Holmes

Just now, swansont said:

So you would not let these other people compete? That hardly seems fair.

No I would not, and I don't know how "fair" could be defined in the context of this question. 

It seems to me that women in a women's category can never benefit from the inclusion of men who have transitioned, but the men who have transitioned are more likely to benefit, more likely than if there was a MtF category.

Therefore on this (admittedly informal) analysis, it is not equitable.

Just now, swansont said:

These are the only two options currently before us. Men’s sports and women’s sports.

Well these categories are defined on a long established traditional division based on XX or XY chromosomes.

Men and Women have entered sports and competed on that understanding, it doesn't strike me as fair to now permit exceptions that could disadvantage Women.

Just now, swansont said:

Once you acknowledge that this is an artificial dichotomy, the wheels come off many of the arguments. 

I don't know what you mean by "artificial", can you explain?

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Because there are few FtM olympic level competitors in, say, soccer.

So how many are there?

Just now, zapatos said:

If you create a division in olympic competition that only includes individuals who are FtM, you may find you have no competitors.

Why?

1 minute ago, swansont said:

And what of people who don’t fall into these two categories?

Then such people are not male or female.

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Are you that naive or are you trying to make some sort of point?

It was answer to your odd question: What is fair about having someone compete against possibly no one?

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What is fair about having someone compete against possibly no one?

They'll never lose?

23 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Sorry, I was being a bit flippant.

Just had coffee with a friend and, mentioning this subject to him,  he has fixed assumptions about gender; one is born with it and your genitals tell you what you are. He is not scientifically-minded in anyway.

What about males have XY chromosomes and females have XX?

If I have XY chromosomes does it matter if I insist I have XX?

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

The answer to me is fairly straightforward, for the established measures there are already parameters in place, so in your mind it is clear. For the second measures are being discussed and since they are not clear (yet) you assume it is different quality.

Yet, as OP ascertains that transgender athletes have, objectively, a different quality in performance, it would simply mean that one need to establish thresholds to distinguish those features. If they do not exist, then obviously the distinction was meaningless. If they exist, it becomes a measure of identifying usable thresholds. That is one standard approach you use in science, when you want to categorize based on continuous variables. There is likely some assumption in your mind that makes you hard to see that.

For example, in sports where speed is the key parameter, athlete speed/acceleration/time can be measured. Then, if an athlete reaches a certain threshold (or several) and perhaps adding consistency to the mix, you can define when someone gets entry to the open league.

In others, one might decide to measure muscle properties/densities and so on. By making these measures gender neutral, in categories where women are likely to underperform compared to men, they are also more likely not to pass the threshold without having an outright, and arbitrary ban.

After all, the assertion was that somehow the distinction between women and transgender women is objective. If that is so, I want to see measures to support that and then we can use those measures to define new categories. Again, it does not seem as arbitrary by separating certain weight groups by, say 8 pounds, others by 15 (or keep the highest open ended). And likewise it encourages cutting and other measures to keep weight at weigh-ins and how folks bounce between the different weight classes. 

I mean, the obvious reason why this is so hard for some folks to get behind might be because they have a strong idea about gender or sex in mind, and consider that an objective measure and anything potentially breaking might be seen as less objective. But again, science (not politics) have moved away from that, using measures, not assumptions.

Why not do the rather obvious and honest thing?

Introduce two additional categories: MtF and FtM can anything be fairer than that?

Perhaps that won't work, perhaps we'll eventually see more categories like MtFtM or FtMtFtMtF...

2 hours ago, MigL said:

There are unanswered questions ( paradoxes even ) in Physics today.
Physics if far from done, and we have barely scratched the surface of the Physics of the universe. Arrogant people ( even scientists ) thought Physics was 'complete' over 100 years ago, then, Quantum Mechanics forced a new paradigm on the scientific community, and we realized how little we actually knew.

When, and only when, we know ALL of the Physics of the universe, and there may still be unanswered questions, will I consider explanations that are 'beyond' science.

But that's just me.

I want to try to clarify why I use the term "supernatural" and why phrases like "beyond science" arise in these discussions, I tried to establish this earlier in a few posts.

Supernatural literally means events that cannot be due to what we regard as natural. We regard natural as that which can - in principle at least - be explained or understood scientifically, perhaps with laws and mathematics, experiments, testing and so on.

So in this regard, are there things that even in principle cannot be understood scientifically? because if there are then very obviously the term supernatural is not an improper or invalid term to use.

17 minutes ago, exchemist said:

To return briefly to the other points you raised, yes, I'm quite happy with the idea that theories involve reasoning from assumptions that are based on generalisations from observation.

I still maintain that axioms is the wrong word for them, as these things are based on observation, and subject to being abandoned if later observations show something different. They are purely empirical. 

