the big bang
Comments
-
pinarello001 wrote:Very confused me !
If there is a difference between maths and abstract maths then nothing can be proved when it comes to making presumptions (calculated or not) about the universe.
If I took 1000 presumed 1kg bags of sugar and weighed them on 1000 very accurate scales and came up with an average that was + or - the yardstick of 1kg, can we then suppose that the scones are going to be pretty bang on, 'cos any presumptions about our existence and where we all came from and why are immaterial and unprovable. After all, theories about the universe aren't going to improve my existence or average speeds but scones just might.
If the thought of a winters ride was going to end with a Devonshire cream scone, I just might ride quicker even if there wasn't actually a scone waiting for me: placebo effect of scone.
If the thought of a solid theory of the universe was derived, it may be so overwhelming that I may never ride my bike again: anti placebo effect of the theory of universe.
Thats the Big Scone Theory.
I am saying all maths is abstract. The labels we use to number things is an approximation of reality.
Yes the +/- is close enough to make scones and stuff, but it's not exact. The maths implies it is, but in reality it's not. Being pretty bang on, is not = to.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
alanp23 wrote:Scones are ready!
I've tasted a few and each one is equally as good. Thats Math Scones (tm) for you!
PS I am still agreeing with Tom. I think we are heading towards a statistical sampling debate now.
I just used measuring things as an example of inaccuracy. It's not just about the statistics. I can be proved wrong easily here, just show me two things, that exist in reality, that are (exactly) = to each other. It can be anything.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
Daz555 wrote:Far from it. It is ESSENTIAL for the survival of the human race.
"If the dinosaurs had had a space program, they would not be extinct." Carl Sagan.
You could argue that civilisation is the cause of the end of the human race. We are like a cancer burning through our resources and ruining the environment. Who knows where it will end?
If it was still hunter gatherers, I don't think that would be the case.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
GiantMike wrote:
The trouble with Carl Sagan is that he failed to envisage the full scenario. If the dinosaurs had a space programme I would imagine the geeky dino-nerds would have taken the dino-rocket as soon as the meteorite collision was predicted. There would have been about 35 dino-nerds for every dino-chick, and all the male dino-nerds would just stand around embarrassed and looking at their shoes rather than making moves on the dino-tottie. Therefore, the species would still have died out.
[inevitable caveat to stop people putting words into my mouth and then trying to hit me with them] I am not a dinosaur, nerd, geek or chick. I haven't met Carl Sagan. I accept that the analogy above is probably flawed but I don't really care [/inevitable caveat to stop people putting words into my mouth and then trying to hit me with them]
Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
meursault wrote:I am not sure I can make the case against formal logic any clearer.
If you can't recognise the non sequitur in your statement here:Tom Dean wrote:No! you cannot say 'cannot' here!
You can say you cannot ever have absolute confidence in a theory, but not that a scientific statement can not possibly be true.
Your fallacious argument is an appeal to ignorancemeursault wrote:I can be proved wrong easily here, just show me two things, that exist in reality, that are (exactly) = to each other. It can be anything.0 -
I kind of agree with meursault in practice, that the probability of finding 2 things which are identical are, essentially 0.
Take it to an atomic level, for argument's sake.
Say you have 2 atoms of the same element side by side. Hydrogen to keep it simple. The constituent parts of said atom are constantly moving. You would need to observe them until the constituent parts, down to an infinitely small level (below what we are able to measure today) were identically positioned and all other variables were identical: heat, light, mass etc.
Personally I feel that the answer is kind of like the statement: If you believe that space is infinite, either Earth contains the only intelligent life, which is hard to imagine if space is infinite. Or, it doesn't. Which is hard to imagine as it's scary to imagine that there are other intelligent life forms in space.
The conditions for life on Earth (appear) much less stringent that for those for the 2 Hydrogen atoms to be in the perfect position - BUT space is infinite, so therefore by logic it MUST be possible, but the amount of matter in the universe is finite (ooooohhhhhhhh or maybe its not? interesting? - in which case it MUST be possible).
I guess its like saying infinite monkeys on infinite computers will eventually bash out the complete works of shakespeare (depends if you believe that, I suppose it must be possible) then 2 things must be identical given an infinite number of potential opportunities and an infinite amount of time to demonstrate it.0 -
coriordan wrote:I kind of agree with meursault in practice, that the probability of finding 2 things which are identical are, essentially 0.
Take it to an atomic level, for argument's sake.
Say you have 2 atoms of the same element side by side. Hydrogen to keep it simple. The constituent parts of said atom are constantly moving. You would need to observe them until the constituent parts, down to an infinitely small level (below what we are able to measure today) were identically positioned and all other variables were identical: heat, light, mass etc.
Personally I feel that the answer is kind of like the statement: If you believe that space is infinite, either Earth contains the only intelligent life, which is hard to imagine if space is infinite. Or, it doesn't. Which is hard to imagine as it's scary to imagine that there are other intelligent life forms in space.
The conditions for life on Earth (appear) much less stringent that for those for the 2 Hydrogen atoms to be in the perfect position - BUT space is infinite, so therefore by logic it MUST be possible, but the amount of matter in the universe is finite (ooooohhhhhhhh or maybe its not? interesting? - in which case it MUST be possible).
I guess its like saying infinite monkeys on infinite computers will eventually bash out the complete works of shakespeare (depends if you believe that, I suppose it must be possible) then 2 things must be identical given an infinite number of potential opportunities and an infinite amount of time to demonstrate it.
As well as all the parts moving, they won't be the same size shape weight. etc.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
Tom Dean wrote:You could have addressed some of the problems with your arguments that have been shown to you.
If you can't recognise the non sequitur in your statement here: , don't expect to be taken seriously on the subject of logic.
Your fallacious argument is an appeal to ignorance
'my position is right because there is no evidence against it'. You are scraping the barrel, I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you.
I still don't agree with you, I have made my case against formal logic, and you don't appear to have answered any of questions. You need to do more than ask me to clarify terms or define elements, though it is a good debating tactic. As I said earlier, I can't keep repeating my case. The probable outcome is we will agree to differ.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
More to the point, there is no reason to say it is NOT possible.meursault wrote:I still don't agree with you, I have made my case against formal logic, and you don't appear to have answered any of questions. You need to do more than ask me to clarify terms or define elements, though it is a good debating tactic. As I said earlier, I can't keep repeating my case. The probable outcome is we will agree to differ.
The only thing I can see you have asked is that I prove you wrong - the last resort from an unarguable position. You should try to understand something about logic before you take issue with what you see as its limitations.
I'll put it another way.
If we accept that measurements of e.g. a and b cannot be made to absolute precision, it means we cannot say with certainty that e.g. a=b.
You, however, are saying this implies that a≠b. This statement itself is absolutely precise!
From the premises of uncertain evidence, you have drawn an absolutely certain conclusion. Do you see the contradiction?0 -
Tom Dean wrote:More to the point, there is no reason to say it is NOT possible.
All you are doing is repeating your position, without providing any evidence or logical basis to support it.
The only thing I can see you have asked is that I prove you wrong - the last resort from an unarguable position. You should try to understand something about logic before you take issue with what you see as its limitations.
I'll put it another way.
If we accept that measurements of e.g. a and b cannot be made to absolute precision, it means we cannot say with certainty that e.g. a=b.
You, however, are saying this implies that a≠b. This statement itself is absolutely precise!
From the premises of uncertain evidence, you have drawn an absolutely certain conclusion. Do you see the contradiction?
No, it's not about the precision. That was just an example to highlight the imperfections of formal logic. So far you have not proved me wrong, if anything most other posters confirm my position.
I am not saying a does not = b is implied, I am saying it is true in reality. It is either equal or it is not, I cannot see the ambiguity here.
I really don't want to keep answering the same question, maybe it is best left for us to consider.
I have tried to answer any questions, maybe you could be more specific.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
meursault wrote:No, it's not about the precision. That was just an example to highlight the imperfections of formal logic. So far you have not proved me wrong, if anything most other posters confirm my position.meursault wrote:I have no problem with mathematical formulas being correct, but that they cannot be exactly transferred to reality. You said they can to a high level of precision, that's fine, but it's not exact, therefore, what may be correct on paper cannot be correct in reality.meursault wrote:I am not saying a does not = b is implied, I am saying it is true in reality.meursault wrote:It is either equal or it is not, I cannot see the ambiguity here.0
-
haha by some perverse twist Tom, I think you're now arguing in favour of GiantMikes position who did imply that categorical assertions can only be so from a given perspective.
