Did God create the universe?

[DaveC426913]

Do they also talk about meanings?

Is that your only concept of abstract thought? It's pretty narrow.


A common yardstick for abstract thought is called "theory of mind":

"...non-human animals have the ability to attribute mental states (such as intention, desires, pretending, knowledge) to themselves and others, including recognition that others have mental states that are different from their own..."

An example, which scientists believe indicate the ability for abstract thought:

"Western scrub jays both cache food and pilfer other scrub jays' caches. They use a range of tactics to minimise the possibility that their own caches will be pilfered. One of these tactics is to remember which individual scrub jay watched them during particular caching events and adjust their re-caching behaviour accordingly. One study with particularly interesting results found that only scrub jays which had themselves pilfered would re-cache when they had been observed making the initial cache. This has been interpreted as the re-caching bird projecting its own experiences of pilfering intent onto those of another potential pilferer, and taking appropriate action."

Theory of mind in animals - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pinball1970]

the idea that the BB was an explosion. They will fall over themselves to correct it.

Best not to visualize, like with a photon. When you stop it makes it easier. Reason being we visualize with stuff we know and we do not know this, no one does, unless you can visualize mathematical models and QG plasma (I cant)

This is why,

 

[DaveC426913]

Could be confused with "inflation" though. Guth stuff (for a tick) not BB expansion generally.

I am having trouble parsing that entire post. Rephrase?

 

[Sarkus]

I don't think that merely substituting the word "expansion" for "explosion" promotes, by that substitution alone, a greater level of understanding of the theory. "Expansion" is also ambiguous in that there are many ways that things can expand.

It's generally difficult when trying to describe anything for which there is no real reference, using language that by it's very nature is referential.
The big "Bang" invokes the idea of an explosion, for example, so from the getgo it's more difficult than it might be.
I see such language in such instances as just metaphor, and the key being to not get too attached to the metaphor but to what is actually happening.

And when science isn't entirely clear what is actually going on, choice of language may push/pull you in one direction at the exclusion of other valid interpretations.

For example, many might think that the expansion of the universe is because space itself is expanding, and this results in objects being further apart. But it is equally valid to describe it as space not expanding and objects moving apart "while under the influence of their mutual gravity" (or so suggests wiki).

Also, per wiki (and who are we to disagree...):
"The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time."
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe


So is this due to the metaphorical push or pull? Both fit the observations. Not saying I really have a clue as to any of this, just that it's apparently not as clear cut as some might suggest or believe.
Or something like that.

 

[Pinball1970]

I am having trouble parsing that entire post. Rephrase?

Sorry, Alan Guth and Inflation. Just after the BB

 

[Pinball1970]

It's generally difficult when trying to describe anything for which there is no real reference, using language that by it's very nature is referential.
The big "Bang" invokes the idea of an explosion, for example, so from the getgo it's more difficult than it might be.

Yes, Weinberg 1977. The First Three Minutes page 8

In the beginning....

 

[ольга]

Is that your only concept of abstract thought? It's pretty narrow.


A common yardstick for abstract thought is called "theory of mind":

"...non-human animals have the ability to attribute mental states (such as intention, desires, pretending, knowledge) to themselves and others, including recognition that others have mental states that are different from their own..."

An example, which scientists believe indicate the ability for abstract thought:

"Western scrub jays both cache food and pilfer other scrub jays' caches. They use a range of tactics to minimise the possibility that their own caches will be pilfered. One of these tactics is to remember which individual scrub jay watched them during particular caching events and adjust their re-caching behaviour accordingly. One study with particularly interesting results found that only scrub jays which had themselves pilfered would re-cache when they had been observed making the initial cache. This has been interpreted as the re-caching bird projecting its own experiences of pilfering intent onto those of another potential pilferer, and taking appropriate action."

Theory of mind in animals - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Я имела ввиду другое. Как любят спрашивать профессора в Духовных академиях: зачем обезьяне ум философа?

 

[ольга]

My bad. "Inflation" is the better term.

It forestalls ideas about ballistic expansion in people new to BB theory. People don't usually think of an explosion as a force-over-time; they tend to think of it as an initial push only, then invariably leap to the idea that, as an explosion, with all the mass in the universe present, it should not be able to overcome gravity.

Anyway, it's not my battle alone. I doubt there is an astrophysicist alive today that would countenance - let alone voice - the idea that the BB was an explosion. They will fall over themselves to correct it.

А гравитация по вашему мнению возможна при наличии только одного объекта?

 

[foghorn]

And in your opinion, is gravity possible with only one object?

Does an electron have a charge if there is only one electron?
Gravity is part of the model for mass. Just like negative charge is part of the model for an electron.

 

[Pinball1970]

I am having trouble parsing that entire post. Rephrase?

Apologies I was at work, shortly after the BB about 10<32 there was a rapid expansion which is the so called inflationary period Theorised by Alan Guth. It gets rid of a couple of problems, for instance, why is the Universe the same all over? But also introduces other problems, why did it start and stop?
It only lasted from 10<32 to 10<30 seconds (something like)

 

[ольга]

Does an electron have a charge if there is only one electron?

Электрон сам по себе является "зарядом".

 

[ольга]

Apologies I was at work, shortly after the BB about 10<32 there was a rapid expansion which is the so called inflationary period Theorised by Alan Guth. It gets rid of a couple of problems, for instance, why is the Universe the same all over? But also introduces other problems, why did it start and stop?
It only lasted from 10<32 to 10<30 seconds (something like)

Потому что происходит термодинамическое равновесие.

 

[foghorn]

The electron itself is a charge.

An electron is an elementary particle with a mass and charge.
Because of that mass the electron will have the property of gravity too.

 

[ольга]

An electron is an elementary particle with a mass and charge.
Because of that mass the electron will have the property of gravity too.

Электрон является составной частицей, с вакуумом внутри себя. Из-за этого вакуума он имеет массу. Если считать его собственное притяжение к вакууму гравитацией - то да, он гравитирует. Этот механизм имеет одну природу - притяжение к вакууму.

 

[Pinball1970]

Потому что происходит термодинамическое равновесие.

What?

 

[DaveC426913]

The electron is a composite particle,

No it isn't.

with a vacuum inside it.

No it doesn't.

Because of this vacuum, it has mass.

That is not why.

If we consider its own attraction to the vacuum as gravity

We don't.

This mechanism has one nature - attraction to the vacuum

No it doesn't.

 

[DaveC426913]

I meant something else. As professors in theological academies like to ask: why does a monkey need the mind of a philosopher?

Then avoid statements like "humans are unique becaue they have abstract thought". Research suggests many species are capable of abstract thought.

 

[ольга]

No it isn't.


No it doesn't.


That is not why.


We don't.


No it doesn't.

Тогда предоставьте нам свою версию того, что:
1. Что такое заряд.
2. Что является причиной массы электрона.
3. Причина гравитации.

 

[Pinball1970]

Электрон является составной частицей, с вакуумом внутри себя. Из-за этого вакуума он имеет массу. Если считать его собственное притяжение к вакууму гравитацией - то да, он гравитирует. Этот механизм имеет одну природу - притяжение к вакууму.

This is bullshit. Stop making things up. Why are you guessing?
You can invent your own philosophy and what god means to you. You cannot make up your own science or Biblical Scholarship.

Dave has outlined why everything you have said is not what is known about particles.
A quick Google will give you an outline of the electron.

 

[ольга]

Then avoid statements like "humans are unique becaue they have abstract thought". Research suggests many species are capable of abstract thought.

Вы знаете философствующих животных? Ну, кроме человека.