Header Error in blog/2004/2004-09-01-Me, Unable to parse at line 2 (near "date:2004-09-01").

Changa

July
9th

fiction

by: changa


Yes Omar, the big bang is fiction.

Bear with me momentarily.

Facts
are immediately verifiable using empirical data.
Theories
are verifiable using facts and logical deduction.
Hypotheses
are unknowns, hopefully someday verifiable, maybe.
Fiction
is not compared against outside data.

The line between hypothesis and fiction is only intent. A hypothesis is a fictional entity that we hope might be true.

The big bang is still just a hypothesis.

This does not mean it can have no bearing on reality, merely that it's bearing on reality has not yet been established.

No-one can even properly define what the big bang is!

Something from nothing, or something from something else ad nauseum.

Are we the result of a singularity where negative and positive energy are pouring out into opposite ends of the universe (or separate universes, since theres no interaction) in a balanced reaction that will continue to spread matter and energy out forever?

Or are we part of a limited closed system, but with mass that continues to expand outwards from explosive force and fall back inward due to gravity?

Or...?

Omar wrote:

"If something cannot be cross-verified, it cannot be refuted." so by that you mean that the bigbang, that singularity from which the universe evolved into what we see today, is irrefutable, right?

"that is, fiction is self-contained and always "true" but science must be always refer back to empirical data and be confirmed." so is the big bang fiction? by what empirical data would you prove such theory? what methodology? and then how would you sidestep the very scientific question of: what was there before that?

"of course, truly brilliant scientific leaps may spend huge spans of time in the realm of fiction before confirmation is made, but in the end it is the confirmation that matters." what is a theory then?are they fiction? what is "true" and verifiable, quantum mechanics (where components to the theory have yet to be observed and rest solely as mathematical entities) or einstein's relativity? not one or the other encompasses the entire spectrum of reality and yet it is predicted that within 50 years a unified theory will be reached which includes things like string theory. funny how many theories are needed to make sense of reality. again, what is a theory? just like the paleontologist, physicists are working with bones that have a story to tell...however incomplete. and the scientist does what he can to provide a non fictional account, but with the uncertainties involved, will the end result be fiction? one thing you and i do understand one another in is in the fact that science requires validation and that preictability of events is the thing that powers it's validation. if i can predict something (hypothesis), put it to the test and it is confirmed (theory), all i have done is taken a lucky guess or actually accurately viewed reality.