Is there evidence of something beyond nature?

[Loudmouth]

I know why it would be ironic for me but it is not my position that a purely empirical naturalistic universe needs to be explained only by that which can be shown scientifically.

That is not what you said before.

"It also uses hypothetical unknown particles that can not be detected and probably won't ever be. "--Oncedeceived

You are rejecting an idea because it requires "unknown particles" that can't be detected. You are the one saying that you require evidence, all the while holding onto religious beliefs that have no evidence. This is called irony, and a very strong case of projection.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is not what you said before.

"It also uses hypothetical unknown particles that can not be detected and probably won't ever be. "--Oncedeceived

You are rejecting an idea because it requires "unknown particles" that can't be detected. You are the one saying that you require evidence, all the while holding onto religious beliefs that have no evidence. This is called irony, and a very strong case of projection.

No, I am not rejecting it on this at all. My point is that you and others claim that if you can't provide evidence for something you believe then it is unfalsifiable and thus not scientifically valid.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I am not rejecting it on this at all. My point is that you and others claim that if you can't provide evidence for something you believe then it is unfalsifiable and thus not scientifically valid.

Then comes the second part of the irony. Krauss offers evidence and falsifiable models for what he claims. You don't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then comes the second part of the irony. Krauss offers evidence and falsifiable models for what he claims. You don't.

That is untrue. He uses the hypothesis of unknown and undetectable particles.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is untrue.

Book Review: A Universe From Nothing

He uses the hypothesis of unknown and undetectable particles.

Such as?

 

[Dizredux]

No, I am not rejecting it on this at all. My point is that you and others claim that if you can't provide evidence for something you believe then it is unfalsifiable and thus not scientifically valid.

I think this is a fairly valid statement especially when the term "provisionally" is stuck in.

So the statement that if you can't provide evidence for something you believe then it is provisionally unfalsifiable and provisionally not scientifically valid is accurate. Usually the term provisionally is left off as understood in context.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Book Review: A Universe From Nothing



Such as?

So you give me a link to his book about the universe from nothing which is not what we were just discussing as we were discussing his theory for the fine tuning and the cosmological constant.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you give me a link to his book about the universe from nothing which is not what we were just discussing as we were discussing his theory for the fine tuning and the cosmological constant.

Krauss has laid out a lot of evidence for the expansion of the universe from "nothing" (which is really "something", but that is a discussion for another time). You also mentioned unknown particles that can not be detected. What are these particles?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Krauss has laid out a lot of evidence for the expansion of the universe from "nothing" (which is really "something", but that is a discussion for another time). You also mentioned unknown particles that can not be detected. What are these particles?

Krauss having a lot of evidence is a point for debate for sure.

Neutrinos. This with undetected energy fields too.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Krauss having a lot of evidence is a point for debate for sure.

Neutrinos. This with undetected energy fields too.

Physicists are actually pretty punctual on finding those sorts of particles in recent years.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Physicists are actually pretty punctual on finding those sorts of particles in recent years.

I don't know what you mean by punctual but if you mean that they have been pretty accurate in their predictions I would have to agree; however, in this case there is no way to ever be able to detect them. With the Higgs bosen they predicted and they knew that they could in theory at least confirm it existed but not so in this case.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't know what you mean by punctual but if you mean that they have been pretty accurate in their predictions I would have to agree; however, in this case there is no way to ever be able to detect them. With the Higgs bosen they predicted and they knew that they could in theory at least confirm it existed but not so in this case.

Who knows, perhaps in the future that will change. Heck, we used to think electrons were stuck in the nucleus, and there are still people around who were taught that model. Atoms are weird.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who knows, perhaps in the future that will change. Heck, we used to think electrons were stuck in the nucleus, and there are still people around who were taught that model. Atoms are weird.

Well I suppose that there might be some future technology that might somehow do so but that doesn't change the fact that they are undetectable currently. Speculation is really not empirical objective evidence either.

 

[bhsmte]

Well I suppose that there might be some future technology that might somehow do so but that doesn't change the fact that they are undetectable currently. Speculation is really not empirical objective evidence either.

Just as you speculate, when you claim; appearance of design supports design.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well I suppose that there might be some future technology that might somehow do so but that doesn't change the fact that they are undetectable currently. Speculation is really not empirical objective evidence either.

Welcome to physics. I say this way more often than I should.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just as you speculate, when you claim; appearance of design supports design.

No, that would be the same if I claimed actual design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Welcome to physics. I say this way more often than I should.

But we do know what we know and can confirm.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But we do know what we know and can confirm.

Which isn't as much as you'd hope.

 

[bhsmte]

No, that would be the same if I claimed actual design.

Since simple appearance is subjective, without a verifiable objective test to confirm, subjective determination of appearance is meaningless.

When you then state; appearance "supports" something, it is then meaningless, unless it is used to support a faith belief, not based on objective evidence.

And to clarify, you don't claim the universe is designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Krauss having a lot of evidence is a point for debate for sure.

Krauss has presented evidence, contrary to your claims. It's not as if he pulls quotes from 2,000 year old religious texts while claiming that he has had a personal relationship with an invisible deity.

Neutrinos. This with undetected energy fields too.

"Borexino’s discovery of pp solar neutrinos is a reassuring confirmation of physicists’ main theoretical models describing the sun. Previous experiments have found higher-energy solar neutrinos created by later stages of the fusion process involving the decay of boron atoms. But the lower-energy pp neutrinos were harder to find; their detection completes the picture of the sun’s fusion chain as well as bolsters plans for next-generation Earthbound neutrino experiments."
Strange Neutrinos from the Sun Detected for the First Time - Scientific American