Where did everything come from?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 hours ago, Weezer said:

Isn't it interesting how we can't get away from arguing over who is right, and who is wrong? 

 

But I guess that's one of the side effects of growing up in a religion that teaches you will go to Hell if you don't get it exactly right.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

But I guess that's one of the side effects of growing up in a religion that teaches you will go to Hell if you don't get it exactly right.

Yes.  I was taught that master debating would get me sent to hell.  

[florduh]

Where did everything come from?

 

Amazon. Duh.

 

And now for something completely different... Some would say there aren't any "things" at all! Once you go Zen you can never go back 

 

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  I was taught that master debating would get me sent to hell.  

Yeah, me too. But despite this I joined the debating team

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

Where did everything come from?

 

Amazon. Duh.

 

And now for something completely different... Some would say there aren't any "things" at all! Once you go Zen you can never go back 

 

 

Some philosophies are interesting, but way out there.

[florduh]

7 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Some philosophies are interesting, but way out there.

"Way out there" relative to where you happen to be at the moment. Remember Christianity? 

[pantheory]

24 minutes ago, florduh said:

"Way out there" relative to where you happen to be at the moment. Remember Christianity? 

Unfortunately for my late mothers' wishes, I remember Christianity as a joke like Greek mythology.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  I was taught that master debating would get me sent to hell.  

And make hair grow on the palm of your hand.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 hours ago, Weezer said:

And make hair grow on the palm of your hand.

Did you ever go blind?

[walterpthefirst]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Did you ever go blind?

 

Who said that?

[alreadyGone]

Is it possible that we as humans are yet too limited to understand the question?

 

If we only believe we may have some notion of what "all of it" actually is, then understanding "where it all came from" and "how it all began" may be irrelevant in ways we can't imagine.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

15 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

Is it possible that we as humans are yet too limited to understand the question?

 

If we only believe we may have some notion of what "all of it" actually is, then understanding "where it all came from" and "how it all began" may be irrelevant in ways we can't imagine.

 

Ditto!

[◊ Weezer ◊]

16 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Did you ever go blind?

No, but fell for the hair in hand joke when I was 9 years old.

[Joshpantera]

 

[pantheory]

Josh,

 

Although I really like your link above, the mainstream version of BB cosmology no longer starts with a singularity, although many still believe it does. Although there are still many links out there of a beginning singularity. Present theory now asserts the BB simply started as a hot dense energy Inflation and no longer tries to explain the very beginning, or a beginning point. This is because such a beginning theory could never be tested or proved -- therefore it's not science but simply speculation. That's  one of the points of this thread -- the point being that cosmology no longer tries to theorize or explain the very beginning because such an explanation could not have been conceived via the scientific method. Nearly all here knows that God did not do it, but present-day mainstream cosmology no longer tries to explain the answer to the question: where did it all come from in the very beginning?

 

https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe

[walterpthefirst]

I agree with Pantheory that the currently accepted theory of the hot Big Bang cannot describe the very beginning.  That is a given.  However, this does not mean that the Big Bang theory itself does not stand on solid ground.

 

The essential point to understand here is that almost all of cosmology, astronomy and astrophysics is based upon the twin principles of assumption and inference. Because we cannot go to distant stars or galaxies to study them directly, we are obliged to assume that the laws of nature that we observe here on Earth hold good everywhere else in the universe.  And that they held good from the very beginning and will hold good in the distant future.

 

Then, based upon this assumption we employ logical inference to build models about how distant stars and galaxies should behave.  If we observe this behaviour, this then gives us confidence that our inferences and assumptions are correct. So, things that cannot be directly observed can still be inferred to exist by the traces and clues at hand.  This is really no different from the forensic science used to catch criminals who have long departed the scene of a crime.

 

A classic example being the presence of a supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way.  This object has never been directly observed, but from the motion of the stars orbiting it we have been able to calculate its size and mass.  This is forensic astrophysics at work.

