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

[abu afak]

Insisting on a sceintific explanation for the presence of the universe is like insisting that an irrational number can be represented as the ratio of two integers. But was KNOW that no amount of time will help us, no amount of "lets wait and see" can help, it is impossible to represent an irrational number as a ratio and likewise it is impossible to invoke material laws and processes to explain the presence of those same laws and processes.

"Wait and see" NO.
Keep looking using science, Not falsely 'deducing' non-evidentiary supernatural explanations.
10,000 years, 10,000 gods. Hasn't worked yet.
Bye.

(enjoy your next 100 pages of empty speculation)
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Which is an authoritarian declaration.

No more so than the claim "no irrational number can be expressed as a ratio of integers" do you think if we try for long enough we might find one or do you think it is impossible and no amount of searching can ever help find one?

Okay. Maybe its true.

And maybe it isnt.

That's both the luxury and the downfall of such whimsical and evidence free ideas.

It is true - its a definitional proof, one cannot prove a proposition using only that proposition.

 

[BackAgain]

Relevant to you being your usual self and talking g about me instead of the topic.

No no. As you know but can’t be honest about, I have been trying to discuss the actual topic but got interrupted by some of your off topic banalities.

You're right, I should have summarily ignored this behavior by you.

You’re wrong and intentionally so.
What you’re actually whining and moaning about is simply that reasonable people don’t accept what you say, unchallenged.

Go have another good cry.

In the meanwhile, if you could bother to be honest for a moment, even you could admit that Hawkings equations are far beyond your skill set.

Moving on...

Good. Pack. Move. Don’t send any post card.

In the meanwhile, the thread topic remains:

The “god of the gaps” canard.

The simple truth remains that we don’t know and are unlikely to ever know. This doesn’t mean we should simply stop asking the questions. In fact, quite the opposite. We should continue to ask and try to answer the questions.

Let us imagine (as a hypothetical scenario) that there was absolutely nothing prior to the Big Bang. (Yes, this scenario does get partially predicated on accepting the Big Bang.).

No space. Not time. No matter whatsoever. No energy whatsoever.

Yet, today, we have time/space/matter/ energy. Assuming that all emerged via the Big Bang, the question becomes: “where did that original particle of whatever it was come from?”

If you go to an area of quantum probabilities, and you think that provides an answer, I say “maybe.” But it still begs the question. What caused whatever it was that permitted a quantum possibility like that to suddenly come into existence?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

"Wait and see" NO.
Keep looking using science, Not falsely 'deducing' supernatural explanations.
10,000 years, 10,000 gods. Hasn't worked yet.

Unfortunately you are clearly too dim to grasp that this is simply a belief you have, a belief that "using science" can answer every question about the world, in short you have embraced scientism and now there's little hope for you.

Bye.

(enjoy your next 100 pages of empty speculation)
`

Yes, best run along and leave the adults to discuss this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No more so than the claim "no irrational number can be expressed as a ratio of integers"

What a silly lie.

That can be shown true with a simple proof. It's literally just the definition of irrational numbers.

I think maybe I will cut you loose for a while. Correcting your bizarre, ad hoc falsehoods and misrepresentation of other posters in the science section can be someone else's full time job.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mno no. As you know but can’t be honest about, I have been trying to discuss the actual topic but hey interrupted by some of your off topic banalities.

Youre wrong and intentionally so.
what you’re actually whining and moaning about is simply that reasonable people don’t accept what you say unchallenged.

Go have another good cry.
In the meanwhile, if you could bother to be honest for a moment, even you could admit that Hawkings equations are far beyond your skill set.

Good. Pack. Move.

Don’t send any post card.

in the meanwhile, the thread topic remains:

The God of the gaps canard.

The simple truth remains that we don’t know and are unlikely to ever know. This doesn’t mean we should simply stop asking the questions. In fact, quite the opposite. We should continue to ask and try to answer the questions.

Let us imagine (as a hypothetical scenario) that there was absolutely nothing prior to the Big Bang. (Yes, this scenario does get partially predicated on accepting the Big Bang.).

No space. Not time. No matter whatsoever. No energy whatsoever.

Yet, today, we have time/space/matter/ energy. Assuming that all emerged via the Big Bang, the question becomes: “where did that original particle of whatever it was come from?”

