|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted June 10, 2008 08:33 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 20:35, 10 Jun 2008.
|
Basicly, when I say God, I mean any unknown being(s) who know about us, and constructed by magic or vast technology, the universe as we see. The stars and everything could have been an explosion.. well, My point is God could be anything imaginativly possible which could have sparked a beggining to our history.
Lets go to your points of view,
how its possible there was never a beggining. Never a time where there was not on single fraction of an atom, not a breath of air, or not a place where air could be.. Walla an explosion
Or how, is it possible that some cloud of dust could have always been? Whats less possible than that is earth being circular polorized, full of vast elements and technology to do more than we even know, all of this, coming from a cloud of dust just to happening to leave just about anything of HUMAN .. VALUE on earth. (sry for the caps) ---but i know its possible for humans to come up in the ages where these elements are yet still
Or wait, there is the planets just, always were aswell. They overtime were shaped by self implosion, or the weight of its own body formed circular rocks that float endlessly along the sun for kabbillions of years..
All of this, and my point is I cant imagine your point of views to be possible. But please, say @Celfious, and enlighten me to how there was a beggining, or how no beggining was needed, to shape a perfect world, slammered with the effects of human will (doing wrong) hence good natural things happen (kitties) , and bad natural things happen (animals devouring eachother)
____________
What are you up to
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 09:56 PM |
|
|
Mvass, one thing. Theoretically there can three types of processes can take place within reality(I have no idea of what any other could be):
- deterministic
- stochastic
- those being results of excercising (free) will
You state, as if it was an illuminated truth, that only the first category exists. Very bold indeed.
I agree many processes believed to be stochastic are deterministic in fact, we just make too big errors in our modelling.
However, there are processes in reality which behave really as if they were stochastic by their nature, not our fallible observation/reasoning. There is no point, as to what we know, in regarding them as not stochastic.
Maybe there are even processes, which we consider to be deterministic, but are stochastic.
As to free will, it has never been neither proven nor disproven to exist.
I respect your opinion, but please mark it as one(opinion, assumption, belief, etc), not as objective truth, unless you can prove it beyond (reasonable) doubt  . Thank you in advance.
Quote:
Induction, when used correctly, has never been demonstrated to fail.
I could say that, save for mathematics, mathematical logic and 'their kind', iduction has never been used 100% correctly  .
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 10:54 PM |
|
|
Celfious:
Quote:
any unknown being(s) who know about us, and constructed by magic or vast technology, the universe as we see
Have you ever observed any? Just because you think that you see what might have been the effects of one at work doesn't mean that one actually exists.
Quote:
how its possible there was never a beggining
How is it possible that there could have been a beginning? Matter and energy would have to come out of nothing, which is impossible. Therefore, there could not have been a beginning.
What do you mean by "a perfect world"? And, as I have explained earlier and will explain later, there is no such thing as free will. Also, the ideas of "good" and "evil" are subjective.
Executor:
Quote:
However, there are processes in reality which behave really as if they were stochastic by their nature
Such as?
As regards free will, I will explain. Everything is made out of atoms, and these atoms have subatomic particles in them and so on. These objects possess certain energies (kinetic, potential, and so on). So they're moving around and interacting with each other. And with a given interaction, only one thing could happen. So the world we see is the sum of an extremely large amount of interactions.
We humans are also made of the same stuff that everything else is. So our internal interactions and our reactions to stuff that happens outside of us shapes our thoughts and movements. It being so, there can be no free will, since it is a large complex set of interactions, but they are the ones that do everything. There can be nothing like "will" sitting out there and directing everything a person does, since everything is determined as I have previously explained. The universe is also similarily determined, but on a larger scale.
In theory, if we knew every aspect and location of every subatomic particle, and had the processing capability, we could tell everything that had ever happened before and everything that would happen after. There are several things preventing this, however. First, everything is so complex that it is basically impossible for us to do it, even if we had the data. Second, it is impossible for us to gather every bit of such complex data. And third, it is physically impossible for us to gather every aspect of an atom, because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. So we really can't do it. But we know that these aspects exist and interact with each other however they interact with each other, so we can say that the universe is deterministic.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted June 11, 2008 12:57 AM |
|
Edited by executor at 01:01, 11 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Such as?
