Alright, dude. Let's get this straight. The scientific method, although we are very familiar with it, is not perfect. Part of the scientific method is making new discoveries; in reality, we probably only know abut .1% about everything that goes on in the universe at this point in time. New discoveries bring about revelations of old discoveries. Yes, as far as we know, the Big Bang started it all. There was a burst of energy and a cooling period.. which is still going on today. However, our knowledge about our surrounding universe is very limited. To act like you know everything about is is foolish. To act like there are no more discoveries to be made is even more foolish. Nothing is proven. We have an abundance of theories, as we do people, on this planet. Some theories are accepted, most are rejected. These theories (like the one you stated about the laws of physics) will be accepted until yet another discovery is made, tearing down all the barriers of the last theory we once thought to be true. That is the scientific method for ya. There's no chance in hell you were around before OR at the time of the Big Bang.. so you really wouldn't know whether the laws of physics were the cause of it or merely just a product of. People once accepted the theory that the world was flat, but we know better than that now. I said that we both have the same chance as far our theories being correct.. but you have to think. The chance of you being right is the same chance that we know everything about our universe and that there are no more discoveries left to be made. The chance of me being right is the same chance that there are still many discoveries to be made and that we do not know everything about our universe. I guess the point that I'm trying to get across is that: 1. Nobody knows everything. 2. Huge discoveries are just waiting to be made. 3. Claiming that your theory is right and everybody else's is wrong is the same mistake religion has made. You can have your beliefs, but no matter how strong they may be, there is always going to be the chance that you're wrong. In this case, you believe that the discoveries stop where they are presently at. I, however, choose to believe that we have much to learn. We both have a chance of being right.. do you deny that?
Your contradicting yourself. Because like you said it evolves so at no point will we ever be able to depict natural phenomenon. Because..it's always changing!
I'm not exactly sure what your definition of the scientific method is. For me it's the method used to make sure what we have found is true. It's simply a method of testing, not a way to discover anything. Discoveries are made by some person dreaming up an idea and then using this method to test whether it's true or not and if it can always be repeated by anyone, anywhere (under the same conditions). It's simply a tool to be applied to something we have made up. So yes, it's methodology, if applied correctly is "perfect", that's the point of it. To give you the same result every time when applied to the same problem with the same conditions. The amount we know about everything is a moot point, we build on what we know not what we don't. But sure if you wanna say .1% then fine but it's an arbitrary number choice that has little meaning, like saying "We don't know what we don't know." Never said we know everything, nor tryed to act like it but we do know what we know now to be true. Nothing discovered from now on will change that, only make it easier to understand. Again, if a new theory is found it BUILDS on the ones we have now. Trigonometry builds off of algebra and geometry it doesn't change the way they work or are applied. The same goes with every new theory we find, it tells us when we can use the rule's we've had for a long time and what the new rules are for the next level up are. (levels being things like geometry and algebra go into trig which goes into calculus, we keep applying the rules from the lower levels to the higher levels and then get new things from them). At best a new discovery changes the way we apply a rule but it doesn't make the result any different just gives us a clearer/deeper understanding of the rule. No no one was around but using what we know we can see that as we approach the big bang in reverse the various laws we know how all start to combine into one theory that describes the early moments of the big bang. Hence the "theory of everything" would be able to describe the start of the big bang and anything before it. The whole point of the theories are to be able to explain what happened when we weren't there. We can assume they are correct about those events because they also describe current things that are going on and make predictions about those things also. I.E. if it can predict what's going to happen at event A now and then that does happen we can reasonably assume that the predictions it makes about what happened back then are also true. You can play the game of saying we will never know 100% sure but then again you can't really ever be sure you even exist so there's no real use in playing that game. Not sure where you got the idea that I think we have figured it all out. I will say that WHATEVER we find in the future has to match with what we know now. The idea that the world was flat wasn't based on any science whatsoever so not sure how that applies now. That time was a transition from a theory based only on idea's to one based on provable, repeatable experiments. We also use to believe that there were 4 core elements to everything, again it was just an idea not based on anything other than what the people saw around them and before people used the scientific method. yes i deny ever saying that we are at a point where the discoveries stop. I think you should reread what I've written. Yes everyone has a chance at being right, even the religious person that says we are all going to hell because we don't do what they think is correct religiously. The odds are what are important, odds are I am correct in that people on both sides of religion and science will try and blur the line so that people can't tell the difference when they should really be separate things because one should have no impact on the other. If your faith is based on science then your religion IS science, if it's based on some idea of a religion then it's religious. This is not to say that if you have faith IN science to find things out that it is also your religion. You can believe something to be valid without it being religious.