I also fully agree that there are questions science can't answer, for want of suitable observations to test any hypothesis, the origin of the universe being one of them. Whether this will always be so, I am not sure. There does seem to be a fundamental difficulty in finding an explanation for the all of the order ("laws") in nature - though some "laws" turn out to be derived from others.

Very well lets use "premises" instead of "axioms"?

Quote

Where I think you go off the tracks is in suggesting that we must have an explanation for the origin of the universe, even though science cannot provide one (First Cause and all that).    

I would not write it that way myself, I would say that if there is an explanation we have no right to insist that the only explanations we can entertain are scientific ones.

I say this reasons akin (in an informal sense at least) to Godel's incompleteness theorem(s).

In a nutshell I mean by this that there are truths about the universe that cannot be understood by recourse only to that universe.

Examples are the origin of laws and material, another is why the universe appears to be ordered at all in the first place, why is it comprehensible why not incessant chaos?

These questions came up very naturally as I was studying GR and read the Meaning of Relativity by Einstein.

Why do these relationships exist? might there actually be a unified field theory one day? if so what could explain the existence of that theory? would we get to a point where we have no more question?

These are entirely legitimate questions about reality and it is a mistake to insist, to demand that the only true answers are scientific ones.

I'm done here with this thread now, there is no more to be learned from one another, perhaps a future thread may arise but until then I'm finished in this thread, I stated my case and others can do with that what they want.

It's been stimulating!

55 minutes ago, joigus said:

Also, I tried to remind Holmes how their comments on L. Krauss are nothing short of a slur: "Krauss of all people?" "his shenanigans", and I quoted.

Holmes is a bit enigmatic to me. I don't know where they're going. They've played a wildcard, and then dropped it, and then taken it again with a different value... I would like to know why.

There's only one of me.

Quote

I'm kinda curious how one who's tasted the elixir of science can part ways with it and embrace the word that stands for anything.

mess-posted with @iNow

As for Krauss, he is not a participant in the thread and because of that distinction I have no qualms about discussing him, the person. Science is as much about people, celebrities' these days and their views as it is about facts, figures and theories.

Krauss has elected to be in the public eye and enjoy the material rewards that that can bring and is a source of personal slurs and attacks himself, so please, spare me the tears.

6 hours ago, joigus said:

Inspired by one of @beecee's previous posts:

Here's a very interesting piece of interview in which Sagan explains my "semantic" point very eloquently, I think:

I'll let Sagan do the talking and take a break from the conversation.

I may have mentioned that I used to be an atheist, I was from the earliest I can remember. I was raised to discover and find things out for myself, my mother bought me books and encyclopedias for that reason. During the 1970s and early 1980s I was immersed in science both in my own personal study of physics and later electronics and by the TV and radio.

Carl Sagan was a person I am very familiar with, I watched "Cosmos" when it first aired as I did "The ascent of man" and "Burke's Connection" and "Tomorrow's World" and the entire Apollo moon landings and the fascinating BBC "Horizon" all of these and more were eagerly absorbed at every opportunity.

I was (and still am) a huge fan of science fiction both hard and soft, including Asimov and Clark and EE. Smith to name just three, but also TV like Star Trek and Dr.Who.

I built my own telescope, had a microscope, built radios and other gadgets, had my own workshop that I built myself from junk and scraps at the age of 16.

So I am very very familiar with Sagan and his views, I shared those views once.

I watched the clip but was drawn to two things in particular, the first is that he chose not to answer "is there a purpose" and objected because "God" is ambiguous.

If I was sitting and talking about this subject with Sagan myself I'd be pressing him on these two areas.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I accept no blame on that bc the aspersions cast were also themselves fallacious and misdirected.

I’ll give Holmes the benefit of the doubt here and assume it was a sincere issue of inaccurate reading comprehension, but I did not engage in any ad hom attacks in order to further my position in this thread. That claim was and continues to be absolutely baseless. 

This a perfect example of why I will no longer be discussing this subject with you, condescension is your preferred tool when you are on the back foot, rigor and honesty are of little value to you, is this very post an ad-hominem? yes I suppose it is but this is why such language is frowned upon by mature debaters, it always, always, always leads to a breakdown of the discussion, I will not be responding to any more of your posts in this thread, I said this already then gave you another opportunity which you did not value or learn from, so now you can post all you wish, it is beneath me to waste my time with someone who seems to have no interest in the subject other than his ego.

Let me leave you with this, an example of a discussion between two opposing positions without the slightest hint of condescension, insults, ad-hominem, at no point does Russell introduce terms like "fiction" or "unicorns" or "mashed potato" or "reading comprehension", he could have done I'm sure, but he had no need, no base ego to satisfy.

