Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[carpedm9587]

Now I'm not a scientist, but I don't think those two words belong together...

I think a hypothesis that has been "demonstrated" would be a proof or a theorem. I know of no such hypothesis concerning origins.

[shunyadragon]

I think a hypothesis that has been "demonstrated" would be a proof or a theorem. I know of no such hypothesis concerning origins.

No, theorems and hypothesis are not proven in science. Please reread my post and respond in the context I used demonstrated. I said, "It has been demonstrated that our physical existence is 'possibly' infinite or eternal." Based on my post this response it very odd.

A synonym for demonstrate is 'indicate.' If it suits you it may be worded that, "The present knowledge of science indicates that the theories and hypothesis that our physical existence is 'possibly' eternal or infinite.

There are different definitions for 'demonstrate,' picking one to suit ones own argument is often flawed without reading the context on how it was used. The definition in this context is:

Source: https://www.definitions.net/definition/demonstrate

prove, demonstrate, establish, show, shew(verb)

establish the validity of something, as by an example, explanation or experiment

"The experiment demonstrated the instability of the compound"; "The mathematician showed the validity of the conjecture"

© Copyright Original Source

To use the word demonstrate one may; 'prove, show, establish or show the validity of something or explanation.

[Tassman]

You have to realize that Shuny has an agenda. His religion teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with his god.

Whereas your agenda teaches Creatio Ex Nihilo, to which you claim science is coming around to accepting. The good ol' bible gets it right every time.

[carpedm9587]

No, theorems and hypothesis are not proven in science. Please reread my post and respond in the context I used demonstrated. I said, "It has been demonstrated that our physical existence is 'possibly' infinite or eternal." Based on my post this response it very odd.

A synonym for demonstrate is 'indicate.' If it suits you it may be worded that, "The present knowledge of science indicates that the theories and hypothesis that our physical existence is 'possibly' eternal or infinite.

There are different definitions for 'demonstrate,' picking one to suit ones own argument is often flawed without reading the context on how it was used. The definition in this context is:

Source: https://www.definitions.net/definition/demonstrate

prove, demonstrate, establish, show, shew(verb)

establish the validity of something, as by an example, explanation or experiment

"The experiment demonstrated the instability of the compound"; "The mathematician showed the validity of the conjecture"

© Copyright Original Source

To use the word demonstrate one may; 'prove, show, establish or show the validity of something or explanation.

The purpose of the scientific method is to explore a hypothesis and either affirm (prove) it's truth/validity or disprove it's truth/validity. I know of no experiments of any kind that have validated or proven, in any sense of the word, the nature of the universe's origins. Indeed, as far as I know, we don't even know how we would do such a thing. Likewise, I know of no claims that have been definitively disproven. With regards to the origin of the universe, AFAIK, we have a lot of speculation and no real concrete conclusions.

[element771]

Actually there are hypothesis that have demonstrated that our universe does not have a beginning. It remains an unanswered open question in physics and cosmology.

Hypotheses don't demonstrate anything Mr Science.

And we are expected to believe that you do science for a living.....

[shunyadragon]

The purpose of the scientific method is to explore a hypothesis and either affirm (prove) it's truth/validity or disprove it's truth/validity. I know of no experiments of any kind that have validated or proven, in any sense of the word, the nature of the universe's origins. Indeed, as far as I know, we don't even know how we would do such a thing. Likewise, I know of no claims that have been definitively disproven. With regards to the origin of the universe, AFAIK, we have a lot of speculation and no real concrete conclusions.

Your still not reading my posts and responding to what I actually said,"No, theorems and hypothesis are not proven in science. Please reread my post and respond in the context I used demonstrated. I said, "It has been demonstrated that our physical existence is 'possibly' infinite or eternal." Based on my post this response it very odd.

Please note that your response also admits that the eternal or infinite is possible. I never said it is proven nor falsified. Again based on the definition I provided it is not necessary to prove, disprove nor falsify something to demonstrate that it is a 'possibility.'

A synonym for demonstrate is 'indicate.' If it suits you it may be worded that, "The present knowledge of science indicates that the theories and hypothesis that our physical existence is 'possibly' eternal or infinite."

Current views of physics and cosmology DO NOT support that our universe had any sort of definite beginning. Oru physical existence is possibly eternal and infinite.

