OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 20, 2014, 04:52:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Laws of Physics Vary Throughout the Universe, New Study Suggests  (Read 5057 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,352


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: September 10, 2010, 11:42:03 AM »

Quote
The report describes how one of the supposed fundamental constants of Nature appears not to be constant after all. Instead, this 'magic number' known as the fine-structure constant -- 'alpha' for short -- appears to vary throughout the universe.

"After measuring alpha in around 300 distant galaxies, a consistency emerged: this magic number, which tells us the strength of electromagnetism, is not the same everywhere as it is here on Earth, and seems to vary continuously along a preferred axis through the universe," Professor John Webb from the University of New South Wales said.

"The implications for our current understanding of science are profound. If the laws of physics turn out to be merely 'local by-laws', it might be that whilst our observable part of the universe favours the existence of life and human beings, other far more distant regions may exist where different laws preclude the formation of life, at least as we know it."

"If our results are correct, clearly we shall need new physical theories to satisfactorily describe them."
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2010, 01:48:28 PM »

Quote
The report describes how one of the supposed fundamental constants of Nature appears not to be constant after all. Instead, this 'magic number' known as the fine-structure constant -- 'alpha' for short -- appears to vary throughout the universe.

"After measuring alpha in around 300 distant galaxies, a consistency emerged: this magic number, which tells us the strength of electromagnetism, is not the same everywhere as it is here on Earth, and seems to vary continuously along a preferred axis through the universe," Professor John Webb from the University of New South Wales said.

"The implications for our current understanding of science are profound. If the laws of physics turn out to be merely 'local by-laws', it might be that whilst our observable part of the universe favours the existence of life and human beings, other far more distant regions may exist where different laws preclude the formation of life, at least as we know it."

"If our results are correct, clearly we shall need new physical theories to satisfactorily describe them."
Very cool
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2010, 01:51:36 PM »

I wonder if it is not that 'alpha' is not constant, but that because we do not understand yet enough of the Laws of the Universe, there is no 'alpha' as we had thought.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2010, 02:00:15 PM »

I remember a few years ago when they started noticing this. It always amuses me when people talk about their disbelief in God because of science. Yet, using this as an example, science is always sure... right up to the point that it's wrong, and then 100% sure again.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2010, 02:00:29 PM »

I wonder if it is not that 'alpha' is not constant, but that because we do not understand yet enough of the Laws of the Universe, there is no 'alpha' as we had thought.
Or perhaps there is another set rules above the current laws of physics that governs those laws, and determines how alpha veries. I am certain that scientists will eventually want to address this.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,960



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2010, 02:19:14 PM »

In my opinion, physical laws are part of Creation, therefore, subject to change and, yes, to one day dissapear if let to themselves.

If laws were above creation, that would mean an entire new level of reality above physical reality, something materialists would deny, but many phiosophers woud welcome.

If laws were above creation, they could be either "mechanical" lifeless, consciousless laws, or be self-conscious living laws aka God.

If the laws were God Himself we would have a problem because this is a fallen universe where entropy reigns. We would have to assume that the Fall and Death are what God wants.

Because, through revelation, we know that is not the case, God does not want death, and He does not want the Fall, I can only conclude that the laws, and constants of physics are part of the created world. They were meant to be lifegiving, but after the fall they are corrupted. Entropy is for the physical universe what sin is for the soul.  Therefore the laws are subject to change themselves.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,057



« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2010, 03:33:53 PM »

In my opinion, physical laws are part of Creation, therefore, subject to change and, yes, to one day dissapear if let to themselves.

If laws were above creation, that would mean an entire new level of reality above physical reality, something materialists would deny, but many phiosophers woud welcome.

If laws were above creation, they could be either "mechanical" lifeless, consciousless laws, or be self-conscious living laws aka God.

If the laws were God Himself we would have a problem because this is a fallen universe where entropy reigns. We would have to assume that the Fall and Death are what God wants.

Because, through revelation, we know that is not the case, God does not want death, and He does not want the Fall, I can only conclude that the laws, and constants of physics are part of the created world. They were meant to be lifegiving, but after the fall they are corrupted. Entropy is for the physical universe what sin is for the soul.  Therefore the laws are subject to change themselves.
Perhaps that is why some scientists want a God bound by physical laws?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2010, 11:28:57 PM »

I wonder if it is not that 'alpha' is not constant, but that because we do not understand yet enough of the Laws of the Universe, there is no 'alpha' as we had thought.
Or perhaps there is another set rules above the current laws of physics that governs those laws, and determines how alpha veries. I am certain that scientists will eventually want to address this.

That's likely...I've always suspected a flaw in the consistency arguments of quantum mechanics, maybe this will help discover it and allow us to make real progress towards a unified theory, not that there's any grantee it will be the 'ultimate theory' I don't think we're that close yet, I don't think we've developed the fields of geometric topology and, especially, applied geometric topology adequately to properly model and develop such a theory.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2010, 11:33:10 PM »

I remember a few years ago when they started noticing this. It always amuses me when people talk about their disbelief in God because of science. Yet, using this as an example, science is always sure... right up to the point that it's wrong, and then 100% sure again.

