The Hidden Factor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality

by Avtar Singh

I just watched some very interesting videos on You Tube talking about science and free will. Science provides equations and measurements for everything except spontaneity. Once things are in motion, even electrons, they can be studied, but there are no theories about what sets anything in motion. This holds true for the big bang all the way down to quantum physics.

This seems to be where science runs out of knowledge, even to study things. The following links are the only contact I have had with Avtar Singh's work, and, despite the apparent mysticism in the titles, the discussions are not mystical at all. They gave me some very interesting food for thought about consciousness and free will.

(6:55)

(5:52)

(7:16)

(6:01)

(6:49)

Here are three blog entries (but there are 34 as of now at Avtar Singh on intentBlog, including his biography as a scientist):

Einstein’s “Blunders” or What? Part 1

Einstein’s “Blunders” or What? Part 2: Rejection of Quantum Mechanics

Einstein’s “Blunders” or What? Part 3: Free Will - "The Hidden Factor"

I think I will end up buying The Hidden Factor. From the discourse of this guy, it looks pretty cool.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality

by Avtar Singh

I just watched some very interesting videos on You Tube talking about science and free will. Science provides equations and measurements for everything except spontaneity. Once things are in motion, even electrons, they can be studied, but there are no theories about what sets anything in motion. This holds true for the big bang all the way down to quantum physics.

This seems to be where science runs out of knowledge, even to study things. The following links are the only contact I have had with Avtar Singh's work, and, despite the apparent mysticism in the titles, the discussions are not mystical at all. They gave me some very interesting food for thought about consciousness and free will.

(6:55)

(5:52)

(7:16)

(6:01)

(6:49)

Here are three blog entries (but there are 34 as of now at Avtar Singh on intentBlog, including his biography as a scientist):

Einstein’s “Blunders” or What? Part 1

Einstein’s “Blunders” or What? Part 2: Rejection of Quantum Mechanics

Einstein’s “Blunders” or What? Part 3: Free Will - "The Hidden Factor"

I think I will end up buying The Hidden Factor. From the discourse of this guy, it looks pretty cool.

Michael

Here is the long and skinny.

Quantum Field THeory. Well tested, well challenged and not falsified after 75 years of tough treatment.

General Theory of Relativity. Well tested, well challenged and not falsified after 93 years of tough treatment.

The Standard Model based on Quantum Field Theory (which subsumes the Special Theory of Relativity) predicts all non-gravitational phenomena good to twelve decimal places.

In short, the theories are still solid after all these years. The Standard Model based on concepts that Objectivists reject root and branch is the best physical theory in the history of the human race.

Einstein made a very big blunder with his fudge factor that cancels cosmic expansion and he -admitted it-. Had he not done so he could have deduced the expansion of the cosmos before Hubble spotted it empirically. Einstein, in that instance, lost his nerve. He favored a universe in perpetual equilibrium and he fiddled his theory accordingly. Alas, that is not the cosmos that Nature has produced.

Einstein rejected quantum theory, not because it was wrong, but because he believed it was not a complete theory.

Had Einstein lived to see the experiments that tested the conundrum raised by he, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), he would have admitted that quantum theory was right and he was wrong. Quantum theory predicts the failure of the Bell Inequalities precisely. Einstein's insistence on locality was flat out wrong. So even the greatest minds can make mistakes. Newton got gravitation wrong (it turned out much later to be the case). Newton was committed to absolute time and space philosophically. He was dead wrong, but he could not have known it in his day. The telescopes were simply not good enough.

Dirac got it right because he took Einstein's equations seriously. Dirac predicted anti-matter based on Special Theory of Relativity.

Physics has taken a wrong turn not with quantum theory, not with General Theory of Relativity, but with String Theory and M-THeory. Which is rather unfortunate. Now there will have to be backtracking to make up for the mistakes of the last thirty years or so. What was the root of the error? A philosophical fancy that what is True must also be Beautiful. The mathematical beauty of String Theory has seduced the physicists. Real -The Trouble with Physics- by Lee Smolin for the details.

Whether the Big Bang theory is wrong, we know the equilibrium model put forth by Hoyle is not right. The CMBR discoveries of Penzias and Wilson (in 1965) falsified Hoyle's Steady State model.

