[Closed] Wonders of the Universe - Perspective

A theory is a hypothesis supported by evidence. No cop-out, just rational inference.

You can't ride a bike and have an instructional affair with Tony bloke in this one?

Thing is, our mathematical understanding of the universe can't consider what was there before it. Since time and space are inextricably linked (it's not just a physicist cop-out), asking what was there before the universe is a bit like asking whether the number 9 is happy.

Imagine an ice-age Briton walking South and West. One day he comes to Land's End - what next? That's it - nothing. Can't go any further*. That's the end of all there is.

* he's lived a sheltered life and knows nothing about coracles or swimming.

Maybe take some peyote and come back to it Elf?

Maybe you should lake some Acid and come back to it.

If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.

“To see a world in a grain of sand and heaven in a wild flower Hold infinity in the palms of your hand and eternity in an hour.”

I like Science, it's fun and it explains some stuff and that, but I think there are times when scientists often think themselves cleverer than they actually are, and close their minds off to other possible explanations for stuff.

I think it's very foolish to slavishly pursue just a limited range of investigation. There are big gaps what Science doesn't explain. Maybe simply because it can't? It is after all limited by Human intelligence, which, if you consider the incredible bigness of the universe and everything, is surely not really all that significant, in the greater scheme of things.

Hmmm. I think he'd probably identify water, just not know how to travel on it. Not the same thing.

Imagine an ice-age Briton walking South and West. One day he comes to Land's End - what next? That's it - nothing. Can't go any further*. That's the end of all there is.

Ah, but what is it that drives the man to build a boat and seek answers which lie beyond the limit of his current state?

I think there are times when scientists often think themselves cleverer than they actually are

Evidence? Given that science is always perfectly happy to be proved wrong, thereby enabling improvement of theory, I doubt that your claim is accurate.

If science can't explain something, all that means is that it can't be explained by science as it is now. That used to be the case for atoms, for example. I'm not sure your argument actually means very much.

Reads to me like you're trying to build back to your argument for god, which of course you don't believe in, but you like the people who do. Apparently.

As I understand it the inflationary thoery is pretty well borne out by current observations (if not experimentally).

The biggest evidence for inflation is the fact that space (not the stuff in it but "space" itself) is all the pretty much the same temperature - to within a thousanth of a degree - everywhere. If you point an intrument anywhere at the sky and measure the back ground temperature of space it is always the same.

The only way this could have happened is for the universe to have expanded rapidly after a tiny period of slow expansiion which allowed the tiny new universe to reach a uniform temperature.

I can recommend the books of Brian Greene for anyone who is interested in learning a bit more but doesn't have a degree in theoretical physics

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00yz3gy ]Last week's "In Our Time" on Radio 4[/url] had a good discussion on the age of the universe.

It differed from the Wonders of the Universe in that there were three "brains" having a debate and being more honest about the wooly bits.

Near the end one of the contributors points out that if "it" went bang once, and we don't know why it went bang, then what is to stop it going bang again?

Science is very near to explaining everything from a few fractions of a second after the the Big Bang to the end of time.

However it may be that we are just incapable of understanding what triggered the Big Bang, but I hope we never stop trying to understand it, as to do so would seem like a return to (in Western terms) the pre-enlightenment view of "I can't understand that, it must be down to a higher power" and that gets us nowhere!

but I think there are times when scientists often think themselves cleverer than they actually are

No, I think that people often THINK that scientists think they are clever than they are. It's an often trotted-out stereotype and not at all true. Anyone who's spent any time studying this stuff or any theoretical physics knows full well how little we know. Otherwise where would the fun be? We'd just be engineers.

Plus I think that many scientists are actually a lot cleverer than people give them credit for. Most are aware of the philosophical implications of what they study, and many have excellent imaginations too.

I think it's very foolish to slavishly pursue just a limited range of investigation

When you become a scientist, you choose a field. Then you work really hard at it and get deeper and deeper into it. So you become an expert in a very narrow area. You follow leads and things that turn up in your experiments and learn as you go. That takes up so much time there's only enough in one career to do a very small slice of 'science'.

You are not a 'scientist' looking for the answers to life, the universe and everything. You are say an astrophysicist trying to model the birth of stars and explain the distribution of stars masses vs temperatures (or whatever.. I know that's already been done a lot).

You COULD sit there and think about grand issues like why are we here, but that's not science, it's philosophy. Scientists want things they can measure and evaluate. And you wouldn't come up with much proof or evidence.

