Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 165 of 244 (888471)
09-18-2021 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Christian7
09-17-2021 10:32 PM


Christian7 writes:
How do I do the blue box quotes?
You're in essence asking, "How do I click on the help link that appears next to 'dBCodes On' to the left of the text box where I'm typing my reply?"
I'm addressing your question in as direct a fashion as you are ours.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 10:32 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 166 of 244 (888472)
09-18-2021 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Christian7
09-17-2021 10:56 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
Christian7 writes:
But there is no certainty is science, as Percy said, and therefore nothing is proven, and nothing can be certain to anyone.
Are you here for constructive discussion or just trying to be a frustrating dick? How much have you really changed from that messed up kid? I'm beginning to think your behavior here is just an adult incarnation of your younger self.
The error bars on what will happen if you jump off a tall building are very small. If you really believe nothing is certain, give it a try.
Tentativity is not an excuse for ignoring the degree of confidence we have in much of our knowledge. Our confidence in our knowledge of thermodynamics is extremely high, in the nature of dark energy extremely low. If you want to bet against some dark energy theory then feel free, but if you want to argue against established science in general where we have mountains of conclusive evidence and high confidence, then you're just being a dick who's trying to avoid addressing what people actually say.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 10:56 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 167 of 244 (888473)
09-18-2021 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Christian7
09-17-2021 11:02 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
It may take me a while to finish this thread because you keep saying things that can't be ignored.
Christian7 writes:
We know that certain things are true about the universe, not because we have evidence, but because what we believe is true.
This couldn't be more wrong. What we accept about the universe derives from evidence.
If we have evidence, but that evidence if faulty, yet we believe that evidence to be solid, then though we believe the conclusions, we do not know the conclusion as truth, though we have what seems to be solid evidence.
Yes, bad evidence leads to false conclusions. Do you see bad evidence being a factor in any argument people have raised? Perhaps in quantum theory? Cosmology? Nuclear physics? Anywhere?
I didn't think so.
Yes, people can be wrong. Presumably you're a person, too, and can be wrong. Please start engaging in the discussion and stop raising red herrings. You make progress in a discussion by presenting evidence and arguments. What you don't do is what you've been doing, which is repeating yourself, ignoring arguments, misinterpreting arguments, misunderstanding basic issues of fact, making bald declarations, speaking nonsense, and preaching.
This is because knowledge requires truth,...
Truth is not a concept within science. Knowledge requires evidence, analysis and replication. If you think truth has a role within science then argue for this position instead of just repeating it.
And even without evidence, as long as the thing trusted in is true, then it is knowledge. For if I hear that something has happened, and I believe it, though I have no evidence for it, yet if it did happen, then I know what I believe to be true.
This is what as known as a circular argument. Are you trying to make sure you hit all the major fallacies in a single thread?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 11:02 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 168 of 244 (888474)
09-18-2021 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by AZPaul3
09-17-2021 11:10 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
AZPaul3 writes:
And it doesn't matter who you are, when the science says you are wrong then you are wrong. Ask Fred Hoyle.
It might be worth mentioning that Fred probably lost out on the Nobel Prize for his work on star evolution because of his aggressively hostile stance against an expanding universe. He coined the phrase Big Bang, intending it as a term of derision, which everyone here already knows, except Christian of course.
It's a shame, really, because that star evolution work really deserved a Nobel, and if the Nobel committee hadn't feared Fred launching into a tirade (he had a reputation for outspokenness) against the expanding universe from the Nobel stage he would likely have gotten it.
In his later years Fred joined the creationists, so from that perspective it's really fortunate he didn't win the Nobel. It would only have made things more difficult had the creationists been able to list a Nobel laureate among their adherents, although on the other hand he would have been very inconvenient for the YEC's.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by AZPaul3, posted 09-17-2021 11:10 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 169 of 244 (888475)
09-18-2021 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Christian7
09-17-2021 11:37 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
Christian7 writes:
How do you know that evidence proves anything, or that anything can be learned from it?
How obvious are you trying to make it that you're not sincerely discussing in good faith?
