PDA

View Full Version : Fibonacci Algorithm = God?


Arcesious
02-04-2008, 07:09 PM
My math teacher has been an athiest for a long time.
In my math class today, my teacher brought up the Fibonacci algorithm, which, at the moment is beyond my understanding, but he mentioned it in math class today, saying that after having many questions about God's existence, he believes that there is a God now after he thought about the Fibonacci algorithm.
This was completely new to me, but as a believer in Christianity who seeks scientific proof of his beliefs wherever he can, I looked this up on the internet. Apparently, intelligent design is proved by Fibonacci numbers. The measurements of all living creatures and a whole ton of other things in many different aspects are all identically related in the Fibonacci sequence, including the universe. Apparently, the Fibonacci numbers when used in measuring the mathematics of the universe correspond together perfectly, showing the the universe is not a random occurence with random factors, but actually a very, very, complex, organized system. That's as far as i can grasp it, so don't expect me to know why, as I've only just heard of this. I thought i shoudl emntion it...

Heres wiki on all the technical stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
I don't understand even half of what all those crazy numbers mean, but I thought this was pretty cool and i thought I'd mention it. If anyone has any conflictign evidence to this or something I don't want to debate it myself, because I'm no expert on math or physics. All that I know is that the Fibonacci seqence has turned by stubborn old math teacher who always agreed with everything my athiest science teacher taught is now arguing with my science teacher about this on the side that he thinks God exists now, and that's good enough to make me believe that this Fibonacci thing is strong evidence for God.

Ctrl Alt Del
02-04-2008, 08:37 PM
Hehe, don't understand Fibonacci? Don't worry, you soon will, it's easy (And that comes from a guy who isn't really a math appreciator). The matrix will make your day on classes.

Well, I can't really say what the hell he did saw of holy on Fibonacci Sequence. Perhaps, as a math teacher, he is one of those guys who thinks that only a Intelligent Designer could have made something so perfect and infallible... But most of math can be faced that way.

We should wait for Teekay and his math expertise. :xp:

SilentScope001
02-04-2008, 08:48 PM
We religious people must be desperate if we're looking at random Number patterns----

WAIT A SECOND! I actually scrolled down on wiki and read this:

Fibonacci sequences appear in biological settings,[16] such as branching in trees, the fruitlets of a pineapple,[17] an uncurling fern and the arrangement of a pine cone.[18]. In addition, numerous poorly substantiated claims of Fibonacci numbers or golden sections in nature are found in popular sources, e.g. relating to the breeding of rabbits, the spirals of shells, and the curve of waves[citation needed].

Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz advanced the idea that real instances can be in part understood as the expression of certain algebraic constraints on free groups, specifically as certain Lindenmayer grammars.[19]

There. That was the reason your teacher was squiriming over a bunch of silly number patterns. Because they reoccur in nature.

Eh. Major concidence.

Sabretooth
02-04-2008, 11:00 PM
The Fibonacci sequence is hardly worth being concerned about - it is a naturally occurring pattern that can be translated into flashy mathematics.

You'd be shocked to know how many animals have legs in multiples of 2.

Rev7
02-04-2008, 11:37 PM
Very interesting. I have never dealt with equations like that, but I will. :D

I have no idea how to answer the topic question.

Tommycat
02-05-2008, 12:16 AM
You'd be shocked to know how many animals have legs in multiples of 2.
Probably less shocked than finding out how many animals had legs NOT in multiples of 2.

mur'phon
02-05-2008, 04:13 AM
You can see paterns everywhere if you look hard enough, I would be more surprised if nobody could find one.

Arcesious
02-05-2008, 10:03 AM
Think about it though: The Fibonacci numbers pretty much disprove randomness of the universe and the life in it. Since the Fibonacci seqence seems to show this, and everything is organized, that points majorly to intelligent design actually being what really happened... And things that don't apply to the Fibonacci numbers coudl easily apply to anothr form of organized mathematics. After all, I don't think God would make the universe so simple as to use only one universal mathematical orgarization equation. Experts on science and physics, do you agree that you've found an organized equation for everything known already? If so, then why do you still argue that there was a random big bang and no intelligent designer when all these researches and breakthroughs in physics and math are pointing towards the universe beign a very complex, organized system and not a random from some big bang that you don't even have an explanation to waht made the big bang? Why use the 'Then what created God' thing, when in fact thre is no other evidence anymore since the universe is orgnaized, and we do exist? Wha does it matter how Go came into being when the biggest proof is that the universe exists and our research shows that it is organized, and not a chaotic system, as it seems on the surface only because of it's immensity? What abotu stars? There are billions and trillions of them. Physics proves that a star can't actually form, because heat is stronger than gravity... What else except for god coudl have made allt hose stars, really, a big bang? o_Q

mur'phon
02-05-2008, 10:37 AM
I'll answer more fully when I get home from school.

And things that don't apply to the Fibonacci numbers coudl easily apply to anothr form of organized mathematics.

Agreed, as I said, look long enough for a pattern and you will find one.

If so, then why do you still argue that there was a random big bang and no intelligent designer when all these researches and breakthroughs in physics and math are pointing towards the universe beign a very complex, organized system and not a random from some big bang

Because, the fact that there is a patern dosen't mean that there is a god. To use sabrez example: look at all the animals who have legs in multiples of 2.

you don't even have an explanation to waht made the big bang?

[sarcasm]Goddiddit is as we all know a proven scientifc theory[sarcasm]

Why use the 'Then what created God' thing, when in fact thre is no other evidence anymore since the universe is orgnaized, and we do exist? Wha does it matter how Go came into being when the biggest proof is that the universe exists and our research shows that it is organized

So the universe is organized because of a recuring patern, interesting.
And I don't see why I shouldn't ask the "what created God question".

Darth InSidious
02-05-2008, 10:58 AM
Ehh. Quinquae viae>Fibonacci sequence.

JediMaster12
02-05-2008, 03:27 PM
Think about it though: The Fibonacci numbers pretty much disprove randomness of the universe and the life in it. Since the Fibonacci seqence seems to show this, and everything is organized, that points majorly to intelligent design actually being what really happened... And things that don't apply to the Fibonacci numbers coudl easily apply to anothr form of organized mathematics.
Well if you really think about it there is no such thing a random, at least in the world of mathematics. Things that appear random are not because there is pattern. There always is.
Fibonacci numbers I learned about some years ago and did some research that did NOT come from wikipedia. (wikipedia not very accurate or credible source) What is interesting is the concept of the Golden Ratio (1.618) which can actually be achieved by the Fabonacci sequence. Better known as the number Phi, it does occur in nature but the reason people get hyped over it is because of the FREQUENCY of occurance. When something occurs this much in nature it usually is not coincidence. You want a practical example take a look at your own body. I am going to say it but DaVinci's Vitruvian Man makes a good visual representation of the proportions of the human body which by the way come out to the Golden Ratio.
Early Christians labeled the Golden Ratio as the Divine Proportion. It was the idea that there was a number considered perfect that God creted the world by or some notion like that. Given the frequent occurence of the number in nature they believed they found it and called it such. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't a means that God left his signature on the world. The fact of the matter is that it exists.

Arcesious
02-05-2008, 06:17 PM
Mur'Phon, let me try to put it more clearly.