You do not know what you do not know and you do not know how to respectfully discuss anything with anyone, perhaps, just perhaps you can put your ego to one side and learn from this, the ball's in your court.

23 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I completely fail to understand how my post above leads to your reply

 

 

Where did I say that one must eschew either Logic or Mathematics in Science ?

Where did I say that proof do not exist in Logic ?

You are simply drawing the wrong conclusions from what I did say.

The conclusions to be drawn are that there are matters in each of Science, Logic, and Mathematics, that are not in one or both of the other two.

And, following convention proof is one of these matters.

A very easy way to understand this is to draw yourself a standard three circle Venn diagram. one circle representing the content of each discipline.
Such a diagram will not show complete overlap.

 

Such a topic is one of those ideal candidates for another thread, indeed we have had such here in the past.

Well your reaction stems it seems from my introduction of an analogy, the analogy that we can know there is no point in continuing to seek an example of two integers who's ratio is π .

So let me ask you, do you know that we can never find such a pair of integers or do you regard it as a possibility given enough time to conduct a search? this is not so much a mathematics question as it is a logic question.

Having an answer from you will help us move forward.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

I missed that.

We have several different perfectly good mathematical proofs that it is irrational, bearing in mind the full and complete definition of a rational number.

Proof is the in the realm of mathematics and logic, not Science.

Of course proof in those instances is clearly defined and means something different from the corresponding idea in Science, validation, which is why we have different words for them.

But we must adopt logic if we are to reason are we not? can you imagine a scientific argument that is not logical?

So I must disagree, claiming that scientific arguments need not be logical sounds like a rather extreme step to me.

So proofs do exist in logic and if some claim about the natural world can be expressed in logical terms of premises and deductions then that claim must be subject to logic and the rules of logic.

So sweeping statements like "Proof is the in the realm of mathematics and logic, not Science" are IMHO misleading. Physics adopts and leverages mathematics and the proofs in mathematics must therefore hold if the science is to be logical, rational.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

And the means are substantial. eg: GR and quantum mechanics.

So you'll explain material phenomena in terms of material phenomena? that's the paradox and it cannot be resolved scientifically just as we cannot prove that π is rational number no matter how long one cares to try for.

Quote

Not really. It simply stems from the point you are making that something beyond science and the scientific methodology maybe responsible. eg; god/or whatever.

No it is a strawman, I'm disappointed at the regularity with which I have to point this out here. 

Quote

Probably because it is a strawman?

No I don't think it is, we are discussing physics and laws and mathematics, the nature of mathematical proofs and an example of a mathematical proof is entirely within the scope of this discussion. If we cannot discuss mathematics then we cannot discuss physics.

Quote

Hmm, is that so. I'had thought you did, but anyway, I'm too lazy to go back checking through your rhetoric. I'll take your word for it at this time.

Reaffirming things simply reaffirms the science and scientific method. Nice to see you agree though.

This is imo and Krauss' opinion, where science and philosophy converge and is at the core of Krauss' critique of philosophers. And I certainly do not dismiss Professor Carroll.  

Very well so why - scientifically - are there laws of physics? why is there a "quantum foam"? why is there "instability"?

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Unless you’re intentionally misreading me, then this suggests likely challenges with reading comprehension. 
 

I do not think that word means what you think it means. The assertion about that being an ad hom is about as valid as when you claimed this was your thread. 

Your refusal to respectfully refrain from strawman arguments and ad-hominem personal references as the bedrock of your replies has reached the stage where I have no desire to discuss this with you any further.

15 hours ago, MigL said:

You guys have spent pages aruing about each other's discussion styles, rather than addressing the question.

Thank you, I suspect this is not entirely accidental either.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

And I see your argument as flawed as it steps outside the scientific method.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X

Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo:

Abstract:

Questions regarding the formation of the Universe and ‘what was there’ before it came to existence have been of great interest to mankind at all times. Several suggestions have been presented during the ages – mostly assuming a preliminary state prior to creation. Nevertheless, theories that require initial conditions are not considered complete, since they lack an explanation of what created such conditions. We therefore propose the ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN) theory, aimed at describing the origin of the Universe from ‘nothing’ in information terms. The suggested framework does not require amendments to the laws of physics: but rather provides a new scenario to the Universe initiation process, and from that point merges with state-of-the-art cosmological models. The paper is aimed at providing a first step towards a more complete model of the Universe creation – proving that creation Ex Nihilo is feasible. Further adjustments, elaborations, formalisms and experiments are required to formulate and support the theory.

