Laws are scientific explanations.
Can science play any part in any explanation of the origin of the universe?
1 Like
And the hilarity continues.
The number 2 is both even and a prime number.
Do you even bother checking elementary facts before posting this drivel?
Oh wait, the actual definition of a prime number is as follows:
N is prime if and only if there exist NO integers k less than N, such that (N mod k) = 0.
No mention of being even or odd therein.
Elementary lesson for you … don’t try telling someone who spent 15 years studying mathematics something that said individual KNOWS to be wrong.
Hawking and Hertog disagree. Who am I going to choose here? Two of the world’s leading cosmological physicists, or a pedlar of ex recto apologetics?
Again, Hawking and Hertog’s work is laughing at your ignorance.
Well spotted, yes I was in error and wrote that in haste, thank you for correcting that.
No they do not. I encourage you to reach out to Hertog and see for yourself. Hertog has nowhere said he envisages a theory that assumes no laws and explains how laws arise, not true, he never said it, Hawking never said even Lawrence Krauss doesn’t say it, no theoretical physicst working today says it.
You’ve misunderstood and that’s because your blinded by your all-consuming contempt for those around you who do not share your atheist religious beliefs.
So go on, reach out to Hertog or Penrose or any reputable theoretical physicist, put up or shut up.
Can science play any part in any explanation of the origin of the universe?
2 Likes
Bullshit.
Oh wait, what part of “I presented one of Hertog’s papers in detail in a past post” did you forget when posting this?
You didn’t even read my presentation of that paper, you just engaged in tone policing whingeing and bleating about my post length.
Bullshit.
Funny how no one else here has commented on my purported “all consuming contempt” for them.
Yawn. NOT treating unsupported mythological assertions uncritically as fact, is the very ANTITHESIS of “religious belief”. Pull your head out of your arse.
I already fucking did, BY PRESENTING ONE OF THE RELEVANT PAPERS
Now kindly fuck off until you learn to conduct discourse honestly.
1 Like
I refuse to take your word for it, you want to say Hertog “means” this and Hertog “means” that when he actually doesn’t.
I am the person who studied theoretical physics remember, and I have zero doubt that you are wrong about Hertog and Hawking.
This is just ridiculous anyway, how can one explain laws without writing equations that are themselves laws, stick to fish keeping and leave the hard science to the professionals.
1 Like
.
1 Like
You mean the way you refused to examine actual peer reviewed scientific papers, but chose instead to take the word of people who were ignorant of the relevant developments?
Did you actually READ my direct quotations from his scientific paper? More of your stinking duplicity.
So why can’t you understand an actual scientific paper from the discipline that was presented to you?
Bullshit. Once again, I quoted Hertog’s own words from his scientific paper. Stop lying.
Read Hertog’s paper and find out.
Stick to masturbating your Internet mouth and leave proper discourse to honest posters.
Why are you reticent to reach out to Hertog? where’s the strident confidence? where’s the conviction? where’s the eagerness to correct this flaky theist?
Hertog and Hawking were doing what theoretical physicists do, seeking a simpler broader framework for the world we observe.
They did not and cannot write down any equations unless they have premises, assumptions, axioms and it is these that serve as laws from which one reasons.
So the fact they seek to be able to derive our current laws from other more profound laws is not the same as “explaining the presence of laws”.
Maxwell’s theory took several apparently distinct empirical laws and mathematically combined these into a new single law of the electromagnetic field. That (as you well know) “describes” the electromagnetic field it does not tall us where this phenomenon came from though, why there are such fields, why the equations take the specific form they do.
Face it you have misinterpreted the work of Hertog and Hawking, I told you that from the outset and you refused to believe me, yet I told you I studied theoretical physics. I mean I would never argue with you about fish keeping…so why argue with me about theoretical physics or theology when you clearly know little about these disciplines.
Stop lying.
Oh wait, I explicitly presented Hertog’s own words when covering this matter. Or did this elementary concept fly past you, in your eagerness to double down on your lies?
As for theoretical physics, I’ll treat your self-aggrandising assertions on this matter in the same manner I treat all your other worthless assertions.
1 Like
I am not remotely scientifically trained, but it does seem odd that a theoretical physicist dislikes longwinded explanations, though of course trained in, does not mean qualified in, or even aptitude for.
3 Likes
Did you gain any credentials or qualifications in the field, have you worked in the field professionally?
Since @Sherlock-Holmes you admit something cannot be an explanation for itself. It follows that the claim a deity created the universe cannot be an explanation of itself, it necessarily then requires explanation:
- How is a deity possible?
- Where did this deity come from?
- How is the supernatural power to create a universe possible?
- Where does the supernatural power to create a universe come from?
- How did a deity use supernatural powers to create the universe.
As a bare minimum those questions need an expansive, accurate and objective explanation, by your own admission.
3 Likes
Still waiting for you to explain why it is bias or prejudice to describe gospels as “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.”
When do you think you might have time to Google the phrase open minded, and the word myth and get to back to me on this?
1 Like
There’s also the little matter of him openly admitting he wouldn’t dare touch a post in which I explicitly presented Hertog’s own words, namely this one, while mendaciously accusing me of playing the same sort of apologetics with Hertog’s words that he did with purported “problems” with prebiotic chemistry.
This was his lame excuse for avoiding that post, despite being told that [1] the article I linked to therein was written by Hertog himself, and [2] I provided extensive exposition of said contents:
Of course, this sort of evasion is a familiar part of his odious track record, as well as his mendacious false accusations and blatant hypocrisy, much of it embarrassingly projective.
All the more embarrassing when even elementary observers exerting the effort to examine the material in question, can determine for themselves the level of his discoursive criminality.
He won’t dare touch that post because he knows he’ll be exposed as a blatant liar if he does.
There’s also his hilarious admission that he doesn’t understand that a concept can be represented faithfully in language in multiple ways, which on its own casts deep suspicion upon his claims to understand theoretical physics, a subject I suspect he knows less about than my tropical fish.
Sometimes, seeing mythology fanboys flounder like this is amusing, but in this instance, any laughter potential was long ago exhausted and replaced by the sort of irritation more usually associated with mosquito bites.
2 Likes
Don’t start with the hand waving again please. We both know that you are trying to peddle the idea that Hertog and Hawking can explain the origin of laws without recourse to laws - that’s the absurd position you’ve embraced.
Stick to fish keeping and leave science to the scientists my friend.
1 Like
Same to you…
Did you gain any credentials or qualifications in the field, have you worked in the field professionally?
Since @Sherlock-Holmes you admit something cannot be an explanation for itself. It follows that the claim a deity created the universe cannot be an explanation of itself, it necessarily then requires explanation:
- How is a deity possible?
- Where did this deity come from?
- How is the supernatural power to create a universe possible?
- Where does the supernatural power to create a universe come from?
- How did a deity use supernatural powers to create the universe.
As a bare minimum those questions need an expansive, accurate and objective explanation, by your own admission.
3 Likes
Talking of hand waving.
Still waiting for you to explain why it is bias or prejudice to describe gospels as “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.”
When do you think you might have time to Google the phrase open minded, and the word myth and get to back to me on this?
2 Likes
I’m still waiting on Sherlock to address a question I suggested earlier in this thread:
If God exists, then where did God come from?
If God has always existed, then why not skip a step and say that the Universe has always existed?
Or . . . if we decide that the origin of God is an unanswerable question, then why not skip a step and decide that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question?
1 Like
He’s already said he doesn’t know, though of course his posts are too dishonest, and biased in favour of his religious indoctrination to critically and honestly examine what that means, alongside his endless argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies about gaps in our scientific understanding of the origins of the universe.
You nailed it, perfectly, and this exposes the false equivalence fallacy at the heart of @Sherlock-Holmes irrational verbiage.
2 Likes
Still lying about this I see.
I’m not asserting anything of the sort, this is an ex recto apologetic fabrication on your part.
Hertog clearly and explicitly states in that article, that the sum over histories view of the universe he’s working on implies an evolutionary basis for our currently observed laws of physics. He explicitly uses the relevant words.
Oh, and since I presented one of Hertog’s actual scientific papers, which presents, wait for it, a path integral formulation for his sum over histories proposal, your garbage assertion about me claiming he purportedly pulls laws out of thin air is a bare faced lie on your part.
Oh wait, Hertog himself states that past interactions shaped the history of the string landscape. I never asserted that he stated otherwise. Once again, stop lying.
1 Like