Big Bang theory a religion - Getting Einstein to Say "I Was Wrong"

[Count Lucanor]

After decades in public forums, dealing with the authority of moderators, which are imperfect humans as anyone else, and as such, can abuse their powers for reasons only found in the intricate mysteries of the human condition, I can easily sympathize with you. I know what the feeling is and how the whole situation resembles a kind of institutionalized, bureaucratic environment, where dissent is rapidly dissolved with apparently impersonal, objective administrative measures. It's like a Kafka novel. But ultimately, there's nothing really as systematic as it may seem.

While that may be so, and I certainly didn't intend to suggest a conspiracy, a systematic tendency is something that can be perceived to be the case when sufficient incidents give a mere rise for consideration of such.

The cited incidents are of such a nature that it would justify such a consideration.

Instead of a 'closure' which is normally done, the post (an apparent popular and qualitative discussion with dozens of participants) was 'deleted'. And upon a next - decent written - post about the use of ESP for Cosmology, my account was banned.

I have perceived many similar questionable incidents and it simply caused me to wonder what could be an explanation.

In my very first forum I created a topic which discussed the claims about the existence of gods. It became the most popular and longest running topic in that forum, in a time when the subject was hardly discussed locally. It was rich with posts from both sides of the issue, but one day the moderator, which some of us got to know who he was (it's a small country), and his Christian affiliations, wiped out the entire thread. His rationale: he was just freeing up space!! No one would suggest it was part of a systematic effort from Christians groups to control discussions sensitive to their beliefs.

With regard the story about Albert Einstein. The questions asked seem valid and whether or not it concerns a conspiracy, the questions remain to be answered.

What was his motive?

I don't share your concern and level of suspicion in the Hubble/Einstein issue. Einstein's change of mind can be explained as a gradual process and by different motives, and there's nothing strange about it, only if one wants to force an explanation to fit the narrative of a conspiracy.

What about the additional fact that Albert Einstein's profound critical stance with regard the expanding Universe theory - two years after the discovery by Edwin Hubble - was just a year before he 'suddenly' admitted to priest Lemaître that he was wrong.

Einstein then uses the public argument that he was convinced by 'listening' to a beautiful creation story, and then, which in my opinion is exceptionally questionable in the face of the preceding facts - for example the habitual misspelling of Edwin Hubble's name in a scientific paper that was mysteriously lost and found in Jerusalem half a century later - joins priest Lemaître on a tour across the USA to promote the Big Bang theory.

I do not agree that the above information is suggestive of a conspiracy or that it is justified to argue that the facts - when seen in combination - are not questionable.

The question "what was Einstein's motive to promote the Big Bang theory?" seems valid, relevant, unanswered (I have spent several years on it already) and potentially also important.

I don't think there's convincing arguments to show that the motives behind Einstein's change of mind remain unanswered. It may be still the subject of speculation, but one should not get carried away with speculations. In the same article you posted from Physics Central it is said that Einstein changed his mind gradually. Misspelling Hubble's name can easily mean that he had not paid that much attention to him as the myth said.

[psyreporter]

Misspelling Hubble's name can easily mean that he had not paid that much attention to him as the myth said.

That myth would be 'the official story' and the argument that he simply didn't pay much attention is not justified. It is very important to not be lax in the face of this and understand that it means that the question about the motive is completely unanswered.

It was two years after Hubble's discoveries and the evidence shows that there was a publicity force at play in which it was said that Hubble's discovery had changed Albert Einstein's mind.

"headlines across the country [USA] lit up, claiming that Einstein had been converted to a believer in an expanding universe."

The misspelling - two years later - does not look like an accident.

Besides this information, it is seen that Albert Einstein had been a persistent opponent of the expanding Universe theory in the years after the media hype about his conversion into a believer.

"Two years after Hubble's discovery - [Albert Einstein] highlighted a major shortcoming of the expanding universe theory.... This was a major sticking point for Einstein. The idea of an expanding universe had been kicking around for several years at that point, but each time a physicist approached Einstein about it, he would dismiss the theory."

A year later Albert Einstein would join a priest on a tour across the USA to promote the expanding Universe theory. The public announcement about his conversion into 'a believer' mentions specifically that he was convinced after 'listening' to a beautiful creation story.

"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," Einstein said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career."