 

Discussion and future work:

This paper presents a model for the Universe creation ‘Ex Nihilo.’ The proposed theory's main advantage is that it does not require any explanations of the physics prior to the Universe creation. This stream of research can also provide an explanation to several unexplained phenomena, such as the second law of thermodynamics, the existence of virtual particles in vacuum, the source of symmetry in the Universe, the evolution of matter and anti-matter, and non-local influences in quantum mechanics.

The paper provides a first step towards a more complete model of the Universe creation – proving that creation Ex Nihilo is feasible. Further adjustments, elaborations, formalisms and experiments are required to formulate and support the theory. Two of such elaborations include: (1) formulating the mathematics of the dynamicity laws in the Universe platform; and (2) modeling specific mechanisms responsible for the evolvement of observed phenomena in the Universe, and in particular life itself. Such future research could demonstrate how complex and unpredictable phenomena can be generated from a small set of rules, and how it is possible to simulate dynamic life and other computational processes from a small amount of initial information. Possible directions for such future research may be based on the discovery of information structures that maintain ‘life’ properties such as ‘survival,’ ‘growth,’ and ‘duplication’ during changes in the Universe; or representing the evolvement of information in the Universe either as an extended case of a cellular automaton, or as an artificial neuron network.

 

This is more like it, a more honest approach to grappling with this problem.

First let us note that this paper argues against the very thing many here have been arguing for (all emphasis is mine)

Quote

Nevertheless, theories that require initial conditions are not considered complete, since they lack an explanation of what created such conditions. 

Moving on, I read the paper and noticed this which seems be a rejection of Krauss's "from nothing" thesis:

Quote

His (Vlenkin, not Krauss) proposed scenario interacts gravitational and matter fields, and a symmetric vacuum state that has a nonzero energy density. Therefore, the initial state does not, in fact, represent an absolute, pure, ‘nothing.’ 

reading further

Quote

Following this line of thought, the Universe is a fluctuation of the vacuum in the sense of the quantum field theory. Therefore, the initial state is not property-less, and it requires an explanation of how fluctuations can evolve from ‘nothingness.’ 

Before proceeding its worth examining the accepted definition of Creatio Ex Nihilo:

Quote

Creatio ex nihilo (Latin for "creation out of nothing") refers to the belief that matter is not eternal but had to be created by some divine creative act, frequently defined as God.

The paper's recourse to "information" as the fundamental means by which physics came to exist is noteworthy, at least the author's seem to recognize the futility of arguing in purely material terms.

However they seem to have missed something pretty basic here, note:

Quote

The co-existence of opposite nullifying elements derives a matching necessity within the compendium of simultaneous NIEs. 

They must presume something exists, explaining non-existence as being composed of things that do exist amounts to invalidating the initial assumption that such an agglomeration is in fact "nothing'.

Further:

Quote

Assuming an infinite amount of NIEs 

Moving to the closing remarks I saw this:

Quote

The proposed theory's main advantage is that it does not require any explanations of the physics prior to the Universe creation. 

Which I cannot see myself, after all equating information with energy (which the authors' do) means - by implication - that the "information" that conceptually drove the "creation" must be regarded as an aspect of physics of science.

Ultimately the paper is scientifically unsatisfactory for several reasons, one is it directly states that "nothing" has a structure, a composition which amounts to a contradiction and thus falls victim to the very same criticisms they mention at the start with respect to other explanations.

The other is the dubious treatment of "information", perhaps if they simply referred to this initial cause as "god" they might have saved a lot of typing.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sure I have heard of Sean Carroll, and I see him as reputable...he also says this....

"Theoretical physicist Sean M. Carroll, writing in The Wall Street Journal, described the book as speculative but ambitious: "The important lesson of The Grand Design is not so much the particular theory being advocated but the sense that science may be able to answer the deep 'Why?' questions that are part of fundamental human curiosity." 

Professor Lawrence Krauss also predictably drew the ire of many philosophers and their supporters in his critique of them. I also see much of that ire as more sour grapes and believe Krauss made a good point. 

How very interesting, I was berated in this thread only yesterday for asking "why" there are laws of physics, I was told that "science doesn't deal with why" and here we have a reputable physicist pointing out how science seeks to answer "deep 'why' question" shall we dismiss Carroll completely for making such a fundamental error?

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

It is far far far more sensible to scientifically speculate then to step outside the realms of science and use fairy tails or myth as an argument.

I completely agree.

Quote

All scientific theories and models start off as speculative. And the instability of the "quantum foam" is certainly within reasonable speculative range, while we do not as yet have a complete picture of quantum mechanics. And again, it is far far more likely that quantum foam possibly may be the real "nothingness" that we generally infer as nothingness.

The name you use for the speculative material is unimportant, what's central here is the means at our disposal to scientifically explain its origin.

It seems you want it both ways, you want nothing to have no properties so that you can call it nothing yet you also want it to have properties so that you can them show how things with properties came to exist.

