What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[Lockjaw]

It could be argued though, that there isn't a problem- as the underlying multiverse is postulated as being uncaused and existing forever, the question of it's origin would not apply, as, by definition, it has no origin.

 

To ask about the origin of an entity whose very definition includes it being 'origin-less' is, on that view, a simple lack of understanding on the part of the questioner.

 

As an analogy, taking the 'Big-Bang' and assuming that time itself was created there (as modern cosmologists believe), it would be akin to asking 'but what came before the Big-Bang' it's a question that has no sense-content, but merely shows that the questioner has misunderstood what is meant, in that case, by the 'Big-Bang'.

 

Yeah, no problems there.

 

Bear in mind, though, that I'm discussing this from the point of view of a questioner who is actually seeking to improve his / her understanding so, even though the statement I've emboldened is perfectly correct, it doesn't devalue the question ... assuming the questioner is willing to listen to and consider the answer, that is.

 

Same with your analogy; the question shows misunderstanding but the job of anyone who sees fit to answer is to help the questioner to attempt to put this right - as you and many others have done on this thread.

[Lockjaw]

With a few tricks, like xray, tray, chemical analysis, nmr scan, etc...

I don't think we've quite reached the point of minimising all these things and sticking them in your average mobile phone.

 

No, but they had by then ... um ... will have had ... No, they will have by ...

 

 

Wait ... it's fiction innit?

[danot]

It's a plainly obvious piece of idiocy, not a fact. We can apply logical reasoning to it, and have done so. I presented you with the summary on page one of this thread.

It's not idiocy. What I have said clearly identifies the flaw in your personal argument, it also identifies the deduction by default method being used by scientists.

[onewheeldave]

The question of whether logic itself applies to anything external to the universe is an interesting one (by 'external to the Universe' I mean the scenario in which our universe, born in the Big Bang, is actually some part of a greater universe/multiverse).

 

It's highly likely that, in such a world 'outside' of our universe, the laws of physics would be completely different, so our knowledge of physics may well not apply.

 

Could the same be said of the laws of logic- if so, then it would indeed seem that our ability to speak meaningfully of such a world would be void.

 

I believe that Kant was dealing with something like this when he used the concept of categories (it's a bit obscure, so I may be wrong), where the 'categories' where concepts that were so fundamental that they underlay anything we can speak of or think of.

 

the idea being that, to deny the categories was impossible, because that very act of denying, would itself use the categories: it would use the logic/thought that itself was based the the very categories it was trying to disprove.

 

So, if we put forward a propostition that the fundamnetal laws of logic, could be void ...well, we can't meaningfully do that- it would have to be expressed in the very logic that it's attempting to claim, do not apply.

[onewheeldave]

Why is that a problem? The Big Bang might well be the origin, but there is nothing to say that this origin must have had a cause; just as there is nothing to say that an infinite, eternal Multiverse must have had a cause.

 

Well, let's say it's more of a problem, purely cos the appearance of a universe worth of matter from 'nothing' would be considered more in need of an explanation, than would a multiverse that has simply existed forever.

 

In that, either 1. it's appeared from nothing, or, 2. the pre-condition was not actually 'nothing' but had some kind of underlying structure.

 

(2. would there be a kind of variant of the 'always existing multiverse theory' I guess).

[Lockjaw]

It's not idiocy. What I have said clearly identifies the flaw in your personal argument, it also identifies the deduction by default method being used by scientists.

 

OK then, Danot. Here's an easy question for you. This is clearly off-topic as far as the thread title is concerned but not, as we've seen, off-topic regarding it's underlying raison d'être.

 

Let's imagine that sometime in the near future we all realise that you are, in fact, correct and that scientists and scientific method are all wrong.

 

What would you have them (scientists) do differently?

[Lockjaw]

The question of whether logic itself applies to anything external to the universe is an interesting one (by 'external to the Universe' I mean the scenario in which our universe, born in the Big Bang, is actually some part of a greater universe/multiverse).

 

It's highly likely that, in such a world 'outside' of our universe, the laws of physics would be completely different, so our knowledge of physics may well not apply.

 

Could the same be said of the laws of logic- if so, then it would indeed seem that our ability to speak meaningfully of such a world would be void.

 

I believe that Kant was dealing with something like this when he used the concept of categories (it's a bit obscure, so I may be wrong), where the 'categories' where concepts that were so fundamental that they underlay anything we can speak of or think of.

 

the idea being that, to deny the categories was impossible, because that very act of denying, would itself use the categories: it would use the logic/thought that itself was based the the very categories it was trying to disprove.

 

So, if we put forward a propostition that the fundamnetal laws of logic, could be void ...well, we can't meaningfully do that- it would have to be expressed in the very logic that it's attempting to claim, do not apply.

 

More reading for me!

 

Can you give me a reference for this please? On the surface it seems akin to the issue of the point I referred to in post 231 - that our use of logic is limited by language and, taking it further, language is limited by human experience. I'd be very interested in exporing that further.

[danot]

The question of whether logic itself applies to anything external to the universe is an interesting one (by 'external to the Universe' I mean the scenario in which our universe, born in the Big Bang, is actually some part of a greater universe/multiverse).

 

It's highly likely that, in such a world 'outside' of our universe, the laws of physics would be completely different, so our knowledge of physics may well not apply.

 

Could the same be said of the laws of logic- if so, then it would indeed seem that our ability to speak meaningfully of such a world would be void.

 

I believe that Kant was dealing with something like this when he used the concept of categories (it's a bit obscure, so I may be wrong), where the 'categories' where concepts that were so fundamental that they underlay anything we can speak of or think of.

 

the idea being that, to deny the categories was impossible, because that very act of denying, would itself use the categories: it would use the logic/thought that itself was based the the very categories it was trying to disprove.

 

So, if we put forward a propostition that the fundamnetal laws of logic, could be void ...well, we can't meaningfully do that- it would have to be expressed in the very logic that it's attempting to claim, do not apply.

That's my point.

 

That's why I said, 'scientists(well educated)are unable to think outside of the box'; because anything outside of the box, would conflict with the present laws of science. Therefore, scientific logic isn't being applied to 'the laws of the universe', it is being applied to human logic, which is restricted to the confines of the box.. so there is no true or false theory on the universe, there's only the accepted theory that fits inside our box.

[danot]

OK then, Danot. Here's an easy question for you. This is clearly off-topic as far as the thread title is concerned but not, as we've seen, off-topic regarding it's underlying raison d'être.

 

Let's imagine that sometime in the near future we all realise that you are, in fact, correct and that scientists and scientific method are all wrong.

 

What would you have them (scientists) do differently?

I'd like them to stop telling claiming they have proof when they haven't.

[Obelix]

Aww, come on, Ob... Don't give up. Remember, many others will be reading the thread and many are probably learning something from it. The requirement for continual repetition will be helping to reinforce that learning.

 

I have no objection to discussing matters with people who are happy to carry on reasoned debate, but I'll be blowed if I'll discuss anything with those who display astounding pig ignorance and are simply in it to troll and insult I'm afraid. I'm quite happy to throw ideas back and forth with most all the others on this thread though