The best thing about science is that, in its purest form, it can explain things that are difficult to imagine or understand, or that we simply may not be able to prove in the material world. We may not like the answers, we may not be able to explain them simply, but based on everything we know at the time we can derive things that we believe [b]must[/b] be true. Then years later we may find that material science has advanced to a point where we can look for observable proof of what we believed to be true.

That's when the fun starts, as it's quite possible that what we believe we have measured does not correlate with what we thought we understood.

No glib reply from Fred yet. Clock's ticking...

He's writing out a big long one.

Here I am!

No long waffling reply. Don't need to really. We've done this argument countless times. I'm no more or less convinced than I was before.

Scientists want things they can measure and evaluate.

And if they can't measure or evaluate things, then they simply ignore them.

Youse stick to yer pure science as yer only way of explaining things if you want.

I'll keep a more open mind... 🙂

Youse stick to yer pure science as yer only way of explaining things if you want

Silly bugger.

Pure science is the only way of explaining science. That is what we are talking about. Philosophy isn't going to explain Science, neither is Science going to explain Philosophy.

You might as well say a telephone's not as good as a beard trimmer.

I have as open a mind as anyone else, but you appear to have closed yours on us!

And if they can't measure or evaluate things, then they simply ignore them

You can't DO SCIENCE on things that you can't measure and evaluate, and these people are SCIENTISTS so their job is DOING SCIENCE.

You are getting rather confused here.

apologies as i haven't read all the thread. does anyone else think that it's the universe itself that is the creator being/entity (this is what i believe) also professor stephenm hawking thinks that when one universe ends,another is created (i think he said it was something to do with where black holes go to?am not a physicist so have more than likely got it wrong)also there could possibly be infinite universes. could there be any possibility of that,or am i just being stupid?i really can believe in these possibilities.

Science is about having an open mind.

The wanderings, musings and imaginings of the open mind are then tested.

If you have a closed mind and have already decided on the outcome of your experiment, then you have failed as a scientist.

No one with a closed mind could conduct thought experiments about riding an a beam of light ....

does anyone else think that it's the universe itself that is the creator being/entity

No.

The rest of it's possible, but still a bunch of hypotheses.. Hypothesisses... Hypothesizers... stuff that isn't a theory yet.

Silly bugger.

No [i]you're[/i] the silly bugger for calling me a silly bugger but completely missing the point.

Science and Philosophy both have their place in Human society. Indeed, one compliments the other. You could say that Science seeks to explain [i]How[/i], and Philosophy seeks to explain [i]Why[/i].

I've got time for both. Where there are gaps in Scientific Explanation, I am free to enjoy trying to figure stuff out by myself. It's an enjoyable process. I'm not going to slavishly follow Science, as much as I'm not going to slavishly follow Religion. But I happen to think there are lots of good valid points and answers to be made by both schools of thought. Where for example Science can explain things Religion/Philosophy can't, or even discredit and disprove religious belief, then I'll go with that, as it's the best explanation and means of understanding that I have available to me.

Those who don't think we need to bother with 'Why', like yer Woppits and them, well, up to you. But don't go round thinking you've got it figured out better than me, cos that's just arrogant, narrow-minded and limiting. Don't tell me I'm not allowed to consider Why, just cos you can't get yer head round it, or refuse to believe in such a concept. Are your views more valid than mine? Are they bollocks. They're just your views, nothing more.

Anyway we all know I'm righterer than you so there.

[img] [/img]

So Fred, if scientists "just ignore things that they can't measure or evaluate" why are they trying so hard to measure the Higgs boson, or dark matter etc. They're all things that the current consensus says must exist but we can't find them at the moment - but does that stop them existing?

You can turn to philosophy or religion but they aint gonna tell you why the universe is the way it is. And nor am I cos I haven't spent the last 40 years studying it, but I'm still entitled to find it fascinating without being arrogant or narrow minded.

Those who don't think we need to bother with 'Why', like yer Woppits and them, well, up to you. But don't go round thinking you've got it figured out better than me

I've got it figured out better than you.

Don't tell me I'm not allowed to consider Why

Oh, O.K., then.

just cos you can't get yer head round it

You maintain there's a "why". - Evidence?

Mleh mleh mleh and so Fred resorts, as ever in the end, to rant and abuse. How familiar. I thought that was what I was supposed to do. 🙄

"yer Woppits and them"?

But what if there really is no why, other than the fact that we are here because we just are and that, as I think has been mentioned before and was certainly what our favourite ex-popstar was getting it, when you consider just how much time the Universe will exist vs. how little time it will support life, and that we choose to spend our nanoscopically small allocation of this briefest moment on pleasuring ourselves, arguing on the internet and coming up with bizarre and baseless fairy tales that normally involve asserting some kind of control over each other by making the other person feel bad about themselves, such notions of there being a 'why', even if it did exist, will surely be as unanswerable as 'how'.