By the way ≠ means 'does not' and not 'cannot' as can be inferred from your statement above, i'm sure you know this; not being picky just highligting that where 2 systems (in this case a priori V experiential) collide even shared meanings are open to misinterpretation.
Anyway.....to the bike...The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Cleat Eastwood wrote:By the way ≠ means 'does not' and not 'cannot' as can be inferred from your statement above, i'm sure you know this; not being picky just highligting that where 2 systems (in this case a priori V experiential) collide even shared meanings are open to misinterpretation.
My god Cleat, whats come over you ?!?! Where d'ya get the brain upgrade from ? Can I lease out your old one ?
"For lease, HP or sale: 1 Brain £6.00 or 36 months @ 17p (OVNO) and free soldering iron/electric shock therapy kit. Very used, can be fixed if you have the know-how. Brain has tendencies to lurch towards odd females of disproportionate size. Often sinks into the sentimental, for example: Large people in silly outfits, Autumn and memories of Claire Balding. Has Eccles cake dependancy. Tel.: 0800696969 anytime"seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
pinarello001 wrote:
My god Cleat, whats come over you ?!?! Where d'ya get the brain upgrade from ? Can I lease out your old one ?
"For lease, HP or sale: 1 Brain £6.00 or 36 months @ 17p (OVNO) and free soldering iron/electric shock therapy kit. Very used, can be fixed if you have the know-how. Brain has tendencies to lurch towards odd females of disproportionate size. Often sinks into the sentimental, for example: Large people in silly outfits, Autumn and memories of Claire Balding. Has Eccles cake dependancy. Tel.: 0800696969 anytime"
I get daily updates from hereThe dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Cleat Eastwood wrote:haha by some perverse twist Tom, I think you're now arguing in favour of GiantMikes position who did imply that categorical assertions can only be so from a given perspective.Cleat Eastwood wrote:By the way ≠ means 'does not' and not 'cannot' as can be inferred from your statement above, i'm sure you know this; not being picky just highligting that where 2 systems (in this case a priori V experiential) collide even shared meanings are open to misinterpretation.0
-
Cleat Eastwood wrote:haha by some perverse twist Tom, I think you're now arguing in favour of GiantMikes position who did imply that categorical assertions can only be so from a given perspective.
By the way ≠ means 'does not' and not 'cannot' as can be inferred from your statement above, i'm sure you know this; not being picky just highligting that where 2 systems (in this case a priori V experiential) collide even shared meanings are open to misinterpretation.
Anyway.....to the bike...
It all ended happily then, Tom learnt from GiantMike. It's a good result. I don't care whether Tom understands formal logic or not.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
What a joke. I guess any question about my use of language ends the debate in your favour! Talk about clutching at straws... (Nothing GiantMike said supports your position in any way).
YOU YOURSELF have used 'can not equal' and 'does not equal' interchangably in the examples we have discussed! I have no problem with this, it makes no difference to the validity of what either of us are saying. Nice try.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:What a joke. I guess any question about my use of language ends the debate in your favour! Talk about clutching at straws... (Nothing GiantMike said supports your position in any way).
YOU YOURSELF have used 'can not equal' and 'does not equal' interchangably in the examples we have discussed! I have no problem with this, it makes no difference to the validity of what either of us are saying. Nice try.
Relax, remember to breathe, long in, long out.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
Posted in error.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
meursault wrote:eg. Formal logic states a = a. This is fine for abstract or math, but in reality a never equals a. There are no two things that exist that are equal to each other.
I can see where you are going with this but I think we need some evidence to support this claim.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Good way of putting it0
-
Daz555 wrote:Logic tells us that no two things can be equal - there are always at least two of them so they cannot occupy the same time and space for example. However, to suggest that no two things in the entire universe that can be equal is one hell of a claim.
I can see where you are going with this but I think we need some evidence to support this claim.
I am happy someone can at least appreciate the logic
The evidence is all around us, no two things are the same/equal. If you mean, what is the probability of anything ever equalling anything else, then I wouldn't know how to calculate that.
But as an analogy, I saw this on QI (UK TV quiz type show).
http://www.matthewweathers.com/year2006/shuffling_cards.htm
The probability is, that the exact order of cards has never been repeated after a shuffle to date.
There is no evidence of anything being equal to each other, so I would say that is the scientific 'proof' of it. Which is weird, since the whole discussion started with me questioning scientific proof.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
I don't care to go to the effort of reading this thread.
But you damn well can hear someone scream in space. Shits been proven yo.0 -
ethanhayes wrote:I don't care to go to the effort of reading this thread.
But you damn well can hear someone scream in space. Shits been proven yo.
What's your definition of 'space'. Do you mean a space?
Are you American? It would explain your language and not wanting to read.0 -
ethanhayes wrote:I don't care to go to the effort of reading this thread.
But you damn well can hear someone scream in space. Shits been proven yo.
http://youtu.be/Uvs2g5Nj0NISuperstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
Cant be ars*ed going back 9 pages but this isnt about the Big Bang-where is Sheldon,Raj,Howard and Leonard (and slutty Penny).
Whats the solution? Just pedal faster you baby.
Summer B,man Team Carbon LE#222
Winter Alan Top Cross
All rounder Spec. Allez.0 -
meursault wrote:The evidence is all around us, no two things are the same/equal.
What do you mean when you keep saying no two 'things' are 'the same'? A mathematical formula can describe physical values which may be equal. No two e.g. electrons can occupy the same position in space, does this mean they are not 'the same'? Maybe, on your terms, but it doesn't mean that their e.g. masses or charge may not be equal.
Scientific formulae are meant to show relationships between different variables. Your 'bags of sugar' analogy suggests you don't really understand this. Even so, the probability of the two masses being equal may be low, but there's no reason to say it is zero.
Let me explain another way:
To return to the example of E=mc^2. What does the formula mean? It shows the interconvertability of mass and energy. You have used the principle to support your position so I'll assume you understand and accept it. In the formula the variables are mass, m, and energy, E. c^2 is a constant.
We can observe some nuclear reactions and measure energy produced and a corresponding loss of mass. Our measurements will not be totally accurate. What are we saying if we believe E≠mc^2? That the mass converted into some of the energy, and a bit more energy came from nowhere? Or that most of the mass converted into energy but a bit of it disappeared into nothing? It can't be both, does it depend whether our measurement of E was high or low? It doesn't make any sense.meursault wrote:But as an analogy, I saw this on QI (UK TV quiz type show).
http://www.matthewweathers.com/year2006/shuffling_cards.htm
The probability is, that the exact order of cards has never been repeated after a shuffle to date.
There is no evidence of anything being equal to each other, so I would say that is the scientific 'proof' of it. Which is weird, since the whole discussion started with me questioning scientific proof.
I'm not sure what you're trying to show here. Do you think it is impossible for the same sequence to come up, despite having the precise odds in front of you?0 -
I thought this thread had happily packed its bags and slid off down the thread history. I nearly got dragged in but I think managed to extricate myself from its gravitational field.
Let it go... please!Top Ten finisher - PTP Tour of Britain 20160 -
Tom Dean wrote:It is possible to believe anything, What matters is the evidence.
about 3 pages agoTom Dean wrote:Let me explain another way:
To return to the example of E=mc^2. What does the formula mean? It shows the interconvertability of mass and energy. In the formula the variables are mass, m, and energy, E. c^2 is a constant.
We can observe some nuclear reactions and measure energy produced and a corresponding loss of mass. Our measurements will not be totally accurate. What are we saying if we believe E≠mc^2? That the mass converted into some of the energy, and a bit more energy came from nowhere? Or that most of the mass converted into energy but a bit of it disappeared into nothing? It can't be both, does it depend whether our measurement of E was high or low? It doesn't make any sense.
Now I'm confused. If it's just the evidence that matters, and you've given an example of a formula that hasn't/can't been proven through measurement, how can we believe it?
Is c a constant? Or is this an assumption?0