The nature of the universe, whether God(s) exist, and how we define them

[Saint Guinefort]

So you believe in the Church of the Big Bang and the Church of Abiogenesis. Gotit.

You've got a problem.

Assuming that abiogenesis took place, and through a series of random unspecified events, a cell DID manage to form.

What's it going to eat?

What do cyanobacteria eat today? They photosynthesize.

(Do you think trees run around hunting down small prey to eat?)

 

[Into the Night]

From what I've read, it's more the other way around- that is, that theories are born from hypothesis. First, a definition of hypothesis:

WRONG. Hypothesis come from a theory, not the other way around. There is no one to 'bless' a theory. There is no one to vote on a theory.

I've seen nothing in the dictionary definition saying that a theory -must- be falsifiable.

It doesn't. However, a theory of science MUST be falsifiable. There are plenty of nonscientific theories.

One definition of theory from the link above highly resembles what is typically thought of as hypothesis- that it is simply abstract reasoning, or speculation.

A theory is an explanatory argument. Nothing more. Hypothesis stem from a theory, such as the null hypothesis. You can consider a hypothesis a 'use case' for a theory. A theory does not come from a hypothesis.

Now, I can certainly agree that -ideally- a theory or hypothesis would be falsifiable, but that's not always the case.

Why 'ideally'? Nonscientific theories certainly exist, but they are not science.

Suggesting that if it can't be, it remains the territory of... philosphers perhaps?

Something you deny and discard.

I don't see why this has to be the case.

Because it is philosophy that defines words like 'religion', 'science', 'real', and 'reality'. It also describes why these words have the meaning they do.

A scientist could simply say that science can't prove whether something is true or false at the present moment.

Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems such as mathematics or logic.

Atheism means the belief that God or Gods don't exist.

WRONG. Atheism mean 'without theism'. The belief that no god or gods exist is a religion. It is theism.

I think science doesn't have any beliefs at all, not actually being an entity per se- I'd characterize it as a methodology to try to find out truths.

Science is atheistic. It simply does not care whether a god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there.

 

[Into the Night]

this.......logically if the rules of physics had been in place even a day sooner than the Big Bang, said Bang would have had to occur a day sooner.......a scientific examination of everything in our universe will never explain what occurred outside and prior to our universe.......

If there is ANYTHING outside the so-called 'universe', then it isn't the universe. It is not universal.

 

[Into the Night]

Not necessarily. That assumes that this universe was the first universe. There's a theory that universes are actually birthed from other universes.

How does one give birth to itself??????!? This forms a paradox.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

WRONG. Hypothesis come from a theory,

Incorrect. "Theory" as it is used in science is a very specific thing. It is one of the highest degrees of certainty of anything in science.

Now, COMMON LANUGAGE use of "theory" means more of a "guess". "It is my theory that....". But in science it all starts with HYPOTHESIS and then repeated observation and testing until the proper hypothesis is found and with even more testing and confirmation it graduates up to a "Theory".

Again, this is very different from how we commonly use the word "theory" in regular conversation.

A theory is an explanatory argument. Nothing more. Hypothesis stem from a theory, such as the null hypothesis. You can consider a hypothesis a 'use case' for a theory. A theory does not come from a hypothesis.

Wrong.

 

[Into the Night]

The argument that we are just one universe is an infinite hyperspace of infinite universes is just as speculative as saying there is some higher organizing principle underlying this Universe.

I think the multiverse is a wonderful idea, but it also gets used to just sweep fine tuning of our observable universe under the carpet.

ANYTHING outside the so-called 'universe' means that the universe isn't the universe. It is not universal.

 

[Into the Night]

I actually think there's some evidence of a higher organizing principle in our universe. A combination of evolution and synchronicity.

Randomness is a higher organizing principle??????!?

As to evidence that there's more than one universe, I'm not sure. I remember hearing the theory, but don't remember whether there was any evidence for it.

Not logically possible. ANYTHING outside the so-called 'universe' means the 'universe' not universal. It is is not the universe.

I think it's a possible explanation for why the physical constants are as they are. If you have another possible explanation, I'd be interested in hearing it

The purpose for any natural constant is to convert a relation to our units of measurement. That's all.

A 'law' of physics is nothing more than a falsifiable theory transcribed into mathematical form. That is called a 'law'. NOTHING about this conversion proves a theory True.

 

[Cypress]

What do cyanobacteria eat today? They photosynthesize.

(Do you think trees run around hunting down small prey to eat?)

So why not just admit you didn't understand biochemistry or the nature of early life on earth?

Cyanobacteria have existed for billions of years. You don't need to have protozoa be the first cells. The first cells could use sunlight through photosynthesis or chemical energy for metabolic functions.

