Find of the day

Skybird · 11-10-14, 06:46 AM

Why is there anything at all

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141...g-exist-at-all

I must criticise that text and author for a fundamental error at the very basic root level already.

It has become a common bad habit in science since some years now to claim that now they can not only explain how things function and how they come into being, but also "why". One of the loudest voices claiming that, is Stephen Hawkings, namely in his latest book.

However, if one examines the above text (or Hawking's "explanation" of the Why), one must realise that although they are pushing theories further and make them more complex or precise or however you want to call it, these theories always refer back to one starting condition or initialising event that got things started. The fallacy that is so popular amongst scientists now is to proclaim that because one explains how that event happened and how things unfolded from there on and what basic characteristics a minimum quantity of "nothingness" has (a void that now gets understood to be instabile at the quantum level and thus creating space-time), this would equal an explanation why these things got started for the first time, or why the most basic quantum of nothingness is instabile and has the quality of creating space-time. They also say that they now have a reasonable idea about what the universe looks like, and why it looks like that (it is a flat ellipsoid, they say). But when there is a claim about a form, that form implies a border, a limit that defines that form (else it would be formless), and beyond that limit that gives the universe a form, there must be something different that is "non-universe", void,. nothingness, "unspeakable something", an I-don't-know-what. To explain the shape of the universe therefore also does not explain why it came into being in the first.

I do not know why this basic misunderstanding becomes so popular in science. Is it self-flattering of the scientific ego that wants to claim the power and prestige to be capable of explaining everything? I prefer to stick with what gets covered by scientific methodology: that science can explain the How. This it can explain with ever growing accuracy, that is the inner essence and nature of the scientific process.

But the initialising Why I fear forever will be a subject that can only be played around with by human mind's fantasy - today, and I assume most likely in all future to come as well.

Maybe it depends on individual temperament whether you take consolation or despair from that uncertainty.

11-10-14, 06:46 AM	#33
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,642 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Why is there anything at all http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141...g-exist-at-all I must criticise that text and author for a fundamental error at the very basic root level already. It has become a common bad habit in science since some years now to claim that now they can not only explain how things function and how they come into being, but also "why". One of the loudest voices claiming that, is Stephen Hawkings, namely in his latest book. However, if one examines the above text (or Hawking's "explanation" of the Why), one must realise that although they are pushing theories further and make them more complex or precise or however you want to call it, these theories always refer back to one starting condition or initialising event that got things started. The fallacy that is so popular amongst scientists now is to proclaim that because one explains how that event happened and how things unfolded from there on and what basic characteristics a minimum quantity of "nothingness" has (a void that now gets understood to be instabile at the quantum level and thus creating space-time), this would equal an explanation why these things got started for the first time, or why the most basic quantum of nothingness is instabile and has the quality of creating space-time. They also say that they now have a reasonable idea about what the universe looks like, and why it looks like that (it is a flat ellipsoid, they say). But when there is a claim about a form, that form implies a border, a limit that defines that form (else it would be formless), and beyond that limit that gives the universe a form, there must be something different that is "non-universe", void,. nothingness, "unspeakable something", an I-don't-know-what. To explain the shape of the universe therefore also does not explain why it came into being in the first. I do not know why this basic misunderstanding becomes so popular in science. Is it self-flattering of the scientific ego that wants to claim the power and prestige to be capable of explaining everything? I prefer to stick with what gets covered by scientific methodology: that science can explain the How. This it can explain with ever growing accuracy, that is the inner essence and nature of the scientific process. But the initialising Why I fear forever will be a subject that can only be played around with by human mind's fantasy - today, and I assume most likely in all future to come as well. Maybe it depends on individual temperament whether you take consolation or despair from that uncertainty. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.