[Angelo Cannata]

upon a next - decent written - post about the use of ESP for Cosmology, my account was banned.

Cosmology is science, science needs repeatable phenomenons. What is repeatable in ESP?

[psyreporter]

At question might be, is the certainty aspect that is inherent in the idea repeatability that enables the concept to function as a qualitative differentiator for the foundation of 'scientific evidence', plausible?

It is known that science cannot explain consciousness as of today which could be an indication that that certainty aspect - which is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism - is not plausible.

(2022) The philosopher’s zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness?
The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness.
https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-the-zom ... sciousness


With Quantum Post Selection, consciousness can exert a physical effect on physical reality backwards in time (in the past). Such a phenomenon could be experienced as something paranormal as seen from a human perspective.

Scientists introduce new cosmic connectivity: Quantum pigeonhole paradox
"With the new kind of quantum linkages which we have introduced, the particles don't have to interact in the past. In fact, they have no idea that the other particle even existed," said Jeff Tollaksen, Director of the Institute for Quantum Studies at Chapman University.

Aharonov found that Nature gains something very beautiful and exciting with this indeterminism: the present is not only affected by the past but it is also affected by the future. That is, the future (also known as post-selection) can come back to the present (like in the movie "Back to the Future").
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 132526.htm

When it concerns ESP and parapsychology, it may concern the use of yet unknown abilities in Nature for humanly purposes.

Principled suppression seems totally irresponsible and potentially catastrophic for human progress in the face of the information available.

https://parapsychology.org/
https://espresearch.com/
https://www.irva.org/ (non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to promoting the responsible use and development of remote viewing)

[Angelo Cannata]

I think you have confused some things while attempting to answer my question.

At question might be, is the certainty aspect that is inherent in the idea repeatability that enables the concept to function as a qualitative differentiator for the foundation of 'scientific evidence', plausible?

Repeatability is appreciated by science not because it gives certainty, but because it makes worth spending resources in studying it. Science has nothing to do with certainty: certainty is what is sought by metaphysics and other philosophies. For example, Descartes, with his “I think, therefore I am” was this way seeking for certainty. That Descartes’ research has nothing to do with science and he knew this very vell: he made that research exactly to overcome the inability of science to reach certainty.
In science we should not confuse certainty with amount of evidence and repeatability: for example, we have a lot of evidence that water boils at a certain temperature, under certain conditions and everybody can check it whenever they want simply by putting water in the same conditions. This does not mean that we have the certainty that water boils under those conditions. Maybe tomorrow something will show that we were wrong and all the evidence needs to be reinterpreted in a completely different way. Nonetheless, the amount of evidence and its repeatability makes it worth to be considered scientific, that is, as an element to make science. Scientific does not mean certain.
So, I talked about repeatabiltiy, let’s keep on repeatability and don’t turn it in a discussion about certainty.

The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness

Science cannot explain not only consciousness, but anything. Science does not give explanations, science gives evidence of connections. Explanation is interpretation, that is something left to other things, such as philosophy. When I say that water boils under certain conditions, this does not mean that science has explained the phenomenon of boiling water. Science has found evidence and repeatability that whenever we create those conditions, in water, then it boils. This is not explanation or interpretation, this is evidence of connections: if we connect certains conditions with water, the result is that water boils. Maybe tomorrow we will discover, as I said, that what makes it boil is something else and we need to explain the entire phenomenon differently. This does not make it not scientific, exactly because what makes science scientific is not explanations, it is connections, evidence, repeatability.
Similarly to the concept of certainty, the concepts of explanation and interpretation are rather philosophical concepts and I know that there is a lot of confusion about this. Rather, science can be considered like a giant repository, a giant database, of experiments and connections of experiments that anybody can repeat. You choose how to interpret those experiments.
Science makes use of words like certainty, explanation, interpretation, because frequently science is not very strict in its language and concepts, and this creates confusion, even among professional scientists and philosophers. But let’s be exact here, in order to avoid confusion.

With Quantum Post Selection, consciousness can exert a physical effect on physical reality backwards in time (in the past). Such a phenomenon could be experienced as something paranormal as seen from a human perspective.

Scientists introduce new cosmic connectivity: Quantum pigeonhole paradox
"With the new kind of quantum linkages which we have introduced, the particles don't have to interact in the past. In fact, they have no idea that the other particle even existed," said Jeff Tollaksen, Director of the Institute for Quantum Studies at Chapman University.