Decay of unstable atoms, for instance. Quantum physics can be understood that way. Much of economic processes follow stochastic patterns, you can trust me on that .
I also read somwhere that behaviour of some insects under some specific conditions appears to be almost genuinely stochastic.
I agree material universe is about matter, energies and interaction, but why do you reject a possiblility that a given interaction can start a stochastic process, not deterministic, so easily?
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2008 01:45 AM |
|
|
Decay of unstable atoms? Schrödinger's cat. Plus there may be factors that we don't yet understand, or, at least, have not entered the layman's scientific understanding.
As for economics, it describes the actions of a large group of people. So their behavior is so complex as to be unpredictable. However, if you had the power to predict each exact action each person would take, and how the world would react to it, and how the person would react to that, and so on, and you figured this out for every person, then you would be able to predict it 100%. This is practically impossible, but in theory...
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 11, 2008 02:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
it's quite logical if you follow me.
That's subjective.
Someone else might think it's perfectly logical.
Who's right?
But on a more serious note.
While what you say may be true, I'm not sure what you are suggesting.
Scientific theories are based on the evidence that we have today, and we have no way of predicting the future. In order to advance we base our theories on what we do know. If someone disagrees with one theory and believes in another, one that is unsupported by any evidence, then this is delusional, or rather, illogical (even though that's a buzz word around here) because it helps no one and is based on nothing. There is no reason to believe it. This is not to say that the current theory is 100% right, but it is accepted because it is tried and tested and supported.
This is constructive.
We can't really assume that everything may be wrong and as such should reject all scientific theories.
HC may not exist tomorrow so don't use it today
The only logical choice, generally speaking, is to base theories upon evidence (except for trivial matters, perhaps gambling). If someone wants to believe something unsupported and more imaginative, that's fine. It's when they try to preach it, use it to indoctrinate, use it to control people or annoy me with it that it becomes destructive.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 11, 2008 06:28 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 06:58, 11 Jun 2008.
|
Changed my mind on this post.
My message started out simple, but got blurred. Either because of arguing over small details blown out of proportion, quoteing wars, or just plain misunderstandings.
My message is that people should simply keep an open mind, so as not to miss something should it come along. Don't preconcieve things. There are a lot of assumptions made, and assuming something is always a bad thing.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 11, 2008 05:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My message is that people should simply keep an open mind, so as not to miss something should it come along. Don't preconcieve things. There are a lot of assumptions made, and assuming something is always a bad thing.
Making assumptions is fine. The key is to know what your assumptions are and then to investigate whether they are good assumptions. If you find that they aren't, then you need to modify your theory accordingly.
For instance, if you wanted to predict the amount of time it takes something to fall to the ground on the moon from a height of 5000 feet with no prior data, one way to do this would be to drop the object from 5 feet, measure the acceleration due to gravity (g), assume that g doesn't change as a function of height, and then calculate what the time to drop the object from 5000 feet is (a basic physics problem). If you were to somehow drop the object from 5000 feet and measure the time, you would probably find (if your watch was accurate enough) that the time you predicted is slightly different from the time it actually takes. When you then go back and try to understand why your theory made an inaccurate prediction, you start by thinking about the assumptions that you made when formulating it. Maybe g is NOT constant. This leads to more experiments, more refinements to the theory, etc.
What you're saying isn't profound or new. Scientists incorporate assumptions into their work all the time. They also then check their assumptions to make sure they're valid. This is, again, a natural component of the scientific method.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 11, 2008 07:45 PM |
|
|
"Making assumptions is fine. The key is to know what your assumptions are and then to investigate whether they are good assumptions. If you find that they aren't, then you need to modify your theory accordingly."
I claim to not know the truth, but I am certain there is a creative force behind the scenes.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2008 10:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I claim to not know the truth, but I am certain there is a creative force behind the scenes.
