Jump to content

Creation or Physics?


rigney
 Share

Recommended Posts

What if "Supernatural and Physics" have the same meaning, but revelation(ary), opposed to conjoining by major groups of hardheads? Might gravity then remain forever, the single unsolved mystery of our universe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if "Supernatural and Physics" have the same meaning...

 

Well, if what is today supernatural becomes observed, scientifically examined and mathematically modelled then it will become part of natural philosophy. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't help it. My first though is: the sky would probably second-order delta under the force of quantum fluctuations.

 

If a can of worms such as, second-order delta or "uncertainty" was opened by even the least; we wouldn't be around long enough to know it happened. Yet we keep searching and searching and searching, for what? Knowledge is a fantastic thing, and some folks have more than their share. Use it now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a can of worms such as, second-order delta or "uncertainty" was opened by even the least; we wouldn't be around long enough to know it happened. Yet we keep searching and searching and searching, for what? Knowledge is a fantastic thing, and some folks have more than their share. Use it now.

Who says we aren't using it all the time?

 

Almost all our wealth is possible because of previous discoveries. We're constantly using it... but a few of us are also persuing more.

 

Personally, being an engineer, I use knowledge, I do not create more of it. I just apply existing knowledge... and so do most of my colleagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if what is today supernatural becomes observed, scientifically examined and mathematically modelled then it will become part of natural philosophy. :rolleyes:

 

Perhaps I should have used: "unobservable" or phenomenal? I hope humans or our successors have at least another 10 to 20 thousand years to clear up some of these answers.

 

Who says we aren't using it all the time?

 

Almost all our wealth is possible because of previous discoveries. We're constantly using it... but a few of us are also persuing more.

 

Personally, being an engineer, I use knowledge, I do not create more of it. I just apply existing knowledge... and so do most of my colleagues.

 

I'm glad you are using and furthering your knowledge. There was nothing meant as subversive in my statement, "use it now". But it was an accusation to those who harbor secrets until they are no longer viable to an industry. I've seen it happens time and time again, as I'm sure you have. Greed is a "Bitch" and it's only money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you are using and furthering your knowledge. There was nothing meant as subversive in my statement, "use it now". But it was an accusation to those who harbor secrets until they are no longer viable to an industry. I've seen it happens time and time again, as I'm sure you have. Greed is a "Bitch" and it's only money.

You're now talking about patent trolls and companies that deliberately buy patents to make sure they do not get used.

 

Yes, that is a very unfortunate outcome of a good idea. Initially patents were meant to protect inventors. Now it seems that the idea has gone over the top, and inventions with large possible impacts on our world actually do not get used. I completely agree that it's time we overhaul our global patent laws.

 

It was not clear from your previous posts that you wished to discuss this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Creation or Physics? Since no human being fully understands either one, who can say? I find some theories from both to be so outlandish that I can't take them seriously. Both require a great degree of FAITH. But like a lot of other shallow people, I wait to find out which one can explain where the very first "something" came from. Do that, to my satisfaction, and I'll worship at your alter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find some theories from both to be so outlandish that I can't take them seriously. Both require a great degree of FAITH.

 

You might be confusing blind faith and belief based on evidence.

 

Religion requires blind faith. Everyone's experiences are different and very personal so it is impossible to get evidence for a religious set of beliefs. The "I just know it is true" line is not evidence.

 

Science, and even the more "radical" modern theories are not based on blind faith. Physical theories require testing against nature, this then removes the faith.

 

String theory (I assume you are talking about) you might say is a faith. But I do not hold to that way of viewing it. String theory was not just pulled out of the air but was initially developed as a theory of Hardons based on the mathematical properties of S-matrix theory. The fact that it is finite and necessarily contains a theory of gravity make it a fascinating thing.

 

It maybe the case that string theory provides a framework in which to build a theory of everything or it may not. Either way, string theory is a radical and nontrivial departure from "standard point-like particle" field theory that is consistent. The evidence that string theory could be a theory if everything is strong, but of course not conclusive.

 

Maybe you are referring to supersymmetry or extra dimensions or something else? Still, these ideas were developed based on our understanding of accepted and well tested theory. There is no blind faith here. The mathematical beauty and power of the theories may now be the driving force, but still no blind faith. The "faith" lies in the belief that mathematics can be used to describe the world, but we have evidence of this. Should the proposed mathematical models be shown to be inconsistent with nature then scientists more on. They will either improve the proposed models or abandon them.

 

The biggest difference between religion and science is that science evolves. Ideas and even the philosophy can change. Not so clear this happens with religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth doesn't seem to require our belief in it before it can be true. I remember from my childhood, say 50 years or so ago, scientists made a lot of predictions based on what was then observable. They theorized all kinds of stuff. Like tropical forests on Venus, to intricate canal systems on Mars. But as time passed, and they were able to get closer views sent back by probes, they were astounded that what they believed was possible, was not possible at all. Even the most recent probes continue to astound them today, because they show that the truth didn't depend on what they theorized from observations. And today, they still try to decide from what is observable, what is clear out at the edge of the Universe that we can see from here, and are probably making the same mistakes. If their theories, based on what was observable at the time, was so far off right in our own Solar neighborhood, what makes them think what they observe 14 billion light years away is any closer to the truth? Every time science "observes" a black hole, no theories apply and they are thrown into a quandary. Usually, if they run into something that doesn't fit their current theories, they make up another "particle" or something not observable to fix the equation. And so how much closer is anyone to the truth now, than they were before?

 

Pardon, if my sentence structure is a little awkward. I am not a scientist. Just someone trying to understand the mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth doesn't seem to require our belief in it before it can be true. I remember from my childhood, say 50 years or so ago, scientists made a lot of predictions based on what was then observable. They theorized all kinds of stuff. Like tropical forests on Venus, to intricate canal systems on Mars. But as time passed, and they were able to get closer views sent back by probes, they were astounded that what they believed was possible, was not possible at all. Even the most recent probes continue to astound them today, because they show that the truth didn't depend on what they theorized from observations. And today, they still try to decide from what is observable, what is clear out at the edge of the Universe that we can see from here, and are probably making the same mistakes. If their theories, based on what was observable at the time, was so far off right in our own Solar neighborhood, what makes them think what they observe 14 billion light years away is any closer to the truth? Every time science "observes" a black hole, no theories apply and they are thrown into a quandary. Usually, if they run into something that doesn't fit their current theories, they make up another "particle" or something not observable to fix the equation. And so how much closer is anyone to the truth now, than they were before?

 

Pardon, if my sentence structure is a little awkward. I am not a scientist. Just someone trying to understand the mindset.

 

My opening "Poser" was not intended to extend a religious, scientific conflict. That goes on well enough without my help. My use of supernatural was to express something that can't necessarily be seen or fealt, yet suspected of being real. Without that search for knowledge, science would have ended once fire making had been understood. Scientist go through miles of speculation before making a defenite conclusion of anythig. Without that self enforced dictum, Science would be a laughing stock. Strings is such a theory. Wild? Yes. Black Holes, the same, as well as The Higgs boson and many others close at hand, not even counting an entire universe. There are tons of theories without answers, of which all remain supernatural to me. Only wish I understood more about them. Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... My use of supernatural was to express something that can't necessarily be seen or fealt, yet suspected of being real.... There are tons of theories without answers, of which all remain supernatural to me.

 

 

Supernatural is a poor choice of words. However I think I understand what you are getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supernatural was a poor choice of words. However I think I understand what you are getting at.

 

 

 

(Supernatural) Definitly a poor choice of words. But it does leave religeous folks a crack in the door.

 

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

3. Of or relating to a deity.

 

(Phenomenal) Even as many theories are concluded as fact, much remains unknown of the atom and our universe?

 

1. Of, relating to, or constituting phenomena or a phenomenon

2. Extraordinary; outstanding: a phenomenal feat of memory.

3. Philosophy Known or derived through the senses rather than through the mind.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We seem to be trying to "think outside the box" in which we find ourselves. Try that in reverse and see the point. If I place a closed and sealed box in front of you, and ask you to think "inside the box" and tell me what you theorize is going on in there based on your observations, what will you do? What will you say? Then tell me what "out of the box" thinking is, and if there is any way for us to do that from inside the box. Creation or Physics? Most of each is clearly outside the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

put simply, we don't know. and anyone who says they do know is lying.

 

we have a few guesses but thats all they are, guesses. we have no idea what the physics of the early early universe was like. our theories can only go back so far and maintain accuracy.

 

If it is beyond the tested limits of the theory then it is only an extrapolation and might not reflect reality.

 

the LHC will allow us to describe the early universe much more accurately and with more confidence.

 

who knows, we may even discover something that show there was no singularity or maybe our extrapolations will be confirmed as accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I want to know is, simply, when did the first "something" appear in the void of "nothing"? And how did it come into "being"?

 

"think outside the box" in which we find ourselves. Try that in reverse and see the point. If I place a closed and sealed box in front of you, and ask you to think "inside the box" and tell me what you theorize.

 

Had to go back to your previous statement about the "box" to make a reply. Scientifically, there is little in my life to call successful. Theologically, probably even less. So, for me to make a competant statement regarding either, is out of the question. Since I can't make such a judgement, it allows me to free wheel my thinking. While this process may not impress anyone, it makes me feel ok. If someone latches onto something I say and proves it, I'll be happy just knowing it worked. Anyway, there is ambiguity enough in any pholosophy that using a box to describe its shortcomings isn't needed. Someday an answer to your second question may be found. Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had to go back to your previous statement about the "box" to make a reply. Scientifically, there is little in my life to call successful. Theologically, probably even less. So, for me to make a competant statement regarding either, is out of the question. Since I can't make such a judgement, it allows me to free wheel my thinking. While this process may not impress anyone, it makes me feel ok. If someone latches onto something I say and proves it, I'll be happy just knowing it worked. Anyway, there is ambiguity enough in any pholosophy that using a box to describe its shortcomings isn't needed. Someday an answer to your second question may be found.

 

AMEN! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.