salyavin, I'd say it makes perfect sense that people *get religious* about the
pre universe. That perfect sense, I'd speculate, is derived from the nature of
the brain itself. Surely there's a part of the physical brain that is
associated with thoughts about, belief in, disbelief in God, etc.
I like both the very practical questions like what can be done about population
control. And I also like the really abstract questions like your why is there
something rather than nothing. Such questions are a bit like a zen koan funnily
enough, sort of bridging the most physical and least physical worlds. I'm using
that strange phrase to avoid saying spiritual (-:
I want to think a bit more about that predictable testifiable and especially
falsifiable. The latter is the most fascinating to me.
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] 20 Big Questions.
Yep, science is indeed limited, but only to what it can't test for. Speculation
is fine though, you can speculate what the pre-universe was like but until we
can go there to test we won't know with any certainty at all. Some people even
get religious about it which makes no sense at all...
UFOs. ghosts, etc remain unscientific because they can't be held down and
subjected to experiment and their appearance can't be predicted so all we are
left with is anecdotal evidence which won't do at all as far as science goes.
So it has to be predictable,testable and falsifiable to be considered science.
The last bit is important because if you can't prove a theory is wrong you
can't tell if it's likely to be right.
Considering what there is now, the pre-universe must have had certain qualities
or it couldn't have ended up like this, which limits it a bit. So perhaps a
better way of putting the question would be why is the universe like this
rather than like something else? The easy answer to that is, if it was like
something else then maybe it wouldn't have lasted half a second or it would
have rendered it incapable of making heavier elements like carbon and thus not
creating us to ponder it.
Another question then How many universes capable of creating and sustaining
life might have come into existence from the initial big-bang state?
--- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote:
Ah ha! salyavin, when you say no way of testing and therefore not science are
you saying that science is limited? Should we rely on a system of gaining
knowledge that is limited by its very nature?!
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 20 Big Questions.
Yes, I often ponder such things. A question they missed is why is there
something rather than nothing probably because that isn't about to be answered
any time soon, if it even can be.
Number 17 (what is at the bottom of a black hole) is an odd way of phrasing it
as there is no bottom as they aren't actually holes, they probably mean what
is beyond the event horizon but wanted it to appear snappy. Black holes are
collapsed stars, we don't know what's inside in the same way we can't answer
the question they missed, the laws of nature break down at these points and
from where we are we can only guess, no way of testing and therefore not
science.
--- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@...
wrote:
Oh, wonderful article, thanks for posting salyavin and I was pleased that I
already knew about #11 and the Reimann hypothesis even though that knowledge
came from a Numb3rs episode on same!
From: fintlewoodlewix@... fintlewoodlewix@...
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 10:07 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] 20 Big Questions.
1 What is the universe made of?
Astronomers face an embarrassing conundrum: they don't know what 95% of the
universe is made of. Atoms, which form everything we see around us, only
account for a measly 5%. Over the past 80 years it has become clear that the
substantial remainder is comprised of two shadowy entities – dark matter
anddark energy. The former, first discovered in 1933, acts as an invisible
glue, binding galaxies and galaxy clusters together. Unveiled in 1998, the
latter is pushing the universe's expansion to ever greater speeds. Astronomers
are closing in on the true identities of these unseen interlopers.
The rest:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/01/20-big-questions-in-science
Just a test to see if everything works the same as it did under the old
system...
