What qualifies as science?

Your statement "especially theories that are held in so much regard that they can not be questioned" is a direct implication that such theories exist.

Beside the point.

It doesn't "manipulate". And BB is the best theory going on the subject.

Maybe because all of those have deep flaws and don't gave the same evidential support.
(Besides TV also provides plenty of other nutcase alternative views on other subjects - Ancient Aliens for example... (which many people assume is valid).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No this is the most important point . TV programs on bb are all that the common , everyday people see . For the most part , everyday people know no better . Because either they haven't the time , or have no interest on the subject .

No questions on the theory , just that this is how the Universe is . No questions asked .

Yet for many brilliant people out there , bb is not only questioned , but debunked .

bb is a primative theory of the Universe ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That cannot be true, because that is not an axiom.

Irrelevant. The need to fill up a space doesn't somehow allow abstract things to become physical.

A logical term is not a natural state, so no, you can't replace "satisfaction" with "necessity and sufficiency" in that sentence.

True, and nobody ever suggested otherwise. Please make sure you really understand what "axiom" means.

Awareness needs a mental proces, so perhaps not intelligence, but giving quantum states a mental process is equally problematic.

(Note that on a scale of "quantum state" to "human", a slime mold is a lot closer to "human" than "slime mold", so your comparison is iffy.)

That's an extrapolation that you cannot justify based on your given example.

Right. Please look-up "self-organization" and "emergence" (this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ) to see how no intelligence, purpose, or "non intentional pseudo-intelligence" is required for that at all.​

I see no trace of intelligence or anything resembling intelligence in those examples.

Chlorine atoms don't procreate. Please look-up the word "procreate", and rephrase that sentence.

How can a chronology be a mathematical function? Why are you equating mathematical and "physical" functions? What is a physical function? And please give your definition of "pseudo intelligent".

You are giving intent to a purely mechanical thing. The word "predatory" is thus incorrectly used here.

Completely irrelevant, unless you are now arguing "intelligent design"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I for one would like to see a list of these "brilliant" people.

 

Yes I'm sure you would .

Google critics of BB THEORY .

 

Anyway , what qualifies as science , is the exploration of the unknown .

And known .

 

I get a big list containing people that are not brilliant, and a lot of people that haven't debunked BB theory, but are merely critical of it. Can you give me a couple of examples, so I can narrow my search parameters?

 

I get one popsci site, one nutcase on a different science forum, one Chinese guy, one religious site and a whole heap of people/ sites complaining that Mayim Bialik's Amy is the wrong girlfriend for Sheldon Cooper.
Perhaps - since you made the claim - you could actually provide a list of "brilliant people" who consider BB to be debunked.

 

Well, that certainly narrows things down a bit. Thanks for the insight.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your welcome . Anytime

 

While we're waiting for river to post (a link to) the list, I've been reading some of the criticisms that I did find. Well, I don't consider myself brilliant, but even I could debunk most of those criticisms; many of them can be dismissed without even a deep understanding of BB theory. It seems that crackpots are more easily indexed by Google than academic papers somehow? So I can't wait to read what properly educated critics have to say, when river gets around to posting (a link to) it!

 

I agree, but the very fact that their behavior is not a matter of choice, to me indicates a form of deterministic mathematical function, IOW, "it goes like this" because "it must" by a prior abstract formula, which IMO shows the entire process utilizes forms of specific deterministic mathematical functions.
Example ; lava wells up due to internal pressure, but when it leaves the well, lava flows down due to gravity. Whereas these behaviors are physical in themselves, the underlying behaviors are mathematically determined, although they may appear to be physically chaotic.

Sufficient internal pressure (extreme energy) is causal (necessitates) welling up, until the lava is no longer subject to pressure and gravity becomes causal to the lava flowing down the sides of the volcano (movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction). Once lava stops flowing and loses energy it hardens ( finding the state of lowest energy), at which point it has achieved a physical stability or mathematical symmetry with its physical environment.

IMO is not so much that physical things behave in physical ways, I struggle with the regularity or patterns (mathematical rules) which are causal to physical things behaving the way they do.

To me, physical expressions and behaviors are a form of physical unfolding of prior enfolded abilities, which must follow specific mathematical rules in specific physical environments.

A snow flake is a perfect example. Circular drops (balls) of water molecules, exposed to a range of specific cooling temperatures form into snow flakes, which are not drops of ice but take on mathematically symmetrical fractal forms.

OTOH, when this cooling process is at a fast rate, the water drops form hail, which are balls of frozen water.

