Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Eidalac]

Right, right, but we have nothing to prove that all matter was spontaneously created at the moment of the big bang, to my knowledge. The universe could well have existed before the big bang as an infinite mass singularity, and where did that come from?

Thing is, best math we have can deduce what happened a tiny bit after the Big Bang, and extrapolation from that would indicated a singularity that held the entirety of our current universe, but since physics (as we know them) literally did not exist before that moment, we have no means to do anything more than guess at what transpired before.

The Laws of Conservation support the singularity, but it's possible that those laws did not exist at the moment of the Big Bang, so all bets are very well off.

But, till someone comes up with a transient new form of mathematics that can map out those first instances of our reality, most physicists default to the idea of the singularity, as that's less likely to induce anurisms.

Up till the discovery of Dark Energy and the Big Rip, the best theory was that the universe oscillated between the Big Bang and a Big Crunch.  Still, current models have no way to tell us anything about what reality was like before our current cycle.

[codezero]

I think the proof or otherwise of God is pretty moot, if you consider that the point of Him is probably to describe everything that goes along with reason. Conciousness is a wide field isn't it? Love, wants, fear etc. Imagine there's no dividing line between material and immaterial, how do we or our distant ancestors communicate such things.

On a side note, can the scientific method prove its usefulness or lackof? I'm not being rhetorical again, 'though I admit I don't believe so.

[Ampersand]

I think the proof or otherwise of God is pretty moot, if you consider that the point of Him is probably to describe everything that goes along with reason. Conciousness is a wide field isn't it? Love, wants, fear etc. Imagine there's no dividing line between material and immaterial, how do we or our distant ancestors communicate such things.

On a side note, can the scientific method prove its usefulness or lackof? I'm not being rhetorical again, 'though I admit I don't believe so.

You seem to think the scientific method is some kind of rigid dogma. It is not. One makes an observation, and then works to explain the observation using the data acquired by the observation; it's as simple as that.

[codezero]

You seem to think the scientific method is some kind of rigid dogma. It is not. One makes an observation, and then works to explain the observation using the data acquired by the observation; it's as simple as that.

Fair enough, I didn't bother to read the wiki link. But still, if the scientific method were an observation to be explained?... I wouldn't be asking if you hadn't included that last sentence, which only serverd to ignite my curiousity again/confuse me.

Alright, got it now, I was thinking the scientific methods aim was to have some 'correct' result, rather than an explan.

Btw, poor editing job on your quote.

[Yanlin]

Scientific method:

Step 1: Make observation

Step 2: Make hypothesis

Step 3: Gather evidence

Step 4: Test hypothesis

Step 5: Attempt to prove hypothesis wrong

Step 6: Establish new scientific law

Step 7: Continue researching

That's the gist of it anyway. There's no rigid dogma to follow.

This video discusses evidence standards rather well. Sorry that it's about religion, but I could think of no better example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RojR-50_5Y

[Ampersand]

Ideally, the aim is to achieve the correct result by way of explaining observed phenomena in purely objective terms, but in practice the results are bound by the constraints of human senses.

In some sense, the Scientific Method is dead. The human element, in some cases, can be completely removed. A computer was hooked up to a complex pendulum system, which was then allowed to swing, constantly feeding it's status to the computer. From this simple arrangement, the computer was able to correctly deduce the laws of motion on it's own.

No hypothesis made. Only raw data gathered, with a purely mathematical proof output.

And to Yanlin; The scientific method as you learn it in school is rarely how actual research gets done any more. Predictions are made, often with only mathematics to back them up, and then experiments are carried out. So much is based on pure mathematics, but half the time it turns out the Math is either right or half right.

[Andir]

Ideally, the aim is to achieve the correct result by way of explaining observed phenomena in purely objective terms, but in practice the results are bound by the constraints of human senses.

In some sense, the Scientific Method is dead. The human element, in some cases, can be completely removed. A computer was hooked up to a complex pendulum system, which was then allowed to swing, constantly feeding it's status to the computer. From this simple arrangement, the computer was able to correctly deduce the laws of motion on it's own.

No hypothesis made. Only raw data gathered, with a purely mathematical proof output.

And to Yanlin; The scientific method as you learn it in school is rarely how actual research gets done any more. Predictions are made, often with only mathematics to back them up, and then experiments are carried out. So much is based on pure mathematics, but half the time it turns out the Math is either right or half right.

