Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby webolife » Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:40 am

nick c wrote:If an ID exists or existed then the ID would have to be a part of the Universe and could therefore not have created it. Are you using a different definition of "Universe?"

If your view of the universe is that it is infinite, an unsolvable conundrum in itself due to the inevitable fact that anything that is observable or describable is finite, then yes, my "universe" is different from yours.
But perhaps the crux of our difference may be the way I [and Brigit Bara -- chime in BB if you disagree] use the word "exist". Which is to say, we acknowledge the existence and operation of intangibles in the universe as possibly fitting the category of "immaterial", by the usual definitions. When it comes to physics there are many such "intangibles", things that are accepted as givens without any clear [or at least uncontroversial or absolute] definition. Here is a list:
1. Space
2. Gravitation [and magnetism]
3. Charge/Electricity
4. Light [any various other manifestations of so-called "electromagnetism]
5. Intrinsic Mass [vs. matter]
6. Force
7. Energy
We see stuff moving, and we see stuff sticking together... everything else is an attempt [ofttimes feeble] to wrap the myriad of observations into a simple mathematic model. We seem to always come up short. I [and Brigit Bara -- chime in BB if you disagree] think that we know why that "shortness" is so persistent.
If the universe is finite, as I presume, then what is "beyond" it. I find the ID to be a [more than] satisfactory answer, no disrespect intended toward the ID :) .
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby nick c » Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:11 pm

I agree that infinity is a mathematical concept and is an unsolvable conundrum. But by the same token, a finite Universe suffers from the same problem! Even if we assume that there is a countable number of subatomic particles in the Universe, then it follows that there must be some boundary or end (hence the word "finite") to the Universe.
By implication there must be a surrounding empty space which is infinite. Could we send a space probe into that empty space, and how far could it go?
A finite Universe is just as untenable as one that is infinite.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby webolife » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:53 pm

So you are saying there is no tenable "universe"?
An unanswerable question does not make an untenable claim. Take for example the question of the chicken and egg. For many the option <both came first> is "untenable", due to the presumption of evolution. But it is not only the observed condition, but may also be surmised to be the original condition, as a chicken without eggs would not continue to survive, yet an egg is not possible without the chicken. Hopeful monsters aside, the form of the question is what I am presenting. "Infinite space" is itself an oxymoron, if we take the observation of space as physically defined by the objects it is relative to; ie. the space between objects is definable, not the space beyond them. Light, gravitation, and electricity/magnetism manifest and are transmitted across the space[s] between objects, and yet seem to pervade and connect all objects. Do these forces arise within matter? Are they matter? are they beyond matter? These are unanswered questions, yes, but not necessarily untenable? Likewise the question of origins... Did matter create itself from nothing? Has it always existed? Was there a creator "outside" of the physical universe that brought it into being? Is there evidence of continued presence of "supernatural" involvement? To an atheist it is "untenable" for science to answer the latter two questions, but the limits of science do not not necessarily make philosophical questions [such as the OP query] and possible answers untenable. Any honest atheist must also know that the first two questions are also unanswerable by science, yet s/he would object strongly if we say their given conclusions are untenable. Now we get back to the matter of faith, or presupposition if you prefer. All scientists exercise belief in some foundational premise... does that assumptive position necessarily make their conclusions untenable?
To summarize that twisted line of questions, IMO the only thing that is truly tenable in science is a claim tied logically to not only the available evidences but also to its premises.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Mon Nov 26, 2018 11:55 am

Well I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving, and for you, "stuff sticks together" more than "things fall apart" (:

Now I do think that the Steady State model is getting off a little too easily on the question of entropy. For the sake of honesty in labels, it might be better to call it the "Too Big to Fail" universe. While the Big Bang does introduce creation from nothing, I am sure they are satisfied that somehow it is Probable that the singularity (egg) can come into existence through various maths calculations. Just as we see the proponents of the Steady State model express confidence that it is Probable that the Universe permanently exists without running down.

