Re: something from nothing ?

Dale <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]: 

> 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. 



    "Faith is the believin' in something you know ain't so"
    - Mark Twain -