The death of the Universe and Life

[FnG]magnolia · 2 Apr 2019 at 21:21

w11tho said:
Wild guess: you’ve never followed any of Stephen Hawking’s research, have you?

Just as a quick aside, are you the chap who lectures at Cambridge (or the Other Place, I don't recall exactly)? I'm sure your name is ringing bells where we had a similar science-based conversation a few years back and the armchairs were put firmly in their place.

RaohNS · 2 Apr 2019 at 22:13

Orionaut said:
Actually, I always though that we went from T+(5.39 × 10 ⁻⁴⁴ s).

That is the problem. what happened during this unimaginably small period of time is the second most puzzling thing in all of cosmology.

(The other being what happened before T=0. something that realistically our monkey brains are incapable of comprehending)

Also known as the Big Bang? I haven't googled honest, I am just deducing that the end of one process birthed another. We are unable to truly appreciate what is coming along from the grandeur of the universe. The one that really hits home for me is the Deep Field. A postage stamp area in the sky (how many postage stamps) and that contains incomprehensible amounts of stars/galaxies. It truly is astounding. Before 0... there was God. String theory deduces there are 10 dimensions plus one for time. What the other dimensions look like are only theorized, likely to be wrong and might not even exist at all (or be totally different to what we expect).

jsmoke said:
Similar to my thinking that a few great scientists made the big discoveries, Faradays, Rutherfords, Einsteins, Bohrs, Heinsbergs etc. iIf you go onto the physics forum though there are a range of people of all ages discussing at the level of Hawkings, string theory etc, but he didn't really come up with anything, he's just restating what others have said before him but his fame if you like elevates him to a genius level but is he..

Indeed, Hawking however is noted and reputable for his work. The guy who I found very intriguing was various physicists who are literal geniuses. Not necessarily those who are in the 140+ IQ range as there are variances for specific elements of understanding. Let's say someone like Yang Chen-Ning, a guy who created a branch (in many respects) of theoretical physics that is now starting to be applied. Their leap is now having millimetre after millimetre built upon it by (in some cases) inferior minds. Sort of like YCN would have placed all the corner and edge pieces of a very large and complex puzzle. Over the years, individual theoretical physicists would then begin in gradually add central pieces. Once all pieces are in it is either a theory or a reality. Case in point Higgs Boson.

Couple of interesting persons:
Yasunori Nomura
Juan Martin Maldacena

These two have incredible levels of intelligence and would be in amongst that small group of physicists actually shaping the reality and it's mysteries, our understanding and... they could be dead wrong!

[FnG]magnolia · 2 Apr 2019 at 22:37

Today is a good day. So many soundbites from RaoNS!

Before 0... there was God

Source, my dude.

The guy who I found very intriguing was various physicists who are literal geniuses.

Single to plural. No! No RaohNS! Naughty English!

Not necessarily those who are in the 140+ IQ range as there are variances for specific elements of understanding

We Mensa now.

Their leap is now having millimetre after millimetre built upon it by (in some cases) inferior minds

I have ... nothing.

Once all pieces are in it is either a theory or a reality. Case in point Higgs Boson.

It's either a dress shoe or a trainer. Case in point: vegetables.

RaohNS · 2 Apr 2019 at 22:45

[FnG]magnolia said:
Today is a good day. So many soundbites from RaoNS!

You're most welcome.

Source, my dude.

You disprove it and there is a cookie for you.

Single to plural. No! No RaohNS! Naughty English!

A little difficulty between typing on phone, laptop and then doing five or six things in between.

We Mensa now.

Well, given your self appointed doyen status, you would know that 140 qualifies as genius level IQ.

I have ... nothing.

The most accurate statement you have ever made of yourself on these forums Mags.

It's either a dress shoe or a trainer. Case in point: vegetables.

One thing it definitely is not is a Mac-10 in under 10minutes. Case in point: Nessie.

wolfie138 · 3 Apr 2019 at 09:12

RaohNS said:
You disprove it and there is a cookie for you.

you prove it and there's a box of cookies for you.

kedge · 3 Apr 2019 at 09:39

Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom taken from Chapter 1,
one of the most visible of all the natural laws that govern our lives - the immutable law of Cause and Effect. Accidents don’t just “happen,” they are caused; by speeding, negligence, inattention, etc. Buildings don’t just “happen,” people build them. Automobiles don’t just “happen,” they are assembled on production lines. Success doesn’t just “happen,” it’s caused; by education, hard work, favorable circumstances, etc. Universes, worlds, people, dogs, atoms, they don’t just “happen.” Each is an “effect” that has been “caused.” Supplementing the universal Law of Cause and Effect is another universal law, the Law of Biogenesis which asserts that life begets life. Always has; always will; the errant opinions of self-styled scientists notwithstanding.

wolfie138 · 3 Apr 2019 at 10:14

Accidents don’t just “happen,”

i thought that was exactly why they were called accidents?

RaohNS · 3 Apr 2019 at 10:30

wolfie138 said:
you prove it and there's a box of cookies for you.

There is nothing to prove. You believe there is no god. The key word is believe. I do however believe the book Revelation is so called because after life, the revelation becomes apparent

wolfie138 · 3 Apr 2019 at 10:54

RaohNS said:
There is nothing to prove. You believe there is no god. The key word is believe. I do however believe the book Revelation is so called because after life, the revelation becomes apparent

there is something to prove, you said there is a god. so prove it. i'm happy to have my mind changed if there's proof.

uh, ok. not convinced that's what it's actually about.

RaohNS · 3 Apr 2019 at 11:55

wolfie138 said:
there is something to prove, you said there is a god. so prove it. i'm happy to have my mind changed if there's proof.

So you are going to take Hitchens razor on it. That's fine also. Evidence of absence and all.

uh, ok. not convinced that's what it's actually about.

That's fine also. That's your belief.

wolfie138 · 3 Apr 2019 at 12:34

RaohNS said:
So you are going to take Hitchens razor on it. That's fine also. Evidence of absence and all.

That's fine also. That's your belief.

i'm taking my own opinion on it.

still waiting for your evidence.

RaohNS · 3 Apr 2019 at 12:45

wolfie138 said:
i'm taking my own opinion on it.

still waiting for your evidence.

Wolfie... No need be a **** about the question. You do realize it is a question that there is no proof for your "no god" argument as there is for my assertion (not that I necessarily agree with it).

More important things in the world

kedge · 3 Apr 2019 at 14:43

wolfie138 said:
Accidents don’t just “happen,”

i thought that was exactly why they were called accidents?

Yes the accident is an effect or the end result, they don't just happen without a cause, that's the point being made.

Wikipedia,
An accident, also known as an unintentional act, is an undesirable, incidental, and an unplanned event that could have been prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence. Most scientists who study unintentional injury avoid using the term "accident" and focus on factors that increase risk of severe injury and that reduce injury incidence and severity.

If there is no natural explanation then one might take into consideration that it was either supernatural or a miraculous event.

dowie · 3 Apr 2019 at 15:31

kedge said:
If there is no natural explanation then one might take into consideration that it was either supernatural or a miraculous event.

That is just meaningless though - essentially what people have done for centuries, for things we don't yet understand just make up a handwaving argument of oh it must be supernatural/god etc... then later if it isn't understood move the goalposts back to carry on just covering other stuff we don't fully understand yet.

It isn't something worth taking into consideration, it is simply magical thinking. You can come up with any number of supernatural beliefs or gods (whether you decide to create/believe in one or many) and make untestable/unverifiable claims about them, they're all equally worthless.

kedge · 3 Apr 2019 at 17:27

dowie said:
it is simply magical thinking.

The universe coming into existence without any known observable natural process or preternatural can only be described as a miraculous event or thaumaturgic. There is not one atom of irrefutable proof that something natural can come into existence from nothing and without a causation.

Orionaut · 3 Apr 2019 at 17:33

kedge said:
The universe coming into existence without any known observable natural process or preternatural can only be described as a miraculous event or thaumaturgic. There is not one atom of irrefutable proof that something natural can come into existence from nothing and without a causation.

As I recall, Back when the "Big Bang" theory was first being proposed, one of the reasons for the "Steady Staters" holding to their position was that the "Big Bang" was felt to be just a little bit too Biblical for comfort!

dowie · 3 Apr 2019 at 17:59

kedge said:
The universe coming into existence without any known observable natural process or preternatural can only be described as a miraculous event or thaumaturgic. There is not one atom of irrefutable proof that something natural can come into existence from nothing and without a causation.

Yeah you can describe the Big Bang as a miraculous event if you like, it doesn't imply anything supernatural nor does it justify any fairy story re: a god or gods that people like to attribute to it. Inserting a god or any other supernatural belief/creation story into it just begs the question of what created that god etc.. plenty of humans have come up with creation stories over time, they're all equally worthless.

Orionaut · 3 Apr 2019 at 18:35

dowie said:
Yeah you can describe the Big Bang as a miraculous event if you like, it doesn't imply anything supernatural nor does it justify any fairy story re: a god or gods that people like to attribute to it. Inserting a god or any other supernatural belief/creation story into it just begs the question of what created that god etc.. plenty of humans have come up with creation stories over time, they're all equally worthless.

Turtles all the way down!

[FnG]magnolia · 3 Apr 2019 at 21:13

I think kedge got banned from the more serious thread in SC because ... welp, how do I phrase this one ... something, something, lunatic.

[FnG]magnolia · 3 Apr 2019 at 21:16

[FnG]magnolia said:
Just as a quick aside, are you the chap who lectures at Cambridge (or the Other Place, I don't recall exactly)? I'm sure your name is ringing bells where we had a similar science-based conversation a few years back and the armchairs were put firmly in their place.

@w11tho