RE: beginning of The Universe theories
August 10, 2013 at 1:08 am
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2013 at 1:10 am by Whateverist.)
Sorry to leave you hanging. I quit coming back to this thread when it became clear that the OP wasn't coming back. Just another shit-and-run bible-belter it would seem.
I completely agree with you that to make broad sweeping statements about there being no space and no time before the big bang is extremely loose scientific speculation and many have been guilty. Frankly I don't know that we will ever find a way to peer beyond the singularity event of which we are a part. It may be unique and final and involve everything coming from nothing, but I find that highly unlikely. I assume that there are preconditions for a singularity event and that there have been and will be more than one. That, of course, is not a scientific theory. It is pure speculation on a par with, but no better than, that of those who believe in everything from nothing but only once.
Agreed. Leastwise if it represents a sincere effort to fit the best available data that wasn't obvious and in fact the tone was flippant, so probably not. Hypothesis at best, non sequitur more likely.
Now, no more sulking!
(August 7, 2013 at 8:38 pm)Terr Wrote: The Big Bang theory simply describes an expanding, cooling universe. As has been demonstrated to be the case.
It sayes NOTHING about what what caused it, or the state before (if there was one). Without evidence this would be utterly un-scientific. However there are a number of competeing hypotheses, time and evidence will tell.
I completely agree with you that to make broad sweeping statements about there being no space and no time before the big bang is extremely loose scientific speculation and many have been guilty. Frankly I don't know that we will ever find a way to peer beyond the singularity event of which we are a part. It may be unique and final and involve everything coming from nothing, but I find that highly unlikely. I assume that there are preconditions for a singularity event and that there have been and will be more than one. That, of course, is not a scientific theory. It is pure speculation on a par with, but no better than, that of those who believe in everything from nothing but only once.
(August 7, 2013 at 9:36 pm)Terr Wrote:(August 7, 2013 at 9:01 pm)ManMachine Wrote: I think you've understated the 'unscientific' argument. Karl Popper spent a large part of his academic life trying to establish demarcation.
I wouldn't like to mislead the OP. The only generally accepted requirement for scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. Even that has problems, I could put forward the theory that the spots on the Sun indicate it will explode in a thousand years, it's falsifiable in principle but not by you or anyone else alive today.
MM
Fair comment, but without some observational evidence my view is that you are would be presenting a hypotheses, not a fully fledged theory.
Agreed. Leastwise if it represents a sincere effort to fit the best available data that wasn't obvious and in fact the tone was flippant, so probably not. Hypothesis at best, non sequitur more likely.
Now, no more sulking!