By contrast the Electric Universe model is a real physical system in which there are losses in the transfer and use of electrical energy. We all know that when we generate electricity at a power plant or a hydroelectric dam, as the turbines turn, and as the A/C travels along the power lines, and as the electricity passes through the transformers, there are losses at each step. I am glad there are engineers who think of these things. And I am thankful for everyone who designs a system with these considerations in mind. Without people like these, we get systems that are not reliable and that do not work. If you have a dense enough source of energy, the losses are overcome and we deliver to one another the power needed for domestic uses and for manufacturing. And it is all worth it.

Likewise, the Electric Universe is verified by the fact that galaxies occur in strings. "As mentioned, all those filaments are Birkeland currents, but they only represent the visible portion of an entire circuit. The rest of the circuit may generate magnetic fields that can be mapped, so the map will indicate the extent of the circuit. Every element in a galactic circuit radiates energy, and it must be powered by its coupling with larger circuits. The extent of those larger circuits is indicated by the observation that galaxies occur in strings." As Steven Smith wrote, this is a lossy system and that is the very reason the Birkeland currents are "visible" to radio telescopes.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby nick c » Mon Nov 26, 2018 1:13 pm

webolife wrote:So you are saying there is no tenable "universe"?
No. I am saying that the concept of either a finite or an infinite Universe is untenable. The Universe is something other than finite or infinite.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby webolife » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:53 am

"Other than finite or infinite"........ :?: :?:
Ok, please clarify what you mean by these terms. I'll start out with a few propositions:
A.FINITE might involve some or all of these features:
1. Measurable extent, ie. a boundary condition
2. Countable [albeit via the approximation of scientific notation] objects
3. Limits in orders of magnitude or hierarchy
4. Limits in largeness and smallness of particle size
5. Discrete [vs. continuous] actions at the fundamental level
6. Geometrically describable shape, eg.Cartesian coordinates
7. Limited dimensions, eg. 3, or 4 incl Einsteinian "time"
8. Materially closed system, ie. all definable space is included space
9. Points of polity, ie. centers of condensation, field centroids, etc.
10. Beginning [and ending?] in time
11. The "universe" is an object

B. INFINITE might involve some or all of these features:
1. No boundaries
2. Unlimited amount of objects
3. No "largest" or "smallest" object
4. No largest or smallest hierarchy or order of magnitude
5. Continuous [vs. discreet] action, eg. waves
6. Probabilistic existence, virtual particles, etc.
7. A "multiverse" of many unseen dimensions
8. Materially open system, unlimited energy input
9. Continuous existence in infinite time
10. No definable "centers" or distinct "fields"
11. Infinitely "dense" system of objects

What else?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby nick c » Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:16 pm

Well, I might quibble with a detail or elaboration, but basically I find both A and B to be acceptable qualifications for Finite (A) and Infinite (B). The Universe cannot logically be understood with either (A or B) as the set of conditions, therefore, it is not infinite or finite, it is something else.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby webolife » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:07 pm

webolife wrote:What else?

Feel free to quibble :)
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby nick c » Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:41 am

Any debate about whether the Universe if finite or infinite (in terms of space and/or matter and/or time) is unscientific since we are in an area where there can be no measurement or observation. Furthermore, neither proposition is subject to falsification. So the topic is in realm of metaphysics, not science.
That is also why I consider the BB theory to be pseudoscience.

We have to understand that we are not able to understand, at least with what our species has to work with at this time. That could change tomorrow.
"I don't know" is a better answer than a wrong answer.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:01 am

nick c » Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:41 am

I think those statements are something we can all agree on!

One of the traps of language that I see people fall into quite often is that an idea or theory is "a religion", because it is too tightly held, and because people dispute whether it is really supported by the evidence. But I would like people to have an increased vocabulary which can help them to describe science when it departs from its own realm of applicability.

My feeling is that this tendency to utilize a "religion vs science" dichotomy in the heat of conflict is a generational trait. It is, if we really examine all of the behavior of scientists, a false dichotomy. Scientists, and especially materialists, have a range of manias and obsessions which afflict them. This can be manifested as pseudoscience, or as pathological science, or, very often, as metaphysical preferences which are presented as scientific just because they are materialistic.

