|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is a Theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gdel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable. As Rrhain has pointed out, this was based on analagous thinking to Godel, but was actually based on Hawking's ideas around information loss. He finally changed his mind (long after the rest of us did!) on this in 2005 so his comments from 2002 regarding a potential Thoery of Everything are now obsolete... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
having studied all of those, being a mathematician, I see the differences between them. For a mathematician, you study set theory first. For a physicist, you never get to set theory. so perhaps you'll explain to me how I, a physicist by your definition, was teaching set theory on the Tripos? Beyond a certain level, Rrhain, the distinctions blur. Perhaps you have yet to reach those levels to realise that.
There's a reason that the tensor algebra class has different versions for the physicists and the mathematicians. we're not talking about undergraduate courses, Rrhain. But even so, I have taught those tensor classes to mathematicians. And I agree there is a world of difference between a physics tensor course and a mathematics tensor course. Which is why Hawking and I are(were) in the maths department and not the physics department... and in the main, the Relativity Group takes its members directly from the Maths Tripos.
But the Dyson's of this world who are both mathematician and physicist are few and far between Yes, and guess where most of them are...
No. As far as I am concerned, he's a cosmologist. I am a mathematician. Perhaps if you move forward in the field, you'll realise your error By degree, my peers were a mix of mathematics, physics, and astrophysics. Two years afterwards, you would have a very hard time telling them apart. Several year later, you would not be able to tell them apart.
But mathematical physicists are still physicists, not mathematicians. So Atiyah and Witten are physicists? are you going to tell them to give back their Fields medals? You should spend some time at John Baez's This Week's Finds In Mathematical Physics - you may learn something about the underpinnings of set theory, as John is a Category Theory nut. Or is category theory *too* fundamental for mathematics, and should be considered physics again? And when we start looking at different topoi, I guess we're just performing experimental physics
nd thus no, I do not expect Hawking to understand the field of set theory. ROTFLMAO Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Ambercab, welcome to the fray.
I like the notion (starting with post 169) of debating whether water boils at 100C. Celsius invented a scale by saying that he would make the freezing point of water 100 and the boiling point 0. He didn’t discover it, there is no theory. He simply invented a definition. The scale was reversed after his death to make the one that we know today. (In modern usage, the Celsius scale is linked to the kelvin, which measures absolute temperatures, and the definition has become rather more complicated.) See ericp's response to Message 115 ... oh wait, there was no response. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2849 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
In theology the test is based on scripture, and in philosophy on logic. The emphasis in both is usually on proof. I hope this is on topic. A theory of theology anyhow. Two points: 1. If in theology the test is based on scripture, you are saying that the scripture is, in the language of linear algebra, an independent set rather than a dependent set. The distinction between a unique solution and infinitely many solutions for the math, but while perhaps short of infinitely many for beliefs, still allows many perceptions to exist.If this idea is correct that scripture determines only one 'correct' perception, why does Constantine in convening the council of Nicaea, call for a vote after differing views are presented? Why are there differing views? And after being outvoted what happens to Arius's view and to the significance of the scriptures he quoted? 2. If in theology the test is based on scripture, what happens 'in the limit' as we approach Adam in this basis for 'Adam's theology' and finally before anything is recorded about theology?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ambercab Inactive Junior Member |
I said:
In theology the test is based on scripture, and in philosophy on logic. On your first point, statistically we could probably prove any proposition from a scripture, because they tend to be long books containing lots of words. A pedantic example from the bible: Jesus says "whoever is not against you is for you" in Luke 9:50 and "he who is not with me is against me” in Luke 11:23. One statement is unifying and the other divisive. We need something other than logic, such as context and what we believe, to choose between them in a particular case. OK, I should have said that the test is based on 'interpretation of scripture' instead of just 'scripture'. Hopefully that deals with your second point - without any scripture, Adam has nothing to interpret. Let me make a shameful admission: There are examples in science (including math?) where an idea has developed because of its beauty alone, and the logic filled-in later. It’s intriguing, and useful, that theories can be stated in math or simple logic, but I’d rather trust objective reality any day. Thanks, I feel much better now. (Thanks RAZD for the welcome and posting tips, I had wondered how to do the snazzy graphics). There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made - Richard Feynman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2849 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
I should have said that the test is based on 'interpretation of scripture' instead of just 'scripture'. Hopefully that deals with your second point - without any scripture, Adam has nothing to interpret. Well not really, as there is then no basis for theology according to your statement. Whether theology is based on scripture or the interpretation of scripture, the problem remains. What basis did theology have before the first written scripture? In other words maybe you have it backwards.Scripture is based on theology. Anyhow.. back to what is a theory.. hopefully..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2107 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
On the Ark Volume thread Prophet posts:
This seems to have produced quite good results for the past few centuries. But if evidence is found to show that this assumption is not accurate, I'm sure that science will adjust its assumptions and methods to accommodate. This is yet another problem... "science will adjust"!That is not what you expect to be able to do with truth, but rather what one expects to be capable of doing with a lie. Science like lies are malleable. You clearly have no idea what science is, or how it works. Here are a couple of definitions that may help:
quote: See the difference? Now if scientists advertised each theory as the unchanging truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH, then I can see why you would question any changes. But science doesn't do that. It is religious believers who fail to make the distinction between scientific theory and some form of truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH. Don't blame science for doing what it is supposed to do. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2107 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
See the above post.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
"I clearly have no idea of science?" You know not what you think.
Since you got me here... I'll clue you in on something. truth, Truth TRUTH - and so on... is truth and anything short of that is not truth! An almost truth is still and untruth and an untruth is still a lie. Ya'll sound so much cooler on-line. By the way... I am so much cooler off line!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
Prophet, can you tell me what time it is? Be careful now I would like to have the exact truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
CosmicChimp writes:
quote: I realize I'm not prophet, but here goes: It's "now." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2107 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Since you got me here... I'll clue you in on something. truth, Truth TRUTH - and so on... is truth and anything short of that is not truth! An almost truth is still and untruth and an untruth is still a lie. Try again, and address the definitions I posted this time. And remember, those definitions are terms as they are used in science, not religion, theology, or philosophy, etc. Or if you still want to play games with truth, Truth, TRUTH, and TRVTH, please provide some clue as to which term you are using and how you define it. Short of a tight definition from you, my post and the definition I used still stands. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Instead of replying to what Coyote actually said in Message 202, you repeated your claim about truth. If you're in effect just going to cover your ears while repeating "Science is a lie" then it isn't a discussion and there's no point in you being here.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ambercab Inactive Junior Member |
A theory: Theology and baseball do not exist until invented by humans.
That is scientific because it can be falsified by finding pre- or non-human evidence of baseball or theology. Another theory: There is always a trade-off with the truth - a theory that has passed tests against reality can only ever be tentatively true (we may find buffalo playing baseball tomorrow), and an eternal truth can’t be tested against reality (”God is eternal’ is only true if you believe it). Yet another theory: Truth only exists in the human mind . Is that true? There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made - Richard Feynman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
That "now" of yours was written when?
The only answer to the question that can remain correct to; What itme is it? must be conveyed in the past tense for the present is always becomming the past; my answer: "then" However, "then" must be given liberal understanding, yet defeats "now" except in a general format such as; 21st century (using USA's dating techniques and only remans accurate for a time)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024