Can Both Evolution & Creationism be Wrong?

[One Above All]

<snip>
The Big Bang Theory describes the initial state and early development of U. What the Big Bang does not do is describe a relationship between U and E.

Agreed on all points.

It isn't. The logical proposition stands on its own merits: in order for an object to possess an attribute, there must be such an attribute for the object to possess. Your inability to come up with an explanation was merely an attempt on my part to illustrate this.

Agreed so far.

You earlier said that "I had also considered the possibility that our universe was once a black hole of another universe, and that all black holes might contain universes. However, I dismissed it, due to the fact that, as far as I know, no black hole has ever been shown to "randomly" expand outward." That statement confuses me, because there's no obvious connection between a failure to observe an expanding black hole ("randomly" or otherwise) and your dismissal of the notion that black holes may contain universes.

Put simply, we know of only one universe: this one. In addition, from what we can tell, this one wasn't always as it is now. It was once compressed into a very tiny space, then expanded outward. It would stand to reason that other universes developed in a similar manner. Ergo, for black holes to contain universes, it would be logical to assume that they would need to expand outward, much like our own.

That is another (as far as I can figure out, the only other) alternative: that, whilst not necessarily logically contradictory concepts, actual infinities can't practically exist in reality due to the limitations of reality. As I said, I'm happy to concede that it's a possibility that reality doesn't work in a way that allows for actual infinities, but it seems we're still a ways off from establishing that.

I guess we're in agreement here. Sort of.

<snip>
If you stand by Reply #1, it would appear that you would have to say that actual infinities cannot exist in black holes. However, if we don't know what happens, how confident would you be about making that claim, and on what basis?

I stand by my assertion, based on the fact that everything we can observe is limited.

[Deus ex Machina]

Put simply, we know of only one universe: this one. In addition, from what we can tell, this one wasn't always as it is now. It was once compressed into a very tiny space, then expanded outward. It would stand to reason that other universes developed in a similar manner. Ergo, for black holes to contain universes, it would be logical to assume that they would need to expand outward, much like our own.

How do you know they don't, though? When you say "it would be logical to assume" how a potential Universe would appear to behave when looked at from the outside, based on observations of how a Universe appears to behave when looked at from the inside, you've made a staggering leap. Such a proposition may seem or feel right, and may even have enough of a smidgeon of inductive reasoning behind it to trick our monkey-brains into deeming it acceptable; but actually, there's not really any logic behind it. You've not actually developed a sound logical argument based on a series of correct premises. It's at best questionable inductive reasoning, at worst an intuitive leap; and in physics, intuitive leaps are fraught with danger in realms that are often counter-intuitive. For all you know, those two frames of reference are nothing alike: who knows what concepts of space and/or time may apply to such Universes? For all you know, there's some entity discussing with some other entity that the black hole they can observe appears to be doing the square root of F.A., and how it cannot possibly contain a Universe - all the while unknowing (and us equally unknowing) that they're staring directly at us.

Now, that's not to say that you're wrong. For all I know, you may be right. But it's a bad area for making assumptions - no matter how "logical" it may seem to make them.

I stand by my assertion, based on the fact that everything we can observe is limited.

That's basically an argument from ignorance, though: "Everything we can (currently) observe is limited, therefore no actual infinities can exist at all in reality."

[meinfinitist]

Is infinity a solid? Is everything placed in and relative to this solid?

Is there an infinity of big bangs interacting with each other as they grow, expand,

and recycle their pieces and black holes, only to compress and explode again?

When Moses was on the mountain, if he had had a telescope that could see 1/13,000,000 of

the sky, and saw thousands of galaxies 13 billion light years away would he of had a different

story to tell? The Hubble telescope gave us that knowledge. Infinity is a comforting thought.

We just have to learn to really care for each other.

[One Above All]

How do you know they don't, though?
<snip>
Now, that's not to say that you're wrong. For all I know, you may be right. But it's a bad area for making assumptions - no matter how "logical" it may seem to make them.

You'd make a good point regarding observing an universe from the inside and from the outside, if it weren't for the fact that if something is expanding, it can be seen from both the inside and outside. It's just simple logic. If applies to literally everything we know; why wouldn't it apply to a universe? Special pleading.

That's basically an argument from ignorance, though: "Everything we can (currently) observe is limited, therefore no actual infinities can exist at all in reality."

