Physics and Tautology.

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

Physics and Tautology.
=.
1
Where did the masses for ‘ big bang ‘ come from ?
These masses came from surrounding space.
2
Where did these masses from surrounding space come from ?
These masses came from ‘big bang’.
===.
Why he is poor ?
Because he is stupid.
Why he is stupid?
Because he is poor.
===.

[Brian Tenneson]

Isn't every (alleged) proof of something's truth just a list of things (steps) implied by the previous statement until one arrives at the final statement...a tautology?
Briefly: isn't every proof just a (possibly lengthy) list of tautologies?
Therefore, using that notion, calling out alleged proofs of masses coming from (or not coming from) the big bang and what not specifically is, actually, redundant.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[ronaldheld]

If this universe has zero net energy charge and angular momemtum, I see no problem being created via a chaotic inflation scenario.

[Stephen P. King]

Hi Ronald,

    I have a severe problem with this entire thread!

    What exactly determines the particular properties, such as charge, angular momentum, mass, etc., of this universe? Why are we assuming that the choice of what went into the zero net sum is a prior definite and constrained. The question of the universe here is not so simple that it can be represented the same way that we can note that 1 - 1 = 0. Even in arithmetic model, we have to offer within our explanations what where the summands that let to the sum of net zero. For example, 5 - 5 = 0, 4 - 4 = 0, etc. x - x = 0. What is x? We cannot assume without discussion what is x!
    It seems to me that this entire thread is infected with post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and we should reconsider exactly what is being contemplated. I suggest reading of a good book on Cosmology, such as "Principles of Physical Cosmology" by Phillip James Edwin Peebles, where one finds a very nice discussion of these issues of without the nonsense of logical fallacies.

On 8/2/2012 2:49 PM, ronaldheld wrote:

If this universe has zero net energy charge and angular momemtum, I see no problem being created via a chaotic inflation scenario.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 
~ Francis Bacon

[meekerdb]

On 8/2/2012 12:18 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi Ronald,

    I have a severe problem with this entire thread!

    What exactly determines the particular properties, such as charge, angular momentum, mass, etc., of this universe?

They are conserved quantities, so if they are zero now it follows that they were zero at the origin, which suggests the universe came from nothing.

Why are we assuming that the choice of what went into the zero net sum is a prior definite and constrained. The question of the universe here is not so simple that it can be represented the same way that we can note that 1 - 1 = 0. Even in arithmetic model, we have to offer within our explanations what where the summands that let to the sum of net zero. For example, 5 - 5 = 0, 4 - 4 = 0, etc. x - x = 0. What is x? We cannot assume without discussion what is x!

Sure we can.  That's the advantage of mathematics, x-x=0 regardless of what number is x.

    It seems to me that this entire thread is infected with post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and we should reconsider exactly what is being contemplated. I suggest reading of a good book on Cosmology, such as "Principles of Physical Cosmology" by Phillip James Edwin Peebles, where one finds a very nice discussion of these issues of without the nonsense of logical fallacies.

There's no logical fallacy in noting that a universe that came from nothing should have zero net energy and other conserved quantities. 

Peebles book is pretty old, so it's not going to include knowledge of the CMB from WMAP and COBE or the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating or the holographic principle.  I'd recommend Vic Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos", Sean Carroll's "From Eternity to Here", or Alex Vilenkin's "Many Worlds in One".

Brent

On 8/2/2012 2:49 PM, ronaldheld wrote:

If this universe has zero net energy charge and angular momemtum, I see no problem being created via a chaotic inflation scenario.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 
~ Francis Bacon

--

[Stephen P. King]

On 8/2/2012 5:06 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/2/2012 12:18 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Hi Ronald,

    I have a severe problem with this entire thread!

    What exactly determines the particular properties, such as charge, angular momentum, mass, etc., of this universe?

They are conserved quantities, so if they are zero now it follows that they were zero at the origin, which suggests the universe came from nothing.

Hi Brent,

    I think that that is the consensus opinion of the members of this list.

Why are we assuming that the choice of what went into the zero net sum is a prior definite and constrained. The question of the universe here is not so simple that it can be represented the same way that we can note that 1 - 1 = 0. Even in arithmetic model, we have to offer within our explanations what where the summands that let to the sum of net zero. For example, 5 - 5 = 0, 4 - 4 = 0, etc. x - x = 0. What is x? We cannot assume without discussion what is x!

Sure we can.  That's the advantage of mathematics, x-x=0 regardless of what number is x.

    But do you see my point? Anything and everything can be generated from zero in this way. The hard question is how is it that we only observe a tiny finite fragment of this infinity?

    It seems to me that this entire thread is infected with post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and we should reconsider exactly what is being contemplated. I suggest reading of a good book on Cosmology, such as "Principles of Physical Cosmology" by Phillip James Edwin Peebles, where one finds a very nice discussion of these issues of without the nonsense of logical fallacies.

There's no logical fallacy in noting that a universe that came from nothing should have zero net energy and other conserved quantities. 

    The fallacy is to assume that what is the case must always be the case.

Peebles book is pretty old, so it's not going to include knowledge of the CMB from WMAP and COBE or the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating or the holographic principle.  I'd recommend Vic Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos", Sean Carroll's "From Eternity to Here", or Alex Vilenkin's "Many Worlds in One".

    Nah. I like Pebbles because it is hard nose empiricism and openly so. No speculations unless labeled as such.

[socr...@bezeqint.net]

Physics and Tautology.
=.
1
Where did the masses for ‘ big bang ‘ come from ?
These masses came from surrounding space.
2
Where did these masses from surrounding space come from ?
These masses came from ‘big bang’.
===.

Why is he poor ?
Because he is stupid.
Why is he stupid?

Because he is poor.
===.

The ‘big bang’ doesn’t give answer to the question:
where did the mass come from ?
To understand this we need go out from ‘ big bang’ .
But ‘ the big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened
at the very beginning of our universe. Prior to that moment there
was nothing;’
So, . . where do we go out ?
==.
Israel Socratus.

========…

So, . . where do we go out ?
==.
If we go out of mass then it can be only one possibility -
- we will enter into an empty space.
==.
‘ A world without masses, without electrons, without an
electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty
world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles
appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world
becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is,
non- Euclidian.’
/ Book ‘Albert Einstein’ The page 116 . by Leopold Infeld. /

==.