Skip to comments.Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?
Posted on 07/18/2013 10:36:09 AM PDT by kimtom
click here to read article
Perhaps in this context it would be more appropriate to ask, what would be a proper substitute for the pinhead, and how many quantum particles can fit upon it?]
Oh, I quite agree. May I quote you on the above? But first, a few questions:
Rather than Theology, what about philosophy generally? What of the many sociological questions not having to do with science except, perhaps, in a most general or peripheral way? What of political polls, or other statistical studies, political or not, whose authors claim to be scientifically designed? Would you permit Science alone to judge or evaluate the impact of technology on society? What of brilliant individuals such as Carl Popper or Alister McGrath? To what pigeonhole would you assign them?
Science, and the Scientific Method, are primarily the happy inspirations of a Western Civilization and a Judeo-Christian Tradition. How do you propose to unravel that tapestry?
In his latest book, Hawking actually makes a theological argument that was demolished about 17 centuries ago, and he and all the cognoscenti not only think it's brilliant, but are so ignorant of theology that they aren't even aware that it's nonsense.
Have you expressed (forcefully) that sentiment to scientists of your acquaintance? If so, what was their reaction?
And by the same token, I would not cite an article about science from a theologian.
I’m looking forward to a future towel upgrade that would help successfully ward off Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts, more commonly know in these parts as..Democrats :)
The "waves" described in the heuristic explanation aren't really waves, they're wave functions. [A better term is actually state vector.] There argument made in the blog isn't a precise statement of physics. It's a hand waving argument for lay people. They originate out of the vacuum -- that is -- literally -- from nothingness, and certainly not out of the material universe.
There you go. Just apply that to quantaum mechanics, or the multiverse, or whatever.
Thanks for the ping!
No scientist does that, so you are arguing against a straw man.
His definition of science is what he chooses it to be.
No, it isn't. Science is a specific methodological discipline. It isn't anything more or less than that.
All thouight is scientific.
No, it's not. If I observe that walking under a ladder often produces bad results, and avoid doing it, this is a systematic way of approaching (a limited part of) the universe, but it isn't science. It's superstition. Superstition -- the observation that two things often occur to together coupled with the false conclusion that therefore one is the cause of the other -- is actually a systematic way of deciphering the world. It isn't as good a way as science, but it's certainly superior to magical thinking ("stuff just 'happens.'") Both magical thinking and superstition are both ways of thinking, and they aren't science.
What remains is to have a conversation
Communication can facilitate scientific discovery, but it isn't actually necessary to it, and conversation is not part of science.
Excluding some thought because it does not meet your subjective standards is unscientific.
What science is isn't subjective. It's a REAL THING; it's not anything subjective, and it isn't whatever you want to think, pretend, or feel it is, any more than a stone can be whatever you want it to be. A stone is a stone. In order to be a stone it has properties which define it. Science is the same way. It is what it is.
Your very claim to the exclusivity of the scientific method is incompatible with the scientific method.
What you're saying is complete nonsense. The scientific method is a specific way of investigating material reality; it is exclusive, it isn't anything else. It isn't an ice cream bar or a sandy beach, or sitting around doing bong hits and talking about "God."
Writing an article with quotes from prominent scientists that call for religious conclusions or makes scientific claims as a result of plausibility arguments from theological principles might be very thought provoking and interesting, but it isn't science; it's extrapolation.
You can pretend these conjectures are science, but that doesn't make them so. They don't produce testable theories or quantifiable results, and they don't invalidate anything already believed to be known. They might be intellectual exercises. They might be valid philosophical points of what you're calling "conversation." But that doesn't make them scientific inquiries.
I see no cats!!!!!
Well...if the Dems in your area are comparable to the raveneous Bugblatter Beast of Traal...(and whose aren't?)...just throw your trusty towel over their heads and they'll leave you alone.
For it is a well known fact that the raveneous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is such a mind-bogglingly stupid animal that it assumes if you can't see it, it cannot see you.
The first law of thermodynamics says zero. So unless you are going to invent another physics you are going to have get around that zero.
Your juices make a good stew.
Ghoulish placemarker ... bwahahahaha
And I do mean bwahahahaha ... *rubbing hands together, grinning*
Just add dogs until equilibrium is achieved...
“..Just add dogs until equilibrium is achieved.....”
yes, but are they house trained?