The Standard Model does not depend on a correct theory of the origins of the cosmos. That is a separate issue. The Standard Model predicts and explains (so far) every non-gravitational phenomenon. Classical phyics of the 19th century is dead. It is not coming back. Newton's theories as he stated them are dead. They are not coming back. If the current crop of theories is ffalsified something completely new will have to be formulated but it will almost certain be a theory that is

1. Covariant

2. Locally Lorentz Invariant

3. Non-local because that is what the experiments falsifying the Bell Inequalities indicate. One does not argue with facts. One explains them.

Let Singh publish in the vetted refereed literature and let his theories be subjected to rigorous empirical testing. Then we will see. No matter how philosophically attractive a theory may be, it must past experimental muster to be taken seriously.

Six minute t.v. blurbs and hand waving is not physics. Publication of the details, along with all the math work shown and quantitative predictions made and testable. That is the mark of a scientific theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited November 13, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

You have stated all that stuff (or variations of it) several times before. Did you look at this guy's work?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

You have stated all that stuff (or variations of it) several times before. Did you look at this guy's work?

Michael

I looked. Where is the math? Where are the quantitative predictions? Where is the experimental corroberation. That is what I look for. Without the math you have bullsahit. Without the predictions you have mere speculation. Without the experimental testing you have a Big Maybe.

Can you give reference to Singh's work in a -real- physics journal, one that is professionally refereed. Or do we have another Louis Little here?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I thought I mentioned that I just came across the guy. I would have to research him to answer your questions. Here is part of his bio blurb linked above (which you obviously did not look at owing to your question):

He has published/presented more than fifty papers in professional journals and organized/chaired technical sessions at professional conferences. He received the �Best Paper Award� from the American Nuclear Society as well as several technical excellence awards from reputed employer companies. Dr. Singh has also contributed and presented papers at the Metanexus and other interfaith conferences. Throughout his academic career, Dr. Singh has received several merit scholarships at the national level and doctoral fellowship from the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology in recognition of his academic excellence.

What do you have to say about spontaneity and dark matter?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

I thought I mentioned that I just came across the guy. I would have to research him to answer your questions. Here is part of his bio blurb linked above (which you obviously did not look at owing to your question):

He has published/presented more than fifty papers in professional journals and organized/chaired technical sessions at professional conferences. He received the �Best Paper Award� from the American Nuclear Society as well as several technical excellence awards from reputed employer companies. Dr. Singh has also contributed and presented papers at the Metanexus and other interfaith conferences. Throughout his academic career, Dr. Singh has received several merit scholarships at the national level and doctoral fellowship from the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology in recognition of his academic excellence.

What do you have to say about spontaneity and dark matter?

Michael

Dark Matter and Dark Energy may yet be the undoing of GTR.

Do you have any real references for me or not. I only bother with papers published in reputable physics journals or entries on Arxiv which have been spoken for by reputable physicists.

His other publications not related to cosmology have no bearing on his cosmological claims. Can you or can you not produce a reference with

1. The math worked out in detail so I can check it for correctness

2. Specific quantitative claims or predictions which can be tested by empirical means.

3. If, 2, then are there any experimental corroberations to Singh's predictions?

Showing the current BB model is in trouble is nothing new. This has been common knowledge in the trade for nearly two decades. Maybe more. The discovery that not only is the cosmos expanding but is accelerating in its expansion is a current Big Problem in Cosmology. Showing the current BB is wrong is not the same is producing a good theory to replace it. Has Singh done that? If so where has he published it? Who has examined it.? What were their evaluations? If he has criticized current theory on philosophical grounds it does not matter. Only the points I brought up (see below) matter.

Newton's proposal that gravity is a force that acts at a distance with no contact was, in its day, philosophically outrageous. Even Newton barfed on the philosophical implications. However, his Law (later shown to be erroneous) produced predictions that were correct to within the error bounds of the (then) existing telescopes. Newton -explained- why Kepler's Laws held. That was a triumph that trumped any philosophical objections.

Decades before Einstein formulated General Theory of Relativity it was know that Newton's theory did not predict the motion of the planets correctly. What was needed was a theory that did predict correctly.

The figures of merit for a scientific theory are:

1. Internal consistency (or mathematical consistency, if you will).

2. Correct quantitative predictions verified by experiment

3. No experimental falsifications.

and

4. Which is not absolutely necessary but is desirable a theory that opens up new and productive lines of investigation into natural phenomena. The more a theory explains, the better it is accepted.

