Please Demonstrate

[Free]

(19-11-2014 11:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  

(19-11-2014 09:23 AM)Free Wrote:  Instead of making some attempt to ridicule, could you at least endeavor to make some kind of attempt at addressing and disputing the reasoning?

I'll go for it but you just choose to ignore or dismiss it when brought up repeatedly in the creation thread. It doesn't give much credence to think you want to accept or understand this concept.

The easy example to your idea is how on a Quantum level, particles can be in two places at once. There's other realities that don't coexist in the way we think about things functioning based on our natural understandings.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/01/23...s-find-out

"Heisenberg and Bohr claimed that it's not the quantum world fault, it's ours; electrons are neither particles nor waves; these are images we construct from our everyday experience, and such intuitions are inappropriate to describe what really goes on down there. The math, though, is crystal clear. We can compute at will, finding out the various properties of electrons, atoms and molecules with remarkable accuracy."

And less not we rub these off as idea. The data is coming out as seemingly valid when tested for: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/0...V620121009

In other words, the mere act of observation determines which form they take and even what reality is.

That, of course, does not describe the macro-world of bigger objects that people experience on a day-to-day basis. A key to Wineland and Haroche's achievements was getting "quantum weirdness" to show its face in the macro-world."

As they point out, it's not the same in the day-to-day world we humans experience in manners of function.

I have read both your links and understand what they are saying, and indeed it is very fascinating. But this only demonstrates that there are things we do not yet understand, even if they do appear to defy normal rationalization.

They can observe how things appear to be in two places at the same time, but they do yet know why or how. It appears that the act of merely observing those things causes the effect, so there does indeed appear to be some correlation between observing and the effect that has been demonstrated.

Unfortunately, we do not yet know the answer, but I will concede- as I have previously- that what we do not yet understand or know is a indeed variable that can be applied to our reasoning.

But my question is all about reasoning with the available knowledge we have ie; our experiences here on earth, and not about reasoning with the unknown, such as those discoveries you linked to.

[Free]

All I am looking for is an agreement on a couple of things:

1. Yes, if using the current state of our knowledge in regards to how all things transform from a previous existence, it is reasonable to assume that the Big Bang had a previous existence.

(You can even add a 'but' to that by saying, "But we cannot know for any certainty.")

2. Yes, if using the current state of our knowledge in regards to how all things expand, it is reasonable to assume that the universe is expanding into something yet unknown.

(Again you can even add a 'but' to that by saying, "But we cannot know for any certainty."

This entire thread is all about reasoning, and not about what is true, false, or unknown.

[Peebothuhul]

Hello, finally in a position to be able to type a post as not at work.

(19-11-2014 12:19 PM)Free Wrote:  All I am looking for is an agreement on a couple of things:

1. Yes, if using the current state of our knowledge in regards to how all things transform from a previous existence, it is reasonable to assume that the Big Bang had a previous existence.

(You can even add a 'but' to that by saying, "But we cannot know for any certainty.")

However... those who are studying the thing about which you are talking about say such is NOT the case. So, while I have no problem with your -personal- ideas etc the folks 'In the know' say and think something completely different.

(19-11-2014 12:19 PM)Free Wrote:  2. Yes, if using the current state of our knowledge in regards to how all things expand, it is reasonable to assume that the universe is expanding into something yet unknown.

(Again you can even add a 'but' to that by saying, "But we cannot know for any certainty."

This entire thread is all about reasoning, and not about what is true, false, or unknown.

No. Just because we have a 'Here' here does not mean at all that there is a 'There' there. The two things do not follow from one another. Though, again, if you personally want to go with that, then hey - Float that boat.

I have no real knowledge or training in such things. However, I'm willing to listen to folks who's whole lives is nothing but studying and thinking about such things. Same as I'll trust my dentist to fix me teeth.

Much cheers to all.

[Bucky Ball]

(19-11-2014 12:19 PM)Free Wrote:  All I am looking for is an agreement on a couple of things:

1. Yes, if using the current state of our knowledge in regards to how all things transform from a previous existence, it is reasonable to assume that the Big Bang had a previous existence.

(You can even add a 'but' to that by saying, "But we cannot know for any certainty.")

2. Yes, if using the current state of our knowledge in regards to how all things expand, it is reasonable to assume that the universe is expanding into something yet unknown.

(Again you can even add a 'but' to that by saying, "But we cannot know for any certainty."

This entire thread is all about reasoning, and not about what is true, false, or unknown.

No it's not reasonable, at all.
As has been pointed out now, any number of times, in this thread, what appears "to be reasonable" (to human brains), which evolved on the savannahs of Africa to deal with what they perceive in a very small band-width of Reality, in the absence of EVIDENCE, in light of the fact that 95% of what comprises this universe is unknown at this point, (Dark Energy and Dark Matter) to make any assumptions about anything, using *reason alone*, is unwarranted.

