MigL

The essence of this debate seems to be... "Can science alone explain the existence and workings of the universe, or is something 'outside' of science needed ?" Holmes seems to think science alone cannot do it, and 'something else' is required. I happen to think science alone can, or will eventually, be sufficient. I'm struggling to figure out what some of the other members are proposing/opining.

Because cultural appropriation is frwned upon. Gender appropriation seems not to be.

Yes, I got the humor. And was trying to perpetuate it 🙂

Remember guys, this is a SCIENCE forum. Can we just stick to the science ?

This is certainly NOT like gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't infringe on any one else's rights. As JC has repeatedly pointed out, Trans athletes infringe on women's rights to fair competition. And there have been realistic examples given, Swansont; I posted one myself. INow and Zapatos are willing to put the rights of those 6 people ( the number of trans athletes, he claims ) above the rights of more than 50% of Earth's population. So, are we again telling women they are not even second best to men, but actually also behind trans people ? And Dimreepr seems to think that the only benefit from a 'game' is learning that others can compete with unfair advantages, so there is no point in actually playing.

The differential equation discribes the general case ( all possible cases ), and as such, has no specific solution. Specific cases are solved by applying the relevant boundry conditions to simplify it, but some of those cases may still have no solution.

Hey, don't thow me under the bus 😄. For further info about symmetries, the intrinsic physical and mathematical fatures of a system, Holmes, you might want to look up Noether's theorem as it relates to continuous ( Lye groups ) and discrete (finite groups ) symmetries; These form the basis of our conservation ( and invariance ) laws. Symmetries can also be classified as global, such as the ones mentioned above, or local, which are the basis for gouge theories. One could argue that there are no 'rules, axioms or assumptions' in Physics, but these so called 'rules' simply follow from the way things are. ( do you consider this 'special pleading' also ? )

You ( and Holmes ) might want to read this Quantum field theory - Wikipedia It probably explains things better than I could. ( and saves me a lot of typing )

Seems the fight to fix perceived inequalities for trans people is more important than women's rights to equality. ( according to some virtue signaling people )

That doesn't mean it resists compounding. Every respirator with organic filtering cartridges has activated carbon pellets in it. They filter the organics by bonding them to the carbon and letting only 'air' through. Sodium BiCarbonate has similar odour trapping properties.

Are not ALL theories mathematical abstractions, or models, that describe the physical reality to some extent ? Conservation laws are not fundamental; symmetries are. Some of those conservation laws, like mass-energy conservation, make no sense on a global scale.

You've already given me credit for the 'always been there' argument. And as I get the impression you are comfortable with computing, don't self-referencing algorithms also answer your question ?

QFT does. Quantum particles are simply excitations of the field, above a threshold of action. Those excitations below the threshold, are virtual particles.

I have not done these calculations myself, but the electromagnetic mass, which includes the mass-energy of its electrostatic field, and is usually thought of as a cloud of virtual particles surrounding the charged particle, is exactly what gets modified by re-normalization, such that the actual mass is left. This is not the same self- interaction that gravity xperiences, and, as a result, re-normalization fails to remove the infinities. The difference between the self interactions is that an EM field has mass-energy, but doesn't produce more charge, while a gravitational field has mass-energy, which produces more gravity, which produces more field mass-energy, which produces more gravity, which .... Do you see what I mean ?

I know you are familiar with Richard Feynman, so you may be familiar with Feynman diagrams. In Quantum Field Theoty all the connections in these diagrams represent possible interactions. They are usually summed, then all the perturbative influences that give rise to infinities, are subtracted, by a process called re-normalization,to give the desired solution. Gravity, on the other hand, is self interacting ( that means gravity gravitates ), and the resultant infinities from the perturbative summng gets out of control, such that they cannot be removed by re-normalization. Any time infinities result in a solution, you have exceeded the bounds of applicability of your theory. So, either perturbative quantum field theory or re-normalization are not applicable to gravity. Therein lies the incompatibility. Even more simply ... In QFT, space-time is simply the stage on which events happen, and the events have no affect on the stage. In GR, space-time is the field that governs how events unfold, but it is affected, and a participant, in those events. The Wiki entry on Quantum Gravity may be helpful to you Quantum gravity - Wikipedia

So, who flipped the perspective through time of your consciousness ?

YouTube videos, Fox News, and references to two Sci-Fi/fantasy movies ... I haven't a clue what you're on about. ( and I'm not sure I care to find out )

Carbon compounds readily with a large number of elements. It is, in fact, one of the most 'compoundable' elements, and is the basis for its own branch of chemistry, Organic Chemistry.

You suggested I was an adherent of scientism, not science, and I simply offered my reasons for being one. I did not imply you were an adherent of religion, so I have no reason to 'be careful'.

Absolutely, scientism AND science, not rather than. And being a scientist, I base that on the observation that Science has worked out a lot better for humanity than Religion.

That's all right, Zap. I'm usually a griping old man myself. But what, exactly, is wrong with cute cats ???

No, invoking the 'supernatural' relinquishes all hope of ever understanding. But, we may someday understand how, or why, the universe has always been there. A valid quantum Gravity theory will get us much closer to knowing what happened in the first instants of time. And I really don't expect the equations to plot out the face of God.

Information cannot be created or destroyed; where did the rest of the universe's information come from ? So, not science either. Actually a thread hijack ... And nonsense unless you back it with evidence.

A 'supernatural' solution guarantees we will never have answers to these questions. The 'always been there' solution holds out hope that, eventually, we might. The latter option seems scientific to me, the former, not so much.