5. Again not necessary but desirable, a theory that grounds effective technology. The Standard Model wins Big Time on this count having passed muster with regard to points 1-4 above.

Philosophical arguments are ka ka in the domain of physics. Physicists are generally not convinced by them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Do you have any real references for me or not.

Bob,

I don't have anything for you ever. I discuss for my own enjoyment. You are free to participate or not. You say this doesn't interest you, but you sure post a lot on it.

Hmmmmmm...

Michael

EDIT: Incidentally, you kept mouthing off about David Kelley's so-called lack of knowledge of logic until I posted the table of contents of The Art of Reasoning. I think it is a good habit to look at what one criticizes before criticizing. Just a thought...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

I don't have anything for you ever. I discuss for my own enjoyment. You are free to participate or not. You say this doesn't interest you, but you sure post a lot on it.

Hmmmmmm...

Michael

I am trying to encourage you to be precise and scholarly. But I am failing in that goal. You apparently (I could be wrong) have no idea of what a scientific theory is. So I am no going to discuss this further with you until you come up with some -real- references, not video clips. I have done my level best to convey to you the nature of a scientific (particularly a physics) theory. If I fail, then I fail. Apparently you just don't get it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Ya' brakin' mah heart, sweetheart...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Decades before Einstein formulated General Theory of Relativity it was know that Newton's theory did not predict the motion of the planets correctly. What was needed was a theory that did predict correctly.

Did Einstein come up with Relativity in answer to this need or was there other primary motivation?

--Brant

Edited November 13, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

Decades before Einstein formulated General Theory of Relativity it was know that Newton's theory did not predict the motion of the planets correctly. What was needed was a theory that did predict correctly.

Did Einstein come up with Relativity in answer to this need or was there other primary motivation?

--Brant

Einstein formulated The General Theory of relativity in order to provide a covariant account of gravitation, one that would be correct in -any- frame of reference. In addition Einstein postulated that gravitation obeyed the Equivalence Principle, i.e. one cannot distinguish between a uniformly accelerated reference frame and a constant gravitational field.

Einstein did NOT set out to figure how Mercury moved. That came as a side effect of formulating gravitation as a phenomenon obeying the equivalence principle in a covariant manner. In addition to repairing the defect in Newton's Law he predicted (correctly) the bending of light in the neighborhood of a massive body and the gravitational "red shift", that is the slowing of clocks in a stronger gravitational field compared to a clock in a weaker gravitational field. Einstein also predicted gravitational waves in the spacetime manifold. However, such waves have not been or not yet been detected. Gravitation is a very weak interaction (compared, say, to the electroweak interaction) and detecting such waves is a technologically difficult task. Work is ongoing and money is being spent building various kinds of apparatus to detect gravitational waves. The question is still open.

That being said, the other predictions of GTR have been tested in relatively weak gravitational fields such as exist in the solar system or on the neighborhood of our planet. The GPS depends on the time corrections derived from the gravitational redshift to correctly locate GPS transponders. Right now GPS can locate any point on earth or slightly below or slightly avove to within ten feet. It is the most accurate location system ever devised. When the GPS is run without the relativistic corrections (in "Newtonian" mode) the accumulated error in a 24 hour period can amount to thousands of meters. (The system is recalibrated every 24 hours). In short, using just Newton's law of gravitation in connection with GPS gives incorrect locations.

The biggest problem with GTR is the anomalous motion of stars with respect to the centers of galaxies in which they live. The rotation curves of stars indicate that they move as though they were rigidly embedded in a dense body or disk of matter. However no such matter can be detected by electromagnetic means. The hypothetical matter is called "Dark Matter" indicating the lack of electromagnetic radiation or reflection (i.e. light a various frequencies). It turns out that visible matter cannot account for the motion of stars with respect to the galaxies in which they live. So either dark matter exists (a possibility) or GTR is not correct for predicting the motion of stars with respect to the galactic mass (of visible matter) in which the stars live. The question is open and work is being done to determine if Dark Matter is for real or merely an ad hoc hypothesis to preserve the validity of GTR. The question is wide open. Naturally physicists are not anxious to say the best theory of gravitation they have falsified (as did happen to Newton's theory) but the facts are troublesome. Work is going on and it will be years before the matter is resolved to everyone's satisfaction or dissatisfaction as the case may be.

