Re: something from nothing ?

Dawn Flood wrote:
> 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

but i'm not in the united states nor am i governed by what they say