Which is why we have a new study stating that hot dogs do/do not cause cancer every two years.

[Aqizzar]

A computer was hooked up to a complex pendulum system, which was then allowed to swing, constantly feeding it's status to the computer. From this simple arrangement, the computer was able to correctly deduce the laws of motion on it's own.

Just read this - humanity is boned.  Mark my words, this was the day it all went bad.

[Ampersand]

A computer was hooked up to a complex pendulum system, which was then allowed to swing, constantly feeding it's status to the computer. From this simple arrangement, the computer was able to correctly deduce the laws of motion on it's own.

Just read this - humanity is boned.  Mark my words, this was the day it all went bad.

All it did, as far as I recall, is throw up random algorithms that came close to replicating the input, and then used a genetic algorithm to spit out slightly modified versions of the original, choosing the one that was most accurate, and repeating until it came to one that was basically exactly right.

[Aqizzar]

A computer was hooked up to a complex pendulum system, which was then allowed to swing, constantly feeding it's status to the computer. From this simple arrangement, the computer was able to correctly deduce the laws of motion on it's own.

Just read this - humanity is boned.  Mark my words, this was the day it all went bad.

All it did, as far as I recall, is throw up random algorithms that came close to replicating the input, and then used a genetic algorithm to spit out slightly modified versions of the original, choosing the one that was most accurate, and repeating until it came to one that was basically exactly right.

That's exactly what thinking is.  The ability to take it's own output and keep refining it until it reaches a practical conclusion.  Very basic thinking less, but as Zakharov would say, the feedback loop is there.  Just a matter of time.

[Enzo]

Did we just go from theoretical astrophysics to explaining what the scientific method is?

 

Eidalac : Yes! That is pretty much what I was getting at, except you articulated it better and had more relevant knowledge I didn't really know the Big Bang -> Big Crunch -> Repeat theory was outdated.

[Yanlin]

Bay 12 forums: Where staying on topic is equivalent to making a fortress with no magma.

Bay 12 forums: Where instead of derailing, you merely use magma powered jump jets to transfer the train to a new set of tracks leading to the same destination.

[Enzo]

The sad face wasn't over derailing. The sad face was because we went from discussing some of the most complex theoretical science known to man to explaining the scientific method. If there was a giant anime sweatdrop smiley it would be appropriate here.

[Nilocy]

I finally got around to reading the first post, and heres mah thoughts.

I think that was a fairly large claim you made that there HAS to be a god like being out there and its obviously controlled our species evolution in some way. Its impossible at this time to prove or disprove this, so it cant be held as a truth or non-truth yet, so you cannot make an arguement, well not an arguement, more speculation about how God beings develop. Personally I think you've been reading way to much sci-fi (not a stab at you, i have thoughts like this all the time and i can only wonder how awesome it'd be to be an God effectively) and your using alot of make-believe in your arguements here.

Point one: If there was a being nudging humans along the evolutionary plain, why the hell did it make it seem that the only realistic way for mammals to survive on Earth was through a massive extinction event? Surely if we were meant to evolve into god's, no dinosaur would stop us right? Wrong, the only reason we're here is because of a massive asteriod impact, and countless other events that were just random occurances.

Point two: Whose to say there is other life out there? Humans might be the very first sentiant species in the galaxy, or heck even the universe. You can't say that theres a god being out there until we have refutable proof that sentiance can happen elsewhere, other than Earth.

Point three: Earthworms don't worship us.

[Eidalac]

I didn't really know the Big Bang -> Big Crunch -> Repeat theory was outdated.

Yeah, the current theories, so far as I'm aware, all point to Dark Energy expanding space itself faster than gravity can counter, and accelerating on top of that.

I both rue and loath this concept, but the portions of the research I can understand (and it's some dense stuff) do seem to support it.  I hope it turns out wrong in the end.  I just like the Bang-Crunch cycle, where the Big Rip is Game Over, forever.


Ultimately, what make science really work is peer review.  The main point of the scientific method is meant to ensure that others can repeat the work you did and give feed-back as to it's voracity.

And that computer that learned Newtonian motion?  Yeah, that's a definitive loci.  We may not live to see the results, but programs like that will lead to the things that will replace us as the dominate life-form on this rock.

That is the way of things.