Re: something from nothing ?

On 1/23/2026 8:59 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
> On 1/21/2026 5:18 PM, Dale wrote:
>> On 1/21/2026 12:52 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2026 9:04 AM, Dale wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/2026 9:44 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>> On 1/20/2026 8:38 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/14/2026 11:24 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/14/2026 7:29 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/11/2026 11:23 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/11/2026 10:18 AM, Dale wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/11/2026 10:05 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/10/2026 2:13 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> something from nothing ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> magic ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> if nothing comes to God's mind does God make something out 
>>>>>>>>>>>> of it ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dalekelly.org/yuga.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the Cosmos is eternal, and without a beginning:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I like my version of Yuga Cycles
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dalekelly.org/yuga.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yuga Cycles are Hindu Universal Cause and Effect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Brahma is the Creation Cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Vishnu is the Maintenance Cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Shiva is the Destruction Cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kali is the Female Cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here are some things I add ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Each Cycle is a mindset of a Single God.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kali stops the Shiva Destruction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kali allows Eternal Vishnu Maintenance, Including Maintenance 
>>>>>>>>>> of the availability of Creation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kali births new New Brahma Creation for those of New Creation 
>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All (or some) of that may be true, or none of it may be true; 
>>>>>>>>> it's outside of Science.  You're free to believe in "whatever" 
>>>>>>>>> you want to believe in; others are free to do the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dawn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> science can be outside of logic too ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> quantum uncertainty ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what are the possibilities of digital and analog computing ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see the differences as being between the formal, empirical and 
>>>>>>> quasi- sciences; for the first category, such would be 
>>>>>>> mathematics, logic, etc.; for the second, physics, chemistry, 
>>>>>>> biology, sociology, etc.; and, for the last, things like the 
>>>>>>> study of history, which insists on the existence of evidences to 
>>>>>>> support one's conclusions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any case, evidence is key, as opposed to faith, feeling, 
>>>>>>> authority, religious beliefs and/or traditions, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dawn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> induction, deduction
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reversible induction or deduction is hypothesis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> testable hypothesis is theory
>>>>>>
>>>>>> theory sampling can include a statistical assumption
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No.  See here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution-resources
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> are you saying you can test the beginning of a virtual particle 
>>>> without out having magic ?
>>>>
>>>> part of the whole is the concept of nothing and the whole can use it ?
>>>>
>>>> part of the whole is also conscious ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, science is about building models and testing those models through 
>>> experiment, observation, or, in the case of the formal sciences 
>>> (mathematics, logic, etc.), formal proofs.  As for virtual particles, 
>>> such is the domain of QFT (Quantum Field Theory), and I am not an 
>>> expert in that; there are physicists who explain that.  The late 
>>> Professor Steven Weinberg wrote a 3-volume tome on QFT; I haven't 
>>> read it, but that is where people should go if they really want to 
>>> understand such things on a quantitative level.  On a more 
>>> qualitative level, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle allows for 
>>> the existence of such particles, and Google AI has a nice description 
>>> of that.
>>>
>>> Dawn
>>
>>
>> all science starts with its philosophy ...
>>
>> induction, deduction
>>
>> reversible induction or deduction is hypothesis
>>
>> testable hypothesis is theory
>>
>> theory sampling can include a statistical assumption
>>
>>
>>
> 
> That is like saying that all science starts with breathing followed by 
> exhaling.  In other for something to be a hypothesis, it must be 
> testable; this is what made the scientific revolution different than the 
> authority-based ideas that came before it of revealed religion.  As the 
> late Dr. Carl Sagan said in a speech at the Center for Inquiry (probably 
> somewhere on YouTube) in the presence of Dr. Paul Kurtz, "A philosopher 
> has no laboratory."  Ditto for a theologian.
> 
> Dawn

I remember studying a 101 Philosophy of Science course ...

a hypothesis is a reversible deduction or induction

a theory is a testable hypothesis

data is sampling of the population of the test

Then I came across Statistics ...

statistics is an assumption of sampling

no statistics leaves you with just history

things like quantum uncertainty and entropy are a factor against all 
history be predictable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

A the above applies says there is not only faith but good places for 
hope. Would this be "The Philosophy 101 of Religion" ?

-- 
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/