[Bucky Ball]

(19-11-2014 11:36 AM)Free Wrote:  1,000,000,000 verses 1.

It seems to me that the odds are greatly in favor of us being safe in making a reasonable assumption that, like all things, the Big Bang had a previous existence.

Because it's the Fallacy of the False Analogy.
You cannot presume that conditions INSIDE this universe are in any way similar to what would NOT have been inside it at that point. For cause and effect you need Causality and space-time. You can't presume those without evidence. All we know about is INSIDE this universe the way things work AFTER the Big Bang.

You didn't watch Carroll's video, did you ?

[houseofcantor]

(19-11-2014 12:19 PM)Free Wrote:  All I am looking for is an agreement on a couple of things:
it is reasonable[/u] to assume that the Big Bang had a previous existence.

(You can even add a 'but' to that by saying, "But we cannot know for any certainty.")

2.

a.k.a.a the Big foreplay.

[unfogged]

(19-11-2014 11:36 AM)Free Wrote:  Imagine for a moment that we have 1,000,000,000 things that have been demonstrated to be transformations of a previous existence. How can this not be evidence enough to allow reasoning where we could reasonably assume that the 1 thing- the Big Bang- also had a previous existence?

1,000,000,000 verses 1.

If I drop a feather and a bowling ball 1 million times from a point 3 feet above the earth's surface and note that the feather always takes longer to reach the ground why can't I reasonably assume that the same will take place on a planet orbiting a star in another galaxy? It isn't reasonable because I have no information on what the conditions are on that planet. In this case I am only extrapolating the effect of air resistance; you are extrapolating the very laws of physics to areas where we do not know if they apply or not.

There is no creation ex nihilo in everyday experience and the laws of cause and effect apply to everything we normally interact with. All that experience provides exactly zero basis for understanding the quantum world, let alone a pre-big bang environment or what, if anything, contains the universe.

Quote:All I am looking for is an agreement on a couple of things:
1. Yes, if using the current state of our knowledge in regards to how all things transform from a previous existence, it is reasonable to assume that the Big Bang had a previous existence.

No, because the current state of our knowledge includes no information that can describe the situation. Imagining the big bang to be some sort of transition from a previous existence is certainly the simplest explanation and may even turn out to be correct but it isn't reasonable to believe the claim without evidence.

Quote:2. Yes, if using the current state of our knowledge in regards to how all things expand, it is reasonable to assume that the universe is expanding into something yet unknown.

No, because as Peebothuhul said, we don't even know that there is a 'there' to be expanding into. Again, it is the simplest thing to visualize based on everyday experience but we simply have not enough information to conclude that it is true. Everyday experience may not apply the way you want it to.

Quote:This entire thread is all about reasoning, and not about what is true, false, or unknown.

You can't reason if all you have are unknowns.

[houseofcantor]

Edit. LQG might be dead in the water for taking issue with Lorentz Invariance

[Free]

A Multi-quote response here.

Peebothuhul Wrote:However... those who are studying the thing about which you are talking about say such is NOT the case. So, while I have no problem with your -personal- ideas etc the folks 'In the know' say and think something completely different.

What they are doing is merely refusing to speculate. What they are not doing is claiming that what I am proposing is not reasonable.

Bucky Ball Wrote:No it's not reasonable, at all.
As has been pointed out now, any number of times, in this thread, what appears "to be reasonable" (to human brains), which evolved on the savannahs of Africa to deal with what they perceive in a very small band-width of Reality, in the absence of EVIDENCE, in light of the fact that 95% of what comprises this universe is unknown at this point, (Dark Energy and Dark Matter) to make any assumptions about anything, using *reason alone*, is unwarranted.

How can you make an arguement by using what is "unknown" against that which is in fact known? I am using empirical evidence, while you are arguing with the unknown as your evidence?

Your argument doesn't work on any level.

Bucky Ball Wrote:Because it's the Fallacy of the False Analogy.
You cannot presume that conditions INSIDE this universe are in any way similar to what would NOT have been inside it at that point. For cause and effect you need Causality and space-time. You can't presume those without evidence. All we know about is INSIDE this universe the way things work AFTER the Big Bang.

That is assuming that the universe was created by the Big Bang as opposed to the Big Bang happening within an already existing universe.

No matter how you look at it, the Big Bang had to exist at some location before the supposed expansion, otherwise it didn't exist at all. Therefore, it either existed, or it did not exist, according to the current state of our knowledge. Regardless of what diemensional properties a pre-expanding Big Bang had, there can be no logical or reasonable argument against it as an existence.

If it was there, it existed.

[Free]

(19-11-2014 02:01 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  

Fucking "A"



You are the only one who actually addressed my question here. Loop cosmology is awesome.