Everything in the universe that we currently know of has a mathematical explanation, and all seems to work in an organized system. It appaers to be a Chaotic system because of it's immensity and because of all the differing equations, but in truth, all those equatiosn onyl compliment each other, and unite together as one, single, uber-complex, yet organized, system. A system that by which the chances of occuring from a random big bang are impossible. Makign odds for how possible it is for a big bang to make thsese conditions is irrelevent data in the equation, because the universe must continue to exist forever, no matter hwat state it is put in, and the longer it exists and becomes more complex yet still organized, the more the odds of a big bang havign created the universe are less and less. Of course, theoretically, God could create and corridinate a 'big bang', so i don't fully deny the big bang theory, onylt he fact that it coudln't happen without God. just how impossible do the odds have to get until you think a big bang couldn't create a perfectly organized universe that continues to expand and become more and more complex? The fact of the matter is that the universe will continue to get more organized from it's constant explansion, as i have pretty ymuch repeated five times in this post so that I get my point accross fully.
Input: X * N = Big Bang. Big bang = perfectly organized Universe.
What is X? What is N? X = God. N = Nothing.
You ask:
What created 'X' then? How can X, which nothing created, make N?
New Data: We, and the universe, exist. Therfore, something had to create soemthing to make us exist.
Now, even though nothing created X, we exist. The fact that we and the universe exist proves that something had to make us. Then we coem up with the big bang. Something had to create the big bang.
Alternate data: We created ourselves by traveling back in tiem to create ourselves, formign an infinite time loop.
Logic Correction: Time is a constant, it cannot go bakcwards, only forwards. time cannot alter or be changed after soemthign has already happened, because time is an unbreakable constant. Therfore, nothing but God coudl create the universe, and there can be no 'time loop'. The universe cannto restart itself. it must go on forever and ever. It must exist because it does already exist. What mad eit to exist coudl onyl be soemthing that is beyond time. soemthing beyond mathematics. An intelligent designer. God must be beyond time in order to create the universe. But time cannot be bent. Therfore, God is a beign that is speerate from space and time, from this dimension/perception of the universe. That is how God can exist, and his beign outside of the universe allows him to create it. Thing of the universe and it's imaginary 'boundaries' as an elastic hamster ball, or a bottle. Everything outside the 'universe in a ball/bottle' has no bounds, it is infinite. Time does not exist outside of the ball/bottle. But time is an absolute in the ball/bottle. God creates himself outside of the ball/bottle, in the infinite expanse that there is. There is no tiem in this area, so he can create time, and bend it. He makes a time loop, and creates the conditions for himself to come into being. When he comes into beign in the past, he destroys the time loop, and he is the only thing left. there are no aboslutes as to what can create him, because he created himself with the power to bend time, and do anything else. God is a being, so he must have a mind. it is logical for a god of immense power to be intlligent. and it is intelligent to be a good God with good intentions. He decides to make a bottle. His power is infinitly renewable. He makes a universe that continues to expand in the elastic bottle, withint he infinite boudnaries outside of the bottle. To us, our universe has no bounds, but that is only because it is constantly expanding, an d the farther we can see to it's boudnaries, the bigger it gets, and it seems to have no boundaries in our perception. Meanwhile, God is keepignt he universe organized with his immense power, tinkering with his 'universe in a bottle' ever so carefully, fixing any problems ever-so delicately. At the moment i'm still brainstorming hwat God's ultimate purpose for us that believe in him and the universe is after theoretical heaven. I'll have to think about that one. But this thread is only about how intelligent design is possible, not the reason why God created the universe.
Please tell me you see my point now...

Summarazing this wallotext, basically my poitn is that the existence of the universe proves that soemthing intelligent had to create it, because it exists.

JediMaster12
02-05-2008, 06:48 PM
Now I pose this: How do you know it exists?

True that the numbers could be proven but can that be given proof that things here exist?

SilentScope001
02-05-2008, 07:43 PM
Everything in the universe that we currently know of has a mathematical explanation, and all seems to work in an organized system. It appaers to be a Chaotic system because of it's immensity and because of all the differing equations, but in truth, all those equatiosn onyl compliment each other, and unite together as one, single, uber-complex, yet organized, system. A system that by which the chances of occuring from a random big bang are impossible.

Nothing is impossible.

And, in the theory of the multiverse, everything is possible.

But, in the long term, if everything is a mathematical equation, then we have no free will, as we are fufilling whatever the math equation spits out. And if there is an element of randomness that does allow us to do whatever we will, such randomness may point to the nonexistence of a God.

All the atheist has to do is point out: "There is no evidence God HAS to exist."

Ctrl Alt Del
02-05-2008, 07:43 PM
This isn't about Fibonacci anymore. It's Descartes.

Arcesious
02-05-2008, 08:00 PM
I'll change the title then...

We are an exception. Everything else is a mathetmatical equation. Yes, Nature is an equation in my opinion of this. We however, are sentient, and obviously God's purpose for us requires us to have free will. Just because we coudl be an equation doesn't mean we can't do a certain thing. Obivously, God gave our life an equation, a complex plan, but a plan that we all have free will in. In the ned it will turn out the way he plans no matter what we do, his plan shoudl be something we all look forward to being completed. Everything that we do not effect is an equation. Nature changes because of us. it is all a perfectly organized plan. God knows everything that will happen, but that isn't stoppig his elaborate plan from allowing you to be a believer in him and what he has done for us.

I can prove things here exist because our minds exist. we can feel our enviroment. our souls can think. we exist, we can touch and understand the universe. Scientifically everything exists. How can we not exist? Science can't fully disprove God because of our existence. We know that we exist because we and th euniverse are here, right now. Therfore, God does have to exist, or else we wouldn't be here would be? All there would be would be without something to create everything an empty expanse, a nothing, a nothing that in itself it nothingness, that isn't even it or nothing. Remember the Scientific Method? I will prove we exist right now. *touches computer, sees computer, sees it's existence as a form of matter.* There ya go, the universe exists. Therefore God must exist. Perhaps God even uses the multiverse theory as a real template for the universe. Maybe he as more thna one 'universe in a bottle'... Who knows? the fact that there coudl be a muliverse system changes nothing in the matter of disprovign the existence of an intelligent designer.

Igos
02-05-2008, 08:04 PM
Everything in the universe that we currently know of has a mathematical explanation, and all seems to work in an organized system.

Can you support this assertion? I find the idea that "everything has a mathematical explanation" to be unfounded at best, completely false at worst.

A system that by which the chances of occuring from a random big bang are impossible

If I was to pick a random person on Earth to be a superhero, and you somehow got picked, would you deny that you were picked randomly because you only had one chance out of 6 billion to be picked? No - no matter how unlikely an event is, many, many, many other events are just as unlikely, if not more. The odds that we get ONE of them are in fact equal, or close to 100%. In this case, I have 100% chance to pick a person, and no matter what person I pick, it has one chance out of 6 billion to be picked randomly. This is a case where there is 100% chance that an unlikely event occurs.

In other words, even if we had 1/10^10000 chance of coming here, I can give you a near infinity of alternatives that are even less likely than that (while being possible). And if you compute all of them, the odds of an universe in which no ridiculously unlikely events ever occur is itself ridiculously unlikely. Kind of like a world where nobody would ever get a royal flush. Maybe there's 1/10^10000 chance of leprechauns existing, or dragons existing, or vulcans existing, or Bush not screwing up, but there are so many that one of them is bound to happen - and no matter which one happens, you'll say that it can't be random, because it only had a 1/10^10000 chance of happening. Right.

New Data: We, and the universe, exist. Therfore, something had to create soemthing to make us exist.

No, that's a horrible case of "begging the question".

There is no tiem in this area, so he can create time, and bend it

What does it mean to create without time? You have to keep in mind that the very concept of "operating" refers to time. Without time, you cannot change, you cannot work, you cannot operate anything. Therefore, even if God transcended our timeline, he would still need his own timeline to operate within.

As a side note, you need to give an operational definition of "organized". You consistently say the universe is organized. However, from my point of view, it really isn't. I guess a common base would help to clear out doubts.

Arcesious
02-05-2008, 08:35 PM
Hmm... i see your point abotu randomness possibilities... Still, my point still stands that the universe cannot exist without something to create it. Here's an orgnaized system: The entire universe, and all of it's galaxies all conform (orbit) around a central gravitational point. Whereas, in rnadomness of a big bang, there coudl be multiple gravitational cnters. But we humans and our telescopes have been alogn roudn enough to see that everthing only orbits one central point. Don't forget what i said about stars being impossible to form because heat is stronger thna gravity too...

Can you support this assertion? I find the idea that "everything has a mathematical explanation" to be unfounded at best, completely false at worst.