If you go to an area of quantum probabilities, and you think that provides an answer, I say “maybe.” But it still begs the question. What caused whatever it was that permitted a quantum possibility like that to suddenly come into existence?

Neat!

I promise you, shouting at strangers on this board is not an actual challenge to
Hawking's work.

Good luck

 

[BackAgain]

'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." - YOU

Absurd on its face. New products completed today "exist" but clearly did not "ALWAYS EXIST."

________________________________--

I believe you’ve lost the thread.

I am disputing — not agreeing with — the contention that there is any actual logic in saying that because matter cannot be created or destroyed, yet we have matter, that it follows (as a “logical conclusion”) that it “must” have always existed.

 

[BackAgain]

Neat!

I promise you, shouting at strangers on this board is not an actual challenge to
Hawking's work.

Irrelevant since that is nothing I’m guilty of.

Good luck

Best of luck to you too, child.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What a silly lie.

That can be shown true with a simple proof. It's literally just the definition of irrational numbers.

Yes. Well now ask yourself "what's the definition of a scientific explanation" are you up to handling that question?

I think maybe I will cut you loose for a while. Correcting your bizarre, ad hoc falsehoods and misrepresentation of other posters in the science section can be someone else's full time job.

Come back whenever your ready, I'll be here.

Neat!

I promise you, shouting at strangers on this board is not an actual challenge to
Hawking's work.

But you have no idea what Hawking said, I asked you already and you started insulting me.

Good luck

 

[abu afak]

Listen kid. There is reason to seek out information from people who are “learned” in the field.

Maybe that’s why nobody ever comes to you.

Lying 100 post a day "Lib"-bashing troll.
My threads are THEE most cited/debated because they are the Pillars of the Gists of the most important topics of Science. (Incl THIS one!)
Half a MILLION Views of My threads on this page alone.

`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's always the "Trust me I'm a scientist" types that end up confused and rambling here.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Lying 100 post a day "Lib"-bashing troll.
My threads are THEE most cited/debated because they are the Pillars of the Gists of the most important topics of Science. (Incl his one!)
Half a Million Views on my threads on this page alone.

`

Your threads are rants, intended to fool people, feigning erudition. Most of your voluminous diatribes are just cut/paste from obscure pseudoscience websites. I've debated pseudoscience cranks many many times in my life, I've seen it all and sadly many a good science forum has been irreparably harmed by these kinds of offensive, poorly educated nutjobs.

 

[BackAgain]

Lying 100 post a day "Lib"-bashing troll.
My threads are THEE most cited/debated because they are the Pillars of the Gists of the most important topics of Science. (Incl THIS one!)
Half a MILLION Views of My threads on this page alone.

`

Apu dumfuk is far more delusional than it has even appeared until now.

The poor fuckstick can’t even spell the word “the” yet has delusions of adequacy.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Apu dumfuk is far more delusional than it has even appeared until now.

The poor fuckstick can’t even spell the word “the” yet has delusions of adequacy.

Note too, he habitually and inexplicably always posts a backtick ` at the end of his posts, I asked him why once but never got an answer.

 

[BackAgain]

Note too, he habitually and inexplicably always posts a backtick ` at the end of his posts, I asked him why once but never got an answer.

A few posting members do that. Habitually.

When i notice it, I often just end my replies with a few returns and a “;”

Just to mock them and their silly pretensions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is not the "Debate loser support group" section, guys.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hawking's idea:

Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe

Stephen Hawking Estate

 

[Grumblenuts]

insisting that an irrational number can be represented as the ratio of two integers.

One must also specify that the divisor can't be zero.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One must also specify that the divisor can't be zero.

And that pancakes are equal to infinity divided by dolphins.

Because it is gibberish.

 

[scruffy]

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

The answer comes from the science called "quantum thermodynamics", which views the information in terms of an OPEN system rather than a closed system.

There, the formula for entropy is

H = H(s) + H(b) + H(sb)

where s is the system, b is the "bath" (which could be the universe), and sb is the interaction between the system and the bath.

Quantum thermodynamics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To understand this, we have to look at the Lindblad master equations which once again reference an OPEN system.

Lindbladian - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The further rub is that any change to the bath entropy alters the dimensionality of the phase space, a situation which has since been addressed.