No; it's not. If I had said "Everything we can (currently) observe is limited, therefore my explanation[1] is true" would be an argument from ignorance. What I am doing is concluding something doesn't exist based on available evidence.

1.	Usually "Godditit".

[meinfinitist]

A fly is in the expanding baloon.

A fly is one foot from the expanding baloon.

A fly is twenty feet from both of them.

I'm trying to get your viewpoint as to what they can each observe.

[One Above All]

A fly is in the expanding baloon.

A fly is one foot from the expanding baloon.

A fly is twenty feet from both of them.

I'm trying to get your viewpoint as to what they can each observe.

I thought it was obvious, but here's the explanation anyway:

Fly #1:
It can observe the edge of the balloon getting farther and farther away, while simultaneously observing the balloon getting larger.

Fly #2:
It can observe the balloon getting larger.

Fly #3:
It can observe the balloon getting larger.

[William]

We just have to learn to really care for each other.

This of course explains perfectly why God wanted people with crushed testicles to be shunned!    Yes? No?

Deuteronomy 23:1  “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

[Angus and Alexis]

This of course explains perfectly why God wanted people with crushed testicles to be shunned!    Yes? No?

Or why he made other religions, atheists, gays, etc.

[One Above All]

This of course explains perfectly why God wanted people with crushed testicles to be shunned!    Yes? No?

Or why he made other religions, atheists, gays, etc.

Nah; the devil made those. Don't you know that?

[Angus and Alexis]

Just like all the fossils, the far away starlight, computers and more!

Satan^tm making science everyday and being that badguy!

[Truth OT]

Could it be possible that life, or more specifically the Universe exists simply because it can and that that has always been so, which means that the universe is indeed ageless.

[Jag]

Could it be possible that life, or more specifically the Universe exists simply because it can and that that has always been so, which means that the universe is indeed ageless.

Good enough for me until further evidence suggest something different. I enjoy reading the various theories, even the ones I don't entirely understand, but I can live with "I don't know", realizing that perhaps in the future, we will.

“I Don’t Know” is the most powerful and important phrase available to human beings. The second is “Let’s Find Out”.

I'd attribute it if I knew who said it first but absent that, I just share it when appropriate.

[Deus ex Machina]

You'd make a good point regarding observing an universe from the inside and from the outside, if it weren't for the fact that if something is expanding, it can be seen from both the inside and outside.

Really? How would you see an expanding balloon in a very large opaque jar? How would you see a cylinder that was increasing in length if you were looking at it end-on? There are quite a few scenarios where something may be seen to be expanding from the inside, but not from the outside.

It's just simple logic.

It's the fallacy of the excluded middle.

If applies to literally everything we know; why wouldn't it apply to a universe? Special pleading.

No special pleading required; as above, it doesn't apply to every conceivable scenario.

If I had said "Everything we can (currently) observe is limited, therefore my explanation[1] is true" would be an argument from ignorance. What I am doing is concluding something doesn't exist based on available evidence.

1.	Usually "Godditit".

On the contrary, what you're saying is "Everything we can (currently) observe is limited, therefore my explanation[2] is true".

2.	In this case, "No actual infinities exist".

[One Above All]

Really? How would you see an expanding balloon in a very large opaque jar? How would you see a cylinder that was increasing in length if you were looking at it end-on? There are quite a few scenarios where something may be seen to be expanding from the inside, but not from the outside.

You make a good point about the cylinder (though not good enough, which I'll explain further ahead), but not the balloon. In the balloon scenario, you're not just outside the balloon; there's an opaque barrier between you and the balloon. A barrier, I might add, that hasn't been proven to exist in black holes. As for the cylinder, you haven't taken into account the fact that black holes spin (or at least we think they do), yet there hasn't been any observation of one expanding.

It's the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Never heard of it. Mind telling me what that is?

No special pleading required; as above, it doesn't apply to every conceivable scenario.

True. I concede that.

On the contrary, what you're saying is "Everything we can (currently) observe is limited, therefore my explanation[1] is true".

1.	In this case, "No actual infinities exist".

Again, no. I'm concluding something based on observation.
We're going to disagree on this, no matter what either of us says. If you want, we can keep going back and forth with this, but I'd rather not waste my time.