That is faith. And a good way to put it I might add.
____________
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted June 11, 2008 10:43 PM |
|
|
I'm serious about the dictionary thing. Open the biggest dictionary you have and tell me that could come from a random cause of events leading to a human birthing planet to be ironicly loaded with what other planets have but a minimal fraction of.
It makes no sense that This Perfect World (and ask me about perfect?) could come to be with no creative force involvement. This perfect world is inhabbited by human will, to match with natural disasters, disease, and life eating life.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
posted June 12, 2008 12:00 AM |
|
|
This might be a bit off-topic, but I have bee thinking about what I read from this thread. It was something about energy and matter being indestructible and that would mean that it has always been and always will be.
I thought about that for a while and thought that it would mean that there is an eternity behind us and an eternity in front of us. Since that means there is no start or end it kind of makes me think that time can't be described as a straight line since a straight line has to start somewhere and then end somewhere. That would mean that time moves as a circle and a circle does not have a start or end. It might be that everything in the universe keeps happening over and over again making the whole thing pointless.
I hope that I am wrong and all this has somekind of a point.
I'm taking a long time writing this and I keep coming up with more stuff as I write. I thought about this stuff a bit more and then thought that if it's a loop and we don't know about it yet. That would mean that this is the first time the loop is going around itself and if we keep our consiousness it would mean that the second time would be different since we will be smarter that time around.
But I still hope that I am wrong.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 12:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I hope that I am wrong and all this has somekind of a point.
Why should it have a point? And why do you want it to haave a point? From my own point of view, I'm fine the way it is; I'm not too bothered by the universe not having any special "purpose".
Quote:
That would mean that this is the first time the loop is going around itself and if we keep our consiousness it would mean that the second time would be different since we will be smarter that time around.
Why would we keep our consciousness? It's not some sort of special thing; just stuff interacting. And when it's all crushed, it's gone.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 12:20 AM |
|
|
So you are saying that even though I think that I am consious now and once I die it will be like I will have an amnesia, but I will never have any kind of memory after it? Well how is it possible that I feel that I am since to an amnesiac it is like the things he/she has forgotten never were?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 12:53 AM |
|
|
When you die, you will have no consciousness because your brain and nervous system will decay. So whenever you are born next time, you will be able to remember nothing because you will be exactly like a new person, just like this time.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 01:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm serious about the dictionary thing. Open the biggest dictionary you have and tell me that could come from a random cause of events leading to a human birthing planet to be ironicly loaded with what other planets have but a minimal fraction of.
It makes no sense that This Perfect World (and ask me about perfect?) could come to be with no creative force involvement. This perfect world is inhabbited by human will, to match with natural disasters, disease, and life eating life.
Well, it did happen.
So..... QED
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 08:20 AM |
|
|
I thought about the thing about time going around itself over and over and came to a conclusion that it can't be right. As far as I know there is no natural event that could be described as a reversed nuclear reaction since a nuclear reaction breaks the atom into sub-atomic particles and releases a lot of energy while I have't heard of sub-atomic particles and energy coming together to create an atom. I was feeling very emo and/or angsty when I though of the whole endless loop thing and I felt alot better when I atleast think that I have proven myself wrong.
If you died and then someone made and exact replica of you molecule by molecule. Would the replica be alive? Would the replica be you or someone else?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 02:59 PM |
|
|
@Corribus:Quote:
The point beneath the sarcasm was that while probabilities are useful when dealing with quantitative phenomena and predictions, they mean nothing when dealing with nonquantitative things like god. What does it mean to say, "I find god more probable than..."? It means nothing. You can't calculate a probability relating to god at all.
I was talking about the laws of physics. Why do they even exist? Why does the Universe have to obey certain laws (that allow life)? I mean, isn't this a belief in itself? that it follows certain laws you can understand and manipulate?
Quote:
Face it, you don't believe in god because you find it to be a more probable explanation. There is no logical reason behind belief. It just is.
Yes of course I do not and I repeat, do not, believe in God because of the creationist theories (or rather stuff, not theories). I never said the above was implying God is true.
My posts in this thread are not really targetted at 'proving' God, because I already stated that's impossible (i.e with the belief in induction, it's impossible to prove something non-reproducible). My posts are here to show that whatever arguments people use against God (be it science, probabilities, whatever) are not better in any way. They are similar and I'm trying to show it's only a matter of perspective.
Mind you, people usually start discussions concerning God and why their arguments are better (I'm talking about everything out there, not just this tiny forum). And I'm trying to show that their arguments are no better, just their own point of views.
You may of course state they are more 'useful' but that is also a subjective term. Is life on this material world useful for someone that does not believe in it? Not in the same way as it is to you.
Quote:
Alright, that's it. When I get time, I am going to start a new thread when an exact detailed description of how a theory is formulated. I was going to anyway after theDeath's post about tunnelling, because it's got similar problems, but this one sealed the deal.
A theory, by definition, is based on certain beliefs -- that it can be used to predict (induction), otherwise it is not called a theory at all.
The PROBLEM of course happens when you use a theory to try to 'explain' or 'rule-out' things that are, by definition, not reproducible. This is the PROBLEM that most atheists hang on. They always say God does not exist since there's no [induction-based] evidence. But by definition, God is not 'reproducible' (so to speak).
You can't truly use arguments against 'something' when your arguments are based on a certain thing that does not belong to that 'something'.
Quote:
Why do you think scientists are trying to debunk the bible?
Maybe not scientists, but atheists (and most not even scientists). They are the ones who usually use their [induction-based] arguments against it, and start discussions around the world.
Quote:
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not how it works at all.
Here's how it works.
(1) You make an observation. (This is a fact.)
(2) You make a model to describe the observation. (This is a theory).
(3) The model makes predictions.
(4) You test the predictions. (More facts)
(5a) If the test works, the model holds. Go to step 6.
(5b) If the test fails, you make a new model to account for new observations. Repeat step 3.
(6) Find more predictions. Go back to step 4.
Science is process of repetitive iterations that assymptotically approaches an overall mechanistic empirical explanation of everything. It doesn't stop. Since it is assymptotic, it will never reach its destination.
That word, mechanistic, is the key here.
Science by definition, assumes (i.e has the belief) that the world acts on certain laws that can be predicted (with induction). This alone marks it as the first step in being a religion -- faith in something. I still don't get it why people think science is not a religion. Is it because you do not 'worship' something? Not all religions worship (or sub-groups rather), and they're still religions.
But then again, all too often, atheists use their mechanistic arguments in discussions that concern religion or God. It is like trying to use Psychology arguments against computer science -- the former has arguments that are completely outside the scope of the latter (i.e 'absurd' by the computer scientist's point of view).
What is WRONG however, is when you use your 'beliefs' (mechanistic, induction, see above) to imply truth. Actually, this is NOT WRONG, but is NO BETTER than using religion to imply truth. When someone disagrees with them, you call them 'unreasonable' or 'delusional'. Religion calls them 'infidels' or 'unbelievers'. Similar thing.
Going back to the Big Bang, let's take an alien (nothing to do with God!) approach. Suppose we observed the "facts" (light whatever). How did the facts happen?
We make a theory, like you said. PROBLEM: we make a theory based on what we believe in, i.e in a mechanistic world. However, if someone comes and tells you that aliens shaped the light with some special abilities and faked it, by that definition, the "Facts" are not mechanistic (since aliens are unpredictable, like humans, not obey laws of physics).
The problem comes when you dismiss what he says and call him delusional. Why? Because the very definition of what he said meant that the 'facts' are not there mechanistically. In this way, you say he's delusional because your "mechanistic beliefs" contradict his sayings. But by the very definition of what he said, it's obvious it's gonna contradict it, because he implied that aliens (aka non-laws-of-physics-followers unconscious objects) had a part in it.
Is he truly delusional? Not at all, you CAN'T KNOW THAT. You can only speculate and make formulations, based on what you believe. Mechanistic determination, then, is not, nor ever was, based on scientific observation, but on some other a priori idea. It's just an idea. The fact that it is 'sound' and sounds reasonable to you only means that's your own point of view, so why are atheists always that hard understanding theists (which also, have their own ideas and point of views, different ones obviously).