 

[Into the Night]

this.......logically if the rules of physics had been in place even a day sooner than the Big Bang, said Bang would have had to occur a day sooner.......a scientific examination of everything in our universe will never explain what occurred outside and prior to our universe.......

There are no 'rules of physics'. Physics is a branch of science. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

 

[Into the Night]

The argument that we are just one universe is an infinite hyperspace of infinite universes is just as speculative as saying there is some higher organizing principle underlying this Universe.

I think the multiverse is a wonderful idea, but it also gets used to just sweep fine tuning of our observable universe under the carpet.

There is no 'tuning'.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah ok. My own theory as to why physics' constants' and indeed everything exists is because it wants to. I know that's not much of a theory, but it's the best I've got on that .

There is no 'want to'.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

So why not just admit you didn't understand biochemistry or the nature of early life on earth?

Cyanobacteria have existed for billions of years. You don't need to have protozoa be the first cells. The first cells could use sunlight through photosynthesis or chemical energy for metabolic functions.

Being a chemist I probably understand biochem better than many on this forum. Thanks.

 

[BidenPresident]

Being a chemist I probably understand biochem better than many on this forum. Thanks.

Cypress is an expert on everything.

 

[Into the Night]

I personally have never found the "well, that's just the way it is" explanation to be either scientifically or philosophically satisfying.

As to the origin of physics, it seems our options are to say that physical laws randomly appeared out of nowhere for no conceiveable reason, or that there is some higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos we cannot fathom. The Neoconfucians called it Li. The Hindus call it Brahman.

It would be nice if a theory of everything can be discovered in our lifetimes, unifying the fundamental forces of nature. But even then, it doesn't explain where the unified force came from, and the answer to that may forever be beyond the reach of the scientific method.

Science is not a 'method' or a procedure. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. YOU are quoting the philosophies of Roger Bacon, who tried to use them to declare that science WAS religion. Science, of course, cannot be defined that way.
There is no 'unified force'. There is no theory of science concerning a 'unified force'.
Theories of science are created by men. They are tested by men. They are falsified by men. There is no 'unified' ultimate of science. It is not possible to prove any theory True.

 

[Into the Night]

Much to the annoyance of Einstein, some of the early pioneering quantum physicists like Pauli dabbled in Hinduism and Eastern religions and seemed to try to fuse science and religion Into a type of quantum mysticism.

That kind of speculation isn't much different than religion or metaphysics, and certainly never gained traction in the mainstream scientific community. But I still think that kind of speculation is perfectly reasonable to engage in.

Religion is not science. There is no such thing as 'mainstream' science. Science is not a community.

 

[Into the Night]

The first cells, like cyanobacteria, used photosynthesis or chemical energy for metabolism.

Can't. Photosynthesis requires complex structures to function, even for cyanobacteria. There isn't any! There is no 'chemical energy' that just comes by itself. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

What do cyanobacteria eat today? They photosynthesize.

(Do you think trees run around hunting down small prey to eat?)

A tree is a complex structure as well. You are ignoring the conversation.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

A tree is a complex structure as well. You are ignoring the conversation.

You asked what a photosynthesizing creature "ate". I answered your question AND I gave you a counterexample of how you must think about photosynthesizing things if you are mystifie by what they "eat".

 

[Into the Night]

Incorrect. "Theory" as it is used in science is a very specific thing.

Yes. It must be falsifiable.

It is one of the highest degrees of certainty of anything in science.

Circular definition.

Now, COMMON LANUGAGE use of "theory" means more of a "guess".

Semantics fallacy. The word 'theory' always means the same thing.

"It is my theory that....". But in science it all starts with HYPOTHESIS

No. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.

and then repeated observation and testing until the proper hypothesis is found and with even more testing and confirmation it graduates up to a "Theory".

You just defined something that can 'prove' a religion True.

No. There is no voting bloc in science. There is no one to 'graduate' anything 'up to a theory'. It is not possible to prove any theory True. A hypothesis stems from a theory.

Again, this is very different from how we commonly use the word "theory" in regular conversation.

Semantics fallacy. The meaning of 'theory' doesn't change. A theory is an explanatory argument.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Yes. It must be falsifiable.

Circular definition.

Semantics fallacy. The word 'theory' always means the same thing.

No. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.

You just defined something that can 'prove' a religion True.

No. There is no voting bloc in science. There is no one to 'graduate' anything 'up to a theory'. It is not possible to prove any theory True. A hypothesis stems from a theory.

Semantics fallacy. The meaning of 'theory' doesn't change. A theory is an explanatory argument.

You are wrong my friend. And if you were right you could find a reference that supports it. But you can't. So I'll give you a reference that supports my explanation:

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory

Also this: