Scientific results here and now apply to there and then

[essentialsaltes]

Certain people here have asserted that things we learn in our labs here on earth today have no application to phenomena in outer space or in the distant past.

This is, at best, an unsupported assertion, but really, everything we know suggests it is false, as I and others have forcefully argued.

I bring it up, because the current Scientific American has an article about time crystals that addresses the topic quite clearly. Although it's brought up in a totally different context, it's certainly relevant to whether scientific knowledge can be applied to data derived from times and places remote from our own.

Without space and time translation symmetry, experiments carried out in different places and at different times would not be reproducible. In their everyday work, scientists take those symmetries for granted. Indeed, science as we know it would be impossible without them. But it is important to emphasize that we can test space and time translation symmetry empirically. Specifically, we can observe behavior in distant astronomical objects. Such objects are situated, obviously, in different places, and thanks to the finite speed of light we can observe in the present how they behaved in the past. Astronomers have determined, in great detail and with high accuracy, that the same laws do in fact apply.

 

[Sam91]

While I have no opinion about whether experiments in another time would be subject to the same conditions or not, I see a hole in your supposition.

You see, if conditions were different in the past then how could you be sure that the speed of light was constant? Also, how can we be sure that astronomers and physicists have it correct? The concepts they use are still just theories. In the absence of confirming by being able to measure using a different method we can only guess at whether it holds true over vast distances. How can they be sure that the time they think it has taken light to arrive is correct? It isn't being timed.

I would also guess that it is difficult for astronomers to be as objective as they should.

 

[Sam91]

Also, how can they be sure that space is the same between us and a distant object? It is quite vast. How can they be sure that there is not some type of phenomena, eddy etc distorting what we can record. We know a lot less than we think we do about a lot more than we know.

 

[Ken Rank]

I agree the laws apply and it is testable. The caveat I would throw in, that might NOT carry weight for you @essentialsaltes is that >>IF<< there is a God and >>IF<< creation occurred as Genesis suggests, then the universe came into existence with the appearance of age. Adam, for example, at 2 minutes old was already a man. The trees were already bearing fruit. The stars placed into the heavens and the inference is they are now where they were then (minus of course, for natural gravitational drifts which has occurred since then) meaning these great distances from which we determine things like the age of the universe, might indeed be vast distances but not the reliable time piece in that regard that we might think outside of the creation narrative.

But, I believe there is a God and that creation is fact. You don't... and while you have the right to believe as you wish, we just can't see eye to eye on this any related topics because of that difference. Doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion(s), though.

Peace.
Ken

 

[KarlKarlingIII]

Certain people here have asserted that things we learn in our labs here on earth today have no application to phenomena in outer space or in the distant past.

This is, at best, an unsupported assertion, but really, everything we know suggests it is false, as I and others have forcefully argued.

I bring it up, because the current Scientific American has an article about time crystals that addresses the topic quite clearly. Although it's brought up in a totally different context, it's certainly relevant to whether scientific knowledge can be applied to data derived from times and places remote from our own.

Without space and time translation symmetry, experiments carried out in different places and at different times would not be reproducible. In their everyday work, scientists take those symmetries for granted. Indeed, science as we know it would be impossible without them. But it is important to emphasize that we can test space and time translation symmetry empirically. Specifically, we can observe behavior in distant astronomical objects. Such objects are situated, obviously, in different places, and thanks to the finite speed of light we can observe in the present how they behaved in the past. Astronomers have determined, in great detail and with high accuracy, that the same laws do in fact apply.

If man's problem was lack of knowledge, the state religion of scientism would have cured him hundreds of years ago. The problem is in his heart. So called "Enlightenment" has killed all our souls.

 

[JackRT]

They surely, must be theories. In the absence of confirming by being able to measure using a different method we can only guess at whether it holds true over vast distances.

In science theory is as good as it gets. The assumption that physical laws here on earth apply to the entire universe is quite legitimate until such time as there is any evidence at all that things may not be as they seem. Our science has enabled us to navigate probes to all the planets and past the very edge of our solar system. I am confident that it can take us even further.

 

[pitabread]

>>IF<< there is a God and >>IF<< creation occurred as Genesis suggests, then the universe came into existence with the appearance of age.

By appearance of age do you mean an appearance of history?

Adam, for example, at 2 minutes old was already a man.

Did Adam have a bellybutton?

The stars placed into the heavens and the inference is they are now where they were then (minus of course, for natural gravitational drifts which has occurred since then) meaning these great distances from which we determine things like the age of the universe, might indeed be vast distances but not the reliable time piece in that regard that we might think outside of the creation narrative.

Do you believe that God created the stars and created already-in-progress light particles emanating from them (so that we could see them millions or billions of light-years away) AND created light particles to reflect past events (like supernova) that never took place?

When you go down this path, it leads to some uncomfortable implications about the nature and reality of our universe (e.g. that it's inherently deceptive).

It's these sorts of implications that lead at least one creationist to reject creationism when confronted with them. (I highly recommend reading the linked article.)

 

[KarlKarlingIII]

In science theory is as good as it gets. The assumption that physical laws here on earth apply to the entire universe is quite legitimate until such time as there is any evidence at all that things may not be as they seem. Our science has enabled us to navigate probes to all the planets and past the very edge of our solar system. I am confident that it can take us even further.

"In science theory is as good as it gets."
That's not exactly a compelling defense.

 

[pitabread]

"In science theory is as good as it gets."
That's not exactly a compelling defense.

It is when you understand what a scientific theory is.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You see, if conditions were different in the past then how could you be sure that the speed of light was constant?