Quote

Far more simplistic then some complicated entity sitting up in a cloud. I wonder what he/she/it did in the eternity that existed before the BB.

Is this a thinly disguised attempt at a strawman argument?

Quote

My argument, as opposed to yours, is that while science does not yet know everything, it is progressing day by day, and possibly one day be able to explain the big questions.

I asked earlier (and nobody ventured a reply) do you think we might "one day" find a proof that π is a rational number? surely we should just keep looking? 

Quote

The other point worth emphasizing is that strangely enough, you seem to see the fact that while scientific theories are always open for review/addition/modification/invalidation as a disadvantage or hindrance, it is in reality what makes science in general superior to everything else and why the scientific methodology will always prevail.

I did not ever suggest that "review/addition/modification/invalidation" was a "disadvantage" or "hindrance" you are in error to claim I made such a suggestion.

Quote

The more observational data we have, the better and more complete and more certain our theories become..eg: SR/GR, the BB are overwhelmingly supported, up to the theory of evolution which has become established fact.

Reaffirming things that are largely not contentious and that I largely do not disagree with does not seem to be much a rebuttal to what I did say.

Do you even recall what my argument is? have you read what I actually wrote?

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's not, though, since iNow specifically said his references were "functionally equivalent". He made no attempt to argue against those references. You're free to argue that they aren't equivalent, but not that he's using fallacious logic.

It is a strawman argument because it does not attack the premises or reasoning of my case but of other cases, attack my argument not the arguments of others not arguments that I did not present.

Quote

Again, it's not an ad-hom to make the claim that opinions and personal feelings might influence your judgement wrt your assertions.

That's not correct, a counter argument that relies on my personal traits is an ad-hominem argument.

Quote

It's a fact. It's no judgement of your character as a human. It also doesn't suggest anything about your motives, only one of the pressures that may influence you.

Of course it refers to my motives, it said "they perhaps make you feel better psychologically" the motive for my argument is therefore to make myself feel better, even if that were true it does not serve to invalidate my argument, it is irrelevant.

Consider what I said about identifying a flaw in a mathematical paper, it would be unacceptable to claim an analysis was flawed on the basis of some trait or motive presumably possessed by the writer.

You would not say "You selected that integral because it perhaps makes you feel better" but one might say "That function cannot be used in that integration rule because of the imaginary exponent here" and so on.

An argument is flawed if and only if either the reasoning is flawed or one or or more premises are wrong do you disagree with this?

Quote

Now this is a strawman. Only your feelings (and the context they were in) were mentioned, the rest is a man of straw you knocked down as irrelevant.

Yes you're correct, your criticism is accepted.

Quote

This is a false equivalence fallacy. 

Your style is more argumentative than conversational, a style I would employ if I wanted to win a debate by any means rather than learning from others in discussion.

My "style" (which is subjective anyway and could simply reflect your own biases) is irrelevant, stick to the premises and reasoning.

Perhaps this may help, this is not something normally covered in science or mathematics degrees but is core in logic and philosophy, one needs to have a sound grasp of this if one is to engage in rigorous reasoning:

2 hours ago, studiot said:

So you agree with the result everyone else has been saying is that the original argument proves nothing about God whatsoever.

I am of the opinion that the original argument or one or more of its premises are wrong.

56 minutes ago, joigus said:

I think the question can be approached on a number of levels. For starters, quantum mechanics makes time a very special parameter. You need a distinguished time that goes hand in hand with a so-called Hamiltonian of the system (the energy operator). This Hamiltonian is also the mathematical operation that embodies time translation for the system.

GR, on the contrary, has no special time. There is no preferred coordinate system in GR. If you have no special time, you have no special Hamiltonian, which means you have no special time-updating law for the state. So right from the start, the symmetries of GR don't bode well with the special needs of QM.

This difficulty though, can be overcome AFAIK. One formalism that does it is the so-called Ashtekar variables, that allow you to include all the constraints of GR into a significant set of variables that are amenable to quantization. And they give you a Hamiltonian. But a lot of preliminary work is needed to get there. In any case, as @studiot suggests, the conceptual bases are quite different.

Then there is the question of the perturbative structure of the theory, as @MigL pointed out. The theory is non-linear, has more field variables, and the loop calculations become intractable pretty soon. This, in and of itself, would not be catastrophic, as Yang-Mills fields (in the non-Abelian case, which is strong nuclear force) are also self-interacting and have a richer field-variable structure. But YM fields are far better-behaved than gravitation at short-distance (large-momenta) scales. The theory is free at short distances (large momenta), while gravity is just the opposite. Gravity, also, has no polarity and is thermodynamically exceptional.

