Jump to content

Thought Experiments


PrimalMinister

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, but how do I tell the difference, I don't want to confuse objective facts with subjective opinions, I want to know the difference in clear, consise, scientific langauge.

Can i have a clear, consise scientific explanation of the difference between objective facts and subjective opinions so that I can understand in its fullness.

Thank you.

Objective facts are where a person performs an observation or experiment, and under the same conditions, but  a different time and location, another person will obtain the same result. By requiring repeatability by different people you reduce personal effects on the experiment that may be unique to that person's thinking or method i.e. the result is independent of the person doing it; it is not subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Objective facts are where a person performs an observation or experiment, and under the same conditions, but  a different time and location, another person will obtain the same result. By requiring repeatability by different people you reduce personal effects on the experiment that may be unique to that person's thinking or method i.e. the result is independent of the person doing it; it is not subjective.

Right, that is a bit better. Now if you think about what you just said you will realise that I have mentioned the omnipresense of the laws of the universe, and you seem to be saying this is what needs to be explained, am I right or wrong?

Like how do I tell the difference, is the big bang the objective truth or subjective opinion.

Is the universe a mystery to us or do we have it all worked out, please tell me what is fact and opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am happy to sit on this forum and questions of current science, to show I am science orientated, but also to show you that our current theories do have problems. I simply have to point out that you can't explain what happened before the big bang, this is a huge problem with that explanation, you have to accept something extraordinary with no evidence, but if we accept this you can explain the rest. You have to take a leap of faith accept the whole universe was once compressed to a point or whatever, there is no explanation for the big bang, you can only explain what happened after. The big bang is not objective fact,

The BB applies to the observable universe, and is a well supported theory of how space and time evolved from a hot dense state. It was never about how or what was before......

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

For example, many of you know dont understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, despite being intelligent, creative and a whole lot of other probably fantastic stuff, and I can prove that. So if you shut this thread I will open a new that asks " some scientists have declared philosophy is not needed, but it is because some scientists cant tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, and I can prove that.

No you cant.

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I guess I am saying are a lot of scientific opinions masquerading as fact, but it you sort objective fact from subjective opinion, you are left with one important question:

How are the laws omnipresent and isotropic in apprently empty space.

Once you use the principle of context independence/dependence to seperate fact from opinion, that is the only real question you are left with.

And a pixel/tile/cell based universe explains how the laws of the universe are omnipresent and isotropic. Because like a hologram, you have the whole image (all the laws of the universe) embedded in every part (in each pixel/tile/cell).

I can explain in all but its probably not what you are expecting, if you are expecting anything.

But things have to be honest and objective or this endeavour will be a waste of time.

Science doesn't need a theory of everything, its already got one, the universe started in a big bang, is expanding, stars are created by gravitational collapse, life emerged and evolved on this planet. Why are we looking for a theory of everything, whats wrong with our current theory of everything. Is our current theory of everything the right one, how sure are you?

Confusing and contradictory to say the least.

 

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

We have to agree on things otherwise this is not going to work, which is ok, this is literally only the start of my journey to reveal the truth, I still have plenty of avenues, the truth is powerful. 

Science and scientific theories are not out for any so called truth or reality. It models according to observational and experimental data as per the scientific methodology. If it happens to hit upon this so called truth or so called reality in the process, all well and good.

Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know...

18 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

The problem needs some explaining because its subtle,

 

Good...but first know the theory/model that you are attempting to invalidate/criticise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am a nutter, a crank, but I am going to point out the problems with our current theories and I know they are problems, I am intelligent enough to know that, and if you are brutally honest and objective you will admit those problems exist too, although a few people will probably give me the "god did it explanation".

Look, this conversation is so bad that we can't even agree on a defintion of objective fact and subject opinion. I will present the evidence but if you refuse to look at I am stuck, so I have thought long and hard about how to present it, and it takes some preperation to understand it.

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Science and scientific theories are not out for any so called truth or reality. It models according to observational and experimental data as per the scientific methodology. If it happens to hit upon this so called truth or so called reality in the process, all well and good.

Ok, great, but you are are being lazy because you are just preaching to the converted (except I was not brought up religious, I was brought up to think scientifically) where do you think science is going, how far can this big bang theory take us? Science claims it is looking for a theory of everything but this is confusing as they all ready have one, big bang, expand, stars and planet form, life emerged and evolved, all happening over a very long time. So why is it we are looking for a theory of everything if we already have one (big bang, evolution)? Have you not yet realised the big bang and evolution is the theory of everything, I am confused.