 

Forensic cosmology functions in much the same way.  Using assumption and inference we deduce that phenomenon we can no longer observe must have been at work in the very early universe.  They leave traces and clues imprinted on the parts of the universe that we can observe.  Using models we have been able to predict what these traces should look like before they were discovered.  A good example being the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.  The match between the predicted curve and the line of data points would need to be magnified 400 times to see any deviation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Cmbr.svg

 

This is really no different from predicting that the suspect in a crime left their DNA at the scene and duly finding traces of it after a diligent search.  Findings such as these should give us confidence that, even though the Big Bang theory can say nothing about the very beginning, what it does tell us about the early universe is based upon solid evidence.

 

Finally, about the scientific method.  If we abandon the twin principles of assumption and inference, because they do not qualify as being part of the scientific method, then we can say nothing about the universe as a whole.  Any and all theories about it's origins or how it works must also be abandoned.

 

Including Pantheory’s own, alternative theory.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

15 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I agree with Pantheory that the currently accepted theory of the hot Big Bang cannot describe the very beginning.  That is a given.  However, this does not mean that the Big Bang theory itself does not stand on solid ground.

 

The essential point to understand here is that almost all of cosmology, astronomy and astrophysics is based upon the twin principles of assumption and inference. Because we cannot go to distant stars or galaxies to study them directly, we are obliged to assume that the laws of nature that we observe here on Earth hold good everywhere else in the universe.  And that they held good from the very beginning and will hold good in the distant future.

 

Then, based upon this assumption we employ logical inference to build models about how distant stars and galaxies should behave.  If we observe this behaviour, this then gives us confidence that our inferences and assumptions are correct. So, things that cannot be directly observed can still be inferred to exist by the traces and clues at hand.  This is really no different from the forensic science used to catch criminals who have long departed the scene of a crime.

 

A classic example being the presence of a supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way.  This object has never been directly observed, but from the motion of the stars orbiting it we have been able to calculate its size and mass.  This is forensic astrophysics at work.

 

Forensic cosmology functions in much the same way.  Using assumption and inference we deduce that phenomenon we can no longer observe must have been at work in the very early universe.  They leave traces and clues imprinted on the parts of the universe that we can observe.  Using models we have been able to predict what these traces should look like before they were discovered.  A good example being the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.  The match between the predicted curve and the line of data points would need to be magnified 400 times to see any deviation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Cmbr.svg

 

This is really no different from predicting that the suspect in a crime left their DNA at the scene and duly finding traces of it after a diligent search.  Findings such as these should give us confidence that, even though the Big Bang theory can say nothing about the very beginning, what it does tell us about the early universe is based upon solid evidence.

 

Finally, about the scientific method.  If we abandon the twin principles of assumption and inference, because they do qualify as being part of the scientific method, then we can say nothing about the universe as a whole.  Any and all theories about it's origins or how it works must also be abandoned.

 

Including Pantheory’s own, alternative theory.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

15 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I agree with Pantheory that the currently accepted theory of the hot Big Bang cannot describe the very beginning.  That is a given.  However, this does not mean that the Big Bang theory itself does not stand on solid ground.

 

The essential point to understand here is that almost all of cosmology, astronomy and astrophysics is based upon the twin principles of assumption and inference. Because we cannot go to distant stars or galaxies to study them directly, we are obliged to assume that the laws of nature that we observe here on Earth hold good everywhere else in the universe.  And that they held good from the very beginning and will hold good in the distant future.

 

Then, based upon this assumption we employ logical inference to build models about how distant stars and galaxies should behave.  If we observe this behaviour, this then gives us confidence that our inferences and assumptions are correct. So, things that cannot be directly observed can still be inferred to exist by the traces and clues at hand.  This is really no different from the forensic science used to catch criminals who have long departed the scene of a crime.

 

A classic example being the presence of a supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way.  This object has never been directly observed, but from the motion of the stars orbiting it we have been able to calculate its size and mass.  This is forensic astrophysics at work.