Also, how can they be sure that space is the same between us and a distant object? It is quite vast. How can they be sure that there is not some type of phenomena, eddy etc distorting what we can record.

This is what I meant by the original claim being, at best, an unproven assertion. You can assert that there might be some sort of phenomenon that messes everything up. But there is no evidence for such a thing. In fact, the evidence is entirely consistent with physics being the same long ago and far away as it is here and now.

 

[JackRT]

There are things observed in the universe (e.g. supernova) that suggest the remnants of past stars that have exploded. If the argument is that God created the remnants of a past exploded star when the star never existed, then that seems like a deceptive universe.

A deceptive universe implies a deceptive Creator and that is a very dangerous theology because it suggests that the Creator is not to be trusted.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I agree the laws apply and it is testable. The caveat I would throw in, that might NOT carry weight for you @essentialsaltes is that >>IF<< there is a God and >>IF<< creation occurred as Genesis suggests, then the universe came into existence with the appearance of age.

I'll set aside whether actually "Genesis suggests" any particular age of the universe.

Your idea of Last Thursdayism is certainly immune to attack. Everything could come into existence 6000 years ago or last Thursday, with all the appearances of past age built into them. Light could be created 'on the way' so that it arrives from distant stars so we can see them, even though that light wasn't actually emitted by the star. Fossils of animals that never lived could be buried here and there. While immune to any conceivable challenge, there is no reason for anyone to believe it.

 

[JackRT]

In science, a "theory" is as good as it gets. Although "theory" in common parlance means nothing more than a guess, in science it means something very different. An idea rises to the level of theory in science only after numerous, independent tests have been performed and have yielded consistent data. A scientific theory offers insight into the natural world while making predictions about the structure of the natural world. Scientific theories permit us to make sense of random facts. Because science proceeds by disproof rather than proof, in other words because science is reliant on the concept of falsifiability, scientists must be open to the possibility that a commonly accepted theory might, at some time in the future, be replaced by a more finely tuned or more robust theory. But, being open to the possibility of future work modifying and improving our present theories is a far cry from saying that something is "just a theory" and thus not deserving of any special attention.

 

[KarlKarlingIII]

It is when you understand what a scientific theory is.

I do understand what it is, and I am not judging it. But the OP gives the impression that science is a good in itself, and that it is only 'rubes' who refuse to understand it's brilliance. How does the scientific method justify the scientific method? You cannot get an "ought" from an "is", and you cannot get an "ought" from science without metaethics. Science is a tool, only to be used in concert with other tools like philosophy and metaphysics.

 

[Anguspure]

By appearance of age do you mean an appearance of history?



Did Adam have a bellybutton?



Do you believe that God created the stars and created already-in-progress light particles emanating from them (so that we could see them millions or billions of light-years away) AND created light particles to reflect past events (like supernova) that never took place?

When you go down this path, it leads to some uncomfortable implications about the nature and reality of our universe (e.g. that it's inherently deceptive).

It's these sorts of implications that lead at least one creationist to reject creationism when confronted with them. (I highly recommend reading the linked article.)

It is a shame when YEC reject Creationism on these grounds. All they have done is flip flopped from one flawed thought to another.
The truth is that it is eminently possible that both view points are true, it is merely an issue of perspective.

 

[JackRT]

How does the scientific method justify the scientific method?

To put it in simple terms --- the scientific method is justified by the fact that it works. It has been argued that the scientific method has been mankind's greatest achievement. I think I agree with that till something better comes along.

 

[Anguspure]

To put it in simple terms --- the scientific method is justified by the fact that it works. It has been argued that the scientific method has been mankind's greatest achievement. I think I agree with that till something better comes along.

How does the scientific method apply to an untestable hypothesis such as is commonly found in historical studies or the sort of consideration posed in the OP?

 

[JackRT]

How does the scientific method apply to an untestable hypothesis such as is commonly found in historical studies or the sort of consideration posed in the OP?

Not being familiar with the article cited in the OP, I cannot offer a reply.

 

[pitabread]

I do understand what it is, and I am not judging it. But the OP gives the impression that science is a good in itself, and that it is only 'rubes' who refuse to understand it's brilliance. How does the scientific method justify the scientific method? You cannot get an "ought" from an "is", and you cannot get an "ought" from science without metaethics. Science is a tool, only to be used in concert with other tools like philosophy and metaphysics.

If you're talking about fundamental philosophy of science, for scientific inquiry to have meaning assumes the universe is inherently objective. If it isn't then all bets are off.

 

[SkyWriting]

Certain people here have asserted that things we learn in our labs here on earth today have no application to phenomena in outer space or in the distant past.

This is, at best, an unsupported assertion, but really, everything we know suggests it is false, as I and others have forcefully argued.

I bring it up, because the current Scientific American has an article about time crystals that addresses the topic quite clearly. Although it's brought up in a totally different context, it's certainly relevant to whether scientific knowledge can be applied to data derived from times and places remote from our own.

Without space and time translation symmetry, experiments carried out in different places and at different times would not be reproducible. In their everyday work, scientists take those symmetries for granted. Indeed, science as we know it would be impossible without them. But it is important to emphasize that we can test space and time translation symmetry empirically. Specifically, we can observe behavior in distant astronomical objects. Such objects are situated, obviously, in different places, and thanks to the finite speed of light we can observe in the present how they behaved in the past. Astronomers have determined, in great detail and with high accuracy, that the same laws do in fact apply.

That is a philosophy. Deal with it.