I don't think you understand, this is science at its greatest, one observation by a small group of people can cast serious doubt on, and even undermine, an established and accepted theory. Science is only credible because it is falsifiable, a statement/theorem/hypothesis that cannot be falsified is useless, the fact that these theories have the potential to be disproven is what gave them value in the first place.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2010, 08:20:46 AM »

I remember a few years ago when they started noticing this. It always amuses me when people talk about their disbelief in God because of science. Yet, using this as an example, science is always sure... right up to the point that it's wrong, and then 100% sure again.

I don't think you understand, this is science at its greatest, one observation by a small group of people can cast serious doubt on, and even undermine, an established and accepted theory. Science is only credible because it is falsifiable, a statement/theorem/hypothesis that cannot be falsified is useless, the fact that these theories have the potential to be disproven is what gave them value in the first place.

Or the theory of being possibly disproven? Much of quantum physic is debating over equations on paper. "no no, I disproved your 10 dimensions because if I do this 11 dimensions work better! There I proved! The universe has 11 dimensions! How does this fit into reality? Uh... Well you see.."
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2010, 01:46:42 PM »

I wonder if it is not that 'alpha' is not constant, but that because we do not understand yet enough of the Laws of the Universe, there is no 'alpha' as we had thought.
Or perhaps there is another set rules above the current laws of physics that governs those laws, and determines how alpha veries. I am certain that scientists will eventually want to address this.

That's likely...I've always suspected a flaw in the consistency arguments of quantum mechanics, maybe this will help discover it and allow us to make real progress towards a unified theory, not that there's any grantee it will be the 'ultimate theory' I don't think we're that close yet, I don't think we've developed the fields of geometric topology and, especially, applied geometric topology adequately to properly model and develop such a theory.

It would be interesting to fast-forward a few thousand years and see where physics goes from here. How many sets of rules will govern how many sets of other rules. Will it be like a three dimensional tree diagram? will certain sets of rules be interdependent? Who knows. But it's definitely cool to think about.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2010, 04:41:02 PM »

Or the theory of being possibly disproven? Much of quantum physic is debating over equations on paper. "no no, I disproved your 10 dimensions because if I do this 11 dimensions work better! There I proved! The universe has 11 dimensions! How does this fit into reality? Uh... Well you see.."
What scientific debate are you quoting, here?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2010, 07:38:35 PM »

I remember a few years ago when they started noticing this. It always amuses me when people talk about their disbelief in God because of science. Yet, using this as an example, science is always sure... right up to the point that it's wrong, and then 100% sure again.

I don't think you understand, this is science at its greatest, one observation by a small group of people can cast serious doubt on, and even undermine, an established and accepted theory. Science is only credible because it is falsifiable, a statement/theorem/hypothesis that cannot be falsified is useless, the fact that these theories have the potential to be disproven is what gave them value in the first place.

Or the theory of being possibly disproven? Much of quantum physic is debating over equations on paper. "no no, I disproved your 10 dimensions because if I do this 11 dimensions work better! There I proved! The universe has 11 dimensions! How does this fit into reality? Uh... Well you see.."

I personally come from the field of theoretical mathematics, I would never throw around the word 'proof' so lightly. If your work depends on physical observations, as all of physics does, it is inherently impossible to have proofs, you can have hypotheses and theories and if a theory becomes very well established, it may even be referred to as a law, but you can never meet the MUCH stronger criteria of a proof.

As for your example, theoretical astrophysics, I will agree that 'String Theory' has achieved a dangerous level of orthodoxy within science, science needs scientists like these who can challenge established theories, that's what makes science science. As for those who debate theoretical astrophysics, they're certainly essential, we need models if observations are to be of any use at all, but from time to time they can become too attached to their pet theories; however, observations like these can change the mind of even the most devout follower of an existing model. The history of science does not treat kindly those who advocate incorrect theories, especially after conflicting observations have been discovered.

With that said, if you have a problem with a certain element of string theory, please bring it up, I'd be happy to discuss my views on it, I may agree with you or I may disagree, but in either case I'll have a reason why, a reason derived from mathematics, theoretical physics, and observational data.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2010, 07:45:57 PM »

I wonder if it is not that 'alpha' is not constant, but that because we do not understand yet enough of the Laws of the Universe, there is no 'alpha' as we had thought.
Or perhaps there is another set rules above the current laws of physics that governs those laws, and determines how alpha veries. I am certain that scientists will eventually want to address this.

That's likely...I've always suspected a flaw in the consistency arguments of quantum mechanics, maybe this will help discover it and allow us to make real progress towards a unified theory, not that there's any grantee it will be the 'ultimate theory' I don't think we're that close yet, I don't think we've developed the fields of geometric topology and, especially, applied geometric topology adequately to properly model and develop such a theory.

It would be interesting to fast-forward a few thousand years and see where physics goes from here. How many sets of rules will govern how many sets of other rules. Will it be like a three dimensional tree diagram? will certain sets of rules be interdependent? Who knows. But it's definitely cool to think about.

It would be cool