See pp 403-430 of -The Essential Cosmic Perspective- by Jeffery Bennet et al., Addison Wesley publisher. It is a non-mathematical presentation, but it is sufficiently thorough and accurate to state the facts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited November 13, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

You still did not answer my questions about the points Singh raised about spontaneity, although you did mention what he said about dark matter. But you only confined that to how it effects the General Theory or Relativity (if true).

If there is a force in the universe that allows motion to start from a dead stop, science ain't saying. I had never noticed this until I saw the videos of Singh, but it is true (within what I know of science so far). This is the point where science runs into a wall. Science is PREDICATED on things ALREADY in motion. It never explains how things START.

Yet we use this very force to analyze everything presented as science (spontaneity is an essential component of consciousness and free will). Every time science tries to deny spontaneity, it runs into a contradiction and words like "singularity" are coined as a make-shift to cover it up. But a word like that is not an explanation.

I have had several discussions here on OL about top down versus bottom up organization of entities, the universe, etc. I have had a difficult time communicating what I mean, but spontaneity comes pretty darn close. There is a position on one end that spontaneity does not exist at all and the universe is completely deterministic, and the other position (usually given by mystics) is that spontaneity can create miracles, that it trumps determinism, etc. My view is that both determinism and spontaneity exist as factors in reality and that spontaneity (as Singh says) exists even on the level of subparticles. One part has a deterministic nature and another part sprung into motion from itself at some point. This would explain how entities came about in the form they did.

Singh thinks spontaneity is an area that will increasingly be studied by science since we know precious little about it other than from religious teachings and things of that nature. I have not read his book so I do not know if he has presented any such studies, but I see no reason why it should not be a subject of formal inquiry.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

You still did not answer my questions about the points Singh raised about spontaneity, although you did mention what he said about dark matter. But you only confined that to how it effects the General Theory or Relativity (if true).

If there is a force in the universe that allows motion to start from a dead stop, science ain't saying. I had never noticed this until I saw the videos of Singh, but it is true (within what I know of science so far). This is the point where science runs into a wall. Science is PREDICATED on things ALREADY in motion. It never explains how things START.

Any hypothesis about how things START suffers from a deficiency. It cannot be tested empirically. As the old vaudeville routine goes: Vas you dere, Charlie? The only thing that can be tested are consequences of hypotheses.

Strictly speaking we do not have to know how things started (nor will we ever). We only have to know how things go.

Isaac Newton did not let the fact he did not know the origin of gravitation stop him from figuring out how gravitation works. What difference does it make how it started? That was long long ago in another time and place. Newton said (in Latin) I feign no hypothesis (as to the cause of gravitation). Not knowing why there is gravity in the first place has not stopped us from describing how gravity gravitates and build on that.

What we currently know from observation is that the cosmos was once smaller and hotter than it is now. This can be determined by the general red shift of light coming from galaxies far away. This hypothesis is further backed up by deducing from the Einstein field equations (prior to Einstein adding the Fudge Factor) that the cosmos either is expanding or contracting. It cannot be in a steady state. If the cosmos is expanding we really have no way of knowing from what instant. The Starting Point is a mathematical singularity. Our mathematical laws simply break down. We haven't the foggiest notion of the very instant of the Bang nor do we know if there was a Before. That would be purely metaphysical speculation. We can only go where our mathematically formulated laws can take us. Beyond that it is pure guess.

Now I ask you: Did Singh put forth testable consequences of his hypothesis? If so, have they been tested yet. Science runs on experiment in the long haul, not on metaphysical or philosophical speculation. What are the Known Facts. Where do the suppositions take us?

Prior to 1965, there were two plausible theories on the nature of the cosmos. One was the Hoyle steady state hypothesis, which assumed matter was constantly being created. It was an ex nihilo theory. The other contender was the Le Maitre Gamow theory. The latter theory had an observable consequence. If one looked far enough away (which is also back in time) one would see a black-body radiation at temperature 2.3 kelvin or thereabouts. Penzias and Wilson, doing experiments with a spare radio telescope at Bell Lab in Murray Hill New Jersey spotted exactly that. The Hoyle theory made no such prediction. Result: Hoyle's theory was discarded and the cosmos expanding from a small entity theory was adopted. That is how we got the original Big Bang hypothesis.

What predictions does Singh make? Are they testable? If they are testable have they been tested?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have done some more Google searching and came across the following works by Avtar Singh. He has been proposing a Gravitation Nullification Model (GNM) as a modified theory of relativity and presenting it around at different academic/scientific organizations. I don't have all day to go into this, but here are some publications I have come across:

In Search of the Universal Reality and Purpose – A Scientific Investigation, presented in 2004 at the Metanexus Institute at the University of Pennsylvania. Full paper - this gives some graphics, comparisons, etc. to present the theory. Here is the abstract:

Science has struggled for centuries to understand the universe. Great scientific achievements in recent decades have enriched material life on Earth. However, mysterious and irresolvable paradoxes have plagued the otherwise successful theories of science. This paper attempts to explain these paradoxes and how they can be remedied. Most widely accepted and successful scientific theories are shown to be incomplete due to the missing physics of spontaneity in them. One of the most serious outcomes of this deficiency is the predicted meaninglessness of the universe and life in it, thus making science itself meaningless. The paper attempts to return the meaning to both science and the universe. The paradoxes and ensuing meaninglessness are shown to be artifacts of modern theories not taking into account the spontaneity or consciousness inherent in nature as observed in the wave-particle duality, spontaneous motion in the universe, the spontaneous decay of particles, and human consciousness.

This paper is an account of the search for a scientific approach for inclusion of the observed spontaneity in nature into the scientific theories, specifically the general theory of relativity, to resolve the paradoxes and questions that haunt modern science and cosmology. This approach resolves major shortcomings of the widely accepted Big Bang Model (BBM) and fills in the big gap in the fundamental understanding of the apparent duality that exists between the behaviors of the microscopic quantum particles and macroscopic classical objects. The proposed model reexamines the basis for Heisenberg uncertainty and concludes that the uncertainty is an artifact of the presumption of a fixed space and time and not a universal reality. The proposed scientific approach provides a seamless integration between the classical and quantum reality as well as a fresh perspective on scientific reality as it relates to the ultimate universal reality. A successful agreement between the predictions and observations of the universe demonstrates the validity and credibility of the proposed approach.

The presented approach also closes the gap between science and religion. It provides a physical basis and answers to many of the philosophical questions related to time and evolution. It also restores the once lost simplicity, beauty, purpose, and meaning not only to science, but also to the universe and life in it. It also demonstrates that the existing paradoxes of the modern science and cosmology leading to an apparent absence of purpose in the universe are artifacts, rather than universal realities, of the missing physics of spontaneity in the modern scientific theories. Spontaneity or consciousness in nature is shown not to be a "Ghost" but a "Host" in the atom. Its existence is a physical reality and not a metaphysical myth that can be excluded from a rigorous scientific theory. A critical review of the current scientific method and theories is undertaken with the objective to facilitate their integration with purpose and meaning.

Consciousness based solutions to mysteries and paradoxes of quantum mechanics presented at Plenary Session I, "Foundations of Quantum Mechanics & the Brain/Mind Problem 1" of the Quantum Brain organization in 2003, The University of Arizona in Tuscon, Arizona. Abstract only. The same abstract is published in NeuroQuantology here.

The observed spontaneity or consciousness in nature, specifically the spontaneous decay of particles, has been mathematically described in this work to formulate a Gravity Nullification model (GNM) that integrates a Modified Theory of Relativity, spontaneity that allows transformation of mass, energy, space and time to satisfy the laws of conservation and classical gravity into one simple model. Gravity Nullification Model (GNM) provides the missing physics in the theory of relativity to explain the fundamental relationship between space, time, mass and energy. Some fundamental assumptions in the Einstein’s specific theory of relativity are reinterpreted or modified to provide answers or explanation to existing paradoxes of science including classical physics, quantum mechanics and cosmology. Using this model a mathematical relationship is derived relating the wavelength of a particle mass and velocity as a substitute for the famous de Broglie equation. Observed non-locality and effective speed of light are explained using GNM.