[carpedm9587]

Your still not reading my posts and responding to what I actually said,"No, theorems and hypothesis are not proven in science. Please reread my post and respond in the context I used demonstrated. I said, "It has been demonstrated that our physical existence is 'possibly' infinite or eternal." Based on my post this response it very odd.

Please note that your response also admits that the eternal or infinite is possible. I never said it is proven nor falsified. Again based on the definition I provided it is not necessary to prove, disprove nor falsify something to demonstrate that it is a 'possibility.'

A synonym for demonstrate is 'indicate.' If it suits you it may be worded that, "The present knowledge of science indicates that the theories and hypothesis that our physical existence is 'possibly' eternal or infinite."

Current views of physics and cosmology DO NOT support that our universe had any sort of definite beginning. Oru physical existence is possibly eternal and infinite.

I'm not taking issue with the possibilities concerning the origins of the universe. Since, right now, science can say nothing about the origins of the universe prior to the Big Bang, pretty much anything is "possible." It is your use of words like "hypothesis" that I think are unconventional and problematic.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not taking issue with the possibilities concerning the origins of the universe. Since, right now, science can say nothing about the origins of the universe prior to the Big Bang, pretty much anything is "possible." It is your use of words like "hypothesis" that I think are unconventional and problematic.

The issue of 'possibilities is the issue you have previously ignored. No 'anything is possible' is a bogus meaningless response. You are splitting frog hairs over word use and definitions, and not addressing the real issues.

An example of an invalid hypothesis would be our universe was created by aliens.

Are the hypothesis concerning the multiverse and black hole origins valid hypothesis on the origins of the universe? To be a valid hypothesis based on sound science and math does not translate to being falsified beyond a reasonable doubt as the hypothesis of evolution is.

element771 would conclude that the rejection of the multiverse is based on 100% science, and it is not a valid hypothesis based on sound science and math including the foolish notion that the current view of science is that our universe has a definitive beginning that represents 'findings of science' that may be used to justify a Theological definitive 'Created' beginning of our physical existence (universe).'

[carpedm9587]

The issue of 'possibilities is the issue you have previously ignored. No 'anything is possible' is a bogus meaningless response. You are splitting frog hairs over word use and definitions, and not addressing the real issues.

An example of an invalid hypothesis would be our universe was created by aliens.

So let's take this one. Can you outline an experiment that would show this hypothesis to be true or untrue? Claiming it is "invalid" suggests you think it has been shown to be untrue. How was this done?

Are the hypothesis concerning the multiverse and black hole origins valid hypothesis on the origins of the universe? To be a valid hypothesis based on sound science and math does not translate to being falsified beyond a reasonable doubt as the hypothesis of evolution is.

I have no idea how you define "hypothesis" and what it takes (for you) for a hypothesis to be "valid." A hypothesis is a proposed explanation. It is confirmed or refuted by experimentation of one sort or another.

element771 would conclude that the rejection of the multiverse is based on 100% science, and it is not a valid hypothesis based on sound science and math including the foolish notion that the current view of science is that our universe has a definitive beginning that represents 'findings of science' that may be used to justify a Theological definitive 'Created' beginning of our physical existence (universe).'

Again, your use of "valid" in this context is perplexing. You seem to sometimes use it to suggest a hypothesis that has been shown to be true, and sometimes you seem to use it to refer to a hypothesis that is "possible." It might be best if you begin by defining your terms a bit more clearly.

[element771]

element771 would conclude that the rejection of the multiverse is based on 100% science, and it is not a valid hypothesis based on sound science and math including the foolish notion that the current view of science is that our universe has a definitive beginning that represents 'findings of science' that may be used to justify a Theological definitive 'Created' beginning of our physical existence (universe).'

You should listen to Carp on this one. Your use of the word hypothesis is problematic. Hypotheses do not demonstrate anything.

Also, I do not reject the multiverse because of science...I am weary of the multiverse explanation because it (as of now) by definition cannot be empirically tested which I think it essential for any scientific idea.

And the current view of science is that the universe had a beginning whether you like it or not. I am sorry if this doesn't fit with your religious agenda.

[shunyadragon]

So let's take this one. Can you outline an experiment that would show this hypothesis to be true or untrue? Claiming it is "invalid" suggests you think it has been shown to be untrue. How was this done?