Given your history I'm betting you've been in the courtroom at the defendant's table. What do you think the judge would say to your lawyer if he claimed evidence doesn't really prove anything?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 11:37 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 170 of 244 (888476)
09-18-2021 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Christian7
09-18-2021 7:25 AM


What you said:
The universe must make sense to a mind which is able to understand it. But for this to be true, that mind must exist. For if the universe must make sense to a mind which is able to understand it, it must make sense according to meaning and logic, which, it cannot, if there is no mind to whom it must make sense.
What it means:
Is qualia a part of the physical universe? If the universe is purely physical, what are minds?
You mean like our mind experiencing the senses or emotions? For anyone who understands that these are just synapses firing a certain way, sure, it's part of the physical universe. For anyone to whom aspects of the mind are transcendental or spiritual, maybe not, but their arguments would suffer from a lack of evidence.
But where are you going with this? As near as I can figure out this started with you arguing that everything must have a cause, and now you're mostly talking nonsense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 7:25 AM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by nwr, posted 09-18-2021 4:12 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 172 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:15 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 177 of 244 (888483)
09-18-2021 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Christian7
09-18-2021 10:06 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian7 writes:
Percy writes:
There is no evidence of any cause of virtual particles or of the time of nuclear decay or of what state an entangled particle will take up once observed.
Why are you offering useless evidence-free declarations of what you wish were true? It appears that you claim everything has a cause simply because you think it supports other things you believe true without evidence, so you simple declare, over and over again without support or rationale, that everything has a cause.
Everything does not have a cause, so far as we can tell.
Then what is stopping the universe from suddenly changing into an elephant?
I find it very hard to believe that someone of normal intelligence and sincerely interested in discussion would think this a reasonable response to it being pointed out that evidence indicates not everything has a cause.
Obviously all you believe in is space, time, matter and energy, all physical, that's it
Why are you repeating yourself? I've already clearly stated my position. Again, I accept that for which there is evidence. If you have any evidence for all your malarkey it's time to start talking.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:06 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 178 of 244 (888484)
09-18-2021 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Christian7
09-18-2021 10:21 AM


Christian7 writes:
If everything is made of physical energy, then there should be no consciousness.
There is no logic in that statement, nor even any perceivable connection between the premise and the conclusion.
Is a hand a hand because at some level it is a hand, or because the constituting elements behave together as a hand. The whole is not more than the sum of its parts, rather, its behavior emerges from the contribution of its parts.
That's just mindless rambling.
And since the parts of a brain are physical, there can be no mental reality in a purely materialistic universe.
This makes no sense, and again, there's no perceivable connection between the premise and the conclusion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:21 AM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 5:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 184 of 244 (888492)
09-18-2021 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Christian7
09-18-2021 10:38 AM


Christian7 writes:
I did not avoid the topic, but used an argument to respond to an argument. I dealt with the topic.
Not that anyone could tell.
If our knowledge that the laws of physics never changed is tentative, and all scientific knowledge is tentative, and nothing is proven, how can you make any claim about the universe, contrary to my "assertions", and be certain that you are right, and that I am wrong?
You wouldn't bet on a theory with no evidence, would you? Of course you wouldn't. In this you're just like everyone else.
So let's say there's a box with a million pebbles in it. You can't see inside, but you can reach in and pull out one pebble at a time. The first hundred pebbles you pull out are white. You're asked to guess the color of the next pebble. What color would you pick?
You'll choose white, of course, because the evidence gives you a fair amount of confidence it will be white. Now you choose an additional thousand pebbles, and again all are white. What's your confidence now that the next one will be white. Higher, right? Now you choose an additional ten thousand pebbles, and again all are white. What's your confidence now that the the next one will be white? Even higher, right? You and everyone else thinks this way.
There are trillions and trillions of stars and galaxies and nebulae and black holes and planets and sources of radiation out there, and every one we've ever looked at (which must number in the thousands at least) displays the exact same laws of physics we're familiar with here on Earth. What is your confidence that the next astronomical object we discover will also display the same laws of physics? Very high, right? Because of the tremendous amount of evidence, right?
And if you cannot be certain that you are right, and that I am wrong, but are merely confident, there should be doubt in your mind concerning what you affirm.
Since we said science is tentative, why are you asking about certainty? There is no certainty in science. My confidence that I am right and you are wrong derives from my awareness of the evidence supporting my position and how clear you've made it that you have no evidence for anything you say. All you do is keep repeating the same fallacious rhetorical arguments.
