From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 16:40:02 MDT
[LhyR of Chaos]
yes, that is precisely what the big bang theory argues, but in recent years stephen hawking has been striving to get people to stop using the big bang theory as a model for how all things came to be. he realized that it is too simple of an answer, or rather, that his theory (while a pretty good one) was wrong: the big bang was not the source of all things in reality, just the source for a lot of it. it does not explain the presence of dark matter, as just one example.
[rhinoceros]
Interesting... Since the big bang theory is practically the only scientific theory in use today, what exactly did Hawking say? Any links?
[LhyR of Chaos]
yes it would be a breach in logic to require proof of a negative, but...
<SNIP theological discussion for now>
In fact, what cannot be proved in the empirical sciences is not the negative statements. If you think of it, you can always rephrase a negative statement to make it positive.
The statements which *can* be logically proved are the statements of existence, and the ones which *cannot* be proved are the universal statements. A scientific theory is usually a universal statement for what it covers, so it cannot really be proved. It can only be disproved (falsified) -- and this is exactly what makes it a "scientific theory about the real world" according to Popper: the fact that it is falsifiable.
Also, remember that the negative of a universal statement is an existential statement, and vice versa (De Moivre's rules). For example.
All things fall to the ground <--> There is at least one which doesn't.
The first one cannot be "proved", it can only be verified with examples. But the second one can be proved; you only have to point at such a thing and you have proved it.
The statement "There is a god" is the one which allows for proof, since it is an existential one, not its negative. But this is the least problem... what is more important is that it is hardly a well defined statement, and although one can improvise to come up with a "god" that he can point at, nobody has.
[LhyR of Chaos]
okay. here is a mathmatical paradox to disprove my former statement that something cannot come from nothing (hypocrisy, i know, but i'm working on untangling this knot in my head)
zero to the power of itself equals one. i have been flunked from an advanced math class in high school for explaining the principle of this to my fellow students. anything to the power of zero equals one, because *something* was calculated, even though it was infinitely minute. it is easier to say one than an infinitely small unit of one. as something is calculated when zero is taken to the power of itself, the same infinetly small unit occurs. zero can be made to generate one.
then again, as zero IS, it could be argued that zero isn't nothing. but it is a representation of nothing, since it is a representation and not the nothing itself, it is something already, just waiting to be turned into something else (one).
[rhinoceros]
Zero to the zero power... a very interesting problem.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.to.0.power.html
I wouldn's assign such philosophical significance to it. In fact, the exponential function is not even continuous at 0, which normally would mean that 0^0 is undefined. 0^0=1 is more a matter of convention. It is convenient in many cases and makes things more elegant. The arguments in the above link are mostly about what 0^0 *should* be.
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29542> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 16:40:15 MDT