Aharonov found that Nature gains something very beautiful and exciting with this indeterminism: the present is not only affected by the past but it is also affected by the future. That is, the future (also known as post-selection) can come back to the present (like in the movie "Back to the Future").

Now that we have clarified the concepts of certainty, interpretation, explanation, we can see that the questions about quantum phisics are very similar: it doesn’t matter how strange and how confused the results of quantum physics research are, it doesn’t matter if they contradict the ideas of existence, time, past, present future, anything. What is important is if in quantum physics there are phenomenons that we can repeat. If there aren’t, then quantum physics is not physics, is not science. If there are, quantum physics is science. For example, if we find a repeatable phenomenon were 2+2=5, it doesn’t matter how absurd it is; what matters is if it can be repeated; if it can be repeated, then 2+2=5 is matter of science; if it cannot, it isn’t.

Principled suppression seems totally irresponsible and potentially catastrophic for human progress in the face of the information available.

Science doesn’t suppress anything, doesn’t forbid anybody to make their research. Science has just the problem of having limited resources, so that it cannot afford dealing with everything; it needs to make a strict selection with strict criteria and one criterion is repeatability. If something cannot be repeated, it is not forbidden to cultivate it, explore, even to advert it. For example, science does not forbid art, religion, spirituality. The problem is when sombody claims that their art, or religion, or spirituality are scientifically based. Then science needs to clarified that they are not scientifically based. But not being scientifically based does not mean not valuable, not serious, not good. I think that nobody in the world can say that Mozart, or faith in God, or meditation are ridiculous things: those who say this are just ignorant about these thing. but they are not science.

So, going back to the topic, ESP can be something important, valuable and interesting. Problems arise if you say that it is scientifically based. It would be like saying that the cost of a painting of Van Gogh must be exactly 3,000,000 dollars because there are scientific reasons to determine exactly that price.

[Astro Cat]

I've started making my response posts to the cosmology stuff here:



I'm skipping the "did Einstein change his mind" stuff because I really don't find it important. Hence why I made a new post so those that want to engage on the Einstein stuff can do that here.

[Astro Cat]

Clicked the wrong button for link: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18052

[psyreporter]

For example, if we find a repeatable phenomenon were 2+2=5, it doesn’t matter how absurd it is; what matters is if it can be repeated; if it can be repeated, then 2+2=5 is matter of science; if it cannot, it isn’t.

The idea that repeatability in time can function as a qualitative differentiator is only possible with assumption of certainty in time.

While utilitarian value of repeatability in time can be made evident by the 'success' of science and while it would be possible argue that a 'certainty factor' isn't at question - which you do - when it concerns the usage of the idea as a guiding principle or when it concerns concepts such as values, metaphysics or morality, it would become important.

Usefulness of a model of the world is merely utilitarian value and cannot logically be a basis for values or metaphysics since that would concern what is essential for utilitarian value to be possible (a priori or “before value”).

When it concerns consciousness, paranormal or metaphysics it may concern aspects that precede all time on a fundamental level (e.g. non-local).

(2019) Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by philosopher David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.
https://sites.duke.edu/behavior/2019/04 ... f-science/

Science doesn’t suppress anything, doesn’t forbid anybody to make their research. Science has just the problem of having limited resources, so that it cannot afford dealing with everything; it needs to make a strict selection with strict criteria and one criterion is repeatability.

Perhaps that is so, but with science it is meant 'Universities, public funding and media coverage' and as can be seen with the incident of the ban on Space.com after a post about ESP, people who research it are sometimes treated badly.

If something cannot be repeated, it is not forbidden to cultivate it, explore, even to advert it. For example, science does not forbid art, religion, spirituality. The problem is when sombody claims that their art, or religion, or spirituality are scientifically based. Then science needs to clarified that they are not scientifically based. But not being scientifically based does not mean not valuable, not serious, not good. I think that nobody in the world can say that Mozart, or faith in God, or meditation are ridiculous things: those who say this are just ignorant about these thing. but they are not science.

It isn't argued that some aspects are science while they aren't. What is argued that there may be phenomenons that cannot addressed with science.

It would concern important concepts such as values, metaphysics and morality.

While your arguments that it is just about money may appear valid, there is evidence for a more fundamental attempt of suppression of philosophy and morality.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.