A physical understanding of the inner workings of Quantum Mechanics is developed using GNM. The Heisenberg’s uncertainty is revisited and reformulated using relativistic formulations of the GNM. Paradoxes of quantum mechanics such as the observer paradox (the collapse of the wave-function, non-locality, quantum entanglement, formation and behavior of Bose-Einstein condensates, particle spin etc. are explained using the GNM physical models. The theory of parallel universes widely accepted by scientists to explain the inner workings of quantum mechanics is explained in terms of the relativistic parameters within the framework of the GNM.

Effects of gravity at quantum and classical scales have been evaluated using the GNM, which shows that the widely accepted and tested classical formulation of gravity can also explain the observed gravitational effects at or below quantum scales.

A New Theory of Spontaneous Decay Resolves Paradoxes of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Cosmology, The XXII Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, Stanford University, CA, December 13-17, 2004. Abstract only:

A new mathematical theory, the Gravity Nullification model (GNM), is proposed for integrating the missing physics of the spontaneous decay of particles into the existing physics theories, specifically the general theory of relativity, without altering its original formulation. The integration of GNM addresses the following key questions raised by the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) of the National Science Foundation: - Are there undiscovered principles of nature? - How can we solve the mystery of dark energy? - Are there extra dimensions of space? - Do all the forces become one? - What is dark matter? - How did the universe come to be? - What happened to the antimatter? The above questions, and many others described in the present paper that plague the flagship theories of physics today point to the missing physics in these theories. A new relativistic wave-particle model has also been developed using GNM, which explains both the observed classical as well as quantum behaviors. It also resolves the observed paradox of relativity theory related to the action-at-a-distance or non-locality observed in quantum experiments. GNM also closes the gap between quantum mechanics and theory of relativity by extending the validity of the gravity formulation of general relativity into the quantum scale without a singularity. This approach is then used to predict the observed behavior of the universe and resolves the following shortcomings of the widely accepted Big Bang Model (BBM) without resorting to the incredible scenario of inflation involving “superluminal expansion” during the early evolution of the universe: - Singularities in the initial conditions of BBM (black hole singularity) - Horizon problem - Flatness problem - Cosmological constant problem The theory presented in this paper restores simplicity and beauty to physics to enhance its credibility, comprehensibility, and acceptance. It also restores the once lost elegance to the “Absurd Universe” (Michael S. Turner, Astronomy Magazine, 2004), predicted by the current theories.

I can probably find more stuff, but I have other assignments that are pressing. At least the first paper above (the only one in full) is linked here for easy reference so I can read it later.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Any hypothesis about how things START suffers from a deficiency. It cannot be tested empirically.

Bob,

Why does that sound like a cop-out?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

If it cannot be tested empirically, it is not science but religion. We are not interested in religion.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Bob is the only one who has proposed that it cannot be tested empirically. There is a whole world out there testing these kinds of concepts up a storm.

Maybe Bob's pronouncements are now divine and must be accepted on faith? That sounds more like religion to me.

Also, as you yourself have explained, there are some mathematical constructs that cannot be tested empirically. Are they religion, too?

Michael

EDIT: Come to think of it, is the Big Bang a religion? I don't remember it ever being tested empirically, probably because it cannot be. Uga uga!

[Dragonfly]

Also, as you yourself have explained, there are some mathematical constructs that cannot be tested empirically. Are they religion, too?

These are not statements about the world.

EDIT: Come to think of it, is the Big Bang a religion? I don't remember it ever being tested empirically, probably because it cannot be. Uga uga!

It has been extensively tested empirically. Testing a theory about a phenomenon is not the same as repeating that phenomenon. We don't have to be able to create a star to have a testable theory about that star.

[BaalChatzaf]

Also, as you yourself have explained, there are some mathematical constructs that cannot be tested empirically. Are they religion, too?

Michael

EDIT: Come to think of it, is the Big Bang a religion? I don't remember it ever being tested empirically, probably because it cannot be. Uga uga!

All ultimate origins are understood hypothetically. We weren't there to witness them. The Big Bang is a hypothesis, not a religion. From this hypothesis has been deduced the correct proportions of elements in open space (hydrogen, helium and lithium). This are primordial elements and formed very early prior to stars. In fact stars are made out of them. The heavier elements are formed from the explosions of stars (novas).

Only the CONSEQUENCES of the hypothesis can be tested empirically since the consequences are with us now or visible to us.