And if there is no doubt in your mind concerning what you affirm, then you are trusting in propositions, having faith in those propositions, seeing you know that the truth cannot be otherwise, as there is no proof that it is not.
There is no proof in science, either. Proving things is the realm of logic and mathematics.
And this is evident, because all scientific knowledge is tentative, and can therefore be revised, even rejected, by future scientific findings.
The Millikan oil drop experiment is instructive. Millikan devised experiments to measure the charge of the electron. He measured its negative charge to be 1.5924×10−19 coulombs. Other scientists tried to repeat his experiments or devised their own and found similar though slightly higher values. As the experiments were refined and became increasingly accurate they gradually honed in on the current value and began adding decimal places. The currently accepted value is 1.602176634×10−19 coulombs, only about 0.6% greater than what Millikan first measured.
Millikan's initial value was highly tentative, but each successive experiment gave greater and greater confidence that scientists were getting closer and closer to the actual value.
Can the value be further revised? Possibly. My guess is that our confidence in that final digit isn't that high.
But can the entire value be rejected, in the sense that it's found to be just plain wrong, perhaps not even negative? It's very difficult to imagine how that could be possible. For one thing the proton has an equal and opposite charge, as does the positron. Many other elemental particles also carry an electric charge either equal or opposite to the electron's. If we're wrong about the charge of the electron then we'd have to wrong about much else. That's inconceivable.
That's the way much of science works. Scientifically established values, hypotheses, theories and laws are not isolated from each other but are interdependent, woven into the entire fabric of science. There's very little in science that stands in isolation. If one thing changes then a lot of other things have to change, too.
So of course science is tentative and never achieves certainty, but our confidence in much scientific knowledge is extremely high. Your claim that scientific tentativity means that anything in science can be wrong and can therefore be ignored deeply misunderstands the strength of the evidence and the interwoven nature of science.
I have no idea what you mean by what you are saying. I did nothing to thwart discussion of the topic at hand. I engaged in discussion with everyone that responded to my posts as far as I was able to, and I responded to their arguments with arguments and explanations. If I responded with a single sentence, it is because I was getting tired, as it was late last night when I was on the forum. Perhaps I should not be debating when I am tired.
I think all most people want is a sincere effort at discussion. Single sentence answers saying it could all be a dream and whatnot is really poor form. Show some regard and respect for others.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Moved a phrase in a sentence to add grammatical clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:38 AM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 1:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 192 of 244 (888500)
09-19-2021 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Christian7
09-17-2021 9:41 PM


Re: Actual Big Bang Theory
Your post consists only of single line declarative answers that don't address most of what is said and are completely devoid of evidence and explanation. Please have some respect and regard for the people you're discussion with by providing sincere and serious responses.
Christian7 writes:
That's why, in the end, you have faith, either in God's word, or in something else.
You keep repeating this without evidence. Either provide the evidence and rationale for this claim, or, like any honorable person would do, drop it.
quote:
What does it mean for the universe to move? Is English a second language for you, or are you just expressing yourself unclearly so no one can tell what you're saying and therefore can't argue with it.
If you just mean motion of matter within the universe then say so. If you mean something else then say so. But at least string words together in an intelligible way.
I mean to change, or to run, or to operate according to its animate nature.
Again, is English a second language for you? If so just say so and we'll work together to try to figure out what you're trying to say. But if you're a native English language speaker you know you're talking nonsense, and please stop.
quote:
For knowledge is certainty of truth.
"Truth" isn't really a scientific concept.
Then is science based on truth, or is truth based on science?
"Truth" as you're employing it plays no role in science. How are you not getting this? The scientific concepts that apply to what you're calling "truth" would be accuracy, precision, statistical likelihood, replication, consensus. A scientific theory that is an accurate model of reality, say the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is not "truth" but widely supported, validated and accepted theory behind which stands an extremely strong consensus among scientists in the relevant fields, probably very close to 100% (mavericks exist in all fields, so no theory garners a 100% consensus).
quote:
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but it is certainly true that within science there is no certainty. It's called tentativity.
Then evolution is not certain.
Nothing in science is certain. Everything in science is tentative. But tentativity, the concept that tells us we don't know everything and that what we do know cannot be known with 100% confidence, does not mean we don't know anything, which is the road you keep going down.