 

Forensic cosmology functions in much the same way.  Using assumption and inference we deduce that phenomenon we can no longer observe must have been at work in the very early universe.  They leave traces and clues imprinted on the parts of the universe that we can observe.  Using models we have been able to predict what these traces should look like before they were discovered.  A good example being the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.  The match between the predicted curve and the line of data points would need to be magnified 400 times to see any deviation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Cmbr.svg

 

This is really no different from predicting that the suspect in a crime left their DNA at the scene and duly finding traces of it after a diligent search.  Findings such as these should give us confidence that, even though the Big Bang theory can say nothing about the very beginning, what it does tell us about the early universe is based upon solid evidence.

 

Finally, about the scientific method.  If we abandon the twin principles of assumption and inference, because they do qualify as being part of the scientific method, then we can say nothing about the universe as a whole.  Any and all theories about it's origins or how it works must also be abandoned.

 

Including Pantheory’s own, alternative theory.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

My own theories require no apriori assumptions or inferences for their existence. But that would be for another thread concerning the differences between the use of the scientific method within the same field of science, or from one science to another. There no longer is a consensus version of the scientific method for many sciences.

 

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

 

https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/7/9469845/different-meanings-from-same-data-research-science

 

[walterpthefirst]

Pantheory,

 

Please create another thread about the use of a priori assumptions in science.

 

It's my current understanding that the likes of Newton, Einstein, Hawking and other notables all made use of a priori assumptions in their work.

 

So I would be fascinated to learn how you do not need to do what they did.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Pantheory,

 

Please create another thread about the use of a priori assumptions in science.

 

It's my current understanding that the likes of Newton, Einstein, Hawking and other notables all made use of a priori assumptions in their work.

 

So I would be fascinated to learn how you do not need to do what they did.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

".........Please create another thread about the use of a priori assumptions in science."

Yes, I will do that because you said please, but I'm not really sure that I am really better at creating a new thread than you are
 

[Joshpantera]

On 2/1/2022 at 6:27 AM, walterpthefirst said:

The essential point to understand here is that almost all of cosmology, astronomy and astrophysics is based upon the twin principles of assumption and inference. Because we cannot go to distant stars or galaxies to study them directly, we are obliged to assume that the laws of nature that we observe here on Earth hold good everywhere else in the universe.  And that they held good from the very beginning and will hold good in the distant future.

 

This is a point that BAA used to drive home all the time. And we do need to rehash old topics every now and then so that people who are unaware of the content have the opportunity to confront it.

 

And consider how these topics and issues tend to play out.

 

On 2/1/2022 at 6:27 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Then, based upon this assumption we employ logical inference to build models about how distant stars and galaxies should behave.  If we observe this behaviour, this then gives us confidence that our inferences and assumptions are correct. So, things that cannot be directly observed can still be inferred to exist by the traces and clues at hand.  This is really no different from the forensic science used to catch criminals who have long departed the scene of a crime.

 

All true enough. 

 

On 2/1/2022 at 6:27 AM, walterpthefirst said:

This is really no different from predicting that the suspect in a crime left their DNA at the scene and duly finding traces of it after a diligent search.  Findings such as these should give us confidence that, even though the Big Bang theory can say nothing about the very beginning, what it does tell us about the early universe is based upon solid evidence.

 

Finally, about the scientific method.  If we abandon the twin principles of assumption and inference, because they do qualify as being part of the scientific method, then we can say nothing about the universe as a whole.  Any and all theories about it's origins or how it works must also be abandoned.

 

Including Pantheory’s own, alternative theory.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

This hasn't become untrue at any point so far as I read along. 

 

On 2/1/2022 at 9:20 PM, pantheory said:

My own theories require no apriori assumptions or inferences for their existence. But that would be for another thread concerning the differences between the use of the scientific method within the same field of science, or from one science to another. There no longer is a consensus version of the scientific method for many sciences.

 

You have to "assume" that existence is already taking place at the very "beginning" of your model, don't you? 