Do we understand how the universe works on not, you tell me, you are the experts.

Please, I am not anti-science and I pro science, I love that people are interested in science, I think more people should be. I have seen the article, I don't remember where but it basically listed things to look out for if you are dealing with a crank. Yes, I do tick a few of the boxes, but fortunatly for me, a lot of them don't apply to me. If someone knows to this document maybe we can can look at it to see if I am really am a crank, that should be a bit of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you believe, you are of the opinion, that science will explain everything in the end given enough time? Am I correct in assuming this? Are we in agreement here? I am looking for agreement because objective facts are objectivily objective facts, its self-evident, it doesnt need evidence, it explains its self. It I am looking for facts, not opinions, a fact is something we all agree on it because its objective, its fact, only fools argue with facts (like the flat earthers, what a ridiculus bunch). So we have to look at the facts and put opinion to the side. That is why I am looking for agreement, each agreement will take us closer to the truth.

As I understand science today, we have a theory of everything (big bang, evolution) and there are just a few more things we have to work out. That is my understanding of current science, am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I find this topic kind of interesting and I've trying various angles in my earlier posts. Fact is that so far i have not been able to see any answers. In my opinion yu are ignoring my attempts to discuss.

I'm starting to repeat myself. Since the topic is moved to speculations I ask again and try to clarify:

13 hours ago, Ghideon said:
13 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Each pixel contains all the laws of the universe

Is that the current laws that there are evidence for? Can you maybe explain, in detail, what a pixel is, what properties you think it has? What tests do you suggest to show that these pixels explains everything we have evidence so far?

In my opinion think you have suggested new scientific progress once your theory is adopted. Is that progress based on a new understanding on currently known and testad laws of physics, or will your theory reveal new laws?  Or maybe a combination? 

I also whould like to know how to test the theory. Let's say I have an idea that states: "Each pixie controlls all the laws of the universe". What test will show I'm wrong and you are correct?

21 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

As I understand science today, we have a theory of everything (big bang, evolution) and there are just a few more things we have to work out.

I do not agree at all. Fact: there are a lot of useful models and theories for many parts of the nature that surrounds us. My opinion is that there are loads of interesting discoveries yet to be made, far more than just a few more things.

Edited by Ghideon
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying I cannot tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. If I am wrong about about this, you need to explain why I am wrong, that is scientific. How hard can it be to understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion, are you trying to say I am not even intelligent to understand this difference, I proved I know the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion with the simple table explanation. What is bad about the table explanation, does it or does it not clearly explain the difference between objective fact and subject opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Surely you believe, you are of the opinion, that science will explain everything in the end given enough time?

Science is by its very definition a system to organise knowledge; since there are limits to what we can know - even in principle -, science will never be able to “explain everything” (whatever that actually means in real terms). In particular, physics concerns itself with building models of aspects of the world around us - its purpose is not to explain everything.

24 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

As I understand science today, we have a theory of everything (big bang, evolution)

We are quite far away from having a TOE; in fact, there are valid doubts over whether such a concept even makes sense. At the moment we are in the process of perfecting models that deal with what we can observe and measure, and, based on those models, make some educated guesses about things that we can’t. That’s about it. Like I said, the purpose is not to answer all possible questions, but to learn to ask the right ones to begin with - some questions are relevant to physics (and science in general), others are not.

7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

How hard can it be to understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion

It’s actually pretty difficult. It was once considered a hard fact that the Earth is at the centre of the universe, and that everything else revolves around it. People thought it was totally obvious, and that was a reasonable state of affairs in the context of the technology and knowledge available at the time. The trouble is that “understanding”, and even perception itself, is a function of the human mind and consciousness, so distinguishing between what is objective and what is not, is far less trivial than would initially appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

science will never be able to “explain everything”

That is your subjective opinion.

 

3 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

(whatever that actually means in real terms)

Ok, is it not science to seek the underlying cause of cancer so we can cure it?

You either believe, or are of the of the opinion this can be discovered, or you believe, or are of the opinion that it will always remain a mystery. Its the same with everything.

As I understand it, science is in the business of explaining things, am I somehow again wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Maybe I am a nutter, a crank, but I am going to point out the problems with our current theories and I know they are problems, I am intelligent enough to know that, and if you are brutally honest and objective you will admit those problems exist too, although a few people will probably give me the "god did it explanation".

Has anyone ever denied that there are "some"problems with the BB. The fact stands though that it aligns with the four principal observational pillars, while others fail.....

Quote

Look, this conversation is so bad that we can't even agree on a defintion of objective fact and subject opinion. I will present the evidence but if you refuse to look at I am stuck, so I have thought long and hard about how to present it, and it takes some preperation to understand it.

Objective fact? the evolution of life is pretty close, as to is the observed spacetime expansion, and the CMBR which  support the BB scenario and are two of the previously mentioned four pillars. Subjective opinion I would say is opinion without scientific evidence, or an opinion based on personal beliefs  and/or emotions...

 

Quote

Ok, great, but you are are being lazy because you are just preaching to the converted (except I was not brought up religious, I was brought up to think scientifically) where do you think science is going, how far can this big bang theory take us?

Preaching to the converted? Your asking the questions. :P The BB as I have already mentioned is not an all purpose theory about where the universe/space/time came from...it is a theory on the evolution of spacetime from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds. All scientific theories have limitations, even GR. 

 

Quote

Science claims it is looking for a theory of everything but this is confusing as they all ready have one, big bang, expand, stars and planet form, life emerged and evolved, all happening over a very long time. So why is it we are looking for a theory of everything if we already have one (big bang, evolution)? Have you not yet realised the big bang and evolution is the theory of everything, I am confused.

It is looking for evidence and hence grounds to base a model on, that will tell us what space and time looked like at the quantum/Planck level, and where they came from and how and why they banged. I thought that was common knowledge.

 

Quote

Do we understand how the universe works on not, you tell me, you are the experts.

I'm no expert, I'm not even a scientist, but I am able to read, look at reputable material, evidence and knowledge of how models are fabricated. Yes we have a good handle as to how the present universe arose to its present state. Gravity is the prime player.

 

Quote

Please, I am not anti-science and I pro science, I love that people are interested in science, I think more people should be. I have seen the article, I don't remember where but it basically listed things to look out for if you are dealing with a crank. Yes, I do tick a few of the boxes, but fortunatly for me, a lot of them don't apply to me. If someone knows to this document maybe we can can look at it to see if I am really am a crank, that should be a bit of fun.

You appear to be asking philosophical questions and making philosophical arguments based on the limitations of science. It doesn't know everything...yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are asking for evidence, consider the John Wheeler quote, he taking all his knowledge and wisdom and condensing it into a simple, clear, consise form. That is something to behold, that is a man who after many years of study, says something like that. He is of the opinion that science can explain the universe, and he is right. Is this supporting evidence, John Wheelers statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

 He is of the opinion that science can explain the universe, and he is right. Is this supporting evidence, John Wheelers statement?

If you are talking about knowing all there is to know with regards to the universe, then that would depend on whether the universe is infinite or not I would suggest. And that question in itself remains unanswered. If it is infinite, then how can we ever know everything? If it is finite, and we can survive extinction, then perhaps. But then again, even the universe has a "use by date"

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets get down to the basics, can his statement be used as supporting evidence for my theory? Think about what I am saying, and be brutally honest and objective.

It is his whole life, all his knowledge, experience and wisdom, in a single sentence. He understood, RIP.

Our current theories are a mix of objective facts and subjective opinions, there are no subjective opinions in what I am putting forward. I know you want the 'big reveal' how the magic trick is done, but you are going to have to work for it by being brutally honest, objective and sincere. Are you ready to put aside opinions completly and look at the facts, the best evidence there is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

But I have already got to the point, the point is that the universe is pixel/tile/cell based, I am not tip tapping around it, I am getting blatanly to the point and you are simply not being sincere with me.

You claim to have a "theory of everything". You also claim the Big Bang model is wrong. Therefore, you need to explain, using your pixels:

  1.  the source of the CMB
  2. why it has the spectrum it does
  3. why it has the temperature it does
  4. the relative proportions of hydrogen and helium
  5. the redshift-distance relationship (Hubble's law)

Clearly, with all your waffle, you are not able to do this. You do not have a theory of anything. 

