Re: something from nothing ?

On 1/24/2026 8:00 AM, Dale wrote:
> 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" ?
> 

I have shown you the link to the United States National Academy of 
Sciences documents, and so, I really have nothing further to say.  The 
definitions that the Academy have provided have entered United States 
federal case law, and so, this is how judges decide on who and what to 
admit to expert testimony.

Never have you mentioned the words "falsify" or "falsification" or some 
other variant, but seems that you are approaching things from an 
anti-realist POV, and few scientists hold to anti-realism.

Dawn