Indeed, one compliments the other. You could say that Science seeks to explain How, and Philosophy seeks to explain Why.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/complement.html

Happy to help.

You maintain there's a "why". - Evidence?

There's the limit of your thinking; trying to apply scientific methods to a philosophical question...

I've got it figured out better than you.

You [i]think[/i] you have, Woppit, you think you have. That's all it is. Nothing more. If it makes you happy to think you have everything sussed better than others, then that's up to you. I don't have a problem with that. Ignorance is bliss, after all...

Reads to me like you're trying to build back to your argument for god, which of course you don't believe in, but you like the people who do. Apparently.

Then you obviously haven't readed stuff propply, have you? Bless... 😀

You can turn to philosophy or religion but they aint gonna tell you why the universe is the way it is.

Oh really? Explain please.

Get a balloon, and paint some spots on it. Then inflate the balloon and watch the distance between the spots increase.

I don't know what this means, but it's relaxing 🙂

Don't tell me I'm not allowed to consider Why, just cos you can't get yer head round it, or refuse to believe in such a concept.

I hear people with this attitude all the time. They just stop questioning the Why.
I find that astoundingly closed-minded. For me it is the most fascinating part of all.

I also like to keep in mind that everything we measure and observe about our universe is only, and can only be, from our own human perpective.
It is possibly a completely different universe than that "seen" by other life in the universe.

It's also possible that we are the only sentient intelligent life in the universe, which means there is only one perspective.

Get a balloon, and paint some spots on it...

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-the-universe-hollow

Elfinsafety - Member

Scientists want things they can measure and evaluate.

And if they can't measure or evaluate things, then they simply ignore them.

know many scientists do you?

😉

(there are scientists studying plenty of things that are tricky to measure / evaluate; a friend of mine is a clinical psychologist studying the maternal bond between mother and child in cases of drug addiction - deeply interesting stuff, very tricky to quantify anything, very important, and absolutely solid science. etc. and indeed, etc.)

know many scientists do you?

Yes.

Be quiet now please, footie's on. Thanks.

I'm not going to slavishly follow Science, as much as I'm not going to slavishly follow Religion

Me neither. But the thing is these two things are, as you quite rightly say, different. I don't see what the issue is here.

But I happen to think there are lots of good valid points and answers to be made by both schools of thought

So do I.

But don't go round thinking you've got it figured out better than me, cos that's just arrogant, narrow-minded and limiting. Don't tell me I'm not allowed to consider Why, just cos you can't get yer head round it, or refuse to believe in such a concept. Are your views more valid than mine? Are they bollocks. They're just your views, nothing more

I hope that's not aimed at me, because I certainly wasn't attempting to claim I've got it (whatever the hell 'it' is in this situation) figured out better than you.

Now, personally I don't think I could ever hope to figure out what our purpose is in life, because there simply isn't anything like enough data. So I will come up with ideas and do my own thinking about that, WHILST studying the mechanics and perhaps origins of the physical universe.

No conflict there, in my view.

Science does not seek to explain why on an abstract level we are here or what our purpose is. It only seeks to explain the processes of the natural world and its contents. Surely we can do this without being accused of being ignorant of anything more spiritual, can't we?

The issues regarding evolution and the creation of the world etc are wholly different. We have a boat load of evidence to support the gradual emergence of species and creation of the world we see today, and creationists are seeking to overturn that with DOCTRINE, which is not the same thing at all. There, the two ideas ARE at loggerheads, and one has much better evidence than the other.

My head hurts ... 🙄

There's the limit of your thinking; trying to apply scientific methods to a philosophical question

Thus illustrating the futility of "why" - the reality of any attempted definition cannot be evidenced and tested - Magic Unicorns, for instance.

You think you have, Woppit, you think you have. That's all it is. Nothing more. If it makes you happy to think you have everything sussed better than others, then that's up to you.

As do you. This is known as being "hoist by your own petard".

I don't think I have "everything sussed" better than others. I just understand the primacy of objective measurement better than you.

Then you obviously haven't readed stuff propply, have you? Bless.

No , but I have read it properly (if that's what you're trying to say), and that is exactly what it sounds like. You even backed it up with an entirely irrelevant religious image that suggests the universe consists of a 14th-century abbot's bad acid trip.

No "blessings" required, thankyou. You are in no position to attempt patronisation.

Good program 🙂

Yeah.

I just understand the primacy of objective measurement better than you

Not quite. The primacy or otherwise of objective measurement is itself a subjective thing, when it comes to matters like these.

