No Beginning? How Did We Ever Arrive Here Then?

[MormonFreeThinker]

That's just plain silliness and makes no sense at all.

 

But the evidence points to that, our observable universe was very small. 

 

1,000 years ago, the idea that the Earth was not flat was silly to most people. 

Edited July 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[mfbukowski]

But the evidence points to that, our observable universe was very small. 

 

1,000 years ago, the idea that the Earth was not flat was silly to most people. 

And in a thousand years who knows what "science" will find to be "true"?

 

The point is that it keeps on changing as people see the to problems differently.

[MormonFreeThinker]

And in a thousand years who knows what "science" will find to be "true"?

 

The point is that it keeps on changing as people see the to problems differently.

 

True, but let me quote astrophysicist Joseph Smidt, he is a Mormon

 

"The physical effects predicted by the Big Bang are real and the Big Bang is the only known physical theory that predicts these phenomena. Moreover, the Big Bang is consistent with every experiment we throw at it, something very few theories live to boast about. The Big Bang is on very solid ground scientifically." 

http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-is-big-bang.html

 

"In fact, there is substantial experimental evidence that, about 13.7 billion years ago, the entire observable universe was smaller than a baseball and inflated into what we see today"

http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.com/2006/11/introduction.html

 

Cosmologists agree with him

[Calm]

And as our instruments refine and become more precise and expansive and we find new things to measure and therefore to explain, who knows what we will come up with.

[Nofear]

1,000 years ago, the idea that the Earth was not flat was silly to most people.

Well, 1000 years ago anybody with a modicum of education knew the earth was round. Similarly anybody today has made observations proving a finite history of stars in our universe.

[thesometimesaint]

But the evidence points to that, our observable universe was very small. 

 

1,000 years ago, the idea that the Earth was not flat was silly to most people. 

 

The idea that the earth is a sphere is pretty old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

[mfbukowski]

True, but let me quote astrophysicist Joseph Smidt, he is a Mormon

 

"The physical effects predicted by the Big Bang are real and the Big Bang is the only known physical theory that predicts these phenomena. Moreover, the Big Bang is consistent with every experiment we throw at it, something very few theories live to boast about. The Big Bang is on very solid ground scientifically." 

http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-is-big-bang.html

 

"In fact, there is substantial experimental evidence that, about 13.7 billion years ago, the entire observable universe was smaller than a baseball and inflated into what we see today"

http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.com/2006/11/introduction.html

 

Cosmologists agree with him

I don't recall ever saying that was not the best model available at the moment, but as usual, even that last statement is laughably ambiguous.  Who was there to "observe" the "observable universe" when it was the size of a baseball?  (which is considerably larger than an atom).  I suppose, charitably, he could have phrased that better, but the point is that we are bumping against the wall of what language can do here.

 

I don't doubt that some equations- which are logical constructs programmed into our brains to help us deal with macro-level problems like hunting and gathering food- show that these models seem to "work", but clearly we don't even have the mental capacity to get beyond our very primitive constructs to find adequate descriptions for what is "really going on".

 

You are not addressing my point which is about the nature of "truth" and how we know what it is.  But that's ok.  We are all muddling through doing the best we can.

 

I just wonder about the utility of discussions like this about matters which are so abstract that they are on the fringes of what humans are capable of describing linguistically, and the level of certitude displayed here.   Garbage in garbage out.

[mfbukowski]

The idea that the earth is a sphere is pretty old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Yeah but it is still an idea.  It may be in every human brain on earth, but I bet Orcas see it differently.  If they do, are they wrong?

Edited July 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MormonFreeThinker]

(which is considerably larger than an atom).  I suppose, charitably, 

 

He said, "the entire observable universe was smaller than a baseball"

 

The observable universe was smaller than a baseball and a atom, no contradiction there. He is talking about the observable universe, not necessarily the entire universe. 

 

I don't recall ever saying that was not the best model available at the moment, but as usual, even that last statement is laughably ambiguous.  Who was there to "observe" the "observable universe" when it was the size of a baseball?  

 

No mortal human, but the evidence points to that conclusion, it is not a guess or a unproven hypothesis. Astrophysicist Ron Hellings agrees with Joseph, Ron is also a Mormon, he said, 

 

"Everything began at one point in time and at one point in space, and it was right here in this room. In fact it was smaller than the room– in fact itwas smaller than this, in fact it was much smaller than this. Okay? So everything comes from a single point." 

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Joseph_Smith_and_Modern_Cosmology.pdf

 

 

"You are not addressing my point which is about the nature of "truth" and how we know what it is."

In philosophy, it is not possible to prove the truth. 

In the church,  Elder Oaks said, "I am grateful to know that there are two methods of gaining knowledge — the scientific method and the spiritual method"

Scientists use the scientific method to prove that the our observable universe was smaller than an atom. 

 

We cannot directly observe many things in science, but the evidence is strong, see 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jMVYdgVVgc

Edited July 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Nofear]

As successful as modern cosmology is, it also makes no accomodation for spirit matter and so is necessarily incomplete. That doesn't make the observations incorrect and naysaying them, to me, is distinctly non-mormon in spirit (though one is free to disagree with the models to explain the observations).

Edited July 26, 2014 by Nofear

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah but it is still an idea.  It may be in every human brain on earth, but I bet Orcas see it differently.  If they do, are they wrong?

 

Until an Orca tells us, the best we can do is take an uneducated guess.

[thesometimesaint]

As successful as modern cosmology is, it also makes no accomodation for spirit matter and so is necessarily incomplete. That doesn't make the observations incorrect and naysaying them, to me, is distinctly non-mormon in spirit (though one is free to disagree with the models to explain the observations).

 

Agreed.

[ERayR]

As successful as modern cosmology is, it also makes no accomodation for spirit matter and so is necessarily incomplete. That doesn't make the observations incorrect and naysaying them, to me, is distinctly non-mormon in spirit (though one is free to disagree with the models to explain the observations).

 

Science makes no accommodation for religion at all.  Therefore, you can not use science to explain, validate or describe religious concepts nor can religious concepts be used to explain, validate or describe scientific principles.  One can decide for themselves whether their understanding of science and religion can be reconciled.  However, I predict one of two scenarios will happen, 1) they will be constantly changing their views as science advances or their understanding of religious principles matures or 2) they will suffer to a lesser or greater degree from cognitive dissonance.  Probably some of both.

[thesometimesaint]

Science makes no accommodation for religion at all.  Therefore, you can not use science to explain, validate or describe religious concepts nor can religious concepts be used to explain, validate or describe scientific principles.  One can decide for themselves whether their understanding of science and religion can be reconciled.  However, I predict one of two scenarios will happen, 1) they will be constantly changing their views as science advances or their understanding of religious principles matures or 2) they will suffer to a lesser or greater degree from cognitive dissonance.  Probably some of both.

 

Agreed. For myself I've resolved the issue with the realization that I know very little about both. So I'm fine with as long as God is the one whose doing it. Whatever the method he uses is fine with me.

[ERayR]

Agreed. For myself I've resolved the issue with the realization that I know very little about both. So I'm fine with as long as God is the one whose doing it. Whatever the method he uses is fine with me.

 

So you admit to believing ID?   

[thesometimesaint]

So you admit to believing ID?   

 

Believing in God? Yes. Able to posit any God into science? Not so much.

[Bikeemikey]

So we know from the scriptures that matter and intelligence had no beginning. We've always existed albeit in a different form than we do now. So the question is how did we ever arrive here? If we've "always" existed then that means we've "always" been traveling toward where we are now. If you are always traveling toward something then you are never arriving.

It's like that problem of moving toward the wall half way each time. If you are always moving toward the wall but you only go half the distance each time will you ever hit the wall? The answer is no...you won't. You can't ever hit it if you only go half way each time. Likewise, an entity with no beginning cannot say that "someday" he'll be organized into something different because someday cannot exist if you are always only heading toward that.

Thoughts?

If you want to reach the wall try traveling the whole way towards it. If you are trying to get somewhere why would you only travel halfway there.

Problem solved.

[wenglund]

 

I've made no appeal to calculus. Not relevant. Though that you mention it strongly suggests not really paying attention.

 

It is true that the everyday common definition of infinity and the infinity that is mathematically defined are not exactly the same. It was problematic, and frankly quite embarrassing to our community, when some interlocutors here sought to argue their case. My wife, who quite independently read the thread and is self-confessed not fully comprehending infinities, literally laughed out loud at some of the absurdity presented in the thread. As a community, we really ought do better. Such inanity can be and are very avoidable stumbling blocks to potential investigators (though usually most get over them and most people don't even know enough to know when they are being led astray).

 

It's not my intent to "fight" you on this. I simply pointed out an error it your argument. It's still an error. It's not enough to be right, we need to be right for the right reasons. Much in the same way that faith promoting rumors are ultimately damaging to Mormonism so ought we avoid flawed mathematical and scientific reasoning.

 

What may appear to you and your wife as absurdities and inanity may simply be a product of your collective narrow mindedness and baseless arrogance--not the least of which is where you mistakenly assume that you have pointed out an error in what I have said, when clearly you lack the capacity to comprehend what I have said since it evidently extends well beyond the very limited (mathematical) confines of your perspective.

 

And, while your intent may be to be right, and right for the right reasons (there is good reason to question both), my intent is to pragmatically expand understanding and to flexiblize oft overly rigid and short-sighted and unimaginative ways of thinking exhibited by many who assume they are right.

 

Granted, there may also be good reason to question my success in your case, but to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Tone it down, ~Mods

[strappinglad]

I discovered the limits of my ability to think in infinities years ago when discussing the figure created by rotating the  line y=1/x  as x goes from 1 to infinity , about the x -axis. The object formed has an infinite surface area but a limit to its volume. Hence  the only way to paint its walls is to fill it with paint. Since then, my motto has been " it's close enough for the girls we go with "

[Nofear]

What may appear to you and your wife as absurdities and inanity may simply be a product of your collective narrow mindedness and baseless arrogance--not the least of which is where you mistakenly assume that you have pointed out an error in what I have said, when clearly you lack the capacity to comprehend what I have said since it evidently extends well beyond the very limited (mathematical) confines of your perspective.

 

And, while your intent may be to be right, and right for the right reasons (there is good reason to question both), my intent is to pragmatically expand understanding and to flexiblize oft overly rigid and short-sighted and unimaginative ways of thinking exhibited by many who assume they are right.

 

Granted, there may also be good reason to question my success in your case, but to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe I'll be more persuaded to give credance to your claims if you can support it with a single mathemetician. For my part I've given links, but now my bladder is empty so I'll leave off this contest. Doesn't seem like healthy dialog.