A more detailed understanding isn't a contradiction. Even Newtonian physics works on a lot of modern physics.
So how do you know the laws of physics were a product of the Big Bang, instead of the cause of it? Isn't that merely speculation? You say you don't know everything.. but then you go ahead and say that you're right like there's no chance that you're wrong. Isn't science all about revision of theories? I might think something today, but that doesn't mean that my views won't change as more information is presented to me over the years. I keep an open mind. Anything is possible (especially if we're talking about the universe.) But dude, for real, I don't even think we're arguing about the same thing anymore. You've gotten way off subject.. you keep trying to convince me that your theories are right, but all I'm trying to get at is that we both have an equal chance of being right. I say that and then you try and jump down my throat again with your thoughts. I mean, shit, I'll listen to what you have to say, but you don't have to get offended if I don't wholeheartedly agree with you. And what was that last part about religion? Don't even bring up religion in an argument with me, man. I'm a realist, not Peter Pan.
Revising theories is part of science... clearly... but let us not lose sight of the real reason.. the true motivation behind science... blowing stuff up!!! When Newton was occassioned by the fall of an apple, his first thought wasn't about gravity... He was thinking, I'd like to blow up that apple... -Loki
No it's not speculation at all. I know because we know how the laws we have now "should" combine into one that explains the Big Bang. We aren't just bumbling our way around through this, nature gives us clues as to where we should look to next for the next step. One set of rules combine down and become simple and that becomes the base for the next set of rules. Then those combine together to become the new base for some other set, and so on. That is the thing with math and why it is so powerful, you can look at the numbers in a particular way and they can tell you about what something should do or be like at a particular point that you can't yet see or deal with. Then we create some theory that would explain the numbers and then we test that theory with the orginal set of numbers to see if it really does predict the outcome. Yes there is speculation in things like string theory but those are also at the fore front of our knowledge and they are still just our "best guess" at what it is. The Big Bang isn't, we know exactly what we should get as a result from the correct equations. The laws of physics don't account for the conditions at the big bang so how can they come before it? If something can't describe it how can it create it? Maybe I'm coming off strongly but it's because your perception of what the laws of physics describe are incorrect and yes I get bothered when people try and attribute things to something it doesn't apply to at all. To try and describe what your saying, It's like saying that the laws for the city of New York today created the laws that the 13 colonies had in the beginning. Sure there is some way that could be true but the odds are that it's not. You can't get to the laws New York has now without first having the laws of the 13 colonies. Does that make sense? Basically one can't precede the other because they are from the first, not independent of it. I think because I'm talking about the current laws we know of and your talking about them as if they are opinion. A law doesn't get made until we KNOW it is a law (the definition being repeatable and always with the same result), a view of something can change because you haven't taken every possible situation into account (nor is it useful to do that). Yes I get annoyed with people when they are misusing something and then trying to use it to prove their own idea (hello the whole idea of this thread). No your idea is not correct because it's based on something that is false (that the law of physics came before the Big Bang rather than after). If you take offense to me saying that then sorry but yea, your 100% wrong and your idea only has a small chance of being correct just because quantum physics says there is at least a small % chance that ANY solution is correct. the last part was in responce to: Metaphysics is like a philosophy class, neat to think about but not actually useful for anything other than killing time. If your a realist then go look up how our current laws actually work rather than misusing them, like the whole point of this thread is against.
Well see, this is where our thinking become different. You believe there was nothing before this universe, and I believe there was. Therefore, our definitions of the "laws of physics" will be slightly different, too. My definition of the term includes the laws that we have yet to discover, not just the ones that have already been set. My definition includes the law describing the amount of energy needed in order for a "big bang" to happen, even though at this point it's merely hypothetical. So really, all we can do is agree that every person is entitled to their own beliefs and leave it at that.
or we could both see that that's not what i said at all... but sure I'll try and stop telling you where your incorrect at.
