So. the Big Bang looks to not be a fact. Now what?

There isn't a place where there is "nothing".

A perfect vacuum within our universe would not be a "nothing". It would still be part of space/time.

 

The big bang theory is justified by evidence of several different kinds, coming together to confirm this phenomenon.

I don't see physicists identifying any other explanation of our universe that has that kind of verification by evidence.

 

it's weakened by evidence observed by this telescope.

I think for you this is more of a religious belief.

It was based on science you would look at the pictures in the telescope and say you know what that does undermine it.

 

I think your first sentence is the most important one here, and I'll get to that.

Physicists don't agree with your interpretation of Popper. I'll show a link, but gotta run!

The rest is true for science, as any theory could be falsified by finding evidence that would show the theory to be wrong.

 

Seeing I saw a ghost yesterday it's not responsible because you can't prove there are no ghosts. Seeing something like gravity is a myth is falsifiable if you find something that isn't affected by gravity.

 

I've never heard of any "theory to law" committee, except in popular use.

For example lots of folks talk about the "law of gravity" but u talk to a specialist in the field and u'll get a lot of "well, some say the gravitational force exists and others say it's only the curvature of space/time and for the medium scale Newton's equations are good enough but technically the relativistic effects are there not to mention all the..."

Science is never settled, except in politics or some other non-scientific arena.

 

Theoretical reality says where you have something you always have the possibility of nothing.
Shed the concerns about the "somethings" and try to imagine ...absolutely ...nothing.

 

Why imagining things that are imaginary are not relevant.

 

Humans are incapable of imagining nothing.

 

It just takes a bit of meditation and the shedding of the habitual.

 

The best any person can do is imagine empty space. We have no concept of nothing. There is no where in the universe we can go to view nothing.

 

The opposite of a true "nothing" is NOT some specific thing. Your "nothing" just doesn't have the information required to be the opposite of what you want it to be.

 

You said a lot more, obviously, but this is a rather constant complaint and I've argued the same position you hold here. However, I've made an effort to better understand the issue, and have since changed my mind.

So, here are comments by a noted theoretical physicist who is also seriously interested in philosophy of science.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2018/01/17/beyond-falsifiability/

This is a piece of his comment on a paper that he wrote:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.05016.pdf

The site "arxiv" (pronounced as archive) is used by physicists and some others to post serious papers that are not yet published.

 

How woke of you.

 

So, philosophers are saying that not all science is falsifiable, because there exists scientific philosophers? That’s a circular reference.

if you cannot use the scientific process/method past step 1, “state your hypothesis,” it’s not science. Were that true, anyone could make any outlandish/unprovable claim and call it science. IOW, religion is science, under that definition.

 

Well, you should be happy with arxiv, then.

 

Well, I think the focus is more one of how difficult questions are handled.

Plus, I suspect some of the outlandish/unprovable claims do come with claims that they could be falsified.

One of the stronger gate keepers is the differential importance given to theories that have a consistent track record of guidance in continued exploration of our universe.

For example, physicists today don't understand how quantum mechanics works, so maybe Popper wouldn't consider it science - not sure. But, the consistent correctness of outcomes where quantum mechanics is used make it one of the more important theories we have.

Also, I don't see any evidence of religion becoming science. From the perspective of science, the existence of God is a failed theory, for solid reasons of science regardless of concern about falsifiability.

 

Well, perhaps testable is a better word. They are performing all kinds of experiments with quantum physics. The act of experimenting to gain knowledge and understanding is the essence of science.

There’s no way to test for a multi verse, hence, it’s more philosophical than science. It’s fascinating, to be sure.

 

Well, theoretical physicists are constantly testing their ideas by the methods available. A lot of that has to do with mathematical consistency, whether it results in universes such as ours, etc. It is not a field of free form untested ideas that are all considered equal.

For example, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics derives directly from Schrodinger's equation - a well tested fundamental of quantum mechanics that is supported by evidence.

In fact, "many worlds" is the most straight forward interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Opposing that interpretation requires additions made by physicists to make quantum mechanics look like it supports a single universe model, or some variant of string theory, or whatever.

Here's a description of many worlds by theoretical physicist Sean Carroll:


This is still complex - it's quantum mechanics, after all. But, ideas such as superposition are part of quantum mechanics and not specific to many worlds.

 

What ur missing is self-discipline, it becomes a spiritual problem. Do we really care about what is or are we too much in love w/ our own egos?

People who "say" that we can't imagine nothing have simply chosen not to do so and they refuse to admit the fact that many others got no problem in that regard.

 

The "something " has always been there but it has two faces. Being and not being.
Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not.

 

Yes, I got that part. My suggestion was that once something flips to "nothing", there is no information that would allow it to reconstitute itself to being what it used to be.

Maybe you have a different idea of what "nothing" would be.

 

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who understands nothing more than almost everyone, says we cannot picture nothing. You can block your mind so you see nothing but black; that's something, though. Nothing means no wave lengths, no microwaves , nothing. An empty box is not nothing; it's filled with air. Even if you can picture only air, it's still not nothing. You have no idea how to picture nothing. You see nothing when you are asleep and not in REM. Of course, at that point, you don't even know you are alive.

I guess if that's what you mean, yes, we can all know nothing when we are dead asleep and not in REM.

 

I'm not so sure that "can't imagine nothing" is the problem.

Surely the problem has more to do with how a true "nothing" could possibly contribute to answering any question we have.

 

By the concept of duality it contains the possibility of becoming something.
Like the toss of a coin.
It can land on either surface.