Is It Correct to Say There is “No” Evidence For the Supernatural Part 2

[PdotdQ]

@Jim

So if pilot wave theory is correct, that would eliminate @PdotdQ’s objection in that thread.

False.

@Jim

I didn’t agree with the idea that the BGV theorem couldn’t establish a universe with a beginning. And I think I put forth plenty of good reasons for my position.

You did not put forth any good reasoning for your position besides “Vilenkin said so”. How could you? You never even read the BGV theorem. With you being allergic to all things mathematical, I doubt you have the ability to. You just read the watered-down pop-sci version of it and think that you ‘understand’ it.

Here’s another thing:

@Jim

And unless he has a way to explain how mechanical formulas in physics can be used as evidence in an abductive inference

The BGV theorem is such a “mechanical formula”, so if you don’t like those, you can’t use the BGV theorem as evidence either!

[Jim]

@PdotdQ

False.

Why? Is it not compatible with relativistic and Newtonian mechanics?

@PdotdQ

You did not put forth any good reasoning for your position besides “Vilenkin said so”. How could you? You never even read the BGV theorem . With you being allergic to all things mathematical, I doubt you have the ability to. You just read the watered-down pop-sci version of it and think that you ‘understand’ it.

I would say your objections are not directed at my reasoning, but simply at the fact that I’m not an elitist academic.

@PdotdQ

The BGV theorem is such a “mechanical formula”, so if you don’t like those, you can’t use the BGV theorem as evidence either!

I don’t. As I see it, it is based on evidence, not evidence itself for an abductive argument.

[PdotdQ]

@Jim

Why? Is it not compatible with relativistic and Newtonian mechanics?

To get to the reason, we need to talk about technical details. Obviously this is impossible because you refused to learn the technicalities.

@Jim

I would say your objections are not directed at my reasoning, but simply at the fact that I’m not an elitist academic.

You don’t even have a “reasoning” that is rigorous enough to be “objected” to. I’m not an elitist academic, but I’m an elitist towards people who don’t know their stuff, academic or not.

I’ll stop replying, I’ll reiterate:

It’s crazy to think that you can talk about the philosophy of physics without understanding physics.

I went to weekly philosophy of physics meetings for the better part of two years; the philosopher of physics all know the physics they are trying to philosophize about. Because I am apparently an elitist academic, I’ll even say that most of them have physics degrees.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Jim

So the expansion, CMBR, and entropy is evidence that infers a beginning.

Evidence can’t infer anything. People infer.

[Jim]

@PdotdQ

To get to the reason, we need to talk about technical details. Obviously this is impossible because you refused to learn the technicalities.

Oh. When I say compatible I mean in a general sense in that particles are just miniature objects, but nonetheless no different generally in how they behave with respect to other larger masses of matter. Of course they would be more sensitive to things like energy fields, but that would also be the case when comparing everyday objects with planets. But fundamentally the particle would be the same matter without all the quantum weirdness associated with the Copenhagen version.

[PdotdQ]

(quote)

@PdotdQ

I’ll stop replying, I’ll reiterate:

It’s crazy to think that you can talk about the philosophy of physics without understanding physics.

[Jim]

Seemed like a reasonable question that wouldn’t require a whole lot of mathematical lingo to answer. Oh well.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Jim

Physics tells us nothing about anything outside of physical existence because that’s outside of what physics can inform us about.

When I said “standard view from physics”, I should instead have said “typical view of physicists”. I’ll grant that those viewpoints do not become part of physics.

@Jim

So to summarize, I would argue that @Rumraket is basically arguing in a convoluted way for the universe as a brute fact.

I don’t see it as convoluted. @Rumraket is simply avoiding jumping to conclusions that are not supportable by the evidence that we have.

@Jim

The problem I find with that line of reasoning, is that it has no explanatory power or scope.

Your alternative also has no explanatory power.