He still doesn't get the difference. Think of the laws of physics as a color, our universe is red, another universe might be blue... Both have "laws of physics", a color, but they are expressed differently. The universe doesn't create the color, but it defines what color it is... -Loki
Thunderstruck, what you said is that the laws of physics came from the Big Bang. That lead me to believe that you didn't think there was anything that came before the Big Bang, for if there truly was something before the Big Bang, the Big Bang would have been just another phenomenon in an even bigger universe. This means that the laws of physics that came after the Big Bang would apply to the even bigger universe that was around before it. That is why my argument is the laws of physics caused the Big Bang, and that they were NOT a product of it. Understand where I'm coming from now? You said, "that's not what you said at all," but if you believe that the laws of physics were created by the Big Bang, then that is EXACTLY what you were saying. Let me know when you want me to stop telling you where you're incorrect. In the meantime, why don't you go ahead and listen to some of my music? The links in my sig.
I do get what yall are trying to say and my whole point is that the "law of everything" would cover all the different colors. You can never find what the other color's would be without first finding the "law of everything" because it would all just be guesses (you've have no way to prove what you know is correct or not, this is why a lot of people don't like string theory). Well ok you could make guesses at what the other "color's" would be but there's no real point because there are an infinite number of guesses you could make and no way to prove or disprove any of them because there is no relation to it to our own universe. If you can't prove or disprove a theory then it's of no real value to science. Another way I can put it is think of the Theory of Everything as Gauss's Law and our universe is an infinite plane while another universe would be a sphere. The only difference between the two is that you substitute in the geometry for whatever shape your using into Gauss's law and it simplify's down into something. In the case of the universes you would substitute in the set of conditions that make up each Big Bang and then get out the set of rules that would be the laws of physics. (sorry but all my classes have been using that theory so it's stuck in my head) it goes like this: Theory of everything describes the universe pre-Big Bang AND up until a particular point after the Big Band where the universe cooled down enough for the current laws of the 4 various forces we know of to "form" (eletro-magnetic, gravity, strong and weak). THEN those laws "take over" (take over in this case means it is "easier" to describe objects in that universe using those laws rather than the theory of everything.) So yes you are correct in saying that the "laws of physics wouldn't apply to the other universes" but they aren't meant to because they are a product of the initial conditions of the Big Bang "plugged into" the "Theory of Everything." Theory of Everything + Conditions of the Big Bang = Laws of Physics in this universe. the laws of physics of the other universes would simply be a different set of conditions that made that particular Big Bang. Your simply talking about the "theory of everything" but in a way as if we know absolutely nothing about it. We know very little but we do know some boundaries/conditions that it must meet and thus it isn't some arbitrary thing but something we can put a frame around (or at least say during event X it must produce result Y). Do you get what I'm saying now? As for your music, you ever listen to a guy named Ronald Jenkees? He has some youtube vid's up. But yea, i can dig it. Like hearing stuff that people make themselves. Of course the nerd in me always thinks about what music would look like if you converted it into a direction (as in degrees of a circle) and then played the whole song. (it would look kind of like the needle of a speedometer in your car but rotating counterclockwise and depending on how many notes at once your playing). I love the idea that if you were smart enough and knew music and math well enough by heart you could give someone directions to anywhere on earth by just music alone.
Besides the creation of myths deny evolution, DNA, and cosmology? Not all the god of the gaps in point: when people thought that the facts of the rain, threw the flash made to grow crops ... Now we all know this is absurd, the explanation is real and natural for them. You could go through the claims of a holy book, one at a time, and prove that their assumptions about what God has actually explain natural phenomena.
the 'scientific method' and what people consider to be 'science' are different I consider 'science' referring to the practices and beliefs of modern day science to basically be a religion I do not consider the scientific method a religion - it is simply a process however I also do not consider results of the scientific method 'objective' which is what seemingly people attempt to achieve from such method
Math has never been my strong point. That's the first time I've heard that part in bold.. Sounds interesting, though. I'll have to google that shit later on.
for the most part, that statement is the truth. a biased truth, but heeded by many that share the notion that empirical evidence is truth and not faith,ignorance or second hand information "the wise man questions the wisdom of others because he questions his own.. the foolish man, because it is different from his own."