done a video where I referenced this piece before
but it's worthy of review again after having read most of:
Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder: ‘There are quite a few areas where physics blurs into religion’
"For example, the most commonly accepted story about the beginning of the universe is the big bang, and to some extent this is really just the simplest way you can extrapolate the equations into the past – "
(Maybe there is a reason for that?
"and then you can add inflation, which is an exponential phase of expansion; or, like Roger Penrose, you can make it a cyclic universe."
(There is 100% no evidence of
"a cyclic universe."
Inflation wipes out what came before it
so any attempt to explain what was there before hand
is merely conjecture, with no evidence to support it.)
But maybe it was a big bounce,"
(But maybe you need some scientific based evidence to support that conclusion?)
"or it started with the collision of membranes."
(But maybe you need some scientific based evidence to support that conclusion?)
"These ideas are all possible –
(Doesnt make it valid just because it's possible doesnt mean it's what happened.)
they’re all compatible with the observations that we have.
(No, there's no evidence of any of it what so ever.
Those types of statements might as well be saying:
These people want you to believe It can be any and everything
EXCEPT
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Time space energy and matter all explained in the first ten words.
Any thing else anybody can ever dream of can be given merit except Genesis 1:1.
"But I would call them ascientific
– the kind of idea
that evidence says nothing for nor against.
(There's no evidence of:
"maybe it was a big bounce"
or
"it started with the collision of membranes."
None.
Fact is a lot of these people just do not like the theistic implications of the big bang and here is whats going to happen I promise you.
Just as the church will start to say:
"Look,
it had a starting point, see?"
The scientist are gonna start saying and presenting any possible idea to try and discredit it.
The thing is?
They are working backwards.
They are making conclusions beforehand:
(anything but a big bang)
and then working backwards to try and prove a point.
If you are the one making the assertation?
The burden of proof is on you.
Not somebody else to disprove you.
Your logical fallacy is:
"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence,
(The available evidence:
The universe is expanding
The abundance of lighter elements in the early universe
and cosmic background radiation
all point to the big bang.
Not:
"maybe it was a big bounce,
or it started with the collision of membranes"
"and to dismiss something
on the basis that it hasn't
been proven beyond all doubt
is also fallacious reasoning."
Thats exactly what some of these scientist are trying to do.
"And he’s Roger Penrose courageous, putting forward some ideas that are fairly out-there – like the stuff with the gravitationally induced collapse, or how consciousness plays a role in the human brain, or the cyclic universe. It’s all very original.
(It doesn't make it valid just because it's original, particularly when the evidence we have is tilted in one direction.)
"You have a YouTube channel for your own music…
Normally the way that I use it is to clear out my head when I’m stuck with something. It forces me to concentrate on something else. But I guess everyone needs a hobby."
(Now that?
"Normally the way that I use it is to clear out my head when I’m stuck with something. It forces me to concentrate on something else."
I could agree with...:-).
No comments:
Post a Comment