The mathematical explanation being physics and the scientific method. we cannot test the past to see what happened, but in physics what is happening now can be seen as an equation. Okay, X is what happened bfore, Y is what is happenign now. We're tryign to find X. We examine Y, whtever it's value may be, and use physics to figure out what X was. There may be no 'aboslute equation, but there is after all things like the Fibonacci Equation, and physics itself withoutmath applied to it, but still being an equation. An equation doesn't need to be shown by numbers, afterall. Hmm... after thinkign about it, I think an intelligent designer could even use both a chaotic and orgnaized system at the same time...

No, that's a horrible case of "begging the question".

Exactly my intention.

I seem to see your point about God's existence needing time, and tiem not being able to be created without time. That is a flaw in my argument. help me out here other God-believing people... After all in my first post i didn't intend to debate this. But here I am... Maybe i just couldn't resist the bait... :D

Det. Bart Lasiter
02-05-2008, 09:04 PM
Hmm... i see your point abotu randomness possibilities... Still, my point still stands that the universe cannot exist without something to create it.Just because you can't wrap your mind around something doesn't mean it doesn't exist/occur.

My thoughts are that humans invented a language to describe the world around them - we call it mathematics. It seems only natural that something invented to describe the world around us in a logical way would have ties to the world around us.

Weiser_Cain
02-05-2008, 09:29 PM
I fell down and hit my head, there is no god.

Igos
02-05-2008, 09:57 PM
Still, my point still stands that the universe cannot exist without something to create it. Here's an orgnaized system: The entire universe, and all of it's galaxies all conform (orbit) around a central gravitational point. Whereas, in rnadomness of a big bang, there coudl be multiple gravitational cnters.

Indeed there could, but there aren't. That was the whole point of my post: The universe we live in is a possibility among infinite others, and does not account as a testament to any higher being.

Don't forget what i said about stars being impossible to form because heat is stronger thna gravity too...

Stars are not "impossible to form". We've seen and studied its formation; I have no idea where you get this from.

There may be no 'aboslute equation'

This contradicts your previous statement:

Everything in the universe that we currently know of has a mathematical explanation

Perhaps you could rephrase your argument - I'm a bit confused at your position right now.

Exactly my intention.

I wasn't aware that your intention was to sprout fallacies.

Jae Onasi
02-05-2008, 11:18 PM
Indeed there could, but there aren't. That was the whole point of my post: The universe we live in is a possibility among infinite others, and does not account as a testament to any higher being.
Actually, all we have evidence for is this universe that we exist in. The possibility of an infinite number of other universes is nothing more than a metaphysical concept with absolutely no basis in science, and in fact it is a more complex (and thus less likely) answer to our existence than the idea of a single Creator.

Answering another point--a Creator of 'time' lives and functions outside of the limits of the dimension of time. He/she/it would not need to function within a 'timeline'.

Igos
02-05-2008, 11:46 PM
Actually, all we have evidence for is this universe that we exist in. The possibility of an infinite number of other universes is nothing more than a metaphysical concept with absolutely no basis in science, and in fact it is a more complex (and thus less likely) answer to our existence than the idea of a single Creator.

I never said other universes existed simultaneously with ours. I said that at the moment of the big bang / creation of the universe, other variables could have affected its development, and we'd be living in a different universe now.

a Creator of 'time' lives and functions outside of the limits of the dimension of time. He/she/it would not need to function within a 'timeline'.

That seems impossible, since creation requires time.

Jae Onasi
02-05-2008, 11:55 PM
I never said other universes existed simultaneously with ours. I said that at the moment of the big bang / creation of the universe, other variables could have affected its development, and we'd be living in a different universe now.


Regardless of whether other universes exist simultaneously or not with ours, there is still not a shred of physical evidence for any universe outside our own. The concept of other universes is still a metaphysical concept with no basis in our reality.


That seems impossible, since creation requires time.
Why is that impossible for an infinite being? Time and space were created at the Big Bang. Whoever or whatever initiated the Big bang had to exist outside of the space-time continuum.

Igos
02-06-2008, 12:04 AM
Regardless of whether other universes exist simultaneously or not with ours, there is still not a shred of physical evidence for any universe outside our own.

I repeat: I am not saying that another universe exists at the same time with ours. I am saying our universe could be different, had something changed at the time of the Big bang.

Why is that impossible for an infinite being?

Because creating X implies that X did not exist, and then exists. How is that possible without time? Short answer: it isn't. That process requires a chronological sequence. Therefore, time.

Time and space were created at the Big Bang.

Since the time of the Big bang is the first moment of time, there is no before. Therefore, it would be logically inconsistent to say that time didn't exist before the Big bang because it would require previous states to exist, and there exist none.

Time started with the Big bang. It cannot be created because creation requires time.

Arcesious
02-06-2008, 12:04 AM
Jae seemed to put it perfectly there... :)

I wasn't aware that your intention was to sprout fallacies.

So, Igos, what exactly are these fallacies? How can you be sure that they are false when you have no evidence that gives absolute proof that they're wrong?

There may be no 'aboslute equation'

This contradicts your previous statement:

Quote:
Everything in the universe that we currently know of has a mathematical explanation

Perhaps you could rephrase your argument - I'm a bit confused at your position right now.

A partial contradicion that i can well rephrase. Dont' forget I said 'may'. Perhaps my standing has changed a little. I a first considered that God has made the universe a perfectly organized system. But, when free will was considered, I accepted that he could use a chaotic system in unison with an organized one.


Stars are not "impossible to form". We've seen and studied its formation; I have no idea where you get this from.

Okay, tell me the recorded data of a star forming. What? you can't fidn any? did you forget that if science even does know how a star coudl form it would take millions of years for it to form, and therefore no scientist is goignt o watch a star form for a few million years? and they therefore have no proof? Heat make matter spread apart. cold makes matter more condensed.
Ever put a marshmellow in a microwave for two minutes? you'd be amazed at what happens. The air spread out so much that if you leave it in to long, it will explode. Now, think of hydrogen. The hydrogen is very hot, and it is expanding immensly. put the hydrogen inside a metalic core. the hydrogen will get hotter and hotter from the other gases it is mixed, with makign a chain reaction. the metallic core will slowly expand, and eventually, the hydrogen, which has expanded so much from the heat of the chemical reactions, will excape from the metalic core, and blow it appart, counteracting the gravity of the much denser, heavier metallic core. SAo hwo do stars form? Goddonit obviously... the only reason stars now stay together is because their metallic cores are melted, and are in unison with the hydrogen. Still, ever star goes supernova. Except for those that become white dwarfs. but even those white dwarfs even explode eventually, because they become so compressed together that the inplosion creates an explosion. that or a black hole, if there's enough nuetrons... still, if i'm wrong abotu white dwarfs, which i think i am sicne i'm nto entirely sure about them, you've got to give me credit for the exploding marshmellows comment... o_Q

Since the time of the Big bang is the first moment of time, there is no before. Therefore, it would be logically inconsistent to say that time didn't exist before the Big bang because it would require previous states to exist, and there exist none.

Time started with the Big bang. It cannot be created because creation requires time.

Igos answer me this: then what created time? what triggered the start of time, truly? how can a big bang start time without anything to start either time or the big bang?

Igos
02-06-2008, 12:20 AM
So, Igos, what exactly are these fallacies?

No, that's a horrible case of "begging the question".
Exactly my intention

You said so yourself; begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) is a logical fallacy. Your conclusion does not solve anything because the same question can be applied to it (IE: What created God?)

Okay, tell me the recorded data of a star forming. What? you can't fidn any?

Indeed I can't, and it's likely that no one will ever will, as it usually takes centuries. However, that doesn't make studying their formation impossible, and if we are able to understand the process, then it isn't "impossible" as you put it.

And I don't understand the following part of your post. You said that stars were impossible to form, but you provided no evidence, and we have the very convincing fact that they're there to prove otherwise.

what created time?

Time cannot be created. Time, as we know it, started with the Big bang, or with God's beginning; whichever you prefer.

how can a big bang start time without anything to start either time or the big bang?

