# X+Y=2

When the big bang theory first emerged there was a lot of push back; the idea that the entire universe came from a single point seemed to elude to the concept of creation. Absolutely everything coming from a single point, that is absurd! As time passed the idea that this could be proof of a creator slowly vanished. Instead, the mere fact that we were smart enough to figure out a mechanic became a substitute for purpose.

Scientists quickly ran into problems with the theory and needed to come up with an explanation for things like the horizon problem which is why they invented inflation; a mathematical equation to justify the entire out come of the universe.

There is a fundamental problem with this and that is even if you can formulate an equation that has a proper result, it doesn’t actually mean the equation or numbers are correct. With algebra one of the first things you learn is that you can’t solve an equation with two unknowns such as X+Y=2. The result doesn’t change but X and Y can literally be anything.

As science figures out more and more they are constantly running into X+Y=2. This is why theories like the universe is a hologram are starting to emerge. This is a declaration that we are starting to hit a wall. Some will broadly prescribe a the gap God theory without starting to acknowledge some fundamental issues that are starting to emerge that are not only theoretical but also most probably improvable and without proof science is as accurate as religion.

Who will pick up the pieces as more people start to discover the difference between mechanics and purpose? The worst case scenario is religion because this would just make everything worse for everyone. We must instead focus on each other because it will only be with true collective intelligence that we can move past our limits.

## 8 thoughts on “X+Y=2”

1. Allallt

Two things:
(1) You can solve an equation with two unknowns. You just need more than 1 equation. They’re called simultaneous equations.
(2) Inflation wasn’t just something people pull out of their ass. It’s defended by an understanding of high pressure physics and gravity and pressure and the last scattering background and heterogeneity of the CBMR.

1. Jonathan Wagner Post author

If you have a second equation, you have another data point. The possibility to solve something does not ensure it will be solved or can even possibly be solved.

Much smarter people than I have voiced their criticisms of it, that doesn’t mean it is wrong, but like anything in science until it can be validated through experimentation, it is a theory.

1. Jonathan Wagner Post author

lol, no I mean theory. I wasn’t targeting that something happened, was merely pointing out that just because an equation can point to a result doesn’t mean it is the correct equation to arrive at that result.

2. Allallt

Okay — it’s just that a “theory” in science is the highest level. It’s an explanation that isn’t contradicted by evidence and makes sense of volumes of confirmed evidence. You don’t get a higher level of confidence than that in science.
There’s scientific laws, but they are descriptions of certain behaviours. They represent subtly different areas of knowledge.
I don’t meant to be condescending, but given the level of effort and time you are investing in other seemingly less credible areas — some of which trespass on the domain of science — and commenting a reasonable amount about science, perhaps you should spend a little more time on the philosophies of science. It’s not as simply as observation and experimentation.
I recommend this (https://goo.gl/lNzbKf). It’s good reading. The whole book is fascinating, but in terms of understanding a little more about science, it’s a case of chapter 1 and being the most relevant and, although pretty amazing, becoming less relevant as it goes on.
Hopefully it will give you some spring boards.

1. Jonathan Wagner Post author

I would agree actually that maybe I should do some more research into other fields, but I think making a theory holy is also disingenuous. You know theories can be superseded and it should be actively encouraged that theories are challenged.

1. Allallt

I agree with challenging things. But we also need to be careful that we’re not criticising things for the sake of it.
Let me know what you think of the link I sent (or if you’re just not going to read it).