Quote:
You are an FBI agent called to a giant crime scene. At the crime scene, you observe that there are lots of trees uprooted, cars overturned, and debris scattered about in a circular pattern. These are the facts.
From these facts, you make a theory, based on logic, that the damage was caused by an explosion that occured at the center of the circular pattern. You theorize that the explosion, which was chemical, caused hot air to expand rapidly, causing a shockwave of force in a radially symmetric fashion to exert force on nearby objects. This is your theory.
From this theory, you can make certain predictions. For example, given the distance a certain car moved during the (theorized) explosion, you can calculate the force of the explosion. From this you should be able to predict what the trajectories of other objects might have been. Then you can go and test this prediction by looking at the other objects. If this pans out, you know what kind of explosive force there was, so maybe you can also theorize what kind of bomb it was. This will make MORE predictions. If it was a specific bomb, you might predict that you will find certain types of shrapnel lying about. You might find chemical residues. Certain types of injuries. These are all predictions.
Now this is assuming that the explosion was something which you know about. Now let us say that aliens caused a strange stuff there, and the aftermath "looks like" an explosion was caused.
Aliens are obviously, outside most people's beliefs, so when your prediction fails (with the explosion), you DO NOT TAKE THE ALIEN theory into account, rather you come up with a different theory. Since the alien theory is out of your beliefs, there's absolutely no way you will ever go to it. When your predictions fail, you just try out a different theory that fits with your beliefs (i.e is 'sound' to you).
If someone said he saw the aliens, will you believe him, even after your theory failed? No, you will try to find a different 'mechanistic' theory. Obviously, you can approximate a 'non-mechanistic' theory with a mechanistic one, as long as you always keep on 'finding new ones' each time without ever thinking about the mechanistic one.
That's what scientists do. When their mechanistic theory does not predict a certain fact, they change their theory, which is fine, but they DO NOT EVER take into account stuff said by people with different beliefs (i.e they do not take into account non-mechanistic theories, or those that are not reproducible, but do explain the current facts).
Let's break it like this. Predictions, by the definition of it, require belief in induction. That means, when you ask someone 'delusional' to show a reasonable theory or evidence that not only explains the facts but also predicts, you are automatically implying that what they say is predictable, as if your beliefs are ALWAYS true, in ALL cases.
Could aliens come and use a bomb and make the explosion? Sure, it explains the facts (i.e the scattered debris). Is that predictable? Nope. But remember: by it's definition it is not reproducible/predictable, so you can't reasonably be asking for it to be, since it's definition states otherwise.
The problem with ALL scientific theories is that they are all based on a certain belief: mechanistic predictions (belief in induction). Why is this a problem? Because people do NOT acknowledge this is a belief just like any other. They somehow take it for granted (mind you, some people take religions for granted too). It wouldn't be a problem if people wouldn't say it's better. When a theory fails, you don't even expect it to be because it's based on a belief. Instead you try to find out a new one, still based on the same beliefs. The problem is, of course, that this thing continues to infinity. You keep on saying "I can find a different explanation for that, rather than resorting to a non-mechanistic belief", it's like asking a medium to predict stuff, until the end of days, i.e when will it end? Never, you will always keep on trying new mechanistic theories.
Then why are atheists always saying "If a miracle happens, I'll believe in God" (for example). Or if God shows himself, etc... Acknowledge it that it will never happen, not because of the signs, but because you will always say "I can find a different explanation for that (when my theory fails), no need to resort to God or miracles".
Example: The starts form up to write the word "God". Based on what you believe (that humans can't do that yet), you could be inclined to believe in God. However, even though atheists said this before it happened, they will now try to find a different mechanistic explanation "Maybe some aliens or unknown force in the Universe pulled a prank or mysteriously happened, something which we do not know yet". Or simple coincidence.
Atheists, on the other hand (compared to scientists), most times use their beliefs (just like theists use their beliefs, such as the Bible) to back up their arguments. The fact that the world is mechanistic, they take it for granted. They are asking for predictions, especially in miracles/prayers. These things, by the definition of it, are not toys you can fool around with, they are not reproducible the way YOU want them. Why are you asking for them (it's the arguments most atheists around the world use, not necessarily on this forum).
Scientific theories then, are just explanations for a certain belief. What's the Bible explanation of the world? That God created it, blahblah you know it too well. What's the mechanistic explanation? The Big Bang blahblah, you know this one too.
So then, what makes it different than a belief? Because it sounds 'more logical'? That's subjective. Because it predicts things? Prediction is in that belief so of course it does what it has in it's core. So that's subjective as well. When you are asking to predict something, you automatically resort to that belief. It's like trying to explain electricity with prayers, only that it goes the other way (i.e mechanistically explain prayers, that they e.g: are not predictable). In short, you are using one belief's core to explain another belief (or rather to disprove it). I don't think if this is wise. Most atheists, however, use it all the time.
Quote:
Were we around to observe the Big Bang? No. But we CAN observe its effects. The universe is expanding. This is a fact.
How do you know? We don't observe it's expanding, we observe certain facts that make us assume it is expanding (we don't measure it with a ruler, we assume the light properties, etc). However, what if these things, are not mechanistic? I mean, obviously, if atheists try to use these 'arguments' against whatever religion, they should at least not use their beliefs in that (mechanistic) or be omnipotent (in which case absolute truth is known to them).
Quote:
Creation theory? Not a theory. Why? Among other things, it makes no predictions. It is unscientific because the scientific method cannot be applied. It cannot be tested. It cannot be falsified. It cannot be improved through successive iterations. There are NO COMPARISONS to be made. One is science. The other is not. Period.
So then science is a religion with the belief in mechanistic predictions?
Quote:
It's proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Which is subjective, which most people agree with. Unfortunately, the 'delusional' ones are put aside. You call this freedom? Because the majority thinks it's reasonable? Wasn't that the same when religion was the majority (and we criticized it for it's freedom)?
Quote:
Of COURSE there are flaws. The very nature of THEORY implies that there are flaws. But flaws do not render the theory USELESS. Creationism is USELESS, and it has nothing to do with flaws or not flaws. It has to do with the fact that it is unscientific. "Useless" has a very specific scientific meaning, so don't get all offended by that, either.
Usefulness, of course, means 'practical'. However, is God practical? That is debatable. Practical things are usually our toys. Fortunately, parents are not toys.
Usefulness does NOT EQUAL knowledge. Atheists use arguments that religion is not useful from their point of view. Does that make it false? They think so, or at least imply so. Some mathematics abstractions are entirely useless, but are knowledge. Atheists don't deny that, however, most times because they believe in mathematics (even though most have absolutely no clue about them; i.e they are not nerds at math so to speak).
So is science about usefulness? From a certain perspective, yes, but that doesn't mean it is knowledge, or rather that everything contradicts it is not.
Also remember that people once said the 'origin' of the Universe (that it had a beginning) was a fairy tale (Big Bang).. and did so as if they KNEW the ABSOLUTE TRUTH (not scientific, I'm talking about materialistic atheists, since science does not hold the truth, so it's not to blame here). Now they say the same with pink unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. Does history repeat? I don't know, at least I'm honest enough to admit that. If I were in their shoes, and someone said to me that they believe the Universe has a beginning (even though it was not proven yet, remember we're in those times in this example), I wouldn't be so arrogant to reply with a fairy tale. And actually, I would not start 'societies' or 'discussions' (like atheist societies) to flame them. Why should I, since later I might regret (it might fall, like the no-beginning-theory did).
Science is always false, but is often useful. Atheists, however, are the ones that take it to the extreme, using it prove things as if it were implying absolute truth. In short, they are like the extremists of the religion (science). I already told above why it is a religion.
