Frank Apisa wrote: Quote:What is scientific about either of those statements? Is our agreement based on science or logic? No it is based at best on our intuitions. Neither of us has ever presented any evidence of either possibility. Maybe one or the other is possible; then again, maybe one or the other is not possible.
That is an especially illogical paragraph. How could either NOT BE POSSIBLE?
AH HA! Now I understand your logic difficulties!
Let A = It is possible that what was created by the big bang is all that exists.
Let ~A (i.e., Not A) = It is possible that what was created by the big bang is Not all that exists.
Either A or ~A is possible.
Either A or ~A is Not possible.
So if A were true, then ~A would be false.
So if ~A were true, then A would be false.
So it is possible that one (e.g., A) or the other (e.g., ~A) is possible.
So it is possible that one (e.g., A) or the other (e.g., ~A) is not possible.
Quote:Claiming that something is possible without having any clue as to whether it is possible or not, is not a scientific claim, but only an intuition/faith based claim.
In chinese laundry terminology: "no tickee, no washy".
In scientific terminology: "no preponderance of scientific evidence, no accepted scientific truth".
Frank Apisa wrote: Are you suggesting that you know what every scientist who has ever lived has claimed and not claimed?
No! I'm suggesting that you don't know even one bonified scientist (i.e., a strict adherent to the scientific method -- which method has existed less than 400 years) who has claimed the flat earth or pancake theory was true.
Frank Apisa wrote: I'm not sure what condition you were in when you composed this post -- but I can only hope you were stoned. I'd like to think you can reason better than this post is indicating.
My
condition is irrelevant as is your
condition.
Frank Apisa wrote: And what is this tactic of pretending that when one refers to "scientist" -- one must be referring to someone who lived during an arbritrarily designated 400 year period? Something you just dreamed up?
Please accept my sincere apologies. I presumed you knew the history of the modern scientific method. I thought you knew it evolved within the last 400 years. That of course is the same time period within which Newton, Einstein and the Big Bang theorists (Hawking, et al) have existed and presented their scientific theories and scientific proofs.
from
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
Date: 1854
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Frank Apisa wrote: Why do you suppose there is anything worthwhile about posting that the finite stuff we can see and infer is finite?
Because scientists have inferred from some finite observations that some things are infinite in our finite universe: for example, the set of real numbers, the time required for stuff to travel a finite distance within a finite hollow object traveling at the speed of light, the amount of energy required to accelerate finite stuff to the speed of light. If Mech is correct and the distance between stuff in our finite universe is not increasing, then our universe could not be shown scientifically to be finite after all. But if Edwin Hubble is correct, then it is easy to show that our observable/inferrable universe is finite.
Frank Apisa wrote: Of what possible use is there to limiting ourselves to finite portions of what may be an infinite universe -- just so you can point out that the finite portion is finite?
The whole universe may not be infinite. In fact we have encountered zero evidence that the whole universe is infinite. So the whole universe may actually be finite. Why guess otherwise, except to support some faith based notion like
infinite God, or
we probably will never know.
Frank Apisa wrote: Now you want to assume that present day science is the last word about what the Universe actually is -- what constitutes the Universe.
Not me, sport. I don't want to
presume or
assume any such thing. Read my last post to Mech. Like time, science marches on. So what else is new.
Frank Apisa wrote: ...your assumptions are presumptuous, gratuitous, and unsupported by the "facts" you yourself are offering.
Do you have any real evidence to support the truth of your "presumptuous, gratuitous, and unsupported by the 'facts' " statements you yourself are offering"?
Frank Apisa wrote: Ed does not characterize any science as "the last word" about anything. He merely states that what science has told us so far has an excellent chance of being true at the current level of accuracy we can observe/infer about anything science has so far observed/inferred. He claims the chance of a finite universe is excellent on the grounds that so many different observations/inferences lead to the same conclusion.
YES! YES! YES! WE AGREE!
But it was you not me who characterized Ed's logic at the beginning of this forum as
Quote:...
But to suppose that "that which resulted from the Big Bang" is all that there is...
...is not especially scientific or logical.
It was you who wrote that. And, it is me who is disagreeing with you about exactly that. As you finally pointed out here, Ed didn't
suppose any such thing. He merely
hypothesized it on the basis of available
scientific observations/inferences.
Frank Apisa wrote: Nonsense!
Now
that is what is really
nonsense.