[Deus ex Machina]

You make a good point about the cylinder (though not good enough, which I'll explain further ahead), but not the balloon. In the balloon scenario, you're not just outside the balloon; there's an opaque barrier between you and the balloon. A barrier, I might add, that hasn't been proven to exist in black holes.

Why wouldn't the Schwarzschild radius qualify as an opaque barrier?

As for the cylinder, you haven't taken into account the fact that black holes spin (or at least we think they do), yet there hasn't been any observation of one expanding.

It wasn't really relevant to the point I was attempting to convey with the analogy, but I'll take the point that I could have picked a better one. The point was that if an object was expanding in a dimension outside your frame of reference, you wouldn't expect to be able to observe it.

Never heard of it. Mind telling me what that is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

On the contrary, what you're saying is "Everything we can (currently) observe is limited, therefore my explanation[1] is true".

1.	In this case, "No actual infinities exist".

Again, no. I'm concluding something based on observation.

In what way "no"? Your observation, so far as I can tell, is "Everything we can (currently) observe is limited", and your conclusion is "No actual infinities exist". In what way is that different from the argumentum ad ignorantiam above? What's so special about your conclusion that makes it either deductively or inductively valid?

If you were merely making a provisional inference, I could understand it... but you appear to have stated categorically that no actual infinities exist, and I'm guessing you're still not resiling from that position, both of which combine to imply that you're certain of it.

We're going to disagree on this, no matter what either of us says.

I'm not an unreasonable person. If your logic is valid and sound, then there's no need for disagreement - though it may take a while to explain to me, and I appreciate that - as below - your available time is limited, as is mine.

If you want, we can keep going back and forth with this, but I'd rather not waste my time.

Of course, I don't want to take up any more of your time than you're prepared to give. Thank you for the time you have spent on this; it's been interesting.

[One Above All]

Of course, I don't want to take up any more of your time than you're prepared to give. Thank you for the time you have spent on this; it's been interesting.

I was actually only referring to the very last bit of your post which I quoted. I'll reply to the rest of this (above) post as soon as I can.

[One Above All]

Why wouldn't the Schwarzschild radius qualify as an opaque barrier?

I was aware of the concept, but not the name.
The answer is "no". We may not be able to observe the black hole directly, but if one were to suddenly increase in size, especially if it decreased in density, we'd notice. We'd see the distortion of space (since we can't see the distortion of time) becoming less prominent.

It wasn't really relevant to the point I was attempting to convey with the analogy, but I'll take the point that I could have picked a better one. The point was that if an object was expanding in a dimension outside your frame of reference, you wouldn't expect to be able to observe it.

Unless you can show that a black hole (which exists in the third dimension [sort of], as far as we know) can expand in the fourth dimension and that said expansion will create a universe, this kind of speculation is pointless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

No wonder I didn't recognize it. You should really call things what they're usually called, if you want to be understood.

I've omitted the rest of your post as per the last bit of it.

[Deus ex Machina]

Why wouldn't the Schwarzschild radius qualify as an opaque barrier?

I was aware of the concept, but not the name.
The answer is "no".

That's a very strange answer to a question beginning "Why".

We may not be able to observe the black hole directly, but if one were to suddenly increase in size, especially if it decreased in density, we'd notice. We'd see the distortion of space (since we can't see the distortion of time) becoming less prominent.

By what degree, and over what kinds of timescales? Is it within our ability to measure for the period during which have we been able to observe what's going on around black holes?

Unless you can show that a black hole (which exists in the third dimension [sort of], as far as we know) can expand in the fourth dimension and that said expansion will create a universe, this kind of speculation is pointless.

Oh, come now. It's fun to speculate. And I imagine quite a few things we take for granted in our model probably started with some seemingly-pointless speculation (before someone sat down and started doing the hard graft of trying to establish that it fit our observations). Further food for thought:
http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

No wonder I didn't recognize it. You should really call things what they're usually called, if you want to be understood.

"Fallacy of the excluded middle" is, as it happens, listed as an alternate term for "false dilemma" in the first sentence of that article. It's the variation that I happened to learn, and as a consequence, it's stuck. If it's alright by you, I'll keep using a name that is recognised as a valid name for the fallacy in question.

I've omitted the rest of your post as per the last bit of it.

As you wish.

[One Above All]

That's a very strange answer to a question beginning "Why".

