We live in a infinite universe

[The Norseman]

Thought about this for a while; maybe it'll help, probably not, but here goes:

@ baron,

I've been confrontational with you in the past, just as with Argumemnon (so maybe I'm not neutral per se but have no dog in this fight), but as far as I'm concerned, you've demonstrated your point well and I've felt you've answered his questions several times, as you've said, in a clear manner with relevant cites.

So, whatever that's worth, it's how I've been reading this current exchange.

 

[Belz...]

Thought about this for a while; maybe it'll help, probably not, but here goes:

@ baron,

I've been confrontational with you in the past, just as with Argumemnon (so maybe I'm not neutral per se but have no dog in this fight), but as far as I'm concerned, you've demonstrated your point well and I've felt you've answered his questions several times, as you've said, in a clear manner with relevant cites.

So, whatever that's worth, it's how I've been reading this current exchange.

Ok help me out, then. How does his response to my questions address these questions? Baron's quoted himself several times so it's not hard to find. He flat out said that he can't provide said mechanism, so how is that an answer? He hasn't said how something can come from nothing, ignored my comment about information theory and refused to explain why something with no dimensions can't exist in reality. I don't know about you but I find that to be a lack of answer.

 

[The Norseman]

Ok help me out, then. How does his response to my questions address these questions? Baron's quoted himself several times so it's not hard to find. He flat out said that he can't provide said mechanism, so how is that an answer? He hasn't said how something can come from nothing, ignored my comment about information theory and refused to explain why something with no dimensions can't exist in reality. I don't know about you but I find that to be a lack of answer.

Alright; if you give me a little time, I will go back through the thread and provide some quotes to you which demonstrate those things to me. I'd just like (I don't require or demand) a little reassurance that you'd be willing to honor my efforts by re-reading what I can find. Deal?

 

[Belz...]

Alright; if you give me a little time, I will go back through the thread and provide some quotes to you which demonstrate those things to me. I'd just like (I don't require or demand) a little reassurance that you'd be willing to honor my efforts by re-reading what I can find. Deal?

Of course. Despite Baron's accusations I don't mind being proven wrong.

But so far, the way I see it, what he's told me amounts to:

1- This can only be explained mathematically
2- I can't demonstrate it mathematically
3- These experts say that it works out

But it doesn't answer the question. If I ask how come the earth rotates on its axis, you can actually answer in words, and just telling me that smart people know it works doesn't tell me how it works.

 

[The Norseman]

Of course. Despite Baron's accusations I don't mind being proven wrong.

But so far, the way I see it, what he's told me amounts to:

1- This can only be explained mathematically
2- I can't demonstrate it mathematically
3- These experts say that it works out

But it doesn't answer the question. If I ask how come the earth rotates on its axis, you can actually answer in words, and just telling me that smart people know it works doesn't tell me how it works.

Okay, fair enough. I may post here and there in the meantime, but I will post for you here within the next day-ish.

 

[baron]

Thought about this for a while; maybe it'll help, probably not, but here goes:

@ baron,

I've been confrontational with you in the past, just as with Argumemnon (so maybe I'm not neutral per se but have no dog in this fight), but as far as I'm concerned, you've demonstrated your point well and I've felt you've answered his questions several times, as you've said, in a clear manner with relevant cites.

So, whatever that's worth, it's how I've been reading this current exchange.

Why thank you good sir.

 

[baron]

But it doesn't answer the question. If I ask how come the earth rotates on its axis, you can actually answer in words, and just telling me that smart people know it works doesn't tell me how it works.

Just to spare the Norseman from too much digging, we've been over this several times. I say again, in the quantum world the mechanism for an event is rarely if ever truly known. That is no barrier from accepting that the event occurs, or that a principle holds true. It's sometimes referred to as 'hypotheses non fingo' if you want to look it up, first used by Newton to explain that understanding the cause of gravity was not necessary to accept empirical evidence of its existence. The term is far more applicable to quantum mechanics than macro processes as the causes of quantum processes are not only unknown, but often can never be known.

 

[Belz...]

Just to spare the Norseman from too much digging, we've been over this several times. I say again, in the quantum world the mechanism for an event is rarely if ever truly known. That is no barrier from accepting that the event occurs, or that a principle holds true. It's sometimes referred to as 'hypotheses non fingo' if you want to look it up, first used by Newton to explain that understanding the cause of gravity was not necessary to accept empirical evidence of its existence. The term is far more applicable to quantum mechanics than macro processes as the causes of quantum processes are not only unknown, but often can never be known.

I fully understand that, but then the answer to my questions should've been "I don't know".

 

[baron]

I fully understand that, but then the answer to my questions should've been "I don't know".

What, you mean if I'd repeated "Likewise, I don't know the equations" five times instead of four that would have been sufficient?

More importantly, if you really 'fully understand' what I just wrote you'll also understand that it's irrelevant whether I know the answer or whether anybody knows the answer.

 

[Myriad]

If mathematics (or some condition/process/circumstance that can be understood mathematically) is necessary to understand how the universe come about "from nothing," then the universe has not come about "from nothing." It's come about as a result of the necessary mathematics and/or the relevant condition/process/circumstance. Which although we might not understand it, cannot be nothing, if it can cause a universe to occur.

 

[baron]

If mathematics (or some condition/process/circumstance that can be understood mathematically) is necessary to understand how the universe come about "from nothing," then the universe has not come about "from nothing." It's come about as a result of the necessary mathematics and/or the relevant condition/process/circumstance. Which although we might not understand it, cannot be nothing, if it can cause a universe to occur.

The mechanism might well be unknowable, just as it's unknowable where a virtual particle will appear or when a radioactive particle will decay. That mathematics might describe the process, not the cause.

 

[Belz...]

What, you mean if I'd repeated "Likewise, I don't know the equations" five times instead of four that would have been sufficient?

See how you dishonestly alter what I said to fit your narrative? I said, "I don't know", not "I don't know the equations". Do you see a difference? Of course you do.

More importantly, if you really 'fully understand' what I just wrote you'll also understand that it's irrelevant whether I know the answer or whether anybody knows the answer.

Well gee, why do science at all?

 

[baron]

See how you dishonestly alter what I said to fit your narrative? I said, "I don't know", not "I don't know the equations". Do you see a difference? Of course you do.

I don't know... I don't know the equations... Er, same thing! What do you think I was saying I didn't know? The colour of underpants worn by Neil Armstrong for his first step on the Moon?

Well gee, why do science at all?

You'll never know.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know... I don't know the equations... Er, same thing! What do you think I was saying I didn't know?

How something can come from nothing. You know, the thing I've asked you for about a gazillion times? You can't possibly pretend to not know what I'm talking about.

You'll never know.

Based on your opaqueness so far, yeah.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Can you two just remind the rest of us who was on which side please?

Dave

 

[Myriad]

The mechanism might well be unknowable, just as it's unknowable where a virtual particle will appear or when a radioactive particle will decay. That mathematics might describe the process, not the cause.

Sure. But you didn't say "the nothing might well be unknowable." You said "the mechanism." A mechanism is something, not nothing.

 

[Beady]

Can you two just remind the rest of us who was on which side please?

Dave

Sounds like foreplay to me.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[baron]

Sure. But you didn't say "the nothing might well be unknowable." You said "the mechanism." A mechanism is something, not nothing.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

 

[baron]

How something can come from nothing. You know, the thing I've asked you for about a gazillion times? You can't possibly pretend to not know what I'm talking about.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0 and rule 12

 

[slipknot0129]

The universe came from nothing because it needed to.