This bad large-momentum behaviour connects with what today is considered the ultimate reason why gravity is so unwieldy to a quantum treatment: the dimensions of the gravitational coupling constant. It is dimensionful (and badly so), as opposed to the dimensionless character of QED, QCD, and EW coupling constants.

Renormalization crudely consists in decreeing a maximum momentum Λ  for every scale that we wish to study, and then prove that the observables inferred from the quantum scattering amplitudes can be expanded as a sum of two parts, one that remains under control (finite), plus a logarithmically divergent one (scale independent). Now, you cannot do that with gravity. There are two technical ways to characterize this in words:

1) Gravity doesn't look like a scale-independent quantum field theory at large momenta

2) The large-energy spectrum of gravity is black-hole dominated

Equivalence of both is discussed at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.3555.pdf

It's quite technical, in spite of the title, but enough words can be found there so that a crude idea of what goes on can be obtained.

There is a last-ditch attempt in QFT to make quantum gravity renormalizable, and that's called asymptotic safety, initiated by Steven Weinberg, and it's based on hoping for a point in the phase space where this bad behaviour is saved by a so-called fixed point of the beta function (a function that monitors the renormalization behaviour when you shift the cutoff). But it takes a lot of guesswork and I don't know what the state of the art is at this point.

Then comes supersymmetry. It's a big hope, because supersymmetry leads to much cancellation of infinities.

New technologies have been developed in recent years, like calculations using the formalism of maximally-helicity-violating scattering amplitudes. It's a technology that involves massless gauge bosons, always leads to finite calculations, but is considerably more abstract, because it uses expansions of the amplitudes that cannot be understood as local quantities (at a point), and it involves twistors, which entails expanding space-time points into pairs of massless spin-1/2 wavefunctions (Weyl spinors).

Two interesting lectures on the subject. The 1st one is more technical, but again, enough worded arguments are given so that one can get an idea of what goes on.

Quantum gravity and its discontents (by Stanley Deser, 2010): 

Quantizing gravity and why it is difficult (Leonard Susskind, 2013):

 

Very detailed, thanks for the lectures too, I doubt I'll follow very far but I'm sure I'd pick up some insights here and there!

17 hours ago, beecee said:

[1] Wrong. It follows reasonably logically, that our universe may have evolved/arose from nothing: because as inferred by quantum theory, nothing is inherently unstable.

This is not correct. Referring to a presumed medium that has "instability" as "nothing" is an improper use of English. But lets move on, if you insist on this use of "nothing" so be it, I won't let that hold us up. 

Can there be a scientific theory for the origin of the "instability"?

You may have heard of Sean Carroll a theoretical physicist and cosmologist? good, well here's a piece he wrote about this very subject, about Krauss's book.

Here's an excerpt, this is his reaction to Krauss (whom he knows) (emphasis mine)

Quote

But it doesn't, and doesn't even really try to, explain why there is something rather than nothing -- why this particular evolution of the wave function, or why even the apparatus of "wave functions" and "Hamiltonians" is the right way to think about the universe at all. And maybe you don't care about those questions, and nobody would question your right not to care; but if the subtitle of your book is "Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing," you pretty much forfeit the right to claim you don't care. Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called "the laws of physics," and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could. Sometimes physicists pretend that they are addressing these questions, which is too bad, because they are just being lazy and not thinking carefully about the problem.

Quote

[3] Wrong: your continued "god of the gaps"explantion doesn't hold any water.

Very well, if that's your opinion so be it.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Just a minute. Can we please first of all agree that I am not asking you to "elevate science and theories to the status of unquestioned absolute truth" ?

Secondly, are you now willing to accept what I have been saying, which is that in science all "truths" are provisional, there are  no "absolute truths" and that there is nothing that cannot be challenged? 

Do you mean all claimed truths are provisional (just to be a bit clearer)? because yes I agree, and of course anything can be challenged.

Quote

 

If we can agree this, we can proceed to the other points - if we both have the stamina.

So be it.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

And the counter argument is that once you move away from scientific explanations, then any conclusions you draw are specious to the point of fiction.

But that isn't a counter argument, its just a belief, a proposition an unsupported unproven proposition.

Quote

Without scientific rigor or ability to falsify hypotheses, then you're sharing little more than opinions or preferences.

How can one adopt scientific rigor unless they first select their premises? (this is called being rigorous).

Quote

Doing what you propose moves us into a space where suggestions that god created the universe are functionally equivalent to suggestions that unicorns created the universe, or that the universe came from mashed potatoes, or from the wand of Harry Potter. 

Those aren't explanations. They're unfounded assertions. They perhaps make you feel better psychologically, but they "explain" nothing whatsoever if validity and accuracy are your goal. 