And the history of materialistic ideas that were presented to the world as scientific and then subsequently failed has been swept completely under the rug and forgotten. This must be rectified so that people can be warned of the scientific certitude that modern materialists like to add to their own theories. Examples already given in previous encyclopedia entries are Marx and Freud -- that is, communism and psychoanalytic theory. One may even observe that occultists prefer to have abstracts by Harvard professors and statistical studies which confirm to the public that their own occult ideas are scientifically verified. I think we can not emphasize enough that this is why Karl Popper introduced the standard of falsifiability in science, because of the tendency of modern intellectual revolutionaries to claim that their theories are all based on science.

So every modern citizen needs an expanded vocabulary and tools to deal with the deluge of scientific claims he is flooded with every day.
As others have pointed out on this thread, there is a realm of pseudoscience.
There are metaphysical determinations that scientists have made, which they themselves are unable or unwilling to recognize.
Most proper definitions of materialism show that there are doctrines that materialistic scientists strictly adhere too.
And, there are the natural impediments to understanding physical phenomena that are inherent to the human mind, which Sir Francis Bacon quaintly but I think rightly termed "idols."

But there is one more compelling -- often urgent -- motive to be aware of, and that is the love of theory.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby webolife » Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:11 am

Ok, I can go with I-don't-know... but Nick, you're skirting the issue you yourself brought up:
nick c wrote:therefore, [the universe] is not infinite or finite, it is something else.

That is not an I-don't-know statement. It is a claim involving the denial of all possibilities, yet proposing an alternative... so what is your alternative? I have presented observable reasons to believe the universe is finite, yet as a strictly non-BB-er. It is good to have definition if we are doing physics.
"Infinite" by definition is un-definable. And that is about as untenable as you can get!!!
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby jacmac » Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:07 am

Brigit Bara said:
So every modern citizen needs an expanded vocabulary and tools to deal with the deluge of scientific claims he is flooded with every day.

We could also use an expanded vocabulary and tools to deal with the deluge of religious claims we are flooded with every day. I am at a loss for words that do not lead to circular arguments.
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby nick c » Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:40 am

webolife wrote:
nick c wrote:therefore, [the universe] is not infinite or finite, it is something else.


That is not an I-don't-know statement. It is a claim involving the denial of all possibilities, yet proposing an alternative...
It is an "I don't know" statement. I wrote the Universe is "something else." I don't know what that something else is, so my quote is definitely an "I don't know" statement.

Definitions:
Universe - everything that exists
Finite - having limits or boundaries
Infinite - no limits or bounds, not subject to measurement, undefined

You are assuming that we are limited to a binary choice...infinite or finite....we are not.
Infinity is an abstract mathematical concept that cannot be scientifically evaluated. By the same token, the term "finite" when applied to the concept of "everything that is" (Universe) is an abstract mathematical concept which also cannot be measured or scientifically evaluated. Why? Because a finite Universe also invokes certain conditions which involve infinity. It is like you cannot have a coin without a heads and tails.
If the Universe is finite it MUST have borders. If so what is on the other side? How long has a finite Universe existed? If it has an age what was there before it was created? If it has an end what will there be after it is gone? Finite can only apply in a closed system within a larger system. It cannot apply to the Universe.

If I have a basket and fill it with apples it is a finite system, there are x number of apples, only because there are larger systems within which the basket exists. It is a mistake to apply that concept to the Universe. You cannot have a finite Universe without invoking concepts that involve infinity.

To reiterate, infinite and finite are simply untenable concepts when used to scientifically examine the Universe, so therefore, the Universe must be something else.
I don't know what that is!
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:27 am

I am at a loss for words that do not lead to circular arguments


I just pointed out the Electric Universe cannot be a Steady State Model because, like the grids in developed countries, it has losses and radiates energy at all points in the circuits, as the electric current flows between galaxies, and is powering the stars, so it is dissipated as heat and light. Maybe that caused a loss for words.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby nick c » Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:26 pm

Brigit,
If there is a loss of energy in the Universe, where does the energy go? Does it leave the Universe? If so then there must be someplace that is outside of the Universe, which is impossible given the definition of "Universe."

Your analogy of the loss of energy in power grids is an example of energy loss from one system to a larger system. It does not apply to the Universe as there is no place for its lost energy to go. So it does not negate the possibility of a Steady State Universe.

The Steady State may well be disputed on other grounds, for example the implication of infinite time.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2436
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests