I don't really get Big Bang

Raymond Lin said:
I am not calling you close minded, I am saying I am MORE open minded than you are. Certainly not discounting anything, even the absurd. I even realise the absurdity of it, I think I mentioned I don't believe in God? like 20 times?

But I am open to the idea, not discounting anything, even the absurd.

Why? because the simple reason that our laws or understanding of science simply may not apply then, if the laws change then everything can.
Click to expand...
That only holds true IF that place even exists. Which it might not. Science might be going down a blind alley. Or it might be on the right path.
 
Last edited:
dLockers said:
Because to make progress you have to take (or make) decisions. Living in a fairytale where any and all ideas are accepted is not how the large hadron collider came about, or the Hubble telescope. You're welcome to accept all ideas as daft and as pointless as they are, but most folk have a filter to ensure they don't waste their time. And you know what? Maybe sometimes you'll be right. But odds are, you won't be. It's why peer reviewing to get into scientific journals is a critical step in the process.

May I now refer to the US president who proposed bleach to kill Corona virus? Yeah, that's why we filter out bad ideas even if they are not explicitly proven nonesense.
Click to expand...
Using loaded language like "fairytale", "nut case", "make belief", and "crack pot" really isn't helping.

Living in a world where any idea is accepted is exactly how the LHC and Hubble got built, they got built to gather empirical data and either prove or disprove hypothesis, some of which seemed incredulous when they were proposed, that seemed like "fairytale", "nut case", "make belief", and "crack pot" ideas but needed to be either proven or disproven by actual observations. When people first theorised that Earth wasn't the centre of the universe they were probably spoken of in similar derogatory manner as you're doing now, they built things to gather empirical evidence to either support or disprove these "fairytale", "nut case", "make belief", and "crack pot" ideas.
 
Murphy said:
Using loaded language like "fairytale", "nut case", "make belief", and "crack pot" really isn't helping.

Living in a world where any idea is accepted is exactly how the LHC and Hubble got built, they got built to gather empirical data and either prove or disprove hypothesis, some of which seemed incredulous when they were proposed, that seemed like "fairytale", "nut case", "make belief", and "crack pot" ideas but needed to be either proven or disproven by actual observations. When people first theorised that Earth wasn't the centre of the universe they were probably spoken of in similar derogatory manner as you're doing now, they built things to gather empirical evidence to either support or disprove these "fairytale", "nut case", "make belief", and "crack pot" ideas.
Click to expand...
The key difference is that one is falsifiable and/or verifiable, the other is literal fiction with no basis to even prove or disprove it. Why were the hadron and hubble built? To prove or disprove the theories they were built on. No one would invest a cent to disprove the existence of make belief God because there is zero scientific basis for it to be at all plausible.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Huh?

I think i said i am open minded about it ALL....i dunno how many times?

Which part about being open-minded didn't you understand?
Click to expand...
Yeah being open-minded means you can fully understand the scientific method pov, including the idea that the universe is all there is and science may be on the correct path.
 
keyser said:
Yeah being open-minded means you can fully understand the scientific method pov, including the idea that the universe is all there is and science may be on the correct path.
Click to expand...

I can try to understand it, I appreciate the work, but it's all a may, as you said.

It's not it is, but people turn around and then say "it cannot be this", when they also say "we don't know" in the same sentence.

How can you say you don't know and discount it when our laws may not even apply in this scenario. If everything you work up to believe in doesn't apply here then nothing applies here.

It sounds all very philosophical and it is, it's the idea of trying to apply 1 set of rules (from our universe) of understanding into another, when we accept that it might not apply at all.

It's just a giant if, an educated if.
 
What I see here is a lot of people trying to fit a Square peg through a hole, not knowing what shape that hole it is. They say, base on their test it is likely to be this shape but they also say "we don't know" and we can't prove it. Except we say it must not be a circle, we can't prove it's not a circle, there is no test for it to be not a circle, it's just not.

I am saying it can be any shape...but apparently that is wrong to say that, i can however say it can be any shape, except a circle.

At the same time, in this alternate universe, there might not be shapes at all, shapes might not exist! it might be all fluid, yet people are still using Squares as their basis of understanding. As Squares is all they understand.

I am not saying it is a circle, i am saying it can be any shape, keep trying.

Is that a wrong analogy?
 
You've said. The premise of your argument is entirely philosophical and can be applied to absolutely anything. Is this table holding my monitor up or is it in gods hands? Well if the rulebook has changed it could be the latter!
 
dLockers said:
You've said. The premise of your argument is entirely philosophical and can be applied to absolutely anything. Is this table holding my monitor up or is it in gods hands? Well if the rulebook has changed it could be the latter!
Click to expand...

Well, this is the law of our universe, which we know. We don't know the laws of what comes before. I am open minded about that, you are trying to force your understanding of something you admit you don't understand?

You do realise that I said you might be right, right? and that it is more probable than god...it's just i don't discount it, no matter how absurd it sounds. You are just picking on my open-mindedness, as that is wrong to believe the absurd in an alternate universe, a reality that we don't understand. Anything is absurd as another in another alternate universe, by definition, it is another universe.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Well, this is the law of our universe, which we know. We don't know the laws of what comes before. I am open minded about that, you are trying to force your understanding of something you admit you don't understand?

You do realise that I said you might be right, right? and that it is more probable than god...it's just i don't discount it, no matter how absurd it sounds. You are just picking on my open-mindedness, as that is wrong to believe the absurd in an alternate universe, a reality that we don't understand. Anything is absurd as another in another alternate universe, by definition, it is another universe.
Click to expand...
TBH I hadn't caught the plot twist where we had begun talking about an alternative universe. God is well down low on my nuts theories there. Do you watch Rick and Morty? Far more exciting alternative universes :p
 
Murphy said:
Living in a world where any idea is accepted is exactly how the LHC and Hubble got built
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Hubble and LHC were built in a very specific way because they rejected the notion that "any idea is accepted" and instead followed, like the rest of science, the "narrow minded" notion that you can gather evidence from the world around you to test specific ideas about how the universe works. Moreover, they were built specifically to test very narrow ideas how about the world works, the LHC in particular was built around the idea that profound knowledge about the universe can be gathered by accelerating sub-atomic particles towards each other so they collide at close to the speed of light, and that idea was based on the accumulated knowledge of decades of research. No-one was building it to test that idea that a supernatural being did it and ran away, or whether phlogiston. These incredible science projects are about as far from "any idea is accepted" as you can get.
 
dLockers said:
The key difference is that one is falsifiable and/or verifiable, the other is literal fiction with no basis to even prove or disprove it. Why were the hadron and hubble built? To prove or disprove the theories they were built on. No one would invest a cent to disprove the existence of make belief God because there is zero scientific basis for it to be at all plausible.
Click to expand...
So is the theory that an omnipotent being created the conditions for the big bang and set it all in motion, that's just as falsifiable and/or verifiable as any of the other theories for what started the big bang or what came before.

Honestly i find it remarkable that you, assumedly, believe in the literal fiction of things like string theory, multiverse, the big bounce, or any one of the other hypothesis' for what existed before the big bang equally without any supporting evidence, but are willing to dismiss something like Danny the interdimensional space tomato having farted in the wrong direction. It seems you're hung up on the idea that some people are open to any possibility up until there's data in support of one hypothesis or another because you're seemingly offended by a certain idea.
keyser said:
Yeah being open-minded means you can fully understand the scientific method pov, including the idea that the universe is all there is and science may be on the correct path.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and by investigating these sort of things we can either confirm or refute hypothesis'.

That's what i find most odd about dLockers position, he's essentially saying we only build things like the LHC or Hubble to collect empirical evidence that proves a hypothesis and not at the same time disprove others.
Mr Jack said:
Nonsense. Hubble and LHC were built in a very specific way because they rejected the notion that "any idea is accepted" and instead followed, like the rest of science, the "narrow minded" notion that you can gather evidence from the world around you to test specific ideas about how the universe works. Moreover, they were built specifically to test very narrow ideas how about the world works, the LHC in particular was built around the idea that profound knowledge about the universe can be gathered by accelerating sub-atomic particles towards each other so they collide at close to the speed of light, and that idea was based on the accumulated knowledge of decades of research. No-one was building it to test that idea that a supernatural being did it and ran away, or whether phlogiston. These incredible science projects are about as far from "any idea is accepted" as you can get.
Click to expand...
No, they were built to answer questions and when it started answering those questions it automatically rejected "any idea is accepted". Before there was no knowledge so anything would've been a possibility, the moment knowledge fills that void those "any idea is accepted" no longer exist because we now have empirical evidence that disproves them.

I also did not say they built them to test that idea that a supernatural being did it and ran away, that's a poor attempt at a strawman. I said that by testing and possibly confirming one hypothesis other hypothesis' are automatically refuted.

It's not a hard concept to grasp, when there is zero knowledge everything is possible, the moment knowledge is acquired that's no longer the case, the evidence will strengthen the case for one possibility and weaken the case for all other possibilities.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom