From Nothing to Nothing

a reply to: Noinden

What does this have to do with the OP other than making something out of nothing?

Again it's the same thing I meant with the post saying: From nothing to nothing someone became something... Quite the leap.

This isn't about debating scientific method which you just debunked for yourself it is about nothing going back to nothing and the something inbetween you're playing with the middle sticks avoiding the wrap around at both ends.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I don't know what does Godels Ontological proof have to do with anything either.

Show me where sciecnce says "something from nothing"? Oh and the OP was actually Nothing to Nothing if we are going to quibble.

SO the OP.

Where is the proof the universe is created? Where is there proof that life is created?

When a post such as this actually quotes what science says, I'll treat it with the respect it deserves

Rather the thread says things that science has not said, and says it did.

Viz

There is no single theory on how the universe was created. There is one major theory, aka the Big Bang. But there are others.

Genetics? Evolution deals with the changes of life, not how it first started. That would be the various proteogenic hypotheses. Do you no the difference between a scientific theory and hypothesis?

Thus, this is as ontopic as anything else in the thread, as it is discussing scientific method, which was mentioned in the OP.

quod erat demonstrandum

a reply to: Noinden

All is matter and energy form and formlessness in a constant state of flux stretched to infinity from infinity and nothing more than what we try to make it out to be and often it isn't even that except merely by label and label alone.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TzarChasm

What assumptions are you talking about here?

The assumption that seeing is believing. He thinks it’s highly dubious.

And how does that vindicate your ontological assumptions?

Because it allows him to believe without seeing.

Logic, don’t you know.

Actually, it is more that I don't believe things just because I have seen them.

Perhaps that is why I don't fall for BS just because it is on YouTube.

... or believe that the unsubstantiated is science.

a reply to: Barcs

Except for the fact that much "science" can't be duplicated. There are whole fields where this is true.
Physiology is a fine example of this.
Pharmacology is another
what about sociology?
All "sciences" based on "studies" can't be replicatd 100%

Even Physics has issues. Explain gravity for me? I mean what IS it and what makes it do what it does?
Yes we can explain what it does, but NOT how it does it. Sure it's an attraction between two objects, but what is this mysterious "FORCE" that makes it work?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against science at all and think we DO need to push forth with it study. Just saying that it's not all based on this rock hard knowledge everyone whats to say it is. In fact it is very much based on faith in a system. You have faith in what others have done, if not then you would have to do every experimenter and test yourself.

So in that way religion and science very much have a similarity. They are both based in a faith system of ideas that you may or may not have proven yourself.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: dismanrc

Science is nothing but a belief system; the same as religion.

No, not even the same at all.

It's one thing to say something like Theoretical Physics or something is a belief system because much of it relies on Theory and unseen forces.

But take a known physical science like Chemistry. There is no belief need nor would it be welcomed in such a science. Whether you believe in it or not you mix certain chemicals together you will always get the same reaction. No belief needed, same result.

Religion is all belief. There is no hard evidence or repeatable tests or measurements at all. Zero.

Really?

Have YOU personally done ever chimistry experiment and studied ever single compound and reaction?

No? In that case you are taking it on faith that the required reaction will happen. Very definition of the word.

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: Barcs

Except for the fact that much "science" can't be duplicated. There are whole fields where this is true.
Physiology is a fine example of this.
Pharmacology is another
what about sociology?
All "sciences" based on "studies" can't be replicatd 100%

Even Physics has issues. Explain gravity for me? I mean what IS it and what makes it do what it does?
Yes we can explain what it does, but NOT how it does it. Sure it's an attraction between two objects, but what is this mysterious "FORCE" that makes it work?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against science at all and think we DO need to push forth with it study. Just saying that it's not all based on this rock hard knowledge everyone whats to say it is. In fact it is very much based on faith in a system. You have faith in what others have done, if not then you would have to do every experimenter and test yourself.

So in that way religion and science very much have a similarity. They are both based in a faith system of ideas that you may or may not have proven yourself.

Here's a good piece on scientific studies (for those easily offended language warning)

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Once that is realised, it becomes clear that the entire edifice of science, which is built up upon such fundamentals, is, as you said of the ontological argument, "conjecture all the way down".

Differentiation between 'scientific conjecture' or 'philosophical conjecture' or 'mathematical conjecture' is irrelevant. They all have equal weight in human knowledge. You cannot say that a philosophical or mathematical conjecture is immaterial because it does not fit a 'scientific' view. They are of equal 'weight'.

Complete load of nonsense. They most definitely do not hold equal weight when talking about the existence of something and science is most definitely not conjecture all the way down. Evidence talks. Speculation walks. Philosophy, sound math and logical reasoning are a good START to a scientific hypothesis, but after that you need evidence if you wish to continue to prove anything. Philosophy, math and science all work together to prove things empirically, they aren't 3 equal parts of knowledge that prove things separately. You need the evidence, you need the tests, you need working math, and you need logic to connect them together.

The ontological argument is terrible, every version of it. It doesn't prove anything, it speculates about things we have no idea about and assumes properties that can't be rectified in any way shape or form. You could only say that they prove anything, IF their definitions and assumptions are true, but of course that is a HUGE IF.

If it is based only upon observation and hypothesis and is never really tested (except for repetition of process, producing the same results), how is that different from Aristotle's "science"?

in what manner do you mean?

In what manner do you mean, "in what manner do you mean"?

I was talking about the assumptions upon which science is based. If the assumptions are not testable, should we abstain from calling them 'science'?

Consider this analogy: Harry Stottle who fancies himself scientifically aware, has observed that every time he switches the light switch, the light goes on (at least until something breaks). From hearsay he knows that the light globe can work without a switch, so he surmises that the radiant light is somehow intrinsic in the light globe and that the switch on the wall sends a special message to the globe to release its light, or not. No amount of manipulation of the light switch will alert Harry to the errors of his assumption. You would, no doubt, agree that Harry's assumptions are NOT scientific, so how could you would expect that the same untested (and perhaps untestable) assumptions about Thermodynamic laws or whatever, to be scientific?

Science needs more than ONLY the assumption (theory or hypothesis) and observation pairing, to determine the truth.

Science requires testability, which implies that we can raise an alternate case that fits the observations. Perhaps we cannot theorize about an alternate case because we have simply never observed the alternate, or the conditions such an alternate requires?

In the case of many basic precepts upon which science is constructed, we cannot test the assumptions. Nor can we validly use one untested assumption to 'prove' another. The testing part makes it science. It also reveals a limitation of what science is capable of showing.

What assumptions are you talking about here? And how does that vindicate your ontological assumptions?

I did mention the laws of Thermodynamics as being the assumptions.

They don't vindicate the Ontological argument. I was pointing out that they are untestable assumptions too (despite being called science) and as such are on as shaky a stand point as the Ontological argument.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Once that is realised, it becomes clear that the entire edifice of science, which is built up upon such fundamentals, is, as you said of the ontological argument, "conjecture all the way down".

Differentiation between 'scientific conjecture' or 'philosophical conjecture' or 'mathematical conjecture' is irrelevant. They all have equal weight in human knowledge. You cannot say that a philosophical or mathematical conjecture is immaterial because it does not fit a 'scientific' view. They are of equal 'weight'.

Complete load of nonsense. They most definitely do not hold equal weight when talking about the existence of something and science is most definitely not conjecture all the way down. Evidence talks. Speculation walks. Philosophy, sound math and logical reasoning are a good START to a scientific hypothesis, but after that you need evidence if you wish to continue to prove anything. Philosophy, math and science all work together to prove things empirically, they aren't 3 equal parts of knowledge that prove things separately. You need the evidence, you need the tests, you need working math, and you need logic to connect them together.

The ontological argument is terrible, every version of it. It doesn't prove anything, it speculates about things we have no idea about and assumes properties that can't be rectified in any way shape or form. You could only say that they prove anything, IF their definitions and assumptions are true, but of course that is a HUGE IF.

If it is based only upon observation and hypothesis and is never really tested (except for repetition of process, producing the same results), how is that different from Aristotle's "science"?

in what manner do you mean?

In what manner do you mean, "in what manner do you mean"?

I was talking about the assumptions upon which science is based. If the assumptions are not testable, should we abstain from calling them 'science'?

Consider this analogy: Harry Stottle who fancies himself scientifically aware, has observed that every time he switches the light switch, the light goes on (at least until something breaks). From hearsay he knows that the light globe can work without a switch, so he surmises that the radiant light is somehow intrinsic in the light globe and that the switch on the wall sends a special message to the globe to release its light, or not. No amount of manipulation of the light switch will alert Harry to the errors of his assumption. You would, no doubt, agree that Harry's assumptions are NOT scientific, so how could you would expect that the same untested (and perhaps untestable) assumptions about Thermodynamic laws or whatever, to be scientific?

Science needs more than ONLY the assumption (theory or hypothesis) and observation pairing, to determine the truth.

Science requires testability, which implies that we can raise an alternate case that fits the observations. Perhaps we cannot theorize about an alternate case because we have simply never observed the alternate, or the conditions such an alternate requires?

In the case of many basic precepts upon which science is constructed, we cannot test the assumptions. Nor can we validly use one untested assumption to 'prove' another. The testing part makes it science. It also reveals a limitation of what science is capable of showing.

What assumptions are you talking about here? And how does that vindicate your ontological assumptions?

I did mention the laws of Thermodynamics as being the assumptions.

They don't vindicate the Ontological argument. I was pointing out that they are untestable assumptions too (despite being called science) and as such are on as shaky a stand point as the Ontological argument.

Yes you only mentioned them. Perhaps you can demonstrate how each law is an assumption or based on assumptions. And then perhaps you can explain how these assumptions place the laws of thermodynamics on equal footing with the ontological argument. If you would be so kind please and thank you.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

That is very nice. However, it is not a statement from science in any meaningful form.

originally posted by: chr0naut
If it is based only upon observation and hypothesis and is never really tested (except for repetition of process, producing the same results), how is that different from Aristotle's "science"?

The vast majority of science is tested. It's not just hypotheses.

a reply to: Noinden

Comprehension can be rote or wrote comprehending what is written individualistic to each and every persons faculties, experience also helps the rote become comprehended.

Statiscally things work in scientific models as methods in perfection of the method one hopes to repeat the same process each and every time in ideal conditions ideals do not exist except as a concept so of course those conditions are updated and upgraded in order to make those processes as close to ideal in being repeated without fail as much as humanly possible... advancment of course says the more we look at those conditions and see those failures as failures instead of at the level they could be means innovation so science of science itself progresses.

When science hits a wall, from building conceptual ladders on top of conceptual ladders it all becomes a tower of babel that will collaspe in on itself... if one ladder collapses all of those built on top of it falls apart too as well as pretty much everything else attached to it... a hole in the net of understanding.

We do not deny that there is a hole in the net as there are many of them... the size of the hole however can grow or shrink but yet important information of various sizes can swim through or get trapped doing it's job... so pulling up the net and carrying it in to make repairs other than just harvesting fish after fish out of it can see that well indeed it wasnt doing the job we thought it was doing.

So what is wrong with someone interesting in the craft of net making and fishing to say hey there's a hole... other than the annoyance that may come from the person that is mending the net, when one says hey watch how I mend this hole and I'll let you mend the next? They also can perform the same function...

We all have basically recieved an education as compulsory in the US and other countires requiring it, so once someone has learned to mend many nets... who says they have to stop? Just because they do not enter fields of math or science etc does not mean they have ever stopped working on the holes or education, that is an assumption that oh life gets in the way and now youre just paying bills of support instead of being dedicated to the things you are passionate about as a purpose or reason for being.

So continuing education? Good idea no matter what form it is.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

You assume I've not continued my education neighbour. Be it my Masters in Business, be it my clergy training in my choose polytheistic faith, be it specialist skills in upscaling chemical reactions for production, I learn every day.

However, in the fields I'm not educated in, I will not sell myself as an expert. As if I have an answer greater than any other layperson. It is called being honest. Given how this discussion started, with another poster making unsubstantiated claims.

So science. There is a vast difference between a passing interest, and self education, or even a slight undergraduate education in a specific science, and beign able to perform it.

Lets play a game.

Would you be comfortable walking into my Kilo lab, being handed a set of instructions and using any of the following chemicals, used to make pharmaceuticals, then take said pharmacutical you had made?

The chemicals are:
Phosgene
Methyl Iodide
Hydroflouric acid
A solublized palladium catalyst

I know if I walked into a microbiology lab, researching something that needed a Cat4 containment, I'd not be that happy I'd be able to "follow instructions".

Science is specialized, and these specializations allow it to progress at a faster rate than ever before. Your form of connecting to the World Wide Web, comes to you, because of the specialization not from interested amateurs. Gone are those days.

As for the rest? All I see is a distaste for scientific institutions on your part.

a reply to: Noinden

I have assumed nothing... presumption.

I am glad you have an education and I hope it does much for you and your family and the community in which you live. Unfortunately, I do not have time for games, I am only here to reply to threads as part of daily routine I have other work to accomplish and bouncing concepts around that are essentially empty and meaningless to any real world work that needs to be performed right now only eats away at the time where others matters are more pressing in the heirachy of needs.

I mean no offense but if something is not accomplishing any viable work then it is something to do in leisure... having work to do and all caught up on my business here I must move on elsewhere for the day take care.

originally posted by: dismanrc
Except for the fact that much "science" can't be duplicated. There are whole fields where this is true.

Most of science can be tested and duplicated. In a scientific theory, the premise is tested and verified repeatedly. Hypotheses are works in progress.

Physiology is a fine example of this.

Please explain. Last I checked, we have surgeons saving lives on a daily basis thanks to the study of how biological systems and organs function. How is that not scientific? You lost me on that one.

Pharmacology is another

Interesting, because my brother works as a chemist for a pharmaceutical company testing the medicine on a daily basis. I don't like the medicines the big companies sell as much as the next guy, but to argue that they don't test the medicine or duplicate the tests is a bit over the top.

what about sociology?

Sociology isn't really a field of science, it's the study of human behavior. It's a SOCIAL science, vastly different from a biology lab that uses experiments to test predictions. They do test things related the human behavior, however, so I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here.

Even Physics has issues. Explain gravity for me? I mean what IS it and what makes it do what it does?
Yes we can explain what it does, but NOT how it does it. Sure it's an attraction between two objects, but what is this mysterious "FORCE" that makes it work?

There is a reason why gravity is both a theory and a law in science. The law deals specifically with the measurements of how mass directly affects the force of gravity. The theory tries to explain how it works. We all know gravity exists, and this fact is constantly tested. To suggest it is not scientific, simply because we don't know every last detail is ludicrous considering how many space probes and satellites have been launched that very highly depend on the research of how gravity works. The current understanding of gravity is that it is caused by the mass of an object bending the spacetime around it.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against science at all and think we DO need to push forth with it study. Just saying that it's not all based on this rock hard knowledge everyone whats to say it is. In fact it is very much based on faith in a system. You have faith in what others have done, if not then you would have to do every experimenter and test yourself.

So in that way religion and science very much have a similarity. They are both based in a faith system of ideas that you may or may not have proven yourself.

I don't think you really understand what science is. Science is a method that is used to test things. If something you mentioned above does not utilize this method, then it is not technically science. There is no faith needed if you follow the scientific method. Yes, we trust this method because it works and proves itself to work time and time again. When you talk about "faith" in science, it means trust in experts, not blind belief that something works or exists(ie religious faith). Equating the scientific method to religion is laughably absurd.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

This entire thread is essentially empty to any real world work I can multitask however

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Once that is realised, it becomes clear that the entire edifice of science, which is built up upon such fundamentals, is, as you said of the ontological argument, "conjecture all the way down".

Differentiation between 'scientific conjecture' or 'philosophical conjecture' or 'mathematical conjecture' is irrelevant. They all have equal weight in human knowledge. You cannot say that a philosophical or mathematical conjecture is immaterial because it does not fit a 'scientific' view. They are of equal 'weight'.

Complete load of nonsense. They most definitely do not hold equal weight when talking about the existence of something and science is most definitely not conjecture all the way down. Evidence talks. Speculation walks. Philosophy, sound math and logical reasoning are a good START to a scientific hypothesis, but after that you need evidence if you wish to continue to prove anything. Philosophy, math and science all work together to prove things empirically, they aren't 3 equal parts of knowledge that prove things separately. You need the evidence, you need the tests, you need working math, and you need logic to connect them together.

The ontological argument is terrible, every version of it. It doesn't prove anything, it speculates about things we have no idea about and assumes properties that can't be rectified in any way shape or form. You could only say that they prove anything, IF their definitions and assumptions are true, but of course that is a HUGE IF.

If it is based only upon observation and hypothesis and is never really tested (except for repetition of process, producing the same results), how is that different from Aristotle's "science"?

in what manner do you mean?

In what manner do you mean, "in what manner do you mean"?

I was talking about the assumptions upon which science is based. If the assumptions are not testable, should we abstain from calling them 'science'?

Consider this analogy: Harry Stottle who fancies himself scientifically aware, has observed that every time he switches the light switch, the light goes on (at least until something breaks). From hearsay he knows that the light globe can work without a switch, so he surmises that the radiant light is somehow intrinsic in the light globe and that the switch on the wall sends a special message to the globe to release its light, or not. No amount of manipulation of the light switch will alert Harry to the errors of his assumption. You would, no doubt, agree that Harry's assumptions are NOT scientific, so how could you would expect that the same untested (and perhaps untestable) assumptions about Thermodynamic laws or whatever, to be scientific?

Science needs more than ONLY the assumption (theory or hypothesis) and observation pairing, to determine the truth.

Science requires testability, which implies that we can raise an alternate case that fits the observations. Perhaps we cannot theorize about an alternate case because we have simply never observed the alternate, or the conditions such an alternate requires?

In the case of many basic precepts upon which science is constructed, we cannot test the assumptions. Nor can we validly use one untested assumption to 'prove' another. The testing part makes it science. It also reveals a limitation of what science is capable of showing.

What assumptions are you talking about here? And how does that vindicate your ontological assumptions?

I did mention the laws of Thermodynamics as being the assumptions.

They don't vindicate the Ontological argument. I was pointing out that they are untestable assumptions too (despite being called science) and as such are on as shaky a stand point as the Ontological argument.

Yes you only mentioned them. Perhaps you can demonstrate how each law is an assumption or based on assumptions. And then perhaps you can explain how these assumptions place the laws of thermodynamics on equal footing with the ontological argument. If you would be so kind please and thank you.

The zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is: "If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other". We have never observed any exceptions to this rule and cannot concieve of how an exception might occur. So a valid alternate thesis cannot be proposed and this means that we cannot "falsify" the theory - we cannot test its validity against an alternate. Because we cannot empirically test this theory, it is an assumption.

The first Law of Thermodynamics is: "When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy". Again, no antithesis can be proposed. As it is unfalsifiable, it is therefore untestable in that regard and, therefore, an assumption.

The second law is: "In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems always increases". There is some argument that 'life processes' and 'mathematical emergence' are examples of an antithesis to this, creating higher order and less entropy, so it IS probably falsifiable, but in a higly complex way, not conforming to the reductive methodology that science uses.

The third law of thermodynamics used to be: "The entropy of a system approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero", however, this has been changed to: "The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero". The reason for this change was due to discoveries of some non-crystalline substances whose entropy is equal to the logarithm of the product of their quantum ground states. So the previous definitition was found to be falsifiable and has been modifed accordingly.

That still leaves two fundamental and foundational "laws" which are assumptive.

But I'm sure you know that and were just trolling.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
If it is based only upon observation and hypothesis and is never really tested (except for repetition of process, producing the same results), how is that different from Aristotle's "science"?

The vast majority of science is tested. It's not just hypotheses.

Yes, the majority is adequately tested but if that niggly little bit, that is NOT adequately tested, is 'at the base of the stack', it makes a poor foundation and threatens the solidity of the entire edifice.

a reply to: chr0naut

Can you illustrate that this "niggly little bit" is the base of the stack? Or is this just a philosophy you have?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Can you illustrate that this "niggly little bit" is the base of the stack? Or is this just a philosophy you have?

This previous post of mine describes two of the Thermodynamic Laws that are fundamentally foundational and untestable.

The consequences?

If the zeroth law is falsifiable, then our definitions of temperature, as a measurement of heat, are likely to be wrong. This means that every equation about temperature that we use in physics would need review to see if it was still applicable. Sort of like what Einsteinian relativity did to Newtonian mechanics, only far more so as it encompasses them both.

If the first law is falsifiable, then, basically, energy can be created and destroyed. This is similarly as major in implication as the zeroth law being falsifiable. everything that we have observed and assumed about energy would have to be reviewed and since there is mass-energy equivalence, we'd have to say that everything we know about matter also needs revision.

Just little "niggles", eh?