Is the big bang and evolution sciences theory of everything.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You asked where the natural selection is. It's in Darwin's theory, not in the term "evolution"

I think you misunderstood my discussion.

Actually itoero made a distinction between 'biological evolution' and 'geological evolution' and I asked about that distinction.

I added some explanatory context to try to improve my question, but it seems no one picked up on the distinction.

[PrimalMinister]

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

Already answered, in your other thread. But anyway, again, an “objective” claim can be classed as one that is entirely independent  of the observer and is evident by measurable verifiable means that conclude with different observers coming to the same obvious conclusion. Your subjective point of view is best evident by the unsupported claims that you have made in this thread and others, or more generally, one that is not verifiable or evident, but based on personal agendas, feelings, and such.

Ok, that seams reasonable. So I gave the table example of the table, you put it in a room, the table is a table and that is an objective fact, its context independent, you can move it to a new room and the table is still a table we all agree its objective fact and that it is context independent. Conversley, people can have opinions, like for example the table is to big or to small for the room, that is subjective opinion, it is context dependent because this time when you move to a new room, people may change their minds and decide the opposite of the first room. So objective facts are context independent while subjective opinions are context dependent, am I getting this wrong, it sounds similar to what you are saying.

[beecee]

14 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, that seams reasonable. So I gave the table example of the table, you put it in a room, the table is a table and that is an objective fact, its context independent, you can move it to a new room and the table is still a table we all agree its objective fact and that it is context independent. Conversley, people can have opinions, like for example the table is to big or to small for the room, that is subjective opinion, it is context dependent because this time when you move to a new room, people may change their minds and decide the opposite of the first room. So objective facts are context independent while subjective opinions are context dependent, am I getting this wrong, it sounds similar to what you are saying.

What I'm saying is that the heading of this thread and your general claims are unsubstantiated nonsense...The BB despite being a well supported model of the evolution of space/time/universe dating as far back as t+10-43 seconds, is not a TOE or anything like it. The theory of the evolution of life likewise is well substantiated but not a theory of how life got started. That would be Abiogenesis. Both are objective observations.

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So objective facts are context independent

Not necessarily. For example, the statement "Trump is President of the US" is a fact today but won't be in a few years time. So the truth value of the fact is context dependent. (See, I told you it wasn't easy!)

[swansont]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I think you misunderstood my discussion.

Actually itoero made a distinction between 'biological evolution' and 'geological evolution' and I asked about that distinction.

I get that. 

But you asked where the natural selection is, and there isn't any. Natural selection is a mechanism for biological evolution. It's not synonymous with evolution itself. There is no reason to expect other kinds of evolution to include that mechanism. Your question was a non sequitur.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I added some explanatory context to try to improve my question, but it seems no one picked up on the distinction.

 

[Markus Hanke]

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

the table is a table and that is an objective fact

Actually, no. Being able to label the structure in the room as “table” relies on a lot of supporting conditions, some of which are very much subjective. For example, a member of some indigenous rainforest tribe who has never before seen a table, and does not even understand the concept of “table”, or has a word for table in his/her language (having no use for such a thing in his/her native environment), will not see a “table”. He/she sees only pieces of wood arranged in a certain fashion. Unlike you yourself, who sees a “table”. So clearly, a “table” being a “table” is not an objective fact, but a subjective perception, which is dependent upon prior knowledge and experience of the observer; if you’ve never before seen a table, you won’t recognise one as such.

An objective description of the world would be one that is completely independent of the physical and mental structure of the observer who perceives that world. That is a very non-trivial undertaking, and arguably not really achievable in its purest form. This may seem like nitpicking, but actually has pivotal consequences.

[PrimalMinister]

Ok, so do the laws keep revealing layer upon layer adinfinitum, or are there only so many layers and do we finally get to an end of the layers.

Because we don't know, we dont have the facts, we are left with opinion, a choice of two, you either have to pick one or sit on the fence until such a time we do know.

This is basic logic, if you don't have the facts, your left with opinion.

Modern science doesn't have all the facts, so it fills in it with opinion, hence our theories are a mix of facts and opinion.

They are not objective as they claim to be.

