Hi,
Can we prove using mathematics that a flower is growing?
Established Member
Hi,
Can we prove using mathematics that a flower is growing?
Order of Kilopi
Other than
Weighttime1 - Weighttime0
It's hard to determine what the question is (other than philisophical).
Established Member
it's just that we've got a mathematical model of the universe which disallows any alternative model, and only allows only variations of itself. Yet we have no mathematical models for living objects. Say we had a simple mathematical model of a whale, it has x mass and y gravitational pull, this would tell us nothing too much about a whale (how it eats, moves, grows, reproduces), yet is suffice for the Universe. Current cosmological models could be wrong, yet the possibility that they are wrong is denied.
Established Member
I fear you may be arguing with a straw man. Nobody who builds a model denies it might be wrong.
Nick
Established Member
How is this arguing with a strawman? A strawman is to misrepresent a theory and attack the misrepresentation. BBT has assumptions, the model and it's assumptions are never criticised. Nobody says for example that it's "just a theory" it's always described as "the closest fit to observation". It's not a very close fit it needs unknown energy to make it work. Imagine building a machine that requires unknown energy. This model could be rubbish built on rubbish. This is never acknowledged.
Established Member
Which is..?Originally Posted by stitt29
You probably want to say that scientific establishment "disallows" alternative models of whatever you are refering to here.which disallows any alternative model, and only allows only variations of itself
Living objects are of a higher emergence level than the universe, hence they are also more complex to model.Yet we have no mathematical models for living objects
Hardly, as Nick already pointed out.Current cosmological models could be wrong, yet the possibility that they are wrong is denied.
The dog, the dog, he's at it again!
Order of Kilopi
That is (roughly) what a theory is. So saying that is the best consistent, mathematical model that fits the evidence is exactly the same as saying it is "just a theory".
Now, what was that about a strawman...
Order of Kilopi
But living things are complex combinations of the simpler mathematics.
Just like we can model the formation of galaxies and other space phenomenom using things like relativity, quantum mechanics and other basic maths.
Similar with weather models. It's based on the mathematics of fluid mechanics and other things for the complex formation of fronts and pressure systems.
So is the living organism. It's based on the mathematics of chemistry.
Order of Kilopi
You are misrepresenting science and how it works, and attacking it based on that misrepresentation, how is that not a strawman?
__________________________________________________
Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
Order of Kilopi
It could be, but there is no evidence of that. In fact, it appears that is is built on a solid base of theory and observational evidence. Unless you know otherwise?
Established Member
Have you ever heard anyone say that there could be a better model than BBT. I haven't and no one will till it comes along. One will never come along as long as cosmologists accept BBT. Multiverses is just a variant on BBT. It could all be nonsense. Can any scientist accept that, or even consider that?
How do you know? What does this sentence even mean? I have living object in my hand it is of a higher emergence level don't you know. What are emergence levels? I have a mouse from emergence level 112. Really i have a worm from emergence level 78. Funny how the Universe is from emergence level 7. It would have to be though being less complex. Who, or what model says that the Universe is less complex than a mouse?Living objects are of a higher emergence level than the universe, hence they are also more complex to model.
Yes, but I haven't heard any scientist say this(BBT) is only a model, with wild assumptions. They do say: we know the Universe is 13.7 billion years old etc etc. never ending with so the theory goes.Nobody who builds a model denies it might be wrong.
Then, Hawking says the universe was spontaneously created. What does that mean? Or is it OK to say ,bible talk, like this because you're Hawking?
Order of Kilopi
If you read scientific papers, rather than popular science articles, you will find that, in general, exactly these sort of caveats are used. (Well, not the ridiculous "wild assumptions" part.) Science nearly always deals in "most likely", "current best estimate", "evidence suggests that", etc. It is usually only when you get to popular (mis)representations that all these possibilities seem to become certainties.
Order of Kilopi
You do know what the T in BBT means, dont you?
You are making another strawman, and showing your ignorance on how science works. The big bang theory is based on observations not wild assumptions. Big bang theory fits the observations far better than the competing theories, so it is the most accepted right now. However, unlike what your wild assumptions, other theories are taught, if for no other reason than the discussion of how the different theories develop is good training for how science actually works.
Big bang theory has some problems. I dont know if inflation has been well explained yet. Biggest problem is probably the fact that we cant see most of the universe tho. Dunno how big a problem that is tho, No one does. That may mean that the big bang theory may need some massive revision at some point, sort of like what happened to Newtonian mechanics after Einstein got his hands on it
Order of Kilopi
which, of course, contributed to the development of the big bang theory...sort of like what happened to Newtonian mechanics after Einstein got his hands on it
Established Member
I'm not sure I agree with that. Explain yourself.