This suggest an underlying mathematical function, which governs the formation and expression of the water drop as snowflakes or hail, depending on the environmental variables.

 

Actually the slime mold executes a form of mathematical subtraction. I am stipulating this is not a deliberate mathematical application, but it does this is in practice. The slime mold fills the entire maze, then begins to withdraw from all "dead ends" and leaves a chemical marker which the rest of the body will not cross, until it ends up with the "only" path to the food. Cumbersome but mathematically correct.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/04slime.html

If the maze is sufficiently intricate humans do this also. Moreover, if the human is smart enough it leaves "dead end markers", to avoid those paths. The difference is that humans do this intentionally, whereas the slime mold does this unintentionally. It has no brain to make intentional decisions. Yet the mathematics are the same.

 

I think you scored a bullseye here. Going back to the old school thought of the atom looking like a miniature solar system to the newer version of a cloud of possibilities it would appear the underlying shape(s) of the Universe would be circular/round/ball shaping

I doubt very much we will ever find a square sun with a square planet in a square orbit

Hence the fundamental shape aspect of the smallest construct of the smallest unit in the Universe scales up to the largest structures

If we had square atoms we would have square suns, planets, orbits and square galaxies

The observation of the roundness of the Universe does not stop crystalline forms (are there any round crystals?) because of attachment constraints ie not allowing a free arm to wave around unattached (does that make sense?)

Must be coffee time if I'm talking to myself and not Huey Dewey and Louie

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your imagination, as always, stirs something in my loins.
Square crystals perhaps, but on the grand scale, the spherical shape is most natural for collections in space.
Of course galaxies have a great many shapes, but fall into a few types; spiral is one, but from far away would also look spherical.
As for orbits, well they are a different kettle of fish. A square orbit would require new laws of motion.

 

Man, if I only had a nickel for every time I was told that!

 

The axiom is "necessity and sufficiency"

But I never claimed that. My claim is that physical things behave in accordance to a form of mathematical imperatives.

I think I qualified the comparison.

Just the word "true" is sufficient to confirm the correctness. The second part is irrelevant because I already qualified the difference between the axiom of "necessity and sufficiency" and the natural tendency of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction", i.e. the (mathematical?) state of lowest energy.

If I have not explained this correctly, IMO, neither "awareness" or "quantum state" require intelligence or even a mental process.
The slime mold has awareness, but no brain (intelligence) and a quantum state may even behave in a counter-intuitive manner altogether. The following example may show the apparent absence or opposite of intelligence or mental process, but I am willing to bet there example has a mathematical explanation.
https://www.facebook.com/Physics-Awareness-426877257462319/

I won't dispute that. And the above demonstration may well explain that at quantum scales things start to behave very differently than what would be expected in physical reality. But neither is an example of a singular miraculous event.

Again I refer to the simple example above.

We agree then on that part.

I don't believe I claimed that. This was my post;

I see no conflict.​

How about "recreate". The term "division" (such as in cell division) is not appropriate in the context I was using the term.

I should have used the word "predation" and explained the context, my bad. As I understand it, Robert Hazen spoke of forms of foreign chemicals "invading" self-replicating polymers and "predation" by larger molecules in the earliest evolution of, and natural selection in bio-chemistry. I used the term "predation" in context of "robbing". This needs not be intentional at all. It can be just a matter of chemical compatibility.
I believe my example of the ozone depletion by chlorine atoms, was descriptive of such a process.

I'll let this quote speak for itself.

https://www.libertariannews.org/2013/07/12/what-quantum-mechanics-says-about-conciousness/

David Bohm called it "insight intelligence", but I am sure he was not speaking of a sentient motivated God, but a self referencing mathematical hierarchy of orders. i.e pseudo-intelligent.

btw. Bohm and Einstein were very good friends and had regular discussions on the nature of the universe.
Which , IMO also answers the question of interpretation of "insight intelligence".

It measures the "order of continuous progression and duration of change", or

.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/chronology

Sorry , (habit), I should have said physical "action" in accordance to a mathematical "function".

The apparent intelligent behavior of a brainless Slime Mold? A hive-mind which behaves by a form of pseudo-intelligence, where the parts are not intelligent in and of themselves, yet functions in a mathematical manner, such as practicing horticulture, herding, air-conditioning, creation of mathematically precise honey combs.

 

Welcome Willamina, van Holland?

 

Count me for 1 nickel

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If I may offer this to the argument of a mathematical universe;