Matt Smith

Hopefully the motto for Twitter 2.0

You see evidence that the universe is usually consistent in its operation. You believe it. I show you evidence from modern cosmology and physics of the universe not always being consistent in its operation in the past. You don't believe it. Instead you conclude that future science will explain how it was always consistent. You are familiar with physics and we are discussing that, but we see arguably even stronger evidence of non-uniformitarianism in the origin of the first life. Consciousness and objective morality haven't been plausibly explained by the naturalist world view. I'm just encouraging you and others to be open to the notion that science itself is saying that it won't be able to explain everything.

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok What double standard do you think I'm guilty of? We have very successful models of general relativity and quantum mechanics, we're pushing these in the extreme to try and understand if they make sense. Creationism requires inconsistency of the universe.

I don't think Mat is lying; he truly believes it because this is what is taught, and he parrots the mantra flawlessly But if I want to know the age of something, extrapolations (which Mat conflated as science itself) are not my 1st or primary tool. I query history. Here's some examples: If you want to know how old I am, check my birth certificate (historical documentation); you don't carbon date me If you want to know how old the 🗽 is, you check historical records; you don't potassium argon date it If you want to know how old the rocks from Mt. St. Helens are, you check the historical records to see when Mt. St. Helens erupted; you don't rubidium–strontium date them If you want to know how old the Earth is, you check the historical records (the Bible); you don't rely on assumption-laden extrapolations

@Mat_Hunt @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok I'm demonstrating the double standard involved in your claims. You say "highly speculative" "absolutely no date" "not repeatable" and then make tweets like this saying that science cannot learn from other disciplines. x.com/Mat_Hunt/statu…

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok There is a first moment of time, is that what you mean by a beginning? Of course, ideas about the beginnings are highly speculative; we have absolutely no data! Why would the beginning of the universe be repeatable?

I've heard attempts like this to use quantum theory to bypass the evidence for a beginning, but the theories are very speculative and lead to logical inconsistencies. The theory above put in normal terms I believe goes something like this. You can't be certain about the energy state and time time of a measurement. So, if the energy state is definitely zero then quantum uncertainty can pull from the future mass and energy and create a universe from nothing. But: -not reproducible so not scientific -no observer -mass or energy borrowed from the future would then disappear in the future -still requires the laws of physics to exist which is hard to see how thats possible.

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok is unstable quantun mechanically. So, a state of no spacetime, matter or energy is unstable. This would be an explanation for a possible beginning of our universe.

Well, I would encourage you to be open to the hypothesis that there is such a thing as a mind and that you have one and that there may have been one which transcends the universe that brought it into existence with the unlikely set or properties that we find it. Thanks for the conversation.

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok The assumption is that the universe is self-consistent, but we don't have a description of that self-consistency at all scales yet.

What happened to "the universe is consistent"? Ok, so just so we are clear, in order to get around the evidence for a beginning of the universe you can postulate different laws of physics which have NEVER been observed for the early universe while saying that any form of creationism is wrong because the "the universe is consistent". It is this kind of logical inconsistency that I find stems from scientism. The truth is that science has been pointing for about a century through findings like red shift of the stars and thermodynamics and background radiation to a beginning. There there are lots of videos like this one of theoretical physicists talking about how to escape the evidence for a beginning of the universe. But it shows that the evidence is there. youtube.com/watch?v=DYf8-j…

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok Thermodynamics is a classical theory. How do you know it's valid for the very early universe?

@MarkRober doing his science curriculum along with @TheCrashCourse doing history and @prageru doing (my preferred) political science and @hankgreen teaching all the in-betweens, I think this youtube generation of kids has a chance if we can get them off of YT shorts.

@Mat_Hunt @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok Sometimes it states it in terms of enthalpy or Gibbs free energy, but reactions always proceed in a direction of increasing entropy/disorder for a closed system. So if you look at the universe as a whole and say it is a closed system, why are we not at maximum entropy?

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok The second law of thermodynamics is about the efficiency of heat engines. Are you sure you mean this?

Basically, if matter and energy are never created then they must have been here forever. But according to the second law of thermodynamics, if they had been here forever then they would be at Max entropy aka thermodynamic equilibrium aka heat death. But the universe isn't. Therefore the matter and energy must have come into being some finite time ago which goes against the first law of thermodynamics.

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok Point to it again.

@Mat_Hunt @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok If by demonstrate you mean, point to evidence of it in history, then I already have. You can start with answering my entropy question. If by demonstrate you mean reproduce, then you seem to misunderstand non-uniformitarian.

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok Unless you can demonstrate non-uniformitarianism, stick with science.

But remember our compromise. Methodological naturalism. This doesn't require naturalism to actually be true. For an analogy, consider that the study of geological layers involves understanding both uniformitarianism (the way layers normally deposit) and also non-uniformitarianism like volcanoes or past mining. Naturalism/Scientism fails to explain reality for the reasons I mentioned. However, ignoring science fails to explain reality for the reasons you mention. We need science without scientism

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok Science requires consistency; when you have a deity that changes the way the universe behaves, you no longer have that consistency as a foundation to build science from.

Ok. Mr. Classical Continuum Mechanics, if we look at discrete cause and effects and consider them like a continuous chain of contingent effects, do you think that the chain of all contingent effects needs a cause? Seems like it would. But that requires an uncaused cause. Goes against Newton's first law of motion, therefore supernatural. Now while that does require some interpretation, it still holds true.

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok Not without a great deal of interpretation...

I do think that methodological naturalism is a good compromise. Presume naturalism for the purpose of the experiment. But then ego comes in and scientists start believing the "assumption". I advocate for methodological naturalism and philosophical open-mindedness. I find theism persuasive, and while I don't think you can "prove" theism true, I do think you can prove naturalism false.

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok Get rid of methodological naturalism and you cripple science. It ceases to be useful.

@Mat_Hunt @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok Yeah. I think that is where science should shrug and ask philosophy. But many scientists like to think of their discipline as being above all and not dependent on anything else, when it can't even explain consciousness, morality, the origins of the universe, etc.

@SmithMDMD @PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok What does the universe exchange with?

I find that the existence of less than max entropy (ex. sun is still burning) Isn't consistent with all 3 of these. -the universe is a closed system -first law of thermodynamics -second law of thermodynamics So, I conclude that the universe isn't a closed system. If you think the universe is a closed system (nothing super-natural), how do you explain why we aren't at max entropy? If you think the universe isn't a closed system then why assume that EVERYTHING has ALWAYS followed the same rules it does now?

@PRgirl94 @ApoloJedi_ @grok @SmithMDMD Empirical science records it's data using electronic devices... The universe is self-consistent. If erroneous dates are arrived at then something is clearly wrong. Usually it's the samples. You don't get self-consistency with YEC.

I was making potato soup last night. The recipe called for five potatoes cubed. Even for potato soup, 125 potatoes seems a little excessive.

@Aherb_IRL @JeremyDBoreing Considering the wisdom vacuum left by the reduced activity of JP and Denis Prager as well as the passing of Charlie, I have found Jeremy's insights to be a breath of fresh air and his straightforward honesty to be remarkable. Abe Lincoln levels of wisdom and candor.

The only real people watching or getting commentary from @JeremyDBoreing are Jeremy himself, his mom and whatever the rest of his USAID money can buy in Indian Bot farms.

Before we get into today’s festivities let’s take a moment of silence for all those we’ve lost. Let’s honor those who fought for us and our country today and everyday. Happy #MemorialDay everyone, God bless.

If an entire political party is mourning your cancellation you were not speaking truth to power. You were a mouthpiece.

😍

Very cool. From a teen. 🔥🔥