We have many such models, modelling many separate aspects of living objects. Quantum mechanics models the atoms and electrons of living objects just as much as inert objects. Unfortunately such models are too detailed to be resolovable as a complete model of anything much larger than a small molecule. So these models aren't much use to us - but nevertheless the model is there. At lower levels of detail, biologists have many mathematical models of specific aspects of living objects.
That is indeed a rather vacuous model of a whale. I think biologists would model the more interesting aspects of a whale's life and behaviour that you mention, although biomechanics is itself interesting.
What's that got to do with the preceding? Who's doing the denying? I think we are all aware of the shortcomings of cosmological models. Cosmological models are rather different from small scale models such as quantum mechanics, etc.
Established Member
Hi stitt, yes. Consider the evolution of the feather, from a hair to a means of flight.
The evolution of the feather is driven by math, and evolution, and the code within it.
Nokton.
Order of Kilopi
Oh, is Hawking's new book what this rant is about? Have you read it? Hawking doesn't know how our Universe started, nor does anyone else. But the cosmological community lately seems to be changing its stance on the "beginning." They used to say, "Time didn't exist, so there was no 'before' the big bang." Now they're saying, "Wait a minute. We don't know that. Maybe there was something before. Plus, that might explain some of our unanswered questions." Speculative? Sure. Is it "science"? Well, not really until some observational confirmation or logically necessary scenario comes forward.
Speaking of logically necessary scenarios, the Universe's observed abundances of hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium necessarily imply that long ago our Universe was very hot, very dense, and it must have been expanding and cooling rapidly. This scenario is no "wild assumption." There is essentially no other way to end up with these results, barring the non-falsifiable claim that God did it, of course.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Order of Kilopi
NEOWatcher's first response seems to be a pretty straightforward answer to the OP question.
Or more specifically....
Weighttime n+1 - Weighttime n > 0
QED!
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
Yes, it means theory.You do know what the T in BBT means, dont you?
I haven't made one claim, other than BBT could be wrong, and shouldn't be the only other alternative to God.You are making another strawmanPlease give example. Science develops in all sorts of ways (in my opinion), most strikingly by lone geniuses who go against the mainstream. Science stalls and goes down blind alleys when people put too much faith in what is currently accepted .Phlogisten, Aristotle etc.and showing your ignorance on how science works.It requires a huge amount of unknown energy (dark energy) that's a wild assumptionThe big bang theory is based on observations not wild assumptions.Is the most accepted by people who believe in unknown energy without Question..Big bang theory fits the observations far better than the competing theories, so it is the most accepted right now.{are} I think you missed out "are" here. I haven't made any assumptions, or claims, I haven't proposed any theory/model at all. So how can you accuse me of making wild assumptions.However, unlike what your wild assumptionsSo, I never said they weren't.ther theories are taught, if for no other reason than the discussion of how the different theories develop is good training for how science actually works.
"There is no other way, again". This is my point, no one thinks there could be another alternative. There are infinite alternatives, you are being unscientific here. Your scenario has one (at least) wild assumption, unknown energy. Here is one alternative: we could have an abundance of light elements because they are "spontaneously created" within stars.Speaking of logically necessary scenarios, the Universe's observed abundances of hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium necessarily imply that long ago our Universe was very hot, very dense, and it must have been expanding and cooling rapidly. This scenario is no "wild assumption." There is essentially no other way to end up with these resultsAnd God is back , there are no alternatives to BBT other than God. If I say there could be another scientific model other than BBT, you say there is no alternative other than God.barring the non-falsifiable claim that God did it, of course.
Order of Kilopi
Who says the BBT is the only alternative? It is the best alternative and fits observations far better than any other concept.
Yes it does, and it does seem wild. But it's the best lead we have at the moment.
Without question?
Absolutely not. There are thousands of scientists trying to unravel the mystery of the part of the equation that dark energy comes from.
Black holes were in the same state decades ago. They were accepted only as an anomoly in the math decades ago. And guess what? Because of that, people researched it and found that they are real.
Order of Kilopi
Offhand, I can't think of a single example. Care to refresh my memory?