@mvassilev:Quote:
Quote:
However just because you won at the lottery doesn't mean that the probability of success was 100% because it happened
Ah, the illusion of free will. You may be picking among various tickets, but you will only pick one ticket (that is, unless you buy several). So the ticket that you will buy is predetermined. Say you have 5 tickets. If you don't know how you're picking them, you have a 20% chance of picking any of them. But if you know how the process is happening in your brain, and how you pick out of equal tickets, then you would know that your chances of picking one of the tickets is 100%, and your chances of picking the others is 0%.
I'm sorry for you but deterministic is an old theory that has been proven to have flaws, if you accept scientific media that is. The Universe is probabilistic and if you know what a 'probability' means you'll get the idea.
If an electron has a certain probability to be in a certain location (instead of moving to the right for example it moves to the left), then the probability is not 100% if it HAPPENED, it's still 50%. Does not matter whether it happened or not.
By your logic, probabilities wouldn't even exist (since what happens = 100% and everything else 0%), so why are we even using them?
Look up in wikipedia or something if you want to know about the probabilistic model (like I said, scientists gave up on the idea of it being deterministic).
Quote:
Because that's how gravity works. Science still doesn't know why gravity works the way it does (although there are several theories). But we know how gravity affects things.
Yes obviously, scientists don't know why they only know how. Let me tell you this what I said to Corribus.
When you make an assumption, you have beliefs. You believe the world works on certain laws that you can understand, and obeys them, and that it is repeatable (or reproducible). This is called the faith in induction & contradiction. It is a faith. Your evidence is based on faith, in induction. You can't truly say something is not evidence unless of course the evidence is reproducible (or experiment whatever).
By that logic, faith in the Bible, would allow you plenty of evidence for God, because the if you believe it to be true then whatever says in it is evidence for God.
Likewise, if you believe induction to be true then there's plenty evidence for e.g: electricity.
But I am not saying anyone is better than the other, only stating the similarities.
Quote:
Assuming that our observations of gravity are all that there is to gravity, 100%. Assuming that they aren't, 100%. Things are the way they are, and they couldn't be any other way, objectively.
Listen to what I said about the lottery.
If you won at the lottery, logically with a 10% chance (calculated based on number of tickets, etc. simply said, it's mathematically calculated), then that's the probability you have to win.
If you win, the probability does not change it does not become 100% since you did. Read more on probabilistic models & theories, I don't think you get the idea.
Quote:
Objective truth can't change. Subjective truth can.
So science is subjective
Quote:
I would have been sure of my knowledge then and I would be sure now. The conclusions I draw may be different because I would have more knowledge now. But until I have more evidence, I have no basis for which to assume that he is right, especially if he is contradicting existing evidence.
But he could be right, if you assign a certain probability (but again I don't think you get what that means). Impossible means a very low probability too. 0% does not exist.
Besides, just because you can not understand what he says, does not mean he is delusional. Imagine this silly scenario (example): you are a monkey, and he is a cyborg. A monkey can't understand the cyborg's electricity. So is the monkey gonna call him delusional? Maybe, and he will drag the other monkeys that believe in your authority too... until later when they discover electricity.
Problem: the cyborg told them that. And then the monkeys still claim that their method is far better and is never wrong. How can they possibly say that? Just because it sounds 'sound' to them? bleh
Quote:
I can if they don't bring conflicting evidence to the table.
So you are asking for them to bring something in which you believe (induction).. sometimes it is true. However maybe you lack the senses to see the evidence.
It's like trying to use belief in Bible to explain electricity... Let's take an example. John asks you for evidence (stuff written in the Bible, because that's what he has faith in) if you want to prove to him that electricity exists. Remember, he has faith in the Bible, not in induction.
Likewise, you have faith in induction not the Bible. Therefore, you ask for evidence that is reproducible to explain certain stuff. He asks for evidence that is written in the Bible to explain stuff.
Both because of beliefs
Quote:
Induction, when used correctly, has never been demonstrated to fail.
Are you freaking joking right now?
Look up the definition of 'demonstration'. It is based either on induction, or a straight-out answer "I'll come with a new induction-based theory to explain that".
1) If it's based on induction there's little it can do to 'demonstrate' it's false
2) if a certain theory is proven false, you do not accept that the belief in induction is wrong, NEVER. You, instead, try to form a new 'induction-based' theory.
If you never accept that induction is false and you think you'll always come with a new theory based on induction for everything, then the probability that it can be demonstrated to fail is almost 0%.
Quote:
Induction: you toss the rocks off of cliff and they fall on the ground. You then know not to step off the cliff.
Religious belief: "GOD WILL SAVE ME!!!" *splat*
Quote:
As for your DNA example, if we used your reasoning, then we wouldn't be able to put anybody in jail, on the off chance that they could somehow be innocent, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I know, induction is 'good', it feels the right thing to do, but then again analyze it objectively. It is not different than a belief.. it's just more convenient to you, but has no basis for being 'better' (objectively, subjectively of course you'll argue it's way better from your POV).
Also when putting people in jail based on evidence (with it's beliefs, see above) it's like putting them in jail for religious arguments. I'm not saying both are wrong or that both are right. But that both are similar.
And yep, if we bring to jail both bad and innocent guys, is it the right thing to do? I'm sure you'll reply with a 'quantity' argument (more bad than innocent) but you go and tell this to the innocent. The "sacrifice for the greater good" is a belief in itself. If you apply this to society, it's like you apply a religious belief (which you despise) on people's freedom. You choose that belief to apply for everyone and thus some innocents might be in jail. You decide for their freedom because you believe this belief is good. Some religious extremists do that too, and yet you despise them.
I guess it's all a matter of opinion.
Then again, I guess I said almost all I had to say in this thread.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 03:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As far as I know there is no natural event that could be described as a reversed nuclear reaction since a nuclear reaction breaks the atom into sub-atomic particles and releases a lot of energy while I have't heard of sub-atomic particles and energy coming together to create an atom.
Nuclear fusion?
Quote:
Would the replica be alive?
Can it move around? Can it reproduce? If so, then it is alive.
Quote:
Would the replica be you or someone else?
I'd say that it would be you.
Quote:
Why does the Universe have to obey certain laws (that allow life)?
That's like saying, "What if lightbulbs weren't lightbulbs? Why do they have to be lightbulbs?"
Quote:
If an electron has a certain probability to be in a certain location (instead of moving to the right for example it moves to the left), then the probability is not 100% if it HAPPENED, it's still 50%.
The flaw is that we can't find out where it is without changing stuff, but we know that it is somewhere. And it acts as a particle and a wave, so that further complicates things. But Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that we can't know both the velocity and location of an electron, because when we hit it with a photon, one of these things changes. It doesn't say that the velocity and location of an electron are not certain values, however.
Quote:
By your logic, probabilities wouldn't even exist (since what happens = 100% and everything else 0%), so why are we even using them?
Because we don't have all of the data.
Quote:
If you won at the lottery, logically with a 10% chance (calculated based on number of tickets, etc. simply said, it's mathematically calculated), then that's the probability you have to win.
It is only that way if you have an equal probability of picking any of the tickets. But you don't. You have a 100% chance of picking one certain ticket, and a 0% chance of picking any of the others. It is a 10% probability whenever you don't have all of the data and ability to calculate how exactly the decision-making process is going on inside of you on a molecular level.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted June 12, 2008 06:17 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 19:04, 12 Jun 2008.
|
I was absent a bit, but back to Schroedinger's cat.
Quantum mechanics' 'understanding' (or more-or-less wrong attempts to achieve it), sprouted many theories.
Einstein obstinately argued that there must be a deterministic force behind it ("God does not play dice").
Copenhagen shool is a hypothesis that quantum mechanics is stochastic/probabilistic by nature, and most of its supporters, most prominent being Bohr, conclude that whole universe is probabilistic as well.
Schroedinger, the cat's problem author, also thought quantum physics to be described by probability, but rejected nonexistence of deterministic areas in physics.
Bohm developed a deterministic interpretation, but it is not accepted as it violates the relativity theory, which is commonly accepted.
@below
Accurate quote, indeed.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