In other words, each to his own. Ultimately there's no moral or philosophical basis to claim your beliefs are 'better' than someone else's since we all also have different evaluation criteria.

If you are happy with your understanding of the universe then by definition you have it figured out. End of. Competitive comparitive personal philosophy is thoroughly pointless 🙂

This is open minded:

Now, personally I don't think I could ever hope to figure out what our purpose is in life, because there simply isn't anything like enough data. So I will come up with ideas and do my own thinking about that, WHILST studying the mechanics and perhaps origins of the physical universe.

This isn't:

Thus illustrating the futility of "why" - the reality of any attempted definition cannot be evidenced and tested - Magic Unicorns, for instance.

You've already decided that the "why" is futile. Why?
Do you know it will always be unanswerable?

No, I don't know it will always be unanswerable. To demonstrate that it is answerable, all the proposer has to do, is present evidence.

So far, there is nothing but many different versions of "why", most of them religious. They all seem to contradict each other and are incapable of being proved, let alone disproved, and therein lies the weakness of the proposition.

As has been said elsewhere, without evidence, it's just noise.

I'm all for open-mindedness, but not so open that your brains fall out...

Something which, so far, clearly hasn't afflicted smiley Dr Brian Smiley Cox

Half Time.

🙄

I just understand the primacy of objective measurement better than you.

Yeah, course you do, Woppit, course you do. You know far, far better than anyone else, don't you? 🙄

Science does not seek to explain why on an abstract level we are here or what our purpose is.

Hence, therefore, the importance, in Human Society, for Philosophy. Maybe some of Religious 'belief' is somewhat naive, ill-informed and can be proven to be at odds with scientific proof. That doesn't necessarily mean all aspects of Religion should be discounted. Personally, I feel that Religion and Philosophy play as important a part in Society and the very development of Humanity as Science does. Indeed, it is Religion we have to thank for a great number of educational institutions, which has undoubtedly benefitted Science immensely. Would we be at this stage of Scientific Understanding if it weren't for Religion? I doubt it.

Science, as a means to understand our World, our Universe, has taken over as the main method of exploring how stuff works. and most of it is good. religion, in the traditional sense of most faiths, is flawed and out of date. It's overly rigid framework means much of it is not open to adjustment and change, which is where Science obviously has the advantage. But in terms of Social Organisation, Religion and Philosophy are massively important.

It's in our 'nature' to seek meaning. So, we should use the investigative tools we are gifted with. Science and Philosophy are equally important, in my opinion.

I'll choose to continue using a subtle blend of the two, to try and help me gain understanding. Keeps me happy, and doesn't make me less of a person for choosing to do so.

Woppit, if you had the courage to actually meet me in person, discuss things over a pint or two, then you might actually learn a bit about me, rather than judging something you have little understanding, experience and evidence of. 😉

Religious folk and the scientists of this field definitely have one thing in common. They can both devote their own lives to their beliefs knowing there have been 'better' people who have lived and died without having their beliefs confirmed.

I'm not 'skilled' enough to add to either camp so I'll have to be happy with observing, understanding how lucky I am to have this much information to hand and to live in a time and place where life is good enough to be able to ponder such issues rather than having to scour a dump for food.

One thing I will add - Imagination can sometimes be a bit of a hinderance to those seeking a concrete answer especially from the science field. Methods follow theory. Imagine going back to talk to your great grandad about dna.

I'm all for open-mindedness, but not so open that your brains fall out...

I'm not sure you can be too open-minded. It is just the state of being open to new ideas, not the state of believing everything and anything.

I am open to the idea that even though evidence hasn't been presented yet, it may well be presented in the future.

Go on, let a bit of uncertainty into your life.

As has been said elsewhere, without evidence, it's just noise.

In the same way that Mozart or Led Zepplin are noise.

Would we be at this stage of Scientific Understanding if it weren't for Religion?

I think we'd be a lot further down the line to be honest. For a lot of its history religion has been about suppressing independent thought and enforcing, through torture and violence if necessary, their view.

There have been a few notable exceptions though, like mediaeval Islam, but that got shut down too after a while.

Interesting, Mol, but many of the World's foremost academic institutions were founded by religious organisations who valued learning as something that could bring you closer to God, and had the economic power to invest in schools, colleges and universities. Indeed, the UK's first university, St Andrews, was founded by a Papal charter. In fact, I'd challenge you to find a leading uni, certainly here in the UK, that [i]wasn't[/i] founded with any religious links.

Without the foundation of such institutions, Science would surely have not had anywhere near such good support. So I'd argue the opposite, actually.