LOL. Popper is VERY will documented. Beyond that, YOU are the one who has been regularly touting Popper. NOW you don't like it when I do - so you say I can't tout him, because he isn't here to be questioned!!! HILARIOUS!
You claimed that BBT is religinon - that which needs no observational evidence. So, what theory do you see as competing with the Lambda-CDM model popularly know as the big bang? I disagree that science does not require supporting evidence. The idea that supporting evidence isnt required is a gross overstatement. The point Popper made was that supporting evidence on its own is not sufficient - that there must be a serious, creative, rigorous and continuing effort at falsification - like there is today for the big bang, the theory of relativity, evolution, and every other important theory. If there is actually no supporting evidence, then one can hardly claim there is any "there" there. After all, the first observation of a theory workig IS that positive evidence you claim to despise. If you dont even have THAT, then what the heck DO you have? Yes, the big bang will continue to be a theory of science until it is falsified - OR, maybe until another theory is devised where that new theory in some way does a better job of explaining.
Telescopes are time machines. The more distant an object is, the longer it has been since that object emitted light. Like we see our sun as it was 8 minutes ago and the star Casseopia as it was 4,000 years ago astronomers have viewed a single star as it was 9 billion years ago - and they have imaged galaxies as they were far before that time.. We're within one significant telescope from seeing objects as they were soon after the big bang. How close do you believe we need to be before you would allow people to collect data?
I've only claimed that his philosophy of science is where I get much of my philosophy of science from. I haven't attempted to speak for Popper, as you have.
A long time ago, in graduate school, I read Descartes, read him more closely the second time. Then followed reading the works of other Epistemological Philosophers, upon which I read Descartes again. His thought process, aside from the quote he is often credited with, was the basic question, which I personalize, ‘How do I know what I know?’. That and the lingering question of introspection of self doubt of ‘what I think I know’. Descartes established his Epistemological frame of reference from where that self questioning took him and I didn’t accept his, but took his cue and did the same for me which led not to building a frame of reference based on practicality of my knowledge...’what works, what doesn’t extended by what works better’. I have been doing inquiry, guided by a drive to sort understanding of what I don’t know, for some 45 years + since, using the methods of scientific inquiry to increase the confidence in the ‘practicality’ of the knowledge I have accumulated since which has lead me to some interesting areas of inquiry now trending into neurology research; a fascinating, growing field, one helping me understand.... me. Maybe. What have I learned all this time? I ‘know’ what I don’t know is far beyond what I know...it keeps me going and makes life worth living.
LOL - if you have an argument, then try to make it. You have claimed to use Popper FAR more than I have. Your attempts have extended to a good number of different threads, in fact. The catch has been that you didn't understand what Popper was saying. Do you get it now?
No, that's not a legitimate answer. You have clearly stated that humans have to be there. I'm asking - how close does one have to be before it's ok to start collecting data based on observation? What's the measurement that must be used? What about partical colliders? In that case, I can't see anythig at all. Ever. And I suspect results would have to be considered Baysian.
Okay, here's the deal. We can look back 13 billion years and we see a completely organized set of galaxies without recognizable disorder. And this is how many years after the big bang? And.... if the speed of light is constant how come inflation happened faster than C. I came to understand that if two people stood back to back and shined flashlights forward the distance between the two would shoot out at the speed of light. But even traveling away from each other in a light year the forward points would be one light year apart. And one light year from each flashlight. And if you shone a light in another direction it would be one light year away. Inflation seems fuzzy to me at FTL speed.
OK, here's the thing about inflation - I think: Inflation happens in all parts of the universe. It's believed it is a constant rate. So, it's like each mile of space grows to 1 mile plus a little every year. Now, if you have a billion miles, that will grow to a billion miles plus a billion times that little bit every year. If you have enough billions of miles, that last piece of the equation will end up being more than the speed of light. Of course, in space a billion miles is absolutely nothing. The numbers get so large that the expansion of the universe is VERY clearly greater than the speed of light. General relativity allows for that. Special relativity is where we get the limit on the speed of light, but that is talking about objects that are near each other. The expansion of the universe does't help with travel or sending messages. It just means that as time passes, there are distant galaxies that are finally receding at faster than the speed of light, so their light will NEVER get here. Those galaxies (or whatever) just disappear - gone forever from our field of view. Any physicist out there should feel free to chime in here if I've blown it somehow.
It just seems wrong to me. If this is so.... expansion happened faster than the speed of light then negative energy or the energy of a vaccum is the greatest force of the universe and inexhaustible. This is that dark energy. It would seem... if you are right... the universe will eventually dissolve. The power of the vacuum .... that is all powerful ...yet has no power ...will prevail. Unless creation is a continuous process.
That's a leading theory from theoretical physicists. Eventually everything spreads out and cools, no more suns or black holes, off to cold notingness.
Yes but what about gravity? Consider this if you please. Gravity gets weaker with distance. But..... and this is important to me... it never goes away. So a reciprocal universe? Where the weak force.... Gravity... is always there .....eventually pulling everything back together? But the power of the nothing would take care of that. What about matter coming into existence as the universe expands? A never empty never filled hole in space. Or what if we were looking into a black hole and the universe is actually shrinking? Things are moving away faster cause they are closer to the event horizon. Red shifting toward the smaller.
Given that we're expanding as we are, at an increasing rate, no less, gravity already lost. As matter decays and energy spreads and cools, there isn't anything that will exist as far as I have heard. Black holes, electrons, quarks, whatever - all decayed, cooled and smoothed out on a possibly infinite field.
Cute, but obviously a post was made so are you suggesting that defined nothing? It has been theorized and experimentally verified that quantum particles can pop into and from existence, and in fact it’s a frequent phenomena. So, again, what’s nothing and can it exist?
No, I do that when I click on reply by accident.... The very definition of nothing means it DOES NOT exist. But it has power. Consider lake Michigan nothing... drop in a ball of salt equal to a square foot. It would dissolve until it was distributed amount the water atoms of the lake. Now, imagine a universe in a vast sea of nothing... infinite in size yet having no size at all.
There is that recurring question; how can something come from nothing? It may depend on the nature of nothing.... Here’s a discussion of nothing that can teach something about the question we keep asking... [video][video] After viewing, search you tube for ‘How something can come from nothing’ and you will find a good video that does a good job of simplifying the explanation for how particles can spontaneously be created from nothing. Enjoy
Philosophy is a discipline. Most people never get the hang of it if they don't take some upper level phil classes. Btw, Popper was the butt of a lot of jokes by scientists, even back in the day. What made phil of sci interesting was when scientists started doing it in the late 70s. Guys like Ronald N Giere. Richard Rorty was a transitional figure, and just an amazing thinker, but I doubt you are ready for him, either.