My mistake. I meant to say that the barrier wouldn't count as an opaque barrier. I explained why in the next sentence of that post.

By what degree, and over what kinds of timescales? Is it within our ability to measure for the period during which have we been able to observe what's going on around black holes?

Given that our universe expanded fairly quickly, we should expect that a universe with the same conditions would expand just as quickly, if not more so, or it would collapse[1].

Oh, come now. It's fun to speculate. Further food for thought:
http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/

I didn't say it wasn't fun to speculate. Just pointless when it comes to gaining knowledge, since we can't verify any of it.
I'll be reading those links when I have time.

"Fallacy of the excluded middle" is, as it happens, listed as an alternate term for "false dilemma" in the first sentence of that article. It's the variation that I happened to learn, and as a consequence, it's stuck.

That's why I said "usually".

If it's alright by you, I'll keep using a name that is recognised as a valid name for the fallacy in question.

Fine by me, but don't expect me to remember it 100% of the time.

1.	Source: http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp#discovery

[Deus ex Machina]

By what degree, and over what kinds of timescales? Is it within our ability to measure for the period during which have we been able to observe what's going on around black holes?

Given that our universe expanded fairly quickly,

For a comparatively short period at some point in the distant past, as I recall. Do we have comparably young black holes and sufficiently large timescales to make similar observations of them? Have such observations been made? Are such black holes static?

Oh, come now. It's fun to speculate. Further food for thought:
http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/

I didn't say it wasn't fun to speculate. Just pointless when it comes to gaining knowledge, since we can't verify any of it.
I'll be reading those links when I have time.

There are plenty of things we may not be able to verify, but we may be able to model them to see if they work with what we do know.

"Fallacy of the excluded middle" is, as it happens, listed as an alternate term for "false dilemma" in the first sentence of that article. It's the variation that I happened to learn, and as a consequence, it's stuck.

That's why I said "usually".

The phrase isn't exactly uncommon - nor, so far as I am aware, all that archaic. I am afraid you will need to get used to the idea that there are many English-speakers in this World who don't learn the same phrases and idioms (and spellings) that you do. That doesn't make any of them wrong, or mean that they "should" write or speak differently. It is all part of the rich tapestry of the English language.

Fine by me, but don't expect me to remember it 100% of the time.

I'm confident that your towering intellect and open-mindedness is more than capable of handling it.

[One Above All]

Right now I need to finish the chapter I'm working on. I'll try to reply today, but it might not be possible.

[One Above All]

EDIT: I haven't finished the chapter yet, but I thought you deserved an answer after all this time.

For a comparatively short period at some point in the distant past, as I recall. Do we have comparably young black holes and sufficiently large timescales to make similar observations of them? Have such observations been made? Are such black holes static?

According to our observations, the Universe's expansion is accelerating, so we should have been able to observe such a phenomenon after all this time.

There are plenty of things we may not be able to verify, but we may be able to model them to see if they work with what we do know.

True, but, again, it's pointless (in the sense we won't be able to use the hypotheses/theories/models) if we can't verify them. If all their predictions are already according to the other models, what's the point of speculating about them, other than them being a thought exercise?

The phrase isn't exactly uncommon - nor, so far as I am aware, all that archaic. I am afraid you will need to get used to the idea that there are many English-speakers in this World who don't learn the same phrases and idioms (and spellings) that you do. That doesn't make any of them wrong, or mean that they "should" write or speak differently. It is all part of the rich tapestry of the English language.

I didn't say it was archaic. Just uncommon.
Also, ~500,000 results for your term. Over 27 million for "false dilemma".

[Deus ex Machina]

According to our observations, the Universe's expansion is accelerating, so we should have been able to observe such a phenomenon after all this time.

On what basis do you make that assertion?

True, but, again, it's pointless (in the sense we won't be able to use the hypotheses/theories/models) if we can't verify them. If all their predictions are already according to the other models, what's the point of speculating about them, other than them being a thought exercise?

What's wrong with a thought-experiment to test a proposition?

I didn't say it was archaic. Just uncommon.

By your own statement below, you were wrong. Half a million search results is hardly "uncommon".

Also, ~500,000 results for your term. Over 27 million for "false dilemma".