6 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Is that fact or opinion? You say "so far", that stinks of opinion.

No, it is the scientific conclusion based on objective evidence.

48 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Is this supporting evidence, John Wheelers statement?

Of course not. It is just one man's personal opinion. Nothing to do with science. Rather like this thread. Reported.

I am actually very disappointed. I thought you might have had some interesting ideas around the concept of the universe being quantised or a cellular automata. But you have nothing at all. Oh well.

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, is it not science to seek the underlying cause of cancer so we can cure it?

This is not a logical response. Saying that science cannot explain everything doesn’t mean it can’t explain anything. We already understand many of the causes of cancer and have effective treatments for many. Science will improve this. (Pixels won’t)

 

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

As I understand it, science is in the business of explaining things, am I somehow again wrong?

It is but that doesn’t mean it can explain everything. 

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

As I understand science today, we have a theory of everything (big bang, evolution) and there are just a few more things we have to work out. That is my understanding of current science, am I wrong?

These are two separate, theories. They are unrelated and n that any changes in one have no effect on the other. 

They are also not theories of everything as they don’t include, for example, quantum theory. Which is, famously, not compatible with GR. 

So, yes, you are wrong. It seems implausible that someone with such profound misunderstandings could come up with a theory of everything. And you haven’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Are you ready to put aside opinions completly and look at the facts, the best evidence there is?

Ok. What is a pixel in the context of your theory? Please include a proper mathematic model in your description.

 

Edited by Ghideon
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is but that doesn’t mean it can explain everything. 

But instead of doing pure science, you drop back to a subjective opinion. You believe, or are of the opinion, that science cannot explain everything, or you believe, or are of the opinion, that science can explain everything. Logic tells us it has to be one of them, it can't be both, its either or. The 'truth' of the matter is we can say for sure whether or not science will explain everything or that some things remain a mystery to us forever. Its all just opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange, you are getting frustrated because I am not doing the 'big reveal', I realise this puts me in crank zone, but I am prepared to weather that. If that gets this post closed, thats a shame, yes be sceptical, but don't be dismissive, you don't know enough about it to dismiss it. Strange, do you want this thread closed because I am not doing the big reveal? Is that is what is bugging you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What exactly is unscientific about claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based?

I think claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based is not necessary unscientific. Lack of discussion how universe is pixel based or what pixels are, that is unscientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please use clear, consise, scientific language when talking to me.

And please don't bark orders at me, its not civil and a sign you spend time on the internet where it is perfectly ok be rude.

I am ready to listen to you, regardless of whether you being objective or simply spouting opinion as fact. I am ready to listen to you, I have listened to you, you don't have to get all preachy with the evidence and the models and the pillars and so. Some people, I can tell, have given up on the hard questions and are looking for small science to make progress, not big science, lots of people have given up on big science as it hasn't proved that fruitful.

I will tell you how this is going to play out, first I am going to start a go fund me page so I can get some money to help prove my case. This money, is going to be used as a prize for proving me right or wrong. I may employ someone, hopefully a scientist, but maybe not, to look over input from others. I hope to sign up 3000 scientists to give one hour of their time to look at this theory, that is like somebody working on it full time for three years. I will make the big reveal when this is in place. I think people need to prepare for it, for example, you have to come to terms with eternity, with infinity. So before you get to see the big reveal, you can explain to me how the universe works. Can you explain how the universe works without using opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Lets get down to the basics, can his statement be used as supporting evidence for my theory? Think about what I am saying, and be brutally honest and objective.

It is his whole life, all his knowledge, experience and wisdom, in a single sentence. He understood, RIP.

Our current theories are a mix of objective facts and subjective opinions, there are no subjective opinions in what I am putting forward. I know you want the 'big reveal' how the magic trick is done, but you are going to have to work for it by being brutally honest, objective and sincere. Are you ready to put aside opinions completly and look at the facts, the best evidence there is?

If you had facts people would look at them. You havn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

Please use clear, consise, scientific language when talking to me.

In my opinion I am trying my best* and I hope other forum members corrects me if I fail. May I request that you also start answering my questions in a clear, consise way using  scientific language? Or at least, in a clear and consise way, states why you think my questions are not valid in this context?

 

*) I'm not working as a scientist in this area, I may have trouble to express my opinions clearly. English is not my first language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.