Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Because That's How You Do Metaphysics

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on October 18, 2001 16:23:20 UTC

and actually quite a bit of theoretical physics is done the same way. Take Smollen's black hole universe creation theory for example. The evidence for it is about on the same level as the evidence for my model. The point is that I am doing metaphysics, or even theology, just using the jargon of science. The only limitation is the I am not allowed to create a model that is inconsistent with known science.

So it's not like the young earth theories of creationists, which are inconsistent with the established science that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. My model comes from established physics, postulated particles that fill out the established physics, and properties of those particles that can be calculated from physical theory, like the Grand Unified Theory, that has at least some partial verification. It does not even use string physics which to date has no verification.

Please forgive my pechant for metaphysics. But also please remember that almost all interpretation of established physical theory and experiment is basically metaphysical. For example, the classical theories of Newton and Maxwell suggested that the universe is predetermined. The claim that everything is predetermined was a metaphysical claim- unprovable. And now we think that we know that based on quantum mechanics, that worldview is incorrect- but that is also unprovable. All interpretation is metaphysical.

As I told doctordick way below, the truth is in the mathematics. I should add the raw experimental data as well. The rest is interpretation and liable to error. What is true about all these interpretations, especially exemplified by the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, is that they are all possibilities.

So the way you should judge a metaphysical model is whether or not it is a possibility based on established physics. I claim that my model passes this test.

Life is not much fun without metaphysics

Have fun


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins