Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, February 14, 2015, 21:12 (3570 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There seem to be new theories coming out practically every day, and I'm surprised that you of all people should think you are obliged to follow opinions that are “currently accepted”.
DAVID: Just as there are critical blogs about everything, the science industry is no different. The authors of the quantum piece got such fierce blowback they have changed their article to an 'hypothesis', not a theory. This is a far out idea, and I think you should remember I read lots of this stuff and have a wall bookcase filled with over two hundred books. The change by the authors doesn't surprise me at all. I have to form my opinions based on the judgment of authors and scientists whom appear well-reasoned to me. -I would hate to have to draw a borderline between theory and hypothesis when it comes to the apparently insoluble mystery of origins. Please don't misunderstand my comments on this subject. I have the utmost admiration for your scholarship (I still don't know how you manage to keep up with all these developments!), and for your reasoning as far as it goes, but when we come to the crunch, you are the first to admit that your conclusions rely on a massive leap of faith. Our next exchange illustrates precisely why what appears “well-reasoned” to you is an argument based on an existing premise:
 
dhw: Do you think your opinion that God created the universe and started life so that it would lead to humans, which he did by preprogramming the first cells and/or dabbling, conforms to majority opinion and is currently accepted? Of course you don't. 
DAVID: If you talk to a majority of Christians they will agree with me to varying degrees.-Why do you regard “the majority of Christians” as representative of currently accepted, majority opinion? Most theists will agree with you “to varying degrees” that God is behind the creation of life and the universe. If you talk to a majority of atheists, they will agree to varying degrees with Dawkins.
Under “Free Will”, we had the following exchangeAVID: A radio receiver illusion:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/social-brain-social-mind/201203/free-will-weighing...-dhw: What a stimulating post! He covers just about every point we've discussed ourselves, but I find it very reassuring when scientists in a particular field are prepared to challenge what elsewhere you have described as the “currently accepted” view. 
DAVID: Looking for this type of comment is like panning for gold.-So it doesn't represent the currently accepted majority opinion. But you and I welcome it - in your case, perhaps because we have here a specialist who appears to be on your side; in my case because he calls for open-mindedness. I'm afraid I remain highly suspicious of currently accepted views when they claim to solve the mystery of origins and of consciousness, and if scientists come up with a hypothesis that the BB never happened and the universe is eternal, I would expect a kerfuffle but I would not dismiss it just because it goes against current majority opinion.