There is no religion here. Ultimately a science stands or falls upon the quality of the predictions it makes. Nothing else matters as far as the correctness of the science. Predictions are -deduced- from the postulates of a science. Particularizations of the predictions are what is tested. A prediction has the form: under a set of specified conditions, -this- is what will be observed (modulo instrumental error brackets and some environmental conditions like temperature). A prediction of this form will either be confirmed by repeated experiment or it will be refuted.

You have a problem understanding what is testable and what is not. Predictions deduced from hypothesis must be testable. The hypotheticals (the ultimate entities or the original happenings) are not here and now for us to test.

Science is built on assumptions some of which are untestable. Only the consequences that can be quantified and made particular are able to be tested.

Facts rule. Theories serve. If there is a religion it is the religion of facts. The observable facts are the gods of science.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

Well said, Ba'al (post #19).

Also, as you yourself have explained, there are some mathematical constructs that cannot be tested empirically. Are they religion, too?

No. They are tools of thought, abstracted from more concrete ideas that can be tested empirically.

Maybe Rand would have been more successful if her first axiom had been "Facts exist" rather than "Existence exists."

God is a failed hypothesis around whom religions are built.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, from a cursory reading, Singh seems to be well on his way to being able to make accurate predictions. Time will tell, I guess.

Bob, I really like this part: "Science is built on assumptions some of which are untestable." I cannot think of a better way of destroying a scientific criticism of religion by using a double standard.

Incidentally, before the fangs come out with everybody, I am not defending religion. I merely do not hold that looking at the work of a religious oriented scientist constitutes heresy, especially when one of the ideas starts making a hell of a lot of sense. There is a difference between looking at one idea and swallowing the whole package.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob, I really like this part: "Science is built on assumptions some of which are untestable." I cannot think of a better way of destroying a scientific criticism of religion by using a double standard.

What double standard? It is impossible to verify a universally quantified proposition whose domain is infinite. That is why Newton's law of gravitation can not be verified directly by observation. One would have to test it with an infinite set of masses at an infinite set of distances from each other at an infinite number of places. It cannot be done. What -can- be done is to make particular (singular) predictions by instantiating the law. The particular can be test empirically.

That is why singular (particular) quantitative predictions are the material for testing a theory.

Just an aside. In having discussions with O'ist both here and elsewhere I have noticed there is a difficulty with some of them to distinguish between a universally quantified statement and a particular (or singular) statement. This has caused much difficulty in discussion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What -can- be done is to make particular (singular) predictions by instantiating the law. The particular can be test empirically.

That is why singular (particular) quantitative predictions are the material for testing a theory.

Bob,

That appears to be what Singh is doing with his approach. I need to read more to be sure, but of course, you won't even quantify looking at his stuff once, much less universally.

If you have difficulty communicating, I suggest using the same concepts but trying to find which words a person uses for them.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

What -can- be done is to make particular (singular) predictions by instantiating the law. The particular can be test empirically.

That is why singular (particular) quantitative predictions are the material for testing a theory.

Bob,

That appears to be what Singh is doing with his approach. I need to read more to be sure, but of course, you won't even quantify looking at his stuff once, much less universally.

I don't do video blurbs. I read articles from journals. Do you have any references from a vetted refereed journal I can follow up pertaining to Singh's cosmology? Or even an article in arXiv. I want to see the math with the steps set out plainly so I can judge the matter properly. His other work not related to cosmology, I am not interested in following up. Being right in one area does not make one automatically right in another area.

Bob Kolker

[Brant Gaede]

Well, from a cursory reading, Singh seems to be well on his way to being able to make accurate predictions. Time will tell, I guess.

Bob, I really like this part: "Science is built on assumptions some of which are untestable." I cannot think of a better way of destroying a scientific criticism of religion by using a double standard.

Incidentally, before the fangs come out with everybody, I am not defending religion. I merely do not hold that looking at the work of a religious oriented scientist constitutes heresy, especially when one of the ideas starts making a hell of a lot of sense. There is a difference between looking at one idea and swallowing the whole package.

Michael

I tried to watch one of the videos, but I can't stand "New Age" stuff. I don't expect any of them to have any new science in them to speak of. I have to go with Bob on this one. My opinion is that adulterating science with philosophy also adulterates philosophy.

--Brant