Nevertheless, despite your attempt to dictate to me what phrases I "should" use, we've clearly established that my phrase as used is admissible. You could simply have said with good grace that you hadn't heard the expression before, and thanked me for the clarification. I fear, however, that this discussion has become too combative for such concessions. Perhaps it's best if we drop it?

[One Above All]

On what basis do you make that assertion?

I was gonna say we knew black holes were old enough, but then I tried finding a link to support that, and couldn't. I could swear there were ways to check a black hole's age, but apparently I was wrong.

What's wrong with a thought-experiment to test a proposition?

If it does not produce results that are distinguishable from other propositions, there's really no point in speculating, unless you want to do it for shits and giggles.

By your own statement below, you were wrong. Half a million search results is hardly "uncommon".
<snip>
Nevertheless, despite your attempt to dictate to me what phrases I "should" use, we've clearly established that my phrase as used is admissible. You could simply have said with good grace that you hadn't heard the expression before, and thanked me for the clarification. I fear, however, that this discussion has become too combative for such concessions. Perhaps it's best if we drop it?

Your use of the word "dictate" implies that I was forcing you to do something. It was a suggestion.
Anyway, I still consider it uncommon, given the comparison between the number of results.

[Deus ex Machina]

On what basis do you make that assertion?

I was gonna say we knew black holes were old enough, but then I tried finding a link to support that, and couldn't. I could swear there were ways to check a black hole's age, but apparently I was wrong.

Ok.

What's wrong with a thought-experiment to test a proposition?

If it does not produce results that are distinguishable from other propositions, there's really no point in speculating, unless you want to do it for shits and giggles.

I'm still trying to test this notion that actual infinities cannot exist. But since it's clear we're at an impasse on that, I think it's time to call a halt.

By your own statement below, you were wrong. Half a million search results is hardly "uncommon".
<snip>
Nevertheless, despite your attempt to dictate to me what phrases I "should" use, we've clearly established that my phrase as used is admissible. You could simply have said with good grace that you hadn't heard the expression before, and thanked me for the clarification. I fear, however, that this discussion has become too combative for such concessions. Perhaps it's best if we drop it?

Your use of the word "dictate" implies that I was forcing you to do something. It was a suggestion.
Anyway, I still consider it uncommon, given the comparison between the number of results.

You tried to tell me what I should do. And, from the tone of your post, not exactly politely. So I'll stick with "dictate"; please don't try to tell me it was merely a "suggestion". I wasn't born yesterday.

[One Above All]

You tried to tell me what I should do. And, from the tone of your post, not exactly politely. So I'll stick with "dictate"; please don't try to tell me it was merely a "suggestion". I wasn't born yesterday.

You can't convey a tone of voice in writing. It was a suggestion, believe it or not. If I wanted to dictate what you should do, I would've gone "Supreme ruler of the multiverse" on your ass.

[Deus ex Machina]

You tried to tell me what I should do. And, from the tone of your post, not exactly politely. So I'll stick with "dictate"; please don't try to tell me it was merely a "suggestion". I wasn't born yesterday.

You can't convey a tone of voice in writing.

Oh, really(!)

It was a suggestion, believe it or not.

"No wonder I didn't recognize it. You should really call things what they're usually called, if you want to be understood." comes across as just a tad more abrasive a comment than a mere "suggestion".

Anyway, I think we've about exhausted the possibilities of this discussion.

[Illuminatus99]

Given that the ratio of elements are more or less the same throughout the observable universe and the rules of chemistry seem to be the same, then there's not much reason for life to use anything other than carbon since it's abundant and suited to the task better than anything else.

[Hatter23]

Given that the ratio of elements are more or less the same throughout the observable universe and the rules of chemistry seem to be the same, then there's not much reason for life to use anything other than carbon since it's abundant and suited to the task better than anything else.

Not really. We can see it here yes, however when the organized structure of any fairly common element forms into a self reproducing stucture, whichever one that might be; carbon, silicon, even metal is possible(it is quite impossible for highly radioactive elements and Noble gasses to ever be the basis and I am unsure but I also think it nigh impossible for hydrogen); that is the one that will very likely dominate the Eco system. I base this on that abiogenesis seems to only have happened once in the 4.54 billion years the Earth has been around, and therefore I would consider a rare event.

The one thing I do think also needed is that the base element be a liquid, or suspended in a liquid of the ambient temperature of the planet, and reactive to the elements or suspensions common in that liquid.