An attack on modern science (The limitations of science)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, January 30, 2015, 21:33 (3583 days ago) @ dhw

dhw's arguments contain his usual hidden assumptions or misconceptions.-"You are of course free to choose your own definition, but the emphasis in all of these is on what now exists. They do not exclude a before or earlier universes."-I consider Time to be just as much a part of the universe as Space and matter and energy. dhw believes in an absolute Time within which the universe exists or comes into existence. I maintain that this concept is nonsensical. Postulating earlier universes (or phases of the universe as I would prefer to say) does not get rid of the problem of the origin of Time, it just puts it back further. Putting it back to an infinite regression with no origin is what I would characterise as "occult" thinking.-"Your aversion to infinity, and authoritative statements that there is no such thing as infinity or eternity or before or outside are as speculative and as unprovable as all the different theories about how we got here."-The logical difficulties with concepts of infinity cannot be dismissed out of hand like this. They are well known and not at all speculative or unprovable. -Here is an interesting discussion on mathematical philosophy that touches on such issues, though I realise it may be rather heavy going!-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uWS7Kwau1A&feature=youtu.be-"But I must confess I'm disappointed that you've rejected the statistical support that previous universes would offer for your faith that chance could assemble the ingredients for life. Ah well, I did my best!"-This is the old "faith in chance" nonsense again! We've argued this before at length, so I'm reluctant to go over it all again.

--
GPJ