What makes you think that there was "nothing to start the Big bang"?

Arcesious
02-06-2008, 12:44 AM
You said so yourself; begging the question is a logical fallacy. Your conclusion does not solve anything because the same question can be applied to it (IE: What created God?)


Oh... I didn't realize that. I've never heard of that term efore. I only thought that beggign the question meant to 'beggingly' ask you to answer the question'.... lol.

Indeed I can't, and it's likely that no one will ever will, as it usually takes centuries. However, that doesn't make studying their formation impossible, and if we are able to understand the process, then it isn't "impossible" as you put it.

And I don't understand the following part of your post. You said that stars were impossible to form, but you provided no evidence, and we have the very convincing fact that they're there to prove otherwise.

what about my comment on exploding marshmellows?

Time cannot be created. Time, as we know it, started with the Big bang, or with God's beginning; whichever you prefer.


Quote:
how can a big bang start time without anything to start either time or the big bang?



What makes you think that there was "nothing to start the Big bang"?

so, you consider God as a possibility to have created a big bang. If you've read my previous posts, you'l notice i mentioned that i think as apossibility that God could have created and controlled a big bang, but from your 'no God created big bang' point of veiw, i see nothing that coudl create a big bang. everything has a logical explanation, whether understandable by our limited perception or not. But we do understand quite a bit, as far as we know.

What factor made time create a big bang? Time is a constant, not a form of matter or something that can on it's own trigger anything. Therefore, there is no chemical reaction or anything else besides God to create and corridinate a big bang.

When i think about it, i do now think that there was a big bang. One created and corridnated by God, that uses an organized and a chaotic system at the same time. that explaisn why it's constantly expanding.

...

...

edit: Hey I've got a new idea! What if God is in fact time? soemthing to think about... sure i know it contradicts what i just said, but it's soemthing to consider.

ET Warrior
02-06-2008, 02:15 AM
what about my comment on exploding marshmellows?
Your exploding marshmallows analogy has absolutely not bearing on the formation of a star, as a star is not being created inside of a microwave. Nor is it generally being created in the presence of any appreciable source of heat. Space is exceptionally cold.

deathdisco
02-06-2008, 02:51 AM
Quantum physics anyone? The rules change(randomness) at the atomic/sub-atomic level.

Achilles
02-06-2008, 03:16 AM
This thread is years away from being prepared to deal with uncertainty principle, et cetera.

Arcesious
02-06-2008, 09:59 AM
Your exploding marshmallows analogy has absolutely not bearing on the formation of a star, as a star is not being created inside of a microwave. Nor is it generally being created in the presence of any appreciable source of heat. Space is exceptionally cold.
then you're sayign stars can't form then... sure there's the chemical ractions between gases, but the chemical reactions make heat, and the heat couneracts gravity...

Quantum physics anyone? The rules change(randomness) at the atomic/sub-atomic level.

I wouldn't object to discussing that. Everything related to how intelligent design would work needs to be laid out here, and dicussion of qunatum physcis coudl yield soem new ideas. Sure i don't know how quantum physics work, but i bet wikipedia could give me the basics... o_Q

This thread is years away from being prepared to deal with uncertainty principle, et cetera.

How, exactly? We're already discussing the probability/uncertainty principle in relation to this, and I don't see how we aren't prepared to deal with it.

Dagobahn Eagle
02-06-2008, 10:04 AM
what created time?Time is a human-made measuring concept. Asking who created time is like asking who created length or weight.

Achilles
02-06-2008, 11:51 AM
then you're sayign stars can't form then... sure there's the chemical ractions between gases, but the chemical reactions make heat, and the heat couneracts gravity...Actually, friction creates heat (for the purposes of this point). This friction is caused by gravity.

I wouldn't object to discussing that. Everything related to how intelligent design would work needs to be laid out here, and dicussion of qunatum physcis coudl yield soem new ideas. Sure i don't know how quantum physics work, but i bet wikipedia could give me the basics... o_QHis point is that the principles of quantum physics rule out design. Everything is based on probabilities, therefore the idea that everything is predestined doesn't hold to scrutiny in light of the evidence.

How, exactly? We're already discussing the probability/uncertainty principle in relation to this, and I don't see how we aren't prepared to deal with it. This is a numerology thread, right? Pseudoscience to quantum physics is quite the learning curve.

Jae Onasi
02-06-2008, 12:27 PM
I repeat: I am not saying that another universe exists at the same time with ours. I am saying our universe could be different, had something changed at the time of the Big bang.You're saying a couple different things then. You brought up the multi-universe hypothesis, and I'm saying there is no evidence for the multi-universe hypothesis. You appear now to be saying that if something different had happened at the Big Bang, then our universe would be different. That I would agree with--if the amount of heat or mass created had been the slightest bit different, we very likely would not exist.

My point is that you cannot hold up the multi-universe hypothesis as science, because there is zero scientific evidence for any universe outside our own. It is nothing more than a metaphysical concept.



Because creating X implies that X did not exist, and then exists. How is that possible without time? Short answer: it isn't. That process requires a chronological sequence. Therefore, time.We can't conceive existence without time since we live in that paradigm. Within our universe, your comment is true. Outside of our universe, that doesn't necessarily apply. The singularity existed prior to the Big Bang and thus prior to space-time creation. We don't know how that came into being and probably never will. If you're working within the space-time universe, then yes, creation requires time. If you're working outside space-time prior to the Big Bang (and even 'prior' is an inaccuracy since there was no time then), then our current physical laws may not apply since they didn't exist then, either.



Since the time of the Big bang is the first moment of time, there is no before. Therefore, it would be logically inconsistent to say that time didn't exist before the Big bang because it would require previous states to exist, and there exist none.Einstein, Hawkings, and other have stated time and space were created at the Big Bang and that it came from a singularity exploding. That singularity existed "prior" (for lack of a better word) to the Big Bang.

Time started with the Big bang. It cannot be created because creation requires time.Then you are in disagreement with most cosmologists.

Quantum physics anyone? The rules change(randomness) at the atomic/sub-atomic level.

The rules don't really change at the atomic level, but our ability to predict where something is at a specific moment does become random. We can't predict exactly where an electron will be at any given moment as it moves around the nucleus, but we know that it will exist within a specific range/cloud around the nucleus.

Igos
02-06-2008, 12:53 PM
You're saying a couple different things then. You brought up the multi-universe hypothesis, and I'm saying there is no evidence for the multi-universe hypothesis.

Please point out where I did so.

My point is that you cannot hold up the multi-universe hypothesis as science, because there is zero scientific evidence for any universe outside our own. It is nothing more than a metaphysical concept.

Indeed. And I have repeatedly say that I did not support that notion.

Outside of our universe, that doesn't necessarily apply

What is "outside our universe"? You made it very clear that other universes coexisting with ours is unfounded.

The singularity existed prior to the Big Bang and thus prior to space-time creation.

How can you prove that something existed prior to the Big Bang? There exists no previous states to the creation of our universe.

then our current physical laws may not apply since they didn't exist then, either.

That is assuming that something existed prior to the Big bang, which sounds like circular logic to me.

Einstein, Hawkings, and other have stated time and space were created at the Big Bang and that it came from a singularity exploding.

I don't know about Einstein, but Hawking did certainly not state that. In Hawking's own words: "Asking what was before the Big bang is meaningless; like asking what lies North of the North pole".

Clearly then, Hawking stated that there was nothing no "before" the Big bang.
In that sense, time could not be "created" as creation requires a previous state in which the creation doesn't exist and then it does.

Achilles
02-06-2008, 01:04 PM
What is "outside our universe"? You made it very clear that other universes coexisting with ours is unfounded. Actually, that's not true. String theory allows for multiple universes, so to categorically dismiss them as "unfounded" is jumping the gun. While it is absolutely true and accurate to point out that we do not have any evidence to support an argument that they actually do exist (outside of the mathematical models that show that they are possible), one would have to provide evidence that ruled them out (and thereby turn decades of string research on its head) in order to accurately state that they don't.

@Jae: Since multiple universes are allowable within string theory and would be subject to the laws of physics, multi-verse hypothesis, by definition, isn't "metaphysical". I hope that helps.

I don't know about Einstein, but Hawking did certainly not state that. In Hawking's own words: "Asking what was before the Big bang is meaningless; like asking what lies North of the North pole". Right, because "time" on the Planck scale is arbitrary and meaningless. Hence why quantum physics gives so many people headaches :xp:

ET Warrior
02-06-2008, 05:33 PM
You're saying a couple different things then. You brought up the multi-universe hypothesis,Actually, he did not, you seem to have misunderstood the point he was attempting to make, and continue to see it in this incorrect light.

He was merely making a point of showing that while our universe existing in its current state is exceptionally unlikely, it is no more unlikely than it having existed in some other state. In the same way of his analogy of randomly picking a single human out of the entire planetary population, if you are picked it will seem like the odds were highly against you being chosen. You would not posit that there had to have been some kind of higher power guiding the choosing process, would you? In the same way, there are so many different ways the universe could have formed, but it had to form in SOME way, so it was equally likely to be this way as any other.

then you're sayign stars can't form then... sure there's the chemical ractions between gases, but the chemical reactions make heat, and the heat couneracts gravity......No, I am not saying stars can't form. I am well aware that stars can form, on any given night I can point at an entire sky full of them to support that.

If heat were enough to prevent gravity from holding things together the Earth itself would have exploded outwards long ago. Also, cooking on a stove would be inordinately difficult if the pans kept floating up away from the heat...

It seems dishonest to make definitive claims about anything that you obviously have very little knowledge about.

Arcesious
02-06-2008, 07:53 PM
Whoa... lots of stuff happens overnight.

Here i go...

I don't know about Einstein, but Hawking did certainly not state that. In Hawking's own words: "Asking what was before the Big bang is meaningless; like asking what lies North of the North pole".

Clearly then, Hawkings stated that there was nothing no "before" the Big bang.
In that sense, time could not be "created" as creation requires a previous state in which the creation doesn't exist and then it does.

What Hawkings said was one opinion, a possibility, but not an absolutely proven thing. Also, consider that Einstein's conclusions are about the universe are much more valid than Hawkings's, as he pretty much revolutionized the way we look at physics and math.

That is assuming that something existed prior to the Big bang, which sounds like circular logic to me.

How can you prove that something existed prior to the Big Bang? There exists no previous states to the creation of our universe.

What is "outside our universe"? You made it very clear that other universes coexisting with ours is unfounded.

Actually, that's not true. String theory allows for multiple universes, so to categorically dismiss them as "unfounded" is jumping the gun. While it is absolutely true and accurate to point out that we do not have any evidence to support an argument that they actually do exist (outside of the mathematical models that show that they are possible), one would have to provide evidence that ruled them out (and thereby turn decades of string research on its head) in order to accurately state that they don't.


The proof that there must have been a singularity before the big bang is that we and the universe exist! Matter cannot be created or destroyed within time. It can only be changed. A Big bang could not happen unless if there was something to cause it that was outside of time, before the universe existed. There is no evidence to disprove that there couldn't have been a singularity before the universe, because the proof that there was is because there IS a universe. perhaps multiple universes. On brainstorming multiverse theory, I thought of this: according to the Bible, there is a first heaven, second heaven, and third heaven. The locations of these heavens is unknown. But, i would bet my bottom dollar that the first heaven is our current universe, the universe wherein earth exists. The Bible says that the first heaven and first earth with pass away, and then a new heaven and new earth will be formed. By theory, I now believe that multiverse theory could work, as i think the three heavens are three separate universes, hence, a multiverse system. Obviously according to my beliefs something will destroy our universe, and the destruction would eventually form a new one, or multiple new ones. The bible never said there couldn’t be more than three heavens either...


...No, I am not saying stars can't form. I am well aware that stars can form, on any given night I can point at an entire sky full of them to support that.

If heat were enough to prevent gravity from holding things together the Earth itself would have exploded outwards long ago. Also, cooking on a stove would be inordinately difficult if the pans kept floating up away from the heat...

It seems dishonest to make definitive claims about anything that you obviously have very little knowledge about.

I see how I am wrong about stars. I rest my case about that. Obviously stars formed by chemical reaction, and the friction made heat. Solid matter wouldn’t be directly compatible with gases, but the metallic cores would be melted to a liquid state, liquid and gas being very miscible, hence the way a star would form. Sorry for the ignorance about stars...

..............................

So basically there had to be a singularity before time and the universe in order for the universe to exist, as in all testable and known scientific theory and method, there has to be a cause for anything to do anything. time is a constant but not a physical thing, so time could not be what made the possible big bang. There ha to be something beyond time, as scientific method will not work with any other way. All we have to do is take away time in order for God, the 'singularity', to exist before the universe existed... It doesn't matter what the laws of physics are when it comes to this 'singularity', because we exist and therefore there must have been a singularity in beginning (pardon the metaphor since time didn't exist at the singularity, and therefore there was no exact 'beginning') , a singularity beyond the laws of physics, space, and time, and no matter how we try to figure out how it worked with science, it will never work since there were no physics or anything to dictate the existence of anything at that 'time'

Achilles
02-06-2008, 09:03 PM
What Hawkings said was one opinion, a possibility, but not an absolutely proven thing. Also, consider that Einstein's conclusions are about the universe are much more valid than Hawkings's, as he pretty much revolutionized the way we look at physics and math. Huh? "Einstein's conclusions are about the universe are much more valid than Hawkings'" How do you get that?

The proof that there must have been a singularity before the big bang is that we and the universe exist! Matter cannot be created or destroyed within time. It can only be changed. A Big bang could not happen unless if there was something to cause it that was outside of time, before the universe existed.I don't know how this is related to the section of my post that you quoted.

There is no evidence to disprove that there couldn't have been a singularity before the universe, because the proof that there was is because there IS a universe. Gee, with that reasoning, then it would seem that Creation is impossible. If the universe being here means that there *must* have been a singularity and there *must* have been a big bang, then we don't need any folk stories about a magic sky daddy making everything as we see it 6,000 years ago (not to mentional all the required mental gymnastics necessary to explain modern cosmological observations, etc).

perhaps multiple universes. On brainstorming multiverse theory, I thought of this: according to the Bible, there is a first heaven, second heaven, and third heaven. The locations of these heavens is unknown. But, i would bet my bottom dollar that the first heaven is our current universe, the universe wherein earth exists. The Bible says that the first heaven and first earth with pass away, and then a new heaven and new earth will be formed. By theory, I now believe that multiverse theory could work, as i think the three heavens are three separate universes, hence, a multiverse system. Except your brainstorming doesn't even come close to describing what brane cosmology suggests. Kudos that you're thinking about these things, however I don't think you'll get far just making stuff up. I can brainstorm that the night sky is big woolly blanket and the stars are pinpoints of light that breakthrough from a giant flashlight being held by a colossal Maytag salesman standing on the other side, but that doesn't tell me anything about reality.

Obviously according to my beliefs something will destroy our universe, and the destruction would eventually form a new one, or multiple new ones. The bible never said there couldn’t be more than three heavens either... Best of luck with that.

So basically there had to be a singularity before time and the universe in order for the universe to exist, as in all testable and known scientific theory and method, there has to be a cause for anything to do anything. time is a constant but not a physical thing, so time could not be what made the possible big bang. Space-time is the product of the big bang. Time, as we are capable of understanding it at this juncture, did not exist before hand. The singularity existed on the Planck scale, therefore "time" had no relevance. Don't take my word for it, pick up Elegant Universe or Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene (I recommend the latter) and read up on it yourself. Subject matter is a little steep, but Greene puts a lot of work into making it a relatively light read.

There ha to be something beyond time, as scientific method will not work with any other way. Sure it will. The scientific method is in no way, shape, or form dependent upon pre-big bang anything. It's a process that is used to investigate what we can observe.