 

Something, already existing, then gets modeled out to our current time and place, correct? 

 

If so, then you've missed the entire point of the video I posted when you said this: 

 

On 2/1/2022 at 12:32 AM, pantheory said:

Josh,

 

Although I really like your link above, the mainstream version of BB cosmology no longer starts with a singularity, although many still believe it does. Although there are still many links out there of a beginning singularity. Present theory now asserts the BB simply started as a hot dense energy Inflation and no longer tries to explain the very beginning, or a beginning point.

 

The point of the video is trying to explain how science DOESN'T think that everything came from nothing. He says, "the source material has to be eternal."

 

Either coming through a white hole to create a BB or anything else even remotely similar. The point is that models change. But the deeper issue remains regardless of how people try and model it. You never get something from absolutely nothing. This is the very point of AronRa against the christian apologist. Creation ex nihilo is a something from nothing proposition. Science doesn't offer the same. 

 

That's a glaring reason WHY current BBT modeling leaves it alone. It has to.

 

It has to start with the 'assumption' of an already existing 'source' out of which the scientific model (any which model you chose) can then pick up on and try and explain reality. 

 

On 2/2/2022 at 1:52 PM, pantheory said:

".........Please create another thread about the use of a priori assumptions in science."

Yes, I will do that because you said please, but I'm not really sure that I am really better at creating a new thread than you are

 

Do we push the issue further here or on another thread? 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

22 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is a point that BAA used to drive home all the time. And we do need to rehash old topics every now and then so that people who are unaware of the content have the opportunity to confront it.

 

And consider how these topics and issues tend to play out.

All true enough.

 

This hasn't become untrue at any point so far as I read along. 

 

You have to "assume" that existence is already taking place at the very "beginning" of your model, don't you? 

 

Something, already existing, then gets modeled out to our current time and place, correct? 

 

If so, then you've missed the entire point of the video I posted when you said this: 

 

 

The point of the video is trying to explain how science DOESN'T think that everything came from nothing. He says, "the source material has to be eternal."

 

Either coming through a white hole to create a BB or anything else even remotely similar. The point is that models change. But the deeper issue remains regardless of how people try and model it. You never get something from absolutely nothing. This is the very point of AronRa against the christian apologist. Creation ex nihilo is a something from nothing proposition. Science doesn't offer the same. 

 

That's a glaring reason WHY current BBT modeling leaves it alone. It has to.

 

It has to start with the 'assumption' of an already existing 'source' out of which the scientific model (any which model you chose) can then pick up on and try and explain reality. 

 

Do we push the issue further here or on another thread? 

 

 

I started this thread for the purpose of explaining that science has, or eventually will have all the answers to the beginnings of things. Most all of us also know that religion cannot explain any answers as to the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life. But presently science cannot explain the beginning of life,or the Big Bang model which would be the  beginning of the universe. So my purpose for this thread was for readers to believe nothing of science either unless it makes sense to them. I suggested that to be an agnostic concerning theories that don't make sense to them, and not to take that word of any experts of science -- unless what he says makes sense to the listener or reader.

 

I started another thread at walterpthefirst's request in this same forum. Here is the link:

 

 

In the topic above is where we should discuss mainstream theories and my own theories of cosmology or other theory.  We talked about the fact that most theories of science require assumptions and inferences to form and justify a theory in the first place. I stated that my own theories do not require such assumptions or inferences for theory formation.

 

In theory formation, assumptions can help justify part of a theory which does not otherwise have a solid foundation. These assumptions are generally ideas that could also have alternative explanations such as the energy of the universe coming before the matter of the universe. There are 26 such assumptions concerning the Big Bang model (BB) as explained in the link below.

 

http://living-universe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/26-Big-Bang-Assumptions.pdf

 

Aspects of a theory that are assumed are either given or not as a preamble to the theory. Some of these assumptions may or may not be needed for general explanations. Such assumptions could be that the laws of physics apply the same everywhere in the universe. As to the BB theory, for instance, the original assertion of the beginning of the BB as a singularity, was not an assumption. It was a postulate accepted by nearly all theorists at that time, based upon a possible mathematical limit going backward in time to gravitation theory.