I did not refer to unicorns, potatoes or Harry Potter, this is a strawman argument and how I might feel is irrelevant, please critique my argument not my presumed motives, let me show you a typical definition of ad-hominem:

My feelings, race, skin color, sexual preferences, choice of diet, height, weight, taste in music, literature - have no relevance.

If you disagreed with some mathematical analysis you were shown, perhaps a ten page paper of equations and derivations, would you need to refer to the author's "feelings" and "psychology" in order to pinpoint the error of reasoning?

And you speak of "scientific rigor", the irony!

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Not so.

We are (or should be) discussing Religion.

The title of the thread contains the phrase "proves there is no God" and that is what I've been challenging.

Quote

These are forum rules, not my opinion.

Incomplete.

Quote

I have already demonstrated models based on other factors (physical objects and observation)

Of course reason comes into it but it is not necessarily the only starting point

I have been reading through the entire thread and I see one common pattern in the discussion.

Many here have prefaced their comments (right the way back to page 1) with something like

Whereas @Holmes mostly states his thoughts as though they were the only gospel in town.

The above two extracts demonstrate this quite well.

In my opinion this debating style is the reason so many members are becomeing upset.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear, another ad-hominem is born...

15 hours ago, beecee said:

Yet the reputable professionals say you are wrong, but you are entitled to disagree, albeit with no evidence and simply rhetoric.

There are some I'm sure who'd say I was wrong just as many (for example Prof. John Lennox) who agree with this, Besides this is an argument from authority - a fallacy.

15 hours ago, beecee said:

More rhetorical denial. Anything supernatural like fairies at the bottom of the garden or some magical deity is myth...no evidence and as I have shown previously is continiously being pushed back into oblivion, as science continues to explaim more and more and more.

You said nothing can have a property of "instability" and I said that something with such a property cannot logically be described as nothing which is so obvious I do not know how else to express this.

If you want to suggest that a model of the universe could be produced that is based on this "instability" then that's fine, that's a conventional approach, all theories in physics assume something already exists, I have no problem with this but it does not invalidate my argument.

My argument is that the presence of the universe (or in this case the presence of the instability) cannot have a scientific explanation.

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

[1] Wrong. It follows reasonably logically, that our universe may have evolved/arose from nothing: because as inferred by quantum theory, nothing is inherently unstable.

Instability is a material characteristic so cannot be referred to as nothing, nothing would have no material characteristics. Tell me what is the origin of the instability? 

Quote

[3] Wrong: your continued "god of the gaps"explantion doesn't hold any water.

Claiming that something is actually nothing just so that you can later claim that something can emerge from that "nothing" holds far less water than anything I've been saying.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

Quite relevant in fact and the definition supplied to reflect your own position.

In fact it is you who has misunderstood, or simply being obtuse. Just because the laws of physics and nature cannot as yet be explained, does not mean that they never will.

But I never said that the reason they never will was because they "cannot be explained yet", I said it was because it leads to a paradox, a contradiction. There is no "yet" it is not and never was a matter of time it is a logical impossibility like proving that π is a rational number, it is logically not possible - proof by contradiction.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

I see no reason why anyone need depart from the scientific methodology to the unscientific myths, unless of course to maintain that warm fuzzy inner glow, as emotive as that may sound to you.

Stop being obtuse. You are inferring with your questionable claims and rhetoric some supernatural entity, or a "god of the gaps" simply because science as yet does not have the answer. If that offends you then I would question why it offends you.

See above, it is not and never was a matter of "yet" - if I argued that just because we have not yet found a proof that π is a rational number that does not mean we'll never find such a proof? do you think we might find a proof of that given enough time?

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

The possibility of quantum foam is certainly a scientific explantion, unevidenced as such at this time, and until we have a proper quantum theory of gravity. Proving hard, but that's science, the discipline in eternal progress, based on our observational and experimental data and the scientific methodology. That friend is why science is superior, and I would guess the reason why you appear to be denouncing it. Thankfully that eternal progress will continue without resorting to unscientific supernatural myth.

Drawing attention to the epistemological limitations of some discipline is not a denunciation of that discipline.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

And on your second claim about scientists to just "dumbly stare" and claim, I see as rather silly. As I explained most lay people would see the quantum foam as nothing anyway, and whether we need to redefine nothing to mean the quantum foam, it is infinitely closer to the general acceptance that we have of nothing today, then substituting some sort of deity of choice, based on your personal deep seated prejudices and biases.

Emotive terms like "dumbly stare"? My use of "warm cozy inner peace" certainly stands, as a prime reason for religious beliefs, rather then accept the factual nature of the finality of death.

I have also listened to many competent thinkers over the years, some are pretty smart and excellent at putting their case, and yet when we all finally get down to the nitty gritty of it all, we all know the superior position science takes in explaining the universe around us, and the fact that supernatural explanations just don't hold water.