I have no idea how you define "hypothesis" and what it takes (for you) for a hypothesis to be "valid." A hypothesis is a proposed explanation. It is confirmed or refuted by experimentation of one sort or another.



Again, your use of "valid" in this context is perplexing. You seem to sometimes use it to suggest a hypothesis that has been shown to be true, and sometimes you seem to use it to refer to a hypothesis that is "possible." It might be best if you begin by defining your terms a bit more clearly.

By the way your use of terminology is atrocious. Theories and hypothesis are not found to be conclusively true nor untrue. They are subject to be falsified by scientific methods and revision if they are found wanting, or discarded when the the object evidence fails to justify continued research to falsify the hypothesis.

I need not define anything more clearly. A valid hypothesis need not be conclusively falsified. Their are definite academic standards for the validity of a hypothesis, and one is not that the hypothesis is conclusively falsified. Almost all hypothesis concerning the origins of our universe are open to revision and not conclusively falsified, and remain valid hypothesis.

There are different criteria for determining the validity of the different kinds of hypothesis. They are From: statistical, construct, external, internal.

https://quizlet.com/108098553/resear...y-flash-cards/

Your still dodging my specific questions in the previous post.

[carpedm9587]

By the way your use of terminology is atrocious. Theories and hypothesis are not found to be conclusively true nor untrue. They are subject to be falsified by scientific methods and revision if they are found wanting, or discarded when the the object evidence fails to justify continued research to falsify the hypothesis.

I need not define anything more clearly. A valid hypothesis need not be conclusively falsified. Their are definite academic standards for the validity of a hypothesis, and one is not that the hypothesis is conclusively falsified. Almost all hypothesis concerning the origins of our universe are open to revision and not conclusively falsified, and remain valid hypothesis.

There are different criteria for determining the validity of the different kinds of hypothesis. They are From: statistical, construct, external, internal.

https://quizlet.com/108098553/resear...y-flash-cards/

Your still dodging my specific questions in the previous post.

What on earth is it with so many here and the perennial "dodging" accusation? I didn't answer your question because your use of "valid hypothesis" did not align with my understanding of that term, so I asked you to define it for me, as you were using it. My understanding of the validity of a hypothesis is well captured here. You'll note that "valid" has everything to do with the structure of the hypothesis and its amenability to scientific experimentation.

So, the theory that the universe arose from a singularity (which is what I assume you mean by "black hole") is a valid hypothesis, and one that has been empirically tested and there is significant support for it. As best science can ever declare something "true," it is considered "true." However, there is no "valid" hypothesis I know of for the origins of the singularity itself. Since the universe arises from the singularity, that lack leaves us with an open question about the actual origins of the universe. The same is true for multiverse theory. Two requirements for a hypothesis to be valid are missing: test-ability and empirical verification.

[shunyadragon]

What on earth is it with so many here and the perennial "dodging" accusation? I didn't answer your question because your use of "valid hypothesis" did not align with my understanding of that term, so I asked you to define it for me, as you were using it. My understanding of the validity of a hypothesis is well captured here. You'll note that "valid" has everything to do with the structure of the hypothesis and its amenability to scientific experimentation.

So, the theory that the universe arose from a singularity (which is what I assume you mean by "black hole") is a valid hypothesis, and one that has been empirically tested and there is significant support for it. As best science can ever declare something "true," it is considered "true." However, there is no "valid" hypothesis I know of for the origins of the singularity itself. Since the universe arises from the singularity, that lack leaves us with an open question about the actual origins of the universe. The same is true for multiverse theory. Two requirements for a hypothesis to be valid are missing: test-ability and empirical verification.

The reference I gave did not offer a criteria for the validity of a hypothesis being falsified as true nor untrue.

Example: the various hypothesis for a Big Bang hypothesis have not been conclusively falsified and it is possible that there never was a singularity.

I doubt seriously that the many scientists working on the various or even many different hypothesis concerning the origins would consider their hypothesis invalid.

Your still in the left field stand trying to catch foul balls.

[carpedm9587]

The reference I gave did not offer a criteria for the validity of a hypothesis being falsified as true nor untrue.

Nor did I say that being falsified was a requirement for validity. However, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable to be a valid hypothesis.

Example: the various hypothesis for a Big Bang hypothesis have not been conclusively falsified and it is possible that there never was a singularity.