Let me try explaining this another way. A car stops and asks you for directions for the fastest way to get somewhere. You say there are two ways to get there, but you can't know which is fastest due to unknown factors like traffic, the timing of traffic lights, backups at stop signs, and so forth. The driver shakes his head, laughs at you, says you don't know anything, that your directions would only get them lost, calls you an ignorant local, then pulls away. Does that seem fair or even make any sense to you?
It doesn't, right? Yet you're doing the exact same thing when you say if science is tentative then the universe could turn into an elephant. I hope we see nothing like this from you again.
quote:
Our scientific knowledge is not certain but tentative, yet it *is* knowledge. For example we know that the gravitational constant is 6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2, but only to four significant digits. We don't *know* it's actual exact value. Our knowledge of it is tentative, in this case meaning in an inexact or imprecise sense. Yet our tentative knowledge of its value is sufficient to guide rockets into space and to distant planets. Though our knowledge isn't certain or perfect, it is still knowledge.
But does this knowledge get you anything beyond this life? Will it mean anything once the universe is dead?
You've gone completely off-topic. You've got to fight your strong tendency to do this every time you encounter something you don't understand. You must begin working at understanding what people write instead of ignoring it.
The subject is tentativity, not how to win points for the afterlife. Did you find the example of the gravitational constant helpful in understanding how science can work excellently well despite its necessary tentativity? If not, do you have any questions?
quote:
Maybe you should become a mystic.
Why?
Because that's what all your answers so far suit you for.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 9:41 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 193 of 244 (888501)
09-19-2021 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by AZPaul3
09-19-2021 1:47 AM


AZPaul3 writes:
Christian7 writes:
There was no cause for the beginning, why should there be any cause for the end, even one to occur in a moment?
First, of course there had to be a cause. We just don't know what that cause was, and neither do you. May as well be a quantum spark from nothing as well as any other speculations people care to imagine.
It looks like we might have different views on this. My view is that we don't know whether the Big Bang had a cause or not. One non-cause theory is that the universe sprang from random alignments/collisions between mulitverses.
Other phenomena for which know of no cause is the timing of radioactive decay and the spin (or other subatomic property) an entangled particle takes on once observed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 1:47 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 1:05 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 194 of 244 (888502)
09-19-2021 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Christian7
09-18-2021 4:15 PM


Christian7 writes:
The experience of awareness, thought, emotions, senses, etc, are not physical in nature.
Let's test your theory with a little mind experiment. Your theory is that the experience of awareness, thought, emotions, senses, etc, are not physical in nature. Let's take a standard white laboratory mouse and stop its brain so that synapses no longer fire. Is the mouse experiencing any awareness, thought, emotions, senses, etc? The answer is no, right?
Do you have any experimental results from anywhere demonstrating any awareness, thought, emotions, senses, etc., when there is no brain activity. You don't, right?
Therefore, the available evidence indicates that brain death and mind death go hand in hand, and that the mind is the expression of physical processes within the brain.
Without a mind, according to your claim, the universe would be going on.
Why do you keep questioning this? You obviously have nothing but the baseless claim that the universe requires the mind in order to exist. You have no evidence for this position, but you keep stating it in pretty much the same way over and over again.
We have evidence that the world formed around 4.5 billion years ago. Man was not around at that time, yet the world formed anyway. We've found stars that formed more than 13 billion years ago, and man was not around for that, either. Why do you keep insisting on your baseless claim that the existence of the universe depends upon the human mind?
I'm going to ignore and not even quote your sentences that make no sense.
What you think your mind is after death, that is what your physical brain should produce.
After brain death there can be no mind.
For, if a theory could be formed that explained the universe in terms of quantum physics, with a single equation, concerning the physical forces of nature and the movement of particles, (I do not know exactly how the math describe things. I speak in some ignorance), it would not demonstrate that anything consciousness could be formed.
Consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity that isn't well understood, but one thing that's been demonstrated over and over and over again is that there can be no consciousness without brain activity. Your statement that you speak in some ignorance is an understatement - concerning science you speak in almost total ignorance.
It would demonstrate that the most sophisticated object in the universe is nothing but changing states and positions of particles.
Assuming that by "the most sophisticated object in the universe" you mean the human brain, then yes, evidence indicates it is nothing more than matter and energy following the laws of physics.
The happens space, which, as far as I know, is not sentient, nor has any property leading to sentience.
There's a grammatical problem here I can't figure out. I can tell you're declaring that space isn't sentient, which few would argue with, but I can't see how it fits into your larger argument.
You cannot deny that you have a mind, and that it sees colors, which cameras do not, and which androids do not. Though cameras receive light, they do not see anything. But we see, and our sight is not physical.
You're speaking nonsense again. Of course sight is physical, beginning with the eyes, then the optic nerve, then the occipital lobe. Anyone missing any one of those has no sight.
For not in bounds alone are our perceptual fields separated, but they are completely unjoinable in any fashion. Only through the physical medium can our minds interact. Even twins who are joined together have separate visual fields. If one eye belongs to one, they see through that eye, if the other other eye belongs to the other, they see through that eye. But neither sees through the other one's eye, for their perceptual fields are not simply isolated in bounds alone, but in much more than that. Cameras do not have this property, for their lenses and rams are isolated merely in bounds.
The siamese twin stuff is irrelevant, and the camera stuff is ignorant nonsense.
I'll return to the topic.
Oh, be still my heart! So have you figured out that not everything has a cause yet?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:15 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 196 of 244 (888504)
09-19-2021 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Christian7
09-18-2021 4:28 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
Christian7 writes:
quote:
Are you here for constructive discussion or just trying to be a frustrating dick? How much have you really changed from that messed up kid? I'm beginning to think your behavior here is just an adult incarnation of your younger self.
I'm making an argument.
You definitely are not making an argument. You're repeatedly declaring the same nonsense over and over again while ignoring what people have actually said, probably because you don't understand it.
quote:
The error bars on what will happen if you jump off a tall building are very small. If you really believe nothing is certain, give it a try.
You yourself said that nothing is certain. The Law of Gravity, The Theory of Gravity, (I guess it's not a law), is not certain, though we all know that we are subject to it, according to the science as you've explained it. It would seem then, that nothing was discovered about gravity which we can be sure of, except the common observation that no one can fly without a machine, which I am sure that everyone understood for the most part already.
Yes, of course nothing is 100% certain in science, but what do you think of 99.99999% confidence (there's not really any way to know the number of 9's after the decimal point, I'm just trying to give you a proper impression of how confident we are)? Do you think that's good enough for the scientific principles behind lasers, airplanes, interplanetary spacecraft and nuclear reactors that these devices will work? It is, right? It has to be, else none of these things would work.
You're really struggling conceptually with tentativity. I think your main trouble is with the idea that our confidence in something can be less than 100% and still work. But what things in your life are you 100% certain of? Nothing in your life is 100% certain, right? Driving to work, buying groceries, getting a haircut, getting your computer onto the Internet, none of these are a certainty, yet you're still able to successfully carry on your life in the face of all this uncertainty. The same is true of science, except that our confidence in our established theories is far higher than the likelihood that you'll make it in to work tomorrow.
Confidence and certainty are not the same thing.
Yes, that's what I've been telling you. Certainty is not required for science to work, but no matter how many times we tell you this you keep making the same argument about science not being certain and therefore the universe could turn into an elephant.
If you are merely confident you will not go to Hell for refusing to believe the gospel, but not certain, then rejecting the gospel is not wise.
You're preaching again. Do you have evidence for hell and all the rest? No? Don't you think you should only be making arguments for things demonstrated to actually exist?
If you are merely confident that you will not suffocate in space, but not certain, then going into space with a faulty astronaut suit is not wise.
Well, that's a bunch of nonsense. Why would anyone think they wouldn't suffocate in space? Did you mean to say in a spacesuit? Of course there's risks in a spacesuit. Our confidence in established scientific theories are extremely high. Our confidence in manufactured products like spacesuits is much, much less.
You must admit, then, that if scientists are not certain, they are taking a risk. And taking risks with your soul is not wise.
You're preaching again, and you're apparently still confused about tentativity. We're trying to help you understand that scientific theories do not have 100% certainty, and you've wandered away from scientific research and into manufactured products. You're way out in left field.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:28 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 201 of 244 (888511)
09-19-2021 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Christian7
09-18-2021 4:39 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
Christian writes:
quote:
This couldn't be more wrong. What we accept about the universe derives from evidence.
There's nothing with evidence, if it provides certainty, but if merely confidence, it is not evidence.
You're still thinking just one move ahead. That you could say something like this means you haven't thought this through at all. You appear to be responding with whatever pops into your head first, even if it's nonsense.
What do the police collect at a crime scene? Evidence, right? How much of that evidence leads to a certain conclusion? Very little, right? Does that mean the evidence they gathered isn't really evidence? It's still evidence, right?
So your argument is wrong, and nonsense. We're approaching 200 messages now. It's fine if you didn't get this stuff when the thread began, but if you're still not getting it after nearly 200 messages then it's because of a determined ignorance, combined with a desperation to prevent constructive discussion by making absurd arguments that distract attention from the topic.
I've been trying to present arguments, and I'm not deliberately misinterpreting anything.
Are you saying it wasn't deliberate when you argued that because of tentativity the universe could turn into an elephant? If that wasn't deliberate then your only other excuse is to claim that your comprehension of what you read is so poor that it seems like a reasonable argument to you.
quote:
Truth is not a concept within science. Knowledge requires evidence, analysis and replication. If you think truth has a role within science then argue for this position instead of just repeating it.
If truth is not a concept within science, then how can it have all the answers?
No one in this thread has claimed science has all the answers. Why would you think that?
What I *would* say is that when presented with a choice between a scientific answer based upon evidence and replication and a preacher's answer based upon his reading of the Bible, the scientific answer has an orders of magnitude higher probability of being correct. I'd also say that for any area of objective research that the scientific method is the best way to approach it, not religious services or preachers or witch doctors and so forth.
If it cannot address the very issue of truth, and what is ultimately true, then why is anyone even doing science. Without a concept of truth, or the ability to affirm that anything is true, there is no knowing that anything is says is true.
You frequently confuse two different definitions of the word truth. Sometimes you're using it in the sense of religious truth. Science has nothing to do with religious truth.
Other times you use truth in the sense of accurately reflecting reality, and that's the definition of truth appropriate for science. In discussions with religious people we tend to avoid words like "truth" and "true" because religious people will tend to interpret them in a religious sense. But I'll ignore that practice for this once and say that science tries to discover what is likely true of reality.
It would be a mistake if you took that and cast it into a religious context and said something like, "Science tries to uncover truths about the universe."
I believe truth has a role in science.
If by "truth" you mean developing accurate understandings of the universe, then you've got things right, but using the word "truth" is likely to get you into trouble because you'll tend by your very nature to flip that word into a religious context and say things like, "Science seeks the truth about the universe."
quote:
This is what as known as a circular argument. Are you trying to make sure you hit all the major fallacies in a single thread?
For me to know something it must be true.
On the contrary, you appear to know a great many things that are not true. For instance, you appear to know that science must have certainty to be true, and that's obviously false.
For me to know something I must be certain.
You appear to be certain of a great many things that are not true.
I don't need evidence to know something as long as what I believe is true.
Believing things without evidence is the definition of faith. This is a science thread, and thinking you don't need evidence to know things is serving you very poorly here.
Therefore, knowledge is certainty of truth, regardless of evidence.
Literally billions of people throughout time have been certain of things that are untrue. "Zeus is the chief God." "The world is flat." "The sun orbits the Earth." "Illness is caused by evil spirits." "The continents don't move."
Your statement that you need no evidence to have knowledge but rather certainty of truth is the height of ignorance. That approach will guarantee you lead an ignorant life and explains why after nearly 200 messages you have still managed to learn almost nothing. You're still making the same ignorant arguments now that you were making when you started this thread.
Is that circular?
Pretty much. Boiling it down, you've got "knowledge is certainty" followed by "certainty is knowledge." Making things worse, in the middle you declare evidence irrelevant to knowledge.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:39 PM Christian7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-19-2021 2:56 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 209 of 244 (888525)
09-19-2021 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Christian7
09-18-2021 5:03 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian7 writes:
Atheism needs there to be no creator. For this to be so, the universe must either be eternal from the past, or have come from nothing. But for the universe to come from nothing, then for the first event there must be no cause. And they assert that there can be events without a cause, but you merely claim that we have no evidence of events without a cause, from which it is obvious that it is not certain that events can take place without a cause. Therefore, it is not proven, according to your own understanding, that the universe has no creator, and therefore, atheists are deluded, according to your own assertions.