The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.

Recent perspectives on philosophy by scientists at a forum of Cambridge University, UK provide an example:

Philosophy is bunk.
…

You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of “truth”, preferring “repeatability” as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.
…

Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.
…

Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.
…

Philosophy is a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think – scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we “do” science, nobody “does” philosophy.
…

Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.
…

Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?

As can be seen, from the perspective of science, philosophy, which includes morality, should be abolished for science to flourish.

When science is practised autonomously and intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the 'knowing' of a scientific fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it is not.

It means that there is a dogmatic belief involved (a belief in uniformitarianism) that legitimises autonomous application of science without thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done (i.e. without morality).

[Angelo Cannata]

What do all these things have to do with what I said?

[psyreporter]

I provided a case that science is assuming certainty by its attempt to rid itself of influence of philosophy, i.e. in its attempt to 'overcome' philosophy.

I have provided evidence that such is indeed the case and that it was already perceived to be ongoing at the time of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who wrote about it in one of his books.

Secondly, the suppression of non-scientific deemed practices that is going on isn't merely for financial constraint motives. In fact, in the case of the GMO debate it can be seen that opponents of GMO are publicly declared to be 'anti-science' or engaged in a war on science. It is clearly about something else than financial concerns.

An example paper on the issue:

(2018) “Anti-science zealotry”? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate
The “anti-science” or “war on science” narrative has become popular among science journalists. While there is no question that some opponents of GMOs are biased or ignorant of the relevant facts, the blanket tendency to characterize critics as anti-science or engaged in a war on science is both misguided and dangerous.
https://philpapers.org/rec/BIDAZVPhilPapers | Philosopher Justin B. Biddle (Georgia Institute of Technology)

[psyreporter]

What about the following simple logical concern:

The light of galaxies observed at 13 billion light year distance would need to travel 13 billion years to earth. The galaxies that are observed however, would have had just 750 million years after the Big Bang to have formed, so their age can at most be 750 million years.

How can the light of those galaxies at 13 billion light years distance have travelled to Earth while simple logic would set a limit of their age at 750 million years?

It is questionable that earth would be in the exact centre of 'the Universe' and that in all 360° viewing directions, the maximum distance of objects is ~13 billion light years.

[Angelo Cannata]

I said already that certainty has something to do with philosophy, not with science, but you have again reintroduced this concept pretending that it is needed by science. You also added questions about money, morality, and now another question about the age of galaxies. I asked if there is anything repeatable in ESP, but it seems that you are unable to answer my question; rather, you just change the topic by introducing completely different topics. I don't think I should waste my time with you jumping to different topics and ignoring my question.

[psyreporter]

I said already that certainty has something to do with philosophy, not with science, but you have again reintroduced this concept pretending that it is needed by science. You also added questions about money, morality, and now another question about the age of galaxies. I asked if there is anything repeatable in ESP, but it seems that you are unable to answer my question; rather, you just change the topic by introducing completely different topics. I don't think I should waste my time with you jumping to different topics and ignoring my question.

My answer was that the question wasn't about whether ESP is science. The topic on Space.com did not make such a claim so the problem that you seem to be addressing isn't applicable.

At question would be, which my replies were about, whether it is justified to suppress or attack practices such as ESP or criticism of GMO by declaring those parties 'anti-science' or 'engaged in a war on science'.

The concept repeatability might not be applicable to ESP, consciousness and other concepts, because it concerns an aspect that precedes the potential for a pattern (the potential for a begin).

Further, it is argued that repeatability in science assumes a certainty aspect that is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism. You challenged that claim, but my later reply - with a citation of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche - showed that science without philosophy simply implies a dogmatic belief in a certainty aspect.

Without a certainty aspect, repeatability, no matter how useful it has proven to be (i.e. the 'success' of science), doesn't have the qualitative nature that justifies principled suppression (i.e. it would demand an open mind and awareness of the fact that the practice of science is philosophy which nature is questionable).

[Angelo Cannata]

The concept repeatability might not be applicable to ESP, consciousness and other concepts, because it concerns an aspect that precedes the potential for a pattern (the potential for a begin).

Well, with these words you admitted that ESP has nothing repeatable.
You have no need to add any other questions or topics, I know the limits and problems and weakness of science, there's no need to try to exploit them to hide or to avoid to openly admit that ESP has nothing repeatable.