That isn't an assumption it is a conclusion based on theory and observation.It requires a huge amount of unknown energy (dark energy) that's a wild assumption
In a sense, yes. And many of those have been looked at and ruled out becuase they don't match observation. There are others currently being investigated (one was discussed here recently, but I can't be bothered to look for it right now). So far, none of them fit the facts as well as the big bang.There are infinite alternatives
This sounds similar to some old "steady state" theories. Presumably you have a mechanism for the spontaneous creation of matter? And can you demonstrate that enough new matter can be formed this way to match the observed nature of the the universe? (I guess you might have to use math there.)Here is one alternative: we could have an abundance of light elements because they are "spontaneously created" within stars.
Moderator & Sausage Gawd
stitt29,
No one here (as far as I can see) is claiming that God is the only alternative to BBT. That is another strawman argument...and at this point, I'll remind you that rule 12 prohibits the discussion of religion outside of very narrow bounds. You are also in the Science & Technology forum where ATM arguments are not allowed. Watch your step, please.
BBT is widely accepted as the best explanation of observations to date. If there is another explanation to be advanced, it must explain observations better than BBT in order to prevail as an accepted theory. Poking holes in BBT will not allow another theory to win be default, so to speak. The alternative will have stand or fall on its own.
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the lower-left corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►
Order of Kilopi
Just to add: If you have an alternative to propose - this forum (BAUT) has a special place for you to present it; the ATM (Against The Mainstream) sub-forum.
You or anyone is welcome to go there and argue for a model that denies or replaces the BBT.
Nobody here is denying that BBT could be wrong (in fact, I'd guess most would say it's "not yet 100% correct"), but the mere possibility that it's "wrong" is not enough in itself to say that any given alternative is correct, or "better". BAUT does not have a rule that says "you must not say the BBT is wrong", but it does have rules on how you present such an argument (such as where you make it).
Given the title of this thread, however, and your question "Can we prove using mathematics...", I do wonder how you'd go about demonstrating that your alternative (if you have one in mind) is "better"? If you won't use maths to match your theory to observation, what will you use? Plenty of people start ATM threads where they try to "prove" their theory using analogies and stories - they call this logic. Is this what you'd do, instead of using mathematics?
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Order of Kilopi
Since you want examples on your ignorance about science works:
This would be number one. Big bang is not the only theory, just the current best.
Second example. Your opinion is irrelevantPlease give example. Science develops in all sorts of ways (in my opinion),
Fourth example. Actually learning the particulars shows that this is false to the point of absurdity.most strikingly by lone geniuses who go against the mainstream.
Fifth example. Science hasnt stalled. What we know about the universe is still expanding pretty much too fast to keep up with. Even the big bang theory isnt the monolith of faith you keep implying it is, considering that dark energy is barely more than a decade old as a conceptScience stalls and goes down blind alleys when people put too much faith in what is currently accepted .Phlogisten, Aristotle etc.
Sixth example. Dark energy is an unknown something that acts like an energy and is based on the need to explain certain observations. No assumptions involvedIt requires a huge amount of unknown energy (dark energy) that's a wild assumption
Seventh example. Not unquestioned in the slightest.Is the most accepted by people who believe in unknown energy without Question.
You assume that those tho think the big bang theory is correct are mindless followers. I never said you were proposing a theory, just that you have no clue about how science works.{are} I think you missed out "are" here. I haven't made any assumptions, or claims, I haven't proposed any theory/model at all. So how can you accuse me of making wild assumptions.
Also, I left in a 'what' when I did some rephrasing
Yet you imply heavily that big bang is the only theory and that no others are considered.So, I never said they weren't.
#8, I believe. People search for other ways all the time. The problem is that there isnt alot of room here. Either our understanding of physics is wrong enough that nuclear power plants work by accident, or nucleosynthesis is correct. It really cant be any other way anymore.
"There is no other way, again". This is my point, no one thinks there could be another alternative.
9. The whole point of science is to get rid of that infinity.There are infinite alternatives, you are being unscientific here.
10. Been there, done that. light elements being created in stars makes stars function differently. It has been checked.Your scenario has one (at least) wild assumption, unknown energy. Here is one alternative: we could have an abundance of light elements because they are "spontaneously created" within stars.
and we end with #11. Tho technically, this is simple #1 restated. Steady State theory is a scientific alternative to big bang theory. Therefore your conclusion is trivially falsified.And God is back , there are no alternatives to BBT other than God. If I say there could be another scientific model other than BBT, you say there is no alternative other than God.
Here are 10 examples of where your ignorance shows through, as you requested.
Order of Kilopi
Incorrect. Helium is produced by fusion of hydrogen. Why didn't all the primordial hydrogen (single protons) fuse into helium? Because it was expanding and cooling and pretty quickly dropped below the temperature and pressure for fusion to occur. All primordial fusion must have been over within about the first three minutes. It is written, yes, in the ratios of the primordial elements.
Dark energy is a recent finding that is largely unexplained. It could possibly change the way we look at the BBT, but the overall structure of the Theory will likely not be changing much.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
QUOTE]No one here (as far as I can see) is claiming that God is the only alternative to BBT.[/QUOTE]
Cougar did, I was replying to that. see below.
Speaking of logically necessary scenarios, the Universe's observed abundances of hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium necessarily imply that long ago our Universe was very hot, very dense, and it must have been expanding and cooling rapidly. This scenario is no "wild assumption." There is essentially no other way to end up with these results, barring the non-falsifiable claim that God did it, of course.There is no other way- I was quoting cougarThis scenario is no "wild assumption." There is essentially no other way to end up with these results,
And fom korjikbarring the non-falsifiable claim that God did it, of course.
You accused me of making a strawman, and other things so I am entitled to respond. No one's opinion is irrelevant. If you believe that you must think you are superior to me, Do you?Your opinion is irrelevant
I asked you to give an example, of a straw man you didn't give one, and still haven't.
In response to the accusation I was ignorant on how science works, I said
Actually I think BBT is right now, thanks for all the responsesI used this example because I think BBT(mainstream) is wrong, i.e. joke,sorry you were too dim to get it. Examples of lone geniuses; Copernicus, Gallileo, many others.Science develops in all sorts of ways (in my opinion), most strikingly by lone geniuses who go against the mainstreamScience does go down blind alleys from time to time. Phlogisten, was believed for years but was rubbish. Geocentric model of the Universe is another cracker. BBT could be total nonsense, just like these were.Science stalls and goes down blind alleys when people put too much faith in what is currently accepted
Order of Kilopi
This earns an infraction.
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Order of Kilopi
Let me rephrase. According to all known physics, experiment has tightly constrained the 'explanation' for the observed abundance of the elements in the Universe.Cougar did, I was replying to that.
Well, there you go.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Banned
Yes it is good to have a consensus attitude...
or at minimum,.
To at the least be listening to the standard best yet understanding of the beginning of the universe.
Its not just guess work. The greatest minds of humanity ( my opinion ) that the current model of the Big Bang Is as near to...
The facts as we understand them to be correct.
As always... to the true science based thinking. I am always interested in the cutting edge of cosmology.
Challenging and testing any and all is indeed a good thing. That is what science is., and yes...
Established Member
Model for what exactly? What do you really mean when you say "BBT is a model"?
BBT describes the evolution of our visible universe very well but if another theory turns up that describes it better then I'm pretty sure cosmologists will accept it. Science of course rarely advances by revolution but by evolution so one wouldn't expect it to occur in a blink.One will never come along as long as cosmologists accept BBT
Sorta, and they are also fairly hypothetical at this time. Some of the locals would say positively unscientific, in factMultiverses is just a variant on BBT
I maintain that most accept that theories might be wrong. Nonsense is something else of course. BBT for example is not nonsense since it conforms to observed reality.It could all be nonsense. Can any scientist accept that, or even consider that?
The basic idea of Emergence was fairly well explained by Neowatcher above. If the idea still eludes you you can start (but only start, as always) with WikiPedia:How do you know? What does this sentence even mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
What are these wild assumptions? OTOH BBT is not model, it's a theory and if you haven't heard any scientist say that then you haven't been listening.Yes, but I haven't heard any scientist say this(BBT) is only a model, with wild assumptions
Our observable universe in its current state is indeed ca. 13.7 billion years old according to the best observational evidence we have. Which doesn't say much about the age of the entire universe of course.They do say: we know the Universe is 13.7 billion years old etc etc. never ending with so the theory goes
Obviously there are other ways to interpret some of the evidence but so far it has proven rather hard to find a way for all the evidence fit better than BBT makes them fit. Within the framework of scientific theory building of course.
I'm not up to speed with what Hawking proposes currently so you'd have to ask somebody who is. To me, spontaneous "creation" sounds like some of the proposed models for quantum fluctuations bootstrapping the BB event but it could be something else.Then, Hawking says the universe was spontaneously created. What does that mean?
"Bible talk" certainly doesn't posit spontaneus creation of the universe. Also, Hawking isn't the whole of cosmology.Or is it OK to say ,bible talk, like this because you're Hawking?
Hmm, are we perchance getting close to where the real sore spot lies?
Last edited by tnjrp; 2010-Sep-16 at 05:34 AM. Reason: typos corrected and such
The dog, the dog, he's at it again!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