I also see where you have raised the Newtonian concept of gravity and the inverse square rule, and GR. What you should understand is that we still use Newtonian mechanics every day on Earth, in near all situations, plus of course near all of our space shots to Mars, Venus, the Sun etc.

I made no comment on the utility of the Newtonian model of gravity only on its correctness.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

This should tell you that Newtonian mechainics is not wrong, but rather simply a less accurate method [but still accurate enough for all examples I have given] and that GR is the more accurate method.

No, this is incorrect, the Newtonian model is wrong. Time is not universal, the trajectory of light is impacted by mass and so on. None of these facts reduce the utility of the theory but we are not discussing utility but correctness.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

After all if we did decide to use GR in all my examples, we would get the required answers as Newtonian gives us, but far more accurately, and I might add, with far more difficulty and complication....the accuracy of course is not needed so we stick with our old mate Isaac.

Theoretical physics is not concerned with utility, that's the province of engineering and we're discussing theoretical physics and its epistemological limitations and the implications this has on our ability to explain reality.

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I think you and I have got to clear up the last point before it is worth discussing anything else. 

What you accuse me of is the polar opposite of what I have been saying to you throughout.

- I have been saying that all scientific theories are mere models of aspects of nature.

Well I do not dispute that.

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

- I have been saying there are no axioms, just propositions, open to testing by observation.  

I dispute that because it contradicts your first point above. A model is based on reason and reasoning is the process whereby we draw conclusions from premises, there must be premises before we can begin to reason and create models.

For example in general relativity the core premises (axioms, assumptions, I use these interchangeably) are the principle of equivalence and the principle of relativity (principle of general covariance).

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

- I have been saying these so-called "laws" are made-made representations of aspects of the order we perceive in nature.  

They are generalizations, extrapolations based on inductive reasoning, their universality is assumed not absolutely known to be true.

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I have, in effect, been saying there are no absolute truths in science whatsoever, and that everything is open to challenge.

I do not dispute that/

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yet, you seem determined to hear me saying what your own prejudices apparently assume I should say, while ignoring what I have actually been saying. 

Why?

Well perhaps the above answer clear this up, perhaps its clearer what I agree with and disagree with.

• All scientific explanations are models.
• All models involve reasoning from premises.
• Premises refer to material reality.

Therefore we can never explain - scientifically - the presence of material reality because we must refer to material reality in order to establish the premises we need to create that explanation for material reality.

In short we cannot explain the origin of the universe in terms of the universe, we cannot explain the origin of laws of nature (premises) in terms of those same premises.

On 6/30/2021 at 5:04 AM, dimreepr said:

Who are you to judge?

I'm a member of society to whom Dawkins markets his products, just like you.

Quote

You're clearly very biased against Dawkins, but why are you questioning his credentials, rather than arguing his many mistakes? 

Because I do not think he sets a good example to young minds of an open minded seeker after truth.

Quote

You should open a post about him and critique his conclusion's... 😉 

I used to discuss his ideas on the Richard Dawkins forum but oddly that closed a few years ago.

12 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Absolutely, writing a book (especially if its scientific based) to appeal to the masses requires some artistic licence, else it will never be that popular. Any editor will encourage this style of writing to ensure book sales. If you want a purely scientific journal then there are plenty out there and I'm sure over his career Richard Dawkins would have written many such papers that have never been popularised. There are many "popular" scientists that are known to the masses that present in similar ways, with tv shows, books blogs etc... 

I don't agree with everything Richard Dawkins says but I respect him as a scientist and an expert in his particular field. And in fact if you ever listen to him in interviews he is quite humble and often implies that his scientific knowledge is generally limited to his own field, though it is quite clear from his talks that he is more than converse in other areas of science though maybe not an expert.   

Dawkins is not a psychiatrist yet clearly thinks he is able to diagnose that every person who believes something he does not, is suffering from a delusion. 

This therefore serves to immediately discredit such individuals and propagating this in his books, talks and so on sets an example to younger, more vulnerable minds of how to react to ideas that you personally do not share, it effectively encourages, teaches intolerance.

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Well, NOT being an expert on transgender participation in sports, I am not willing to make that declaration, just as I would not have the hubris to tell you how to approach certain types of technical problems.

What I am willing to do is lend my support to a minority who is dumped on every day, so that they will be heard and not prematurely dismissed, and if possible, be able to compete with the rest of their fellow human beings.

Do you support all minorities no matter what it is that characterizes them?

I propose four categories - M, F, MF and FM, then we can all move on and society can start functioning again.

We'd then have four types of bathrooms for categories in sports etc, life could be simple once more.