tesla writes:
quote:
Can you name a single instance where adding God into a scientific theory has improved our knowledge of the natural world? If we add God into Newton's formulas do they suddenly become more accurate?
maybe.
You first need a scientific definition to understand the "what" of God and his/its relation to man.
This should prove interesting.
With this understanding their "may" be a way to tie mathematical equations better together.
Mathematical equations fitting better together????
I am not a mathematician yet I have had enough post-Calculus math to know we are dealing with a subject that by its very nature is pure deductive reasoning based upon a few postulates.
The postulates may vary, such as Euclidean vs non-Euclidean geometry, but the logic does not. How could any supposed 'god' reconcile the fifth postulate of Euclid, which states parallel lines never meet with the spherical geometry of meeting at the poles?
The very term "fitting better together" betrays an ignorance of how mathematics works. There are simply different conclusions based upon different postulates using exactly the same formal rules of logic.
{yes, math people, I know this is an oversimplification, but I'm referring to normal mathematics, not some postmodernist stuff that has no apparent real life application, and by that I mean the oxymoron irrational logic, not irrational numbers}
For instance, IF the math we have now is true, yet missing a key component ( such as a ball's path being a three second launch off the ground starting at T=0, yet on the return path you accrue a negative number because you didn't have the ground in the return eqation) Then you may build years of study and math explaining dynamics by that math and waste years of potential growth because of an overlooked variable.
What on earth are you talking about?
The trajectory of balls, particularly cannonballs, was of extreme interest to Galileo, Da Vinci, and many pre-Newtonian 'physicists.' The Newtonian equation that covers the ideal trajectory of a given cannonball is a matter of first semester college physics. Yes the ball goes up as F=ma first overcomes gravity, but gravity overcomes such an initial force unless it can achieve escape velocity such as a rocket launching a satellite. Naturally a cannonball goes up at first which is usually denoted by a positive sign in the equation, and then goes down, which is generally denoted by a negative sign in the equation.
So what are you trying to argue needs negotiation and reconciliation, gravity or minus signs?
Also notice the term ideal. There are other forces that can affect such a trajectory that modify (not override) such a trajectory. Wind resistance, humidity, and relative air pressure are some that immediately come to mind.
You have actually provided a perfect example of why a belief in ID would mean the death of further inquiry.
You just suggested that we use 'god' as a variable in any mathematical equation where objects do not act exactly in accordance with some simple ideal model that describes the flight of a ball.
To say that goddidit would mean no one would investigate the effect that aerodynamics, air pressure, even humidity would have on such a trajectory. Modifications to the ideal that are usually within the province of that human endeavor known as engineering.
Now one may argue that such modifications are so slight as to be unnecessary, however this would not sit well with the artillery units in the US Army who, using computers and such modifications to the ideal equation can achieve a virtual perfect accuracy with their munitions far greater than was available in WW2 or Vietnam.
Indeed, if I were an astronaut, I would sure be troubled if someone said my trajectory was based in any part upon the variable known as faith.
So, do you have a problem with the concept of engineering, or the military, because they do not use your 'god' as a variable in their calculations? How would such a variable work anyway? Is your faith a more accurate predictor of where a given object will land than the best that science, engineering and fast computers can offer?
We have alot more data now, overwhelming data piling in. I believe we are behind in examining that data because of breakdowns in communications between the sciences. My opinion of course.
I think the breakdown is because of your lack of education more than any lack of communication between the sciences.
But of course that is just my opinion as a managing and primary reference librarian with degrees in science, engineering, and technical communications.
Edited by anglagard, : replace 'as an' with 'if i was' for accuracy.
Edited by anglagard, : were not was, if i'm gonna brag, best have clean boxers
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
™ Version 4.2