 

quote Jogh:

 

"You have to "assume" that existence is already taking place at the very "beginning" of your model, don't you?"

 

In the same way the beginning to my own theory is a postulate based upon logical deductive reasoning asserting that something does not come from nothing. That is the deductive logical foundation of the very beginning of my own cosmology theory, the Pan Theory.

 

"The point of the video is trying to explain how science DOESN'T think that everything came from nothing. He says, "the source material has to be eternal.""

 

In my own theory this is not the case. Although everything is very simple,  the source material was not eternal, and something did not come from nothing.

 

I can explain it in the other thread above since a separate thread was started concerning theory assumptions and inferences in general, link shown above.

 

talk to you there Josh.

 

with best regards

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@pantheory, please stop using the term "theory" to describe your own personal ideas and hypotheses.  A "theory," as the term applies in science, is an explanation of a natural occurrence which has enough supporting evidence and data that it can reliably be accepted as being as factual as possible, as in the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution. 

 

If your ideas have received, and withstood, peer review, then you are free to call them "tested hypotheses", or even "supported conclusions."  If they have been peer reviewed multiple times by multiple laboratories, spanning multiple disciplines, you might even get by with calling them "models." 

 

Until then, they are nothing more than your own personal ideas and you should have both the personal and professional integrity to call them such.

 

Thank you,

John

[pantheory]

15 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@pantheory, please stop using the term "theory" to describe your own personal ideas and hypotheses.  A "theory," as the term applies in science, is an explanation of a natural occurrence which has enough supporting evidence and data that it can reliably be accepted as being as factual as possible, as in the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution. 

 

If your ideas have received, and withstood, peer review, then you are free to call them "tested hypotheses", or even "supported conclusions."  If they have been peer reviewed multiple times by multiple laboratories, spanning multiple disciplines, you might even get by with calling them "models." 

 

Until then, they are nothing more than your own personal ideas and you should have both the personal and professional integrity to call them such.

 

Thank you,

John

 

Thanks John. I know the name theory has been loosely used by layman forever but I've been a scientist for many decades and believe I am careful how I use the word "theory."

 

What I call theory are far more than personal opinions or just hypothesis. They have been peer reviewed, published in mainstream journals.  tested by many decades of observations, and some have been coauthored by a number of other theorists.

 

The related papers also have been recognized by Google Scholar since 2014 The first related hypothesis was written in 1957, copyrighted and later published. They have been online since 2002, and in print since the 1980's.

 

https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-do-we-mean-theory-science

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&hl=en

 

Google Scholar, Forrest Noble

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Forrest-Noble

 

https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/story/news/2021/02/09/dark-matter-probably-does-not-exist-was-a-major-conclusion-of-an-extensive-research-study-finished-in-2020/115753624/

 

https://www.send2press.com/wire/profile/pantheory-research-organization/

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

On 1/28/2022 at 9:30 AM, midniterider said:

Master debaters in need of an opponent...and a topic. 

 

I see what you did there. Very clever. Ha ha haaa... or is it haha? 

[walterpthefirst]

I'm sorry Pantheory, but I'm not making much progress with your links.

 

As far as I can see the Herald Press and Send2media aren't science organizations which use peer-review.  They appear to be news and media outlets.

 

The Researchgate won't let me in, so I can't verify if they use peer-review or not.

 

The Field Museum link discusses what is meant the theory and I can't see where your work is peer-reviewed in the article.

 

The two Pantheory links come from yourself, which, of course, doesn't help.  Peer-review is not self-promotion.

 

Finally, your Google Scholar doesn't seem to say where the Google organization performs peer-review on papers submitted to them.

 

So, could you please rectify that and provide a link that shows that Google do perform peer-reviews?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.