Let me state that I have the utmost respect for the accepted rules of scientific experiment... it keeps me buying all kinds of consummer goods without question, and allows me to enter an operating room on good faith that I will again wake up. Ah, the faith of fools.
Quote: And I do not see new hypotheses coming in and forcing science to alter its models as a weakness of science. In fact it is a strength.
I don't, either, but to claim complete emotional objectivity within science, to me, is folly. It is impossible to remove human perspective from the mix, yet science claims in many instances to be just that.
Quote: Well, if you will notice, the instances in which you speak were based mostly on non-scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence by biased witness, scheming prosecutors, dogmatic judges, and tampered evidence are not scientific in nature. I will admit that some scientists do approach there science with too much bias, but that is what the process of peer review is all about. If bias is tainting the result, it will be weeded out.
O.J. Simpson.
Quote: And yes, science does the best job it can with the evidence at hand. As I stated earlier, science is only a model to explain observations, with a goal of perhaps being able to manipulate those phenomena (i.e. the engineering side of science). Any scientist (and unfortunately there are more than a few) who pretends that science seeks truth is deluding themselves. Actually, at its core, science seeks falsehood. Science will never be able to prove something TRUE, there could always be new data. But it can show what is false.
Hm. Sounds to me like we are now discussing the philosophy of science.
Quote: If you do not have observational data to support your hypothesis, if your assertion is based on belief or that the argument sounds right or is just logical, then you are not doing science. Does that make the argument less vaild or sound or useful, no. It is just not science.
Uhm.... most, if not all of QM hypotheses and theories lack observational data. I realize you say... 'yet'... but my point is... 'yet' isn't here yet... so you say, well, it's based on solid scientific history (and the math works in most instances)... but really, this is just a good ole leap of faith. You'll dispute that, I know... but right now, QM, just like any social science, is based on 'aggregate' behavior. Law(?) of averages. And that just makes me chuckle, I'm sorry.
Your love argument is a bust and it's reaching. The one place hard science is a bust is with human emotion and the notion of free will... though QM is beginning to run into that, and some suppositions now coming forward are very philosophical because there is no other way, currently, to explain the results they are seeing.
Quote: But that is the point. Nothing (space) was moving faster than the speed of light during that time. Space itself is not bound by the speed of light restriction. The inflationary epoch, as it is called, was a sort of phase change in the universe (much like solid to liquid).
I've read about the inflationary models and I didn't come away with this same type of understanding. Let me go back and read it again before I comment.
Quote: I am not sure what you mean by light being forced into a perpetual ground state. Are you confusing it with electrons in atomic energy levels?
No. I was talking about the fluctuations of a vaccum. I may not be saying this correctly... but if there is no vaccum, how can it fluctuate?
Quote: And if you think about it, your statement that light needs space to move is really a tautology. To move requires a change in coordinates by definition.
You lost me here. If there is no 'room' in which to move, how then do changes in coordinates take place?
Quote:
Quote: No. Not really. I'm not talking polarity here, but the creation of polarity. Consider this. Let's say that all which exists is 1. That's it. That's all you've got. Actually, you don't even have perspective, so it's just 1. You can't add to it, you can't take away from it, you can't multiply it or divide it, for there is no 'you' and nothing else to consider.
Now what?
OK, I see where you are going with this. If I am not mistaken you are referring to the primordial singularity that preceeded the Big Bang. Granted, we do not know the mechanism by which this singularity took the step to universe with space and time dimensions anymore than we know how the spark of life began. But unexplained does not imply inexplicable. I think the fact that we have such a conundrum is GREAT for science. If and when we figure out that particular problem, I hope there is another bigger one beyond it, or else a lot of scientists will be out of jobs.
I appreciate your view... but you didn't answer my question. And I realize you probably can't... except at a philosophical level And that is my point entirely. To me, THIS is where creative thought enters the picture because you never know from what corner of the scientific/philosophical/theological realm inspiration will strike. In short, everybody is interested, at least from their perspective, in this question. It's the Big Kahona.
It is just my opinion, but to me, Eastern Mysticism has so far been the most consistent with cosmological research. Like I said earlier, the parallels are amazing. To me, it is worth exploration, that is all I am saying. To dismiss it out of hand I think is irresponsible.
And FYI, many are taught Buddhism and reach the levels of mastery by grasping not 'what is,' but 'what is not.'
"Truth cannot be communicated; it can only be laid bare." - Wei Wu Wei
Meaning, one does not discover truth by proof of what is; one discovers truth through the understanding of what isn't.
Sounds pretty scientific to me...
Quote: Please elaborate. Are you saying there are theories out there that can demonstrate scientifically that God exists? What are they and what specific testable predictions do they make? I know of none that have stood the test of time as you say. I agree with you completely that many believe in them (I personally believe that God created the universe), but belief is not scientific. And I know of no creationist theories that have been proven to be true.
No. But there are some amazing experiments that have been done on the power of prayer, the power of faith and the power of belief. This also runs parallel with some QM findings that the presence of an observer affects quantum behavior. And I am sure you are well aware of the Anthropic Principle.