All we have to do is take away time in order for God, the 'singularity', to exist before the universe existed... Please Google "singularity" before proceeding further with this train of thought. Unless of course you really do want to posit that "god" was a ball of energy less than a Planck-length in size that was more or less destroyed 13.7 billion years ago when the universe was created.

It doesn't matter what the laws of physics are when it comes to this 'singularity', because we exist and therefore there must have been a singularity in beginning (pardon the metaphor since time didn't exist at the singularity, and therefore there was no exact 'beginning') , a singularity beyond the laws of physics, space, and time, and no matter how we try to figure out how it worked with science, it will never work since there were no physics or anything to dictate the existence of anything at that 'time'I'm sure that all the quantum physicists that have worked so hard on this subject and have built careers based on 100 years of research will be quite disappointed to hear that you've decided to pull the plug on their party.

Arcesious
02-06-2008, 09:55 PM
Huh? "Einstein's conclusions are about the universe are much more valid than Hawkings'" How do you get that?

Einstein pretty much 'founded', or 'advanced' advanced math and physics. Sure Hawkings is smart too, but Einstein was there first.

I don't know how this is related to the section of my post that you quoted.
What does it matter? i was trying to make another point in my arguement.

Gee, with that reasoning, then it would seem that Creation is impossible. If the universe being here means that there *must* have been a singularity and there *must* have been a big bang, then we don't need any folk stories about a magic sky daddy making everything as we see it 6,000 years ago (not to mentional all the required mental gymnastics necessary to explain modern cosmological observations, etc).

I don't blame you for brignign up the timeframe problem with the Bible and creation... This is a very common misconception, due to a translation error in the bible. The Bible mentions 'days' in creation, as this is translated from greek and hebrew. Day is the dominant meaning of the greek and hebrew words that were trnaslated, but the real translation shoudl be 'Age'. So it really shoudl say 'God vcreated the heavnes and the Earth in 7 Ages.
Many people misinterpret the creation timeframe because of this mistranslation that occurs in every Bible, in every book of Genesis, and it still hasn't been fixed in a new bible version, which i would consider to be ignorance of the non-scientific Christians/Catholics/etc, etc. Overall, i believe that the Earth and th euniverse are billions and trillions of years old, and that God created the universe in 7 ages, the lengths of each age being unspecific, but in conclusion agreeign with the universe-is-very-old fact.

Except your brainstorming doesn't even come close to describing what brane cosmology suggests. Kudos that you're thinking about these things, however I don't think you'll get far just making stuff up. I can brainstorm that the night sky is big woolly blanket and the stars are pinpoints of light that breakthrough from a giant flashlight being held by a colossal Maytag salesman standing on the other side, but that doesn't tell me anything about reality.

I don't disagree with this. After wiki-ing it, I agree with brane cosmology soemwhat. I still think that God soemhow would have to be outside of time though... Interesting to think about... Since apparently in brane Cosmology the dimensions go on forever, each dimension inside another dimension, like a big box that goes on forever on the outside and many smaller boxes inside of smaller boxes in the big box, if i interpreted the concept correctly...

Best of luck with that. We'll just have to see what happens I guess. I'm not going to argue about that, as i have no evidence the universe won't be destroyed or will be destroyed in any way. I'm fine with waiting to see what happens.

Space-time is the product of the big bang. Time, as we are capable of understanding it at this juncture, did not exist before hand. The singularity existed on the Planck scale, therefore "time" had no relevance. Don't take my word for it, pick up Elegant Universe or Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene (I recommend the latter) and read up on it yourself. Subject matter is a little steep, but Greene puts a lot of work into making it a relatively light read.
Hmm... Not that hard to grasp... I think i got the basic jist of this Planck Scale thing from wiki...
I wonder if we could measure God's power with the Planck Scale... This Planck Scale does seem to explain a lot though... I don't undertstand what Gravity and Energy have to do with time though...

[/quote]Sure it will. The scientific method is in no way, shape, or form dependent upon pre-big bang anything. It's a process that is used to investigate what we can observe. [/quote] So you're sayign the scientific method can test and prove what happened before time existed? how can it test and prove anything when there was technically nothing there when there was no time? Right now i don't really want to say anything else as this is starting to go beyond my understanding... I'm goign to need to read up soem more on stuff liek this before I can complete my arguement, so consider this post incomplete.

Please Google "singularity" before proceeding further with this train of thought. Unless of course you really do want to posit that "god" was a ball of energy less than a Planck-length in size that was more or less destroyed 13.7 billion years ago when the universe was created
that was a possibility i suggested. Now I think that God must have created the singularity, He isn't the signularity... duh. *embarrassed look on face*

I'm sure that all the quantum physicists that have worked so hard on this subject and have built careers based on 100 years of research will be quite disappointed to hear that you've decided to pull the plug on their party.
Well we haven't discovered and answered everything yet, but there's been times in the past where very famous scientists have had their theories proven wrong. Sure I havent't really proven anything wrong, but if I or someone else proves something wrong that they researched very hard for a very long time, too bad. All that matter sis that the correct theory had been found, and the false, flawed theory had been disproved, makign our understanding of the universe better. I highly boubt this will happen though, and I don't intend to ruin a hard working qunatum physicist's life's work. After all I have a lot to thank them for. :)

........................

Now I'm going to go watch TV... Someone else please take over my position in this thread for the rest of the night.

Det. Bart Lasiter
02-06-2008, 10:25 PM
Einstein pretty much 'founded', or 'advanced' advanced math and physics. Sure Hawkings is smart too, but Einstein was there first.Please say you're about to watch a biography on Einstein.

Achilles
02-06-2008, 10:42 PM
Einstein pretty much 'founded', or 'advanced' advanced math and physics. Sure Hawkings is smart too, but Einstein was there first.So Hawking's work was somehow invalid? I'm don't understand your argument.

What does it matter? i was trying to make another point in my arguement.Usually when someone quotes a post and then types some stuff beneath it, the part they type is somehow related to the part they quote. When they aren't related it's kinda sorta confusing for the people trying to follow along. My 2 cents.

I don't blame you for brignign up the timeframe problem with the Bible and creation... This is a very common misconception, due to a translation error in the bible. The Bible mentions 'days' in creation, as this is translated from greek and hebrew. Day is the dominant meaning of the greek and hebrew words that were trnaslated, but the real translation shoudl be 'Age'. So it really shoudl say 'God vcreated the heavnes and the Earth in 7 Ages. And "age" equals? While you're breaking down Genesis for me, please explain what a "kind" is too. Thanks in advance.

Many people misinterpret the creation timeframe because of this mistranslation that occurs in every Bible, in every book of Genesis, and it still hasn't been fixed in a new bible version, which i would consider to be ignorance of the non-scientific Christians/Catholics/etc, etc. Overall, i believe that the Earth and th euniverse are billions and trillions of years old, and that God created the universe in 7 ages, the lengths of each age being unspecific, but in conclusion agreeign with the universe-is-very-old fact.Oh, so this explanation is arbitrary? Ok then.

I don't disagree with this. After wiki-ing it, I agree with brane cosmology soemwhat. I still think that God soemhow would have to be outside of time though... Interesting to think about... Since apparently in brane Cosmology the dimensions go on forever, each dimension inside another dimension, like a big box that goes on forever on the outside and many smaller boxes inside of smaller boxes in the big box, if i interpreted the concept correctly... Sure, but if we're going to go there, we can't do so in half-measures. If the christian god gets to exist outside of time, then so does allah, yahweh, zeus, hera, ra, osiris, odin, thor, the flying spaghetti monster, invisbile pink unicorns...and singularities. Surely you can see that once we open that door, the room fills up pretty fast. If we decide that we're going to monitor who's allowed in and who isn't, it probably behooves us to use reason rather than superstitious wishful thinking to determine our criteria.

We'll just have to see what happens I guess. I'm not going to argue about that, as i have no evidence the universe won't be destroyed or will be destroyed in any way. I'm fine with waiting to see what happens.Yep, jury is still out.

Hmm... Not that hard to grasp... I think i got the basic jist of this Planck Scale thing from wiki...
I wonder if we could measure God's power with the Planck Scale... This Planck Scale does seem to explain a lot though... I don't undertstand what Gravity and Energy have to do with time though... Measure god's power with unit of measure used to determine size? Not sure I follow.

So you're sayign the scientific method can test and prove what happened before time existed?No, I'm saying that your assertion that the scientific method is somehow dependent upon "time" before the big bang would seem to show a complete lack of understanding regarding what the scientific method is or what it does or how it works.

how can it test and prove anything when there was technically nothing there when there was no time? Right now i don't really want to say anything else as this is starting to go beyond my understanding... I'm goign to need to read up soem more on stuff liek this before I can complete my arguement, so consider this post incomplete. Looking forward to your follow up.

Well we haven't discovered and answered everything yet, but there's been times in the past where very famous scientists have had their theories proven wrong. Sure I havent't really proven anything wrong, but if I or someone else proves something wrong that they researched very hard for a very long time, too bad. All that matter sis that the correct theory had been found, and the false, flawed theory had been disproved, makign our understanding of the universe better. I highly boubt this will happen though, and I don't intend to ruin a hard working qunatum physicist's life's work. After all I have a lot to thank them for. :) I believe your statements was something to the effect of, "it doesn't really matter because quantum physics isn't important anyway". I was merely pointing out that because it might not seem that important to you, it doesn't mean that it isn't important.

Take care.

Jae Onasi
02-06-2008, 11:03 PM
Please point out where I did so.
Indeed. And I have repeatedly say that I did not support that notion.

This is what I read where I got the idea that you supported it:
That was the whole point of my post: The universe we live in is a possibility among infinite others,If that's not what you meant, then I misunderstood.

What is "outside our universe"? You made it very clear that other universes coexisting with ours is unfounded.
I don't know what happened prior to the Big Bang, other than the singularity. How the singularity came into being will be debated a long time.

How can you prove that something existed prior to the Big Bang? There exists no previous states to the creation of our universe.I can't, other than I think God had a hand in it.

That is assuming that something existed prior to the Big bang, which sounds like circular logic to me.Other than the singularity, I don't know if anything did.



I don't know about Einstein, but Hawking did certainly not state that. In Hawking's own words: "Asking what was before the Big bang is meaningless; like asking what lies North of the North pole".He's certainly done a lot of work on cosmology, including the Penrose-Hawking singularity theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose-Hawking_singularity_theorems) which addresses singularities, including the one required for the Big Bang

Clearly then, Hawking stated that there was nothing no "before" the Big bang.
In that sense, time could not be "created" as creation requires a previous state in which the creation doesn't exist and then it does.I can live with that definition.

@Jae: Since multiple universes are allowable within string theory and would be subject to the laws of physics, multi-verse hypothesis, by definition, isn't "metaphysical". I hope that helps.

String theory is a mathematical concept and doesn't meet the criteria we require for something to be called science, thus it falls under metaphysics at this time. That may change in the future. From wikipedia entry on string theory:

Although historically string theory is an outgrowth of physics, some contend that string theory should (strictly speaking) be classified as something other than science. For a scientific theory to be valid it must be verified empirically, i.e. through experiment or observation. Few avenues for such contact with experiment have been claimed.[20] With the construction of the Large Hadron Collider in CERN some scientists hope to produce relevant data, though it is widely believed that any theory of quantum gravity would require much higher energies to probe directly. Moreover, string theory as it is currently understood has a huge number of equally possible solutions.[21] Thus it has been claimed by some scientists that string theory may not be falsifiable and may have no predictive power.[22][23][24][25]

String theory remains to be confirmed. No version of string theory has yet made an experimentally verified prediction that differs from those made by other theories. The energy scales at which it would be possible to see the stringy nature of particles is much greater than that experimentally accessible. It possesses many features of mathematical interest and naturally incorporates all the gross features of the Standard Model, such as non-abelian gauge groups and chiral fermions. Because string theory may not be tested in the foreseeable future, some scientists[26] have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory; it is not falsifiable in the sense of Popper.

Arcesious--the Hebrew for 'day' in Genesis can be translated as a literal 24 hour day or as an indeterminate amount of time, similar to how we use 'day' in the phrase "In my grandfather's day...."

Achilles
02-06-2008, 11:34 PM
String theory is a mathematical concept and doesn't meet the criteria we require for something to be called science, thus it falls under metaphysics at this time. Since science is a process (more or less), I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Going out on a limb, I'm guessing you mean to say something more along the lines of, "Since string theory (lower case "t") is a hypothesis, it should not be generally accepted the way that a bona fide scientific Theory (upper case "T") should". This is absolutely correct and I would agree with it wholeheartedly. To somehow suggest that something isn't "science", or "scientific" or part of the "scientific process" just because it is still a hypothesis though would be incorrect.

As to the 2nd part of your point: "meta" = beyond; "physics" = a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions. String theory doesn't fit this definition, as I pointed out earlier. We're still talking about the natural universe(s) and the rules that operate within it (them). No part of string theory that I'm familiar with has violated this. Again, just because something is a hypothesis does not mean that it is not part of science.

That may change in the future. Indeed it might. Unfortunately, human beings currently lack the technological sophistication to be able to test our models at the scale required. We've been there before and I'm sure that we'll be there again.

Please see books I recommended earlier if you would like delve deeper than a wiki regarding the subject. Considering your background, I suspect that you would probably understand the concepts better than most.

Jae Onasi
02-07-2008, 04:06 PM
Since science is a process (more or less), I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Going out on a limb, I'm guessing you mean to say something more along the lines of, "Since string theory (lower case "t") is a hypothesis, it should not be generally accepted the way that a bona fide scientific Theory (upper case "T") should". This is absolutely correct and I would agree with it wholeheartedly.This is what I meant, yes. Thanks. :)



As to the 2nd part of your point: "meta" = beyond; "physics" = a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions. String theory doesn't fit this definition, as I pointed out earlier. We're still talking about the natural universe(s) and the rules that operate within it (them). No part of string theory that I'm familiar with has violated this. Again, just because something is a hypothesis does not mean that it is not part of science.

I was working more with this definition of metaphysics:
met·a·phys·ics /ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[met-uh-fiz-iks]
–noun (used with a singular verb)
1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.
2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches.
3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry.
4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.
At this point, since there's no scientific proof for string theory in cosmology, I think it's as much a philosophical stance as the idea of 'God as creator' is. Mathematicians are using this complex set of equations to try to explain cosmology, which is why I think it ends up in the metaphysical realm. If that changes in the future and string theory is able to be supported scientifically, I'll be happy to place it into the science category. There are a lot of mathematical theories and equations that might in the future have application in science, but I can't call them science until I see that application actually happen. I'm happy to call them mathematical theories until then. My cut-off point for what is/isn't science may be stricter than yours, however.

Indeed it might. Unfortunately, human beings currently lack the technological sophistication to be able to test our models at the scale required. We've been there before and I'm sure that we'll be there again. With the way science has developed explosively in the last 100 years or so (no cosmological pun intended), I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen, though I don't know if that'll happen in my lifetime.

Please see books I recommended earlier if you would like delve deeper than a wiki regarding the subject. Considering your background, I suspect that you would probably understand the concepts better than most.And it'll likely be more interesting than Atlas Shrugged. :D
Wiki's not my favorite source, but it's a convenient starting point for a lot of things. The sources that that entry quotes will be far more useful than the entry itself--there's some interesting things there.

Achilles
02-07-2008, 05:43 PM
This is what I meant, yes. Thanks. :) My pleasure. Glad to hear that we're on the same page. :)

I was working more with this definition of metaphysics: If the current hypothesis had no basis in observation, I might be inclined to agree, however since we do have a framework built firmly in science, I cannot concede that it is metaphysics (in any sense). Scientific hypothesis? Absolutely. Lay usage "theory"? Absolutely. Metaphysics? Not even close. :)

At this point, since there's no scientific proof for string theory in cosmology, I think it's as much a philosophical stance as the idea of 'God as creator' is. Again, I acknowledge that we currently lack the technological sophistication to test any of the models and/or predictions, but that does not mean that the hypothesis (plural?) aren't scientific. I don't think the comparison to "god as creator" is accurate or equitable considering that "explanation" it isn't scientific by any stretch of the imagination. Apples and radial tires, as it were.

Mathematicians are using this complex set of equations to try to explain cosmology, which is why I think it ends up in the metaphysical realm. If that changes in the future and string theory is able to be supported scientifically, I'll be happy to place it into the science category. It is supported scientifically. It's just not currently testable. Again, building hypothesis is still part of the scientific process. Just because something hasn't been established at a generally accepted scientific Theory does not mean that it belongs in the same category as astrology and palm reading.

There are a lot of mathematical theories and equations that might in the future have application in science, but I can't call them science until I see that application actually happen. I'm happy to call them mathematical theories until then. My cut-off point for what is/isn't science may be stricter than yours, however. I suspect it comes down to how we define "science". It would appear that you only consider generally accepted Theories as science, whereas I consider the entire process of scientific discovery science. Knowing your stance on these things, I'm not going to take up anymore of your time explaining the difference.

With the way science has developed explosively in the last 100 years or so (no cosmological pun intended), I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen, though I don't know if that'll happen in my lifetime. Greene talks at length about potential experiments that could conceivably take place in the not-too-distant future in later chapters of Fabric of the Cosmos. I think it would be great to see a breakthrough in my lifetime, but considering that it took approximately 350 years to get from the apple falling out of the tree to E=MC^2, I think I shouldn't get my hopes up.

...especially considering that the second string revolution was only about a decade ago. :D

And it'll likely be more interesting than Atlas Shrugged. :D
Wiki's not my favorite source, but it's a convenient starting point for a lot of things. The sources that that entry quotes will be far more useful than the entry itself--there's some interesting things there.Just to show what a fun loving guy he is, Greene uses Simpson's characters in a lot of his explanations. He is also considerate enough to warn you when you're about to enter a section which might cause your eyes to glaze over and recommends page numbers for those that want to jump ahead (skipping all the mumbo-jumbo).

Arcesious
02-07-2008, 08:16 PM
I'll admit I've been defeated in this thread purely because of the possibility theory and because it's now over my head. All I've got to say now is:

So, what are the limits of science then?

Det. Bart Lasiter
02-07-2008, 08:36 PM
I'll admit I've been defeated in this thread purely because of the possibility theory and because it's now over my head. All I've got to say now is:

So, what are the limits of science then?If you're referring to science in general, then there aren't any. If you're referring to right now, I don't quite know.

Achilles
02-07-2008, 09:17 PM
So, what are the limits of science then?Conceivably, there aren't any. This question is akin to asking "What are the limits of learning then?".

Arcesious
02-07-2008, 11:52 PM
Scienceis limited to what can be tested. If it can be tested and proven by an equation, it is science. But that which has an equation but requires the probability system should be considered 'loose science', as it is neither provable nor unprovable. In my opionion, the probability sysem shoudln't be part of sceince, since it pretty much doesns't ever prove any theory, as the oddas aren't tested evidence, ony an estimation that is based on theory that may not even be true. So basing claims that thoeies are true in aurguments with the probability system as proof in it's core purely proves nothing, no matter what the odds are. We need a few good new theories if anything is going to be absolutely positiviely proven in these debates. Or we can learn to let go of the probability system.

Samuel Dravis
02-08-2008, 12:34 AM
Nothing in science is certain - at least not in the sense that tautologies are certain. Science is just a way of doing things, and using probabilities in it has worked quite well so far. It is a matter of "good enough to explain the phenomena", not some kind of absolute truth. You can still use Newton's law of gravity in many situations and it would be perfectly acceptable to do so, even though there are more accurate theories available. It just depends on what you're trying to do with it. I see no reason why science can't use probability as it uses any other mathematical tool.



"The mathematician Pascal admires the beauty of a theorem in number theory; it's as though he were admiring a beautiful natural phenomenon. Its marvellous, he says, what wonderful properties numbers have. It's as though he were admiring the regularities in a kind of crystal." - Wittgenstein

As for the Fibonacci sequence, I find little amazing about how nature "uses" this feature of maths. Similarly, I also find little amazing about how nature "uses" the mathematical law of gravity. It seems strange even to think of it in the way the OP suggests. Admiring a crystal, indeed...perhaps we should instead wonder: why do we give numbers the properties they possess?

Arcesious
02-08-2008, 12:44 AM
Everything proven in science is certain. But theories aren't. Just because we like to believe certain theories won't prove them true. Probability will only prove the hypothesis of the thoery- and the hypothesis isn't meant to prove anything, unless if someobdy suddenly amended the scientific method in a very wierd way, which is what it seems with how you people present your evidence... That's why it's still a theory, because the observations aren't complete. Even though we give the thoery a conclusion, the observations and results aren't complete. Therefore the theory is unproven and probability system won't prove anything exept to create a hypothesis for the theory.

Samuel Dravis
02-08-2008, 12:51 AM
Try this. Suppose you said that your parents love you. Why would you say that? Because they do things for you, hug you, say they love you, etc? But now you're saying: I can't know for sure, because none of the things they have done proves that they love me... But what do you mean by proof if you won't accept ANYTHING as proof? Clearly, you're not interested in any kind of proof that I know of.

Please explain what you mean by proof.

Ray Jones
02-08-2008, 07:44 AM
I see how I am wrong about stars. I rest my case about that. Obviously stars formed by chemical reaction, and the friction made heat. Solid matter wouldn’t be directly compatible with gases, but the metallic cores would be melted to a liquid state, liquid and gas being very miscible, hence the way a star would form. Sorry for the ignorance about stars...

Actually, stars form due to gravity, not chemical reactions. The heat is produced through the fusion of atomic nuclei, not friction. And it happens the other way around -- gas-liquid-solid-star-boom:


There are *huge* clouds of matter out there in space. And in these clouds there are spots which happen to get dense over time, more and more, at some points these denser spots get so much mass that the gas becomes fluid and later solid.

Cloud with stars forming:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/cloud.png

Due to the increasing mass more and more gas is attracted and eventually a critical mass is reached and causes the atoms within the giant rotating sphere of gas to collapse under indescribable pressure of itself - et violet - core fusion -> the birth of a star.

Thanks to Hubble it looks like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/youngstar.jpg

or like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/emerge.png
"This composite image, made with two cameras aboard NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, shows a pair of 12 light-year-long jets of gas blasted into space from a young system of three stars. The jet is seen in visible light, and its dusty disk and stars are seen in infrared light. These stars are located near a huge torus, or donut, of gas and dust from which they formed. This torus is tilted edge-on and can be seen as a dark bar near the bottom of the picture.

Apparently, a gravitational brawl among the stars occurred a few thousand years ago and kicked out one member (on the left edge of the bright blob above the disk). As a result, the two other stars were joined together as a tight binary pair and flew off in the opposite direction, and appear as a red blob below the disk. "

If there is balance between its mass and energy the fusion is producing, in other words if there's balance between expanding and contracting forces, the star will not stop "burning" until that balance goes downhill (because the star whether had blown out so much matter that it will explode or produced so many heavy elements that it will collapse), or if it was big enough until every single core has been fused to iron eventually. All other elements are formed during the death of a star, in novae and supernovae, or some later through nuclear fission.

Death of a star:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/lucasforums/snova.png

In fact, without stars our Periodic System of Elements would (if at all) show only a handful elements at best, most probably Hydrogen or Helium which were supposedly created during the Big Bang.



Please Google "singularity" before proceeding further with this train of thought. Unless of course you really do want to posit that "god" was a ball of energy less than a Planck-length in size that was more or less destroyed 13.7 billion years ago when the universe was created."God is everything and everywhere. We all are made of god."

That even supports this. No? :)