 

The universe is subtle, the evidence once said the earth was flat, the evidence once said the sun moved around the earth, what makes you so sure that the expansion of the universe is not just another illusion? You have to step back and question whether what you are seeing is real or not.

[PrimalMinister]

I know I bang on about fact and opinion a lot, but if you don't have all the facts you are stuck with opinion.

Science can't explain what happened before the big bang, it doesn't have all the facts, the big bang in an opinion.

Yes there are facts there, but they are mired by opinion.

If you have an opinion in something, you "believe" that.

Consequently, you have to believe in the big bang because if you are brutally honest and objective, we can't say for sure it happened.

I don't want to "believe" the big bang happened, thats religion, I want to "know" it happened.

I

[Markus Hanke]

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I don't want to "believe" the big bang happened, thats religion, I want to "know" it happened.

The only way to “know” something is to go and experience it yourself. And even then you get only a subjective experience, filtered by your senses, and the way the mind processes information. So in that sense, there is only ever opinions and views.

Since direct experience of something is not always possible, one can use logic to infer things. For example, I have not myself experienced the Second World War, but based on a various physical and non-physical traces it has left behind in the human world, many of which are accessible to me, I can infer with reasonable confidence that such an event has in fact happened. I still don’t “know” that it has happened, but the likelihood of it being just an illusion based on false inferences is negligibly small. 

The same is true in the sciences.

[studiot]

I like the analogy. +1

[Strange]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Modern science doesn't have all the facts, so it fills in it with opinion, hence our theories are a mix of facts and opinion.

They are not objective as they claim to be.

Not really, where science does not have the facts (evidence) it says nothing. Individual scientists may have opinions, just like anyone else, but that is not science. Theories do not have opinions. But then again, theories are not necessarily the truth or descriptions of reality. In many cases, especially in physics, they are just good models that produce good results. 

For example, we have two theories of gravity (Newton and GR). They can’t both be true but they are both good models so both are used and taught to people. 

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Consequently, you have to believe in the big bang because if you are brutally honest and objective, we can't say for sure it happened.

Note that the Big Bang model is not about an event that happened. There is no evidence for any such event so any opinions about it are speculative (but that speculation may be based on science).

The Big Bang model describes the evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state. The evidence for that is overwhelming so we can be pretty certain it is correct. 

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Strange

[PrimalMinister]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

The evidence for that is overwhelming so we can be pretty certain it is correct

The evidence said the sun went round the earth. How do you know the universe hasn't done this with the expanding universe evidence, you could just be making the same mistakes people in the past when they looked at the evidence.

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The evidence said the sun went round the earth.

Did it?

I thought the evidence was the Helios drove across the sky in his fiery chariot, and went to bed at night.

This was much more 'obvious' that going round an Earth.

There are/have been always competing theories that fall in and out of favour as better information is obtained.

So what?

 

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by studiot

[PrimalMinister]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

There are/have been always competing theories that fall in and out of favour as better information is obtained.

What about a theory from a design/engineering perspective? That can exlpain how gravity (or any other phenoma, hence theory of everything) can be bound to apparently empty space? This is a bit problem for physics, because I am sure gravity is not bound to apparently empty space by magic, there has to be some practical explaination as to "how" the universe is actually pulling off this binding to apparently empty space. I has spent my whole life on this one single problem of physics, I don't know if you think its a problem or not, I don't know how much you have considered this particular aspect of physics.

Edited September 22, 2018 by PrimalMinister

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The evidence said the sun went round the earth. How do you know the universe hasn't done this with the expanding universe evidence, you could just be making the same mistakes people in the past when they looked at the evidence.

All scientific theories are contingent, and are constantly being tested. That is why I didn’t say “absolutely certain.”

As more evidence was accumulated, the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one. Now, it is of course, possible that future evidence could overthrow that model. But there is now so much evidence that the Earth goes round the Sun, that it is generally accepted as a fact. But who knows...

[studiot]

Well this is a step up.

You didn't answer me at all in your thread that was closed, if I remember correctly.

Here you have actually answered me, but, for the life of me, I can't make out any relevance or connection between the passage of mine you quoted and your apparent reply?

Edited September 22, 2018 by studiot

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

That can exlpain how gravity (or any other phenoma, hence theory of everything) can be bound to apparently empty space?

What does that mean?

“Gravity bound to empty space”? What?

[PrimalMinister]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

As more evidence was accumulated, the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one. Now, it is of course, possible that future evidence could overthrow that model.

Ok, but the big bang is an extraordinary claim and you have to accept things on faith. No new evidence is needed, I have all the evidence I need because my theory is self-evident, its purely objective fact with zero opinion, you wont me able to disagree with me on it, because its not my opinion. So please, tell me, the laws of the universe are everywhere, please explain "how" they are everywhere. The universe is doing it somehow, but physics doesn't care, its making great progress in small science (which is fantastic) so it doesn't care about big science. The laws of the universe are everywhere, how can they be everywhere in apprently empty space?

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, but the big bang is an extraordinary claim and you have to accept things on faith.

It is not really an extraordinary claim, just surprising at the time (nearly one hundred years ago - people should be very used to the idea by now). But, even if it is remarkable, it has remarkably good evidence for it.

Nothing needs to be taken on faith. 

12 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

my theory is self-evident

Then it isn't science.

12 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So please, tell me, the laws of the universe are everywhere, please explain "how" they are everywhere.

Don't know and don't care. That is philosophy, not science. 

But actually, we don't know they are the same everywhere. It is a good working assumption but it needs to be tested. Most tests so far are consistent with this, but there is some very slight evidence that some people claim could mean that some constants, for example, are not the same everywhere.

15 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

you wont me able to disagree with me on it

We won't know until you tell us what it is. And as you are not willing to do that, the question is moot.

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, but the big bang is an extraordinary claim and you have to accept things on faith. No new evidence is needed, I have all the evidence I need because my theory is self-evident, its purely objective fact with zero opinion, you wont me able to disagree with me on it, because its not my opinion. So please, tell me, the laws of the universe are everywhere, please explain "how" they are everywhere. The universe is doing it somehow, but physics doesn't care, its making great progress in small science (which is fantastic) so it doesn't care about big science. The laws of the universe are everywhere, how can they be everywhere in apprently empty space?

If I am lost in the woods, cold & tired, and come across a log cabin I do not need to understand how or when it was built to understand how and why it will provide me comfort and safety. Different aspects of things can be known without the totality of everything being know. There is no contradiction there. You seem to have a hard time accepting that anything can be understood unless everything is understood. 

[PrimalMinister]

 

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Don't know and don't care. That is philosophy, not science. 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

We won't know until you tell us what it is. And as you are not willing to do that, the question is moot.

I am willing, just I am not allowed. However, by claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based I have magically provided an answer to "how" the laws of the universe are everywhere, its objective fact and its self-evident, its not my opinion. Philosophy becomes science.

[Strange]

Just now, PrimalMinister said:

I am willing, just I am not allowed. However, by claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based I have magically provided an answer to "how" the laws of the universe are everywhere, its objective fact and its self-evident, its not my opinion.

Don't lie. You have already been told, by a moderator, that you are allowed to tell us. What you are NOT allowed to do is just keep saying "I have this great idea, but I'm not going to tell you what it is."

Also, it is very frustrating when you jump randomly from one thing to another without answering questions about the first one. And then ignoring answers to your questions. This is supposed to be a dialogue, not just a series of random (and often incorrect) objections from you.

For example, what does "gravity bound to empty space" mean?

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am willing, just I am not allowed.

 

No one is preventing you answering my question or continuing our conversation.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am willing, just I am not allowed.

Untrue. But you know we'll be asking for supporting evidence. Is this what's holding you back from presenting your speculation?

[Ghideon]

 

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

However, by claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based I have magically provided an answer to "how" the laws of the universe are everywhere, its objective fact and its self-evident, its not my opinion. Philosophy becomes science.

Ok, interesting! I fail to see why it is self evident but that may be just my lack of understanding so far. Can you please describe: what is a pixel in the context of your theory? Please include a proper mathematic model in your description.

 

Sorry for repeating but I also would like to take part in the discussion about the original topic. If I get your idea correctly there are gaps to be filled but only within these two theories. There is no room anywhere for any kind of new discovery that does not fit within big bang/evolution*? How is that? If possible, I would like some more detail, not an answer similar to "Because it explains everything".