You're just finding different ways of saying the same thing. Convincing people is not a matter of finding the right grammar, the right phrasing, the right vocabulary. You'll never convince anybody because it isn't your way of expressing that is wrong but the ideas themselves. Here's a list of incorrect statements:
  • The universe must be either eternal or come from nothing.
  • If the universe came from nothing there can be no cause.
  • The other side says there is no evidence of events without a cause [this isn't true].
  • Because of this lack of evidence, it is not certain that there can be event's with no cause [it's true that it's not certain, but from scientific principle, not lack of evidence]
  • It is not proven that the universe has no creator [no one has made this claim, and nothing is proven in science anyway]
  • Therefore atheists own statements show them deluded [Christian has attributed a number of statements to atheists that they haven't made]
So I'm not even going to try to untangle that hash of false statements. I'd just end up repeating the same arguments you're already ignoring. Why don't you ask some intelligent questions, for example, "I'm having trouble figuring out whether your claim is that there is or isn't evidence for events with no cause. Could we discuss this some more?" But you don't do that, you just keep repeating your erroneous statements over and over again.
quote:
So all you're saying is that things that don't exist also have no physical laws. How is that relevant to whatever point you're making?
No, I am saying that things outside this physical reality do not obey physical laws.
The precise terminology isn't important. You're saying that things outside this physical reality do not obey physical laws. How is that relevant to whatever point you're making?
You next construct another hash of complete confusion. Christian, what is it in your life experience that tells you you know anything about logic, math or science? Nothing, right? So why do you persist in talking about logic, math and science?
If logic and math are human constructs, they reflect reality, when provided claims that correspond to the world.
This is incredibly poorly phrased if all you're trying to say is that we can create mathematical models of the universe.
And if the world cannot defy this reflection,...
So in your thinking, if we study how the universe behaves and discover it obeys the mathematical equation (for example) F=ma, then henceforth the universe cannot violate that equation, even though the universe's behavior was exactly the same both before and after we developed that equation. Why do you think the existence of that equation has any effect on the universe's behavior? It doesn't, of course. The equation merely models the way the universe behaves. It is interesting to note that scientific philosopher's have marveled at the fact that the universe is comprehensible and can be modeled using mathematics. Maybe you could try going that route.
...though there are things describable for it to do, which would violate this reflection, then this reflection correlates with that which limits the universe.
This is incredibly poorly phrased again, and the best I can come up with is something that doesn't make sense. You appear to be saying that we can write mathematical equations that are not accurate models of how the universe behaves, for example F=md. If that's what you're saying then that is true. You then appear to say that the equations that do not correctly reflect how the universe behaves correlate with "that which limits the universe," which in your thinking must be equations that correctly model the universe. So if I've unscrambled this hash properly, why would you think equations that do not properly model the universe would have any correlation with those that do?
Better yet, why don't you just express what you were trying to say in plain English.
And if what it correlates with is not itself the universe, the only physical reality we know, then what it correlates with is not physical.
This is a very odd way of phrasing it, but yes, that is correct, mathematical representations that do not model the universe do not correlate with the way the universe actually behaves. That's a tautology. You've in essence said, "Incorrect models yield incorrect results."
Therefore, something non-physical governs the universe.
Clearly false. Valid conclusions do not come from a hash of fallacious statements, unintelligible statements and tautologies.
This means that our human constructs is a mere reflection of that which limits the universe, and not a reflection of the universe.
Again, valid conclusions don't follow from your confusions and errors, plus this distinction you're trying to draw between the universe and "that which limits the universe" makes no sense. There is no evidence for anything like "that which limits the universe."
For if it were a reflection of the universe, then no claims need be provided, because other claims not describing our universe may also be provided when claims must be provided.
I'll try to decipher this. You're saying that if we have accurate models of the universe then no models are needed because there could also be inaccurate models. That this makes no sense should not require explanation.
Physical things have physical form.
You're referring to our universe, where things can have both physical (bones) and non-physical (light) form. I think you're trying to say that we can observe things in our universe.
Non-physical things have no physical form.
After discussing with you for a while I can tell that you're not actually referring to non-physical things like light. You're talking about things outside our universe. I'm not going to engage any of your claims about a place for which you have no evidence.
Yet formless things can affect things which have form.
You're trying to say that things outside our universe can affect things inside it. Can you provide some examples of this?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 5:03 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024