Possible, but the scientific evidence for the Big Bang is significant, so the hypothesis is currently considered "proven" to the degree that it is possible for science to "prove" anything. The predictions made on the basis of that hypothesis have consistently been shown to be accurate.

I doubt seriously that the many scientists working on the various or even many different hypothesis concerning the origins would consider their hypothesis invalid.

If they are good scientists, and their hypothesis does not meet the five criteria articulated by the previous link, then they would know if their hypothesis is a valid one or not. If there is no known way to falsify their hypothesis, then it is not a scientific hypothesis. It's just an idea. It goes in the same bucket at intelligent design.

Your still in the left field stand trying to catch foul balls.

Yeah, I know. But what can I do? That's all you keep hitting...

Seriously, going back to your previous posts, I find that you use the expression "different types of hypothesis" but then you return to scientists. The issue appears to be somewhat confused. Since the discussion concerns science and the term scientist keeps being used, by responses have been about scientific hypotheses. If you are discussing hypotheses in other fields, then there would be other criteria for validity. In science, falsifiability is an absolute requirement for a hypothesis to be considered valid.

[shunyadragon]

Nor did I say that being falsified was a requirement for validity. However, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable to be a valid hypothesis.

You contradict yourself. Later in the post you made that requirement that valid hypothesis must be falsifiable. In terms of the hypothesis for he origins of our universe and the greater cosmos it is unknown and that is not the criteria for their hypothesis. It is the validity of the objective evidence and the math models that determine the validity of the math models.

In science it is the validity of the hypothesis to meet the process of falsifiability and not the fact that the hypothesis that it is ultimately falsifiable that is the requirement. The requirement is whether there is objective verifiable evidence, ie Quantum Mechanics, and math models to support that cosmological hypothesis.

Possible, but the scientific evidence for the Big Bang is significant, so the hypothesis is currently considered "proven" to the degree that it is possible for science to "prove" anything. The predictions made on the basis of that hypothesis have consistently been shown to be accurate.

You terminology for science remains atrocious, theories and hypothesis are not proven, and there is no degree of 'proof' for theories and hypothesis.

The 'Big Bang Models are not remotely considered 'proven (yuck! yuch!!). There are competing models such as the cyclic universe, and the 'Black Hole' models that fit the objective evidence and math models. All of these hypothesis likewise are compatable with the 'possible' multiverse models for the greater cosmos.

If they are good scientists, and their hypothesis does not meet the five criteria articulated by the previous link, then they would know if their hypothesis is a valid one or not. If there is no known way to falsify their hypothesis, then it is not a scientific hypothesis. It's just an idea. It goes in the same bucket at intelligent design.

Good scientists?!?! What a subjective mousy description of the preeminent scientists in physics and cosmology. They are not the judge alone as to the validity of their hypothesis. It is the peer review process, and the continuously evolving research concerning the validity of their hypothesis that ultimately determine if the hypothesis is valid.

For the hypothesis concerning the origins of the universe, and the greater cosmos it is unknown at present whether they are falsifiable or not. The hypothesis are based on the known evidence from Quantum Mechanics, observations of our own universe, and math models. There are different competing hypothesis that at present fit the evidence. Over time some hypothesis may be rejected, replaced and modified to fit the evolving knowledge of science, but because of the nature of the limits of the objective verifiable concerning the ultimate origins of the cosmos it is very unlikely that, the best hypothesis will be ever concluded as falsified.

Your comparison with'Intelligent Design' puts you in the same bucket with the 'fundamentalist Christians.' Hypothesis for the origins of the universe and the greater cosmos are based on objective verifiable evidence of Quantum Mechanics and math models, and "Intelligent Design" is ONLY based on a religious agenda without any objective verifiable evidence.

Yeah, I know. But what can I do? That's all you keep hitting...

Not all, but nonetheless you are dodging responding to this.

Seriously, going back to your previous posts, I find that you use the expression "different types of hypothesis" but then you return to scientists. The issue appears to be somewhat confused. Since the discussion concerns science and the term scientist keeps being used, by responses have been about scientific hypotheses. If you are discussing hypotheses in other fields, then there would be other criteria for validity. In science, falsifiability is an absolute requirement for a hypothesis to be considered valid.

Disagree, the source I gave covers scientific hypothesis. Some of the criteria for the validity of hypothesis overlaps in relation to scientific hypothesis.