The Universe

When we google "what existed before the Big Bang?", all we get is a lot of contradictory speculation...

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+was+there+before+the+big+bang&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&gs_rn=14&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=rG1c2mAju5_0HEHumSM-YQ&pq=what%20was%20there%20before%20the%20big%20bang&cp=8&gs_id=fi&xhr=t&q=what+existed+before+the+big+bang&es_nrs=true&pf=p&client=firefox-a&hs=Kug&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&oq=what+exi&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46751780,d.dmQ&fp=98f8653cb48d61ec&biw=1467&bih=650

including this rather convoluted stuff...

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/

Bob wrote:
As to your specific question: do I think "the predictions of science are not just childish metaphors that show similarity but really have nothing to do with the true nature of the universe?"

"The true nature of the universe" is a big question. Is science capable of explaining the "true nature of the universe". I'm not sure. I suppose with enough time it's possible. But of course the concept of the "universe" is not the same as the truly fundamental question I always harken back to. That question being "what is the nature of all existence".

True. However without the former would we be able to discuss the later?

Bob wrote:And no I don't necessarily see anything about science as being a "childish metaphor". Not actual science. The polluted science of Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh may be that, but as I have already said, that's not science.

To a alien race that could conceivably be more advanced than us or a human civilization thousands of years in the future... Our science may look like a quaint childish metaphor of how we describe things in the world happen.

A new fundamental discovery of a basic law of the nature of the universe could undermine the basic principles of all that we think we know. However if in your arrogance about your belief in science you think it's appropriate to belittle other beliefs like BOF did at the beginning of this discussion then by all means...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X_2IdybTV0

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Bob wrote:
As to your specific question: do I think "the predictions of science are not just childish metaphors that show similarity but really have nothing to do with the true nature of the universe?"

"The true nature of the universe" is a big question. Is science capable of explaining the "true nature of the universe". I'm not sure. I suppose with enough time it's possible. But of course the concept of the "universe" is not the same as the truly fundamental question I always harken back to. That question being "what is the nature of all existence".

True. However without the former would we be able to discuss the later?

Bob wrote:And no I don't necessarily see anything about science as being a "childish metaphor". Not actual science. The polluted science of Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh may be that, but as I have already said, that's not science.

To a alien race that could conceivably be more advanced than us or a human civilization thousands of years in the future... Our science may look like a childish metaphor of how we describe things in the world happen.

A new fundamental discovery of a basic law of the nature of the universe could undermine the basic principles of all that we think we know. However if in your arrogance about your belief in science you think it's appropriate to belittle other beliefs like BOF did at the beginning of this discussion then by all means...

I see. Well you've made two statements in that so I'll try to address them one at a time.

Firstly, this one...

To a alien race that could conceivably be more advanced than us or a human civilization thousands of years in the future... Our science may look like a childish metaphor of how we describe things in the world happen....
A new fundamental discovery of a basic law of the nature of the universe could undermine the basic principles of all that we think we know.

I could not agree more. I think future human discoveries (or extraterrestial knowledge if it it exists and can be shared with us) could turn everything we think we know now on it's head.
What astrophysicist Mario Livio has outlined for us in his book "Brilliant Blunders from Darwin to Einstein" is a good essay on how that's occurred in the past and there is no reason to believe it won't continue into the future.

And then there is this...

However if in your arrogance about your belief in science you think it's appropriate to belittle other beliefs like BOF did at the beginning of this discussion then by all means...

You've lost me with that one. I'm just expressing my own opinions. And at one point in this thread I said I agreed with a particular statement "BOF" made just as in this reply I just said I agree with a statement you made.
I've never expressed an "arrogant belief" in science. I defined what I understand science to be and then said I prefer it to what preceded it. I also clearly stated that science is just a "construct of human intellect".
And I will now add that, like anything and everything else conceived in the human intellect, it's no more than just that. It's not a belief system for me. Just a method to help enable us to arrive at valid conclusions.
I firmly believe it's possible that something could come along tomorrow which would render it obsolete.

Maybe it will help if I tell you that I make a distinction between "science" and "scienTISTS".
For example I believe this statement by a reknowned scienTIST to be patently absurd...

Last May, Stephen Hawking gave a talk at Google's Zeitgeist Conference in which he declared philosophy to be dead. In his book The Grand Design, Hawking went even further. "How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Traditionally these were questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead," Hawking wrote. "Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:
To a alien race that could conceivably be more advanced than us or a human civilization thousands of years in the future... Our science may look like a childish metaphor of how we describe things in the world happen....
A new fundamental discovery of a basic law of the nature of the universe could undermine the basic principles of all that we think we know.

I could not agree more. I think future human discoveries (or extraterrestial knowledge if it it exists and can be shared with us) could turn everything we think we know now on it's head.
What astrophysicist Mario Livio has outlined for us in his book "Brilliant Blunders from Darwin to Einstein" is a good essay on how that's occurred in the past and there is no reason to believe it won't continue into the future.

*****WARM SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOFRR1PY0XE

That statement by Hawking is as equally absurd as his paranoia that extraterrestial intelligence will be Klingon in nature.
It's matched only by the stupidity of Ward and Brownlee in their book "Rare Earth - Why Complex Life is rare in the Universe".
And all three individuals are very highly regarded in the scienTIST community.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:However if in your arrogance about your belief in science you think it's appropriate to belittle other beliefs like BOF did at the beginning of this discussion then by all means...

You've lost me with that one. I'm just expressing my own opinions. And at one point in this thread I said I agreed with a particular statement "BOF" made just as in this reply I just said I agree with a statement you made. I've never expressed an "arrogant belief" in science.

I never said you did.

I only suggested that you are more than free to call those who believe in religion cavemen and the like, just like BOF did, if that's what you choose to do.

Bob wrote:I defined what I understand science to be and then said I prefer it to what preceded it.

Not all things about religions are bad and not all things about science are good.

Bob wrote:I also clearly stated that science is just a "construct of human intellect".

Yes I read your description and like it... I might even steal it if you don't mind.

Bob wrote:And I will now add that, like anything and everything else conceived in the human intellect, it's no more than just that. It's not a belief system for me. Just a method to help enable us to arrive at valid conclusions.
I firmly believe it's possible that something could come along tomorrow which would render it obsolete.

We are free to choose... At least the last time I checked we all were.



*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

I firmly believe that "religion" is nothing more than a construct of human intellect as well.

But as I have said many times before, and maybe in this thread (there are too many pages to go back and read so I don't know), that I believe religion to be necessary to human civilization. Almost to the point of it being a part of our nature.
That is not a statement I make off the top of my head, it's a conclusion I've reached after many years of contemplation.
I believe religion is a necessary addition to human life because it helps many cope with mortality, suffering, and a host of other difficulties life presents. I recognize that for many it's the only thing that can provide peace of mind. Even for the smart people amongst us like Teo.

Bob wrote:Maybe it will help if I tell you that I make a distinction between "science" and "scienTISTS".
For example I believe this statement by a reknowned scienTIST to be patently absurd...

Last May, Stephen Hawking gave a talk at Google's Zeitgeist Conference in which he declared philosophy to be dead. In his book The Grand Design, Hawking went even further. "How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Traditionally these were questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead," Hawking wrote. "Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."

Even though I have all of his books and have read them... I disagree with Mr Hawking's on the part about philosophy not keeping up with physics.

Without the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is all philosophy, developed by Werner Heisenberg quantum mechanics would not even exist nor would the innovations that we see today in microchips and other technologies.

I think the big problem today is that the scientific community has become calcified by elders in the scientific community who refuse to accept unique ideas/genius over doctrine that they consider unquestionable.

With luck we'll have another Einstein or Heisenberg within the next decade or two.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

I have tremendous respect for Michio Kaku as a communicator and popularizer of science. I think he has even better skills in that regard than Sagan who was no slouch himself.

But I have no mental capacity whatever to comprehend Kaku's ideas about quantum string theory. As hard as I've tried to grasp that, I just have a mental block about it.

Bob what you may not grasp about me is that i am in constant awe of the world around me...I swell up inside and would burst if I had no one to thank. When I eat I thank God...my creator for giving me the ability and the generous bounty I enjoy....I would simply explode if I couldn't vent off my joy and gratitude in even simple things.....When I walked outside and looked up at the sky" Thank you God" just burst from my heart..beauty everywhere...I need God to thank, it's second nature with me.

The best i ever saw it portrayed goes once again to Joe versus the Volcano..This scene....

Bob wrote:I have tremendous respect for Michio Kaku as a communicator and popularizer of science. I think he has even better skills in that regard than Sagan who was no slouch himself.

But I have no mental capacity whatever to comprehend Kaku's ideas about quantum string theory. As hard as I've tried to grasp that, I just have a mental block about it.

String theory is cool. Studying it makes one believe that alternate dimensions/universes are possible and may prove useful some day in doing so.

When I attended a major scientific university in Iowa for a couple years I was studying physics and the upper classmen in physics, which I was one, had their own lounge. We were talking about life, the universe, and everything when I put forth a question to them. The question was...

Do you think that we are overlooking something so basic that we neglect to take it into account because we take it for granted?

When asked what I meant my response was... As with Newton and gravity do you think we observe something every day but never think about it and that this observable phenomena is important to understanding the nature of how our universe works.

All of them said... Yes.

Just something to think about.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=700sMAojWq0

It is fun to go to one of the smallest units making the body, the atom and realize that at that level it's just electrical, positive, negative and neutral. No red lips and shapely hips just extremely tiny charged particles flying around in mostly nothing but space.
Also I sit here now and can hear my heart beating in the quiet room. Each beat a muscle contraction controlled by precise electron flow. I type, scratch, breathe move my eyes collect data from all my senses without conscious effort....just a whim of a thought sends electrical pulses down well trained neural paths to excite and move other muscles around...I am amazing...thank you God.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Bob what you may not grasp about me is that i am in constant awe of the world around me

Actually I cannot imagine any human being not being in constant awe of the world around him. If anyone tells me he's not then I would think he's a fool or he's lying.

Bob wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Bob what you may not grasp about me is that i am in constant awe of the world around me

Actually I cannot imagine any human being not being in constant awe of the world around him. If anyone tells me he's not then I would think he's a fool or he's lying.

Well then if you carry that a little further, such great order doesn't come about by itself. My bed doesn't make itself. No a moderately intelligent force makes my bed. So some vastly intelligent force made this world by extrapolation of analogy....so I thank him.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Well then if you carry that a little further, such great order doesn't come about by itself. My bed doesn't make itself. No a moderately intelligent force makes my bed. So some vastly intelligent force made this world by extrapolation of analogy....so I thank him.

I agree. Vastly more intelligent than anything ever referred to in a religious text. The characterization of that entity in those texts is so insulting and demeaning that it makes me cringe.

Bob wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Well then if you carry that a little further, such great order doesn't come about by itself. My bed doesn't make itself. No a moderately intelligent force makes my bed. So some vastly intelligent force made this world by extrapolation of analogy....so I thank him.

I agree. Vastly more intelligent than anything ever referred to in a religious text. The characterization of that entity in those texts is so insulting and demeaning that it makes me cringe.

You have a very valid point...words do fail.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

You have a very valid point...words do fail.

With that you've now just stated the whole concept of what my religion is all about.
Those words represent ideas. And the point of my religion is that human ideas do not and cannot know the nature of existence. It's really as simple as that.
So congratulations, you've now become a Sultanist. And now there are two of us. If you want to be the Pope that's fine and I'll step down to be the Cardinal. But of course I do expect a little remuneration to be put into the collection plate for beer money.

I've wondered why we seem to be predisposed to be such social animals... there is some joy when we help other people... like an instinct. Conversely... the guilty feeling when we harm another. I'm sure some of that is taught... but also that it's human nature. If there is any evidence of the devine I think it's at this level. Science is just the gathering of information and an attempt to explain it.

PkrBum wrote:I've wondered why we seem to be predisposed to be such social animals... there is some joy when we help other people... like an instinct. Conversely... the guilty feeling when we harm another. I'm sure some of that is taught... but also that it's human nature. If there is any evidence of the devine I think it's at this level. Science is just the gathering of information and an attempt to explain it.

i THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONVERSE SIDE OF THAT, SAY IN A PRISON CAMP YOU SEE THAT MAN HAS A TENDENCY TO BECOME A BULLY RATHER QUICKLY AND VIOLENTLY. SO WHERE'S THE DIVINE IN THAT ?...IT REMINDS ME WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM apes BUT THEY MAY BE MORE DIVINE THAN WE....
dAMED CAPS LOCK !

Damaged Eagle wrote:So what was there 14 to 15 billion years ago if it wasn't a universal size black hole?

Space and energy.

Damaged Eagle wrote:To a alien race that could conceivably be more advanced than us or a human civilization thousands of years in the future... Our science may look like a quaint childish metaphor of how we describe things in the world happen.

A new fundamental discovery of a basic law of the nature of the universe could undermine the basic principles of all that we think we know. However if in your arrogance about your belief in science you think it's appropriate to belittle other beliefs like BOF did at the beginning of this discussion then by all means...

Are you suggesting that we learn more about our surroundings over time?

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:So what was there 14 to 15 billion years ago if it wasn't a universal size black hole?

Space and energy.

I'm guessing that the time estimate here is based on our microwave observations... too many variables to be known yet.

We are like unbelievably insignificant beings living on an electron in an atom that minimally helps makes up a piece of cheese...we have very limited perspective advantage but if you want to stretch credulity have fun.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I've wondered why we seem to be predisposed to be such social animals... there is some joy when we help other people... like an instinct. Conversely... the guilty feeling when we harm another. I'm sure some of that is taught... but also that it's human nature. If there is any evidence of the devine I think it's at this level. Science is just the gathering of information and an attempt to explain it.

i THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONVERSE SIDE OF THAT, SAY IN A PRISON CAMP YOU SEE THAT MAN HAS A TENDENCY TO BECOME A BULLY RATHER QUICKLY AND VIOLENTLY. SO WHERE'S THE DIVINE IN THAT ?...IT REMINDS ME WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM apes BUT THEY MAY BE MORE DIVINE THAN WE....
dAMED CAPS LOCK !

I've no doubt as to our ability to exhibit base animalistic behaviors that are common in the wild and not considered evil...

but simply natural selection. I'm not endorsing the maltreatment of people... just that there should be free will... fight/flight.

I think some of that might benefit our modern society... but it would offend our collective subjective sensibilities.