisting to demand, you are using the fallacy of argument by force. Your posts are riddled with logical fallacies, and if you expect me to engage with you on such terms, all I can say is keep hoping
I'll pass this time. This is not the right time or place for me to elaborate. I feel it would be unwise for a few reasons.
Yes, I think there's a definite possibility our collective understanding of things will evolve in this direction.
Re: cyclical theories, this one is my favourite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
I'm afraid I can't explain this any simpler than I already have. Again, no one is postulating that. I agree with you that our Universe has a cause. If one were to believe that our Universe simply 'popped' into existence from the nothingness, they would have a rather large burden to prove. Again, any argument will eventually come down to 'we don't know' but, as scientists it is their job to take the laws and observations we do know and apply them to the unknowable. And, as Cogito said, rinse and repeat. I have listened to hours of debates on the origins of the universe and I can't really imagine what would happen if one of the professors stood up and said, 'Ya know, this whole discussion is pointless because we just don't know and we may never know. Have nice ride home.' Scientists have been trying to disprove the Standard Model of the Big Bang since its inception and scientifically it has been supported through all of the alternate theories that have arisen. The question is not which is right, but which is the most reasonable knowing what we currently know. I'm afraid I will just have to ignore your comments at this point, as you are baltantly trying to start something. You dismiss my discussions of theories as 'unknowable' and 'unverifiable', and then link to your own 'unknowable' and 'unverifiable' theory. I made a promise to mysefl and a promise to the mods that I would not be baited into this kind of rediculousness. So take care.
I was actually thinking about something similar to this while I was in the shower. I am inclined to believe that matter is not destroyed by a black hole, but rather 'unborn' and once again 're-born' on the other end, no matter where that may be. When I say 'unborn', I mean that it de-ages like a reversal of time until it gets back to it's beginning state, which could very well be the smallest we know, which is now believed to be the 'God particle.' Then when it comes out the other side, it is 're-born' into a new universe or dimension. This would make a lot of sense when you view the Big Bang Theory, where a single dense particle exploded creating our universe. What is essentially being born of nothingness, is being confused with matter that was introduced from an un-explainable origin. An empty box is not empty, it's just full of air and things too small for the eye to see.
No problem Max, I wasn't trying to start anything, obviously you are projecting there, just pointing out issues with your argument. But you are right, I too will put you back on ignore because I don't want the aggression that comes with talking to you. Take care.
Yes, but unfortunately quantum theory requires that information is preserved in black hole formation and evaporation. Stephen Hawking even said, "The information remains firmly in our universe. I'm sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes."
OK, so we agree on that much. Whether the thing before our universe has a cause or not, is an entirely different matter. Also, the nothingness argument is either something you get, or you don't, apparently, and I'm always willing to admit it might be me who is missing something.
Ok folks, the majority of this is actually good, spirited discussion on the actual topic, but there is some one on one that is bringing this chat to like a 7. I need it at a 5. It's only Thursday. Thursday's don't rate a 7.
Sure, that can happen, but why can't it be residue of the transformation? Hawking has never, and can not yet prove that the entire amount of matter that enters a black hole comes back out in the form of radiation or vapor.
