God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[BackAgain]

That's the rigged game.

Everything had a cause! Except for my favorite god character.

Everything had a beginning! Except for my favorite God character.

What an evasion.

If it wasn’t a Creator who made the original Big Bang particle, then where the fuck did that thing come from?

Did it create itself out of nothing? How’s that work according to the laws of science?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it wasn’t a Creator who made the original Big Bang particle, then where the fuck did that thing come from?

I have no idea! I only have suggestions.

Or we could just throw up our hands and say it was a magical creator man and think we answered it.

 

[BackAgain]

I have no idea! I only have suggestions.

Or we could just throw up our hands and say it was a magical creator man and think we answered it.

What you’re doing is tossing up your hands and saying that the very first act of all things was itself a violation of the laws of nature.

I get that you don’t understand it, but your argument (such as it is) constitutes an appeal to the super-natural.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What you’re doing is tossing up your hands and saying that the very first act of all things was itself a violation of the laws of nature.

I neither stated nor implied that.

That's your claim. Go ahead and make it and argue it. In your own words.

This is the big boy section of the board.


And, go.

 

[BackAgain]

I neither stated nor implied that.

Yeah. It is.

Your petty quibble had been that people simply had to make up a God to explain the unexplained. But if there were no God Creator, then the only remaining explanation is that everything came into existence without any causation.

This however violates the laws of nature. So your sole remaining alternative to God is nonetheless an appeal to the supernatural. So, go change your panties. Put on your big boy underoos and a nice pair of big boy pants.

Defend your position.

You’re on the clock. Go.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But if there were no God Creator, then the only remaining explanation is that everything came into existence without any causation.

False.

It might just have always been.

And proposing a magical creator man without its own causation doesn't exactly solve the problem.

Anything else?

 

[BackAgain]

False.

It might just have always been.

Then where did it come from?

Please share the scientific law that allows for the existence of anything without it having some first come into existence.

And proposing a magical creator man without its own causation doesn't exactly solve the problem.

Neither does an appeal to science that simultaneously denies the laws of science.

Anything else?

Do you have anything at all?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

False.

It might just have always been.

That is not a scientific explanation though, it is the absence of one. All scientific explanations are reductionist, any "explanation" that is not is not a scientific explanation at all. The point is then that you are prepared to accept non-scientific answers so what's your actual problem with what BackAgain said?

And proposing a magical creator man without its own causation doesn't exactly solve the problem.

It changes the problem, explanations always do that, they remove some problems yet replace them with others. EVERY theory in physics does that. So why complain about an explanation just because it throws up new unknowns?

Anything else?

Looks like you're getting a much deserved dressing down, and lets be honest this isn't the first time you've stumbled like this. If you keep posting pseudoscience you'll keep getting pulled over for it, after all this is the Science and Technology area or didn't you notice?

Ask the mods to create a Pseudoscience area for you, there's quite a lot of stuff said here by devotees of scientism that should be moved over to that area, help get the real science area cleaned up.

 

[scruffy]

I'll tell you the same thing I just told the creationists.

In quantum mechanics there are two things: possibilities and probabilities.

The "wave function" attaches a probability to every possibility. A measurement actualizes one of the possibilities, turns it into information

Brains are exactly like this too. The moment "now" is like a continuous measurement, it turns possibilities into information.

 

[Grumblenuts]

All scientific explanations are reductionist

"No, not all scientific explanations are reductionist"

 

[Grumblenuts]

Please share the scientific law that allows for the existence of anything without it having some first come into existence.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be converted from one form to another. It's also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy.

"It might just have always been."
In fact, since it can't ("cannot") be created according to "the first law," it must have always been.

You're welcome.

 

[BackAgain]

"It might just have always been."
In fact, since it can't ("cannot") be created according to "the first law," it must have always been.

You're welcome.

That’s not an answer. It’s a ridiculous conclusion.

Just a trite way to try to avoid the question.

I do understand the “logic”.”

If stuff like matter and energy can be neither created no destroyed, then for it to exist it must have always existed. It exists. Therefore it must have always existed.

But … no hint of an answer for where it came from supposedly.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then where did it come from?

If it has always been? It didn't come from anywhere. That's like asking what is north of the north pole.

If not? Not sure.

That is not a scientific explanation though, it is the absence of one.

False, of course. That is a scientific explanation. In fact, we have more than one. We just don't know which, if any of them, is correct. That's a lack of knowledge, not a lack of plausible explanations.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That’s not an answer. It’s a ridiculous conclusion.

That's not a rebuttal. It's a characterization. And it's not compelling to reasonable people or to scientists.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I do understand the “logic”.”

If stuff like matter and energy can be neither created no destroyed, then for it to exist it must have always existed. It exists. Therefore it must have always existed.

There ya go.

But … no hint of an answer for where it came from supposedly

If it has always been? It didn't come from anywhere.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

stuff like matter and energy can be neither created no destroyed, then for it to exist it must have always existed.

Maybe not. Our universe may have net zero energy.

If It has net zero energy and it had a beginning from nothing, Conservation was not violated.

 

[BackAgain]

Maybe not. Our universe may have net zero energy.

If It has net zero energy and it had a beginning from nothing, Conservation was not violated.

Come again? “If it had a beginning from nothing.”

Kinda just begs the question

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Come again? “If it had a beginning from nothing.”

Kinda just begs the question

It only attempts to answer the question if whether our universe arising violates conservation of energy.

 

[scruffy]

It only attempts to answer the question if whether our universe arising violates conservation of energy.

No. The fundamental disconnect is this:

Information theory and QM tell us there is "conservation of information".

But the Second Law of thermodynamics tells us "entropy always increases".

They can't both be true.

There is a mistake in the logic, of transitioning from single elements to the ensemble.

The mistake is viewing information in terms of order.

They're not the same thing. And I think I can prove it. Order is a "form of" information, a subset. But it's a mistake to generalize it.

Information has to do with partitioning, not with the number of available orders. "In some cases" there is a relationship, but not always.

The mistake has to do with separability, and you can see it easily in a directed acyclic graph.

In fact this is covered by Reichenbach's causal logic, which is corrected and treated formally by von Neumann algebras.

Reichenbach’s Common Cause Principle (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

 

[Grumblenuts]

No. The fundamental disconnect is this:

Information theory and QM tell us there is "conservation of information".

But the Second Law of thermodynamics tells us "entropy always increases".

They can't both be true.

There is a mistake in the logic, of transitioning from single elements to the ensemble.

The mistake is viewing information in terms of order.

They're not the same thing. And I think I can prove it. Order is a "form of" information, a subset. But it's a mistake to generalize it.

Information has to do with partitioning, not with the number of available orders. "In some cases" there is a relationship, but not always.

The mistake has to do with separability, and you can see it easily in a directed acyclic graph.

In fact this is covered by Reichenbach's causal logic, which is corrected and treated formally by von Neumann algebras.

Reichenbach’s Common Cause Principle (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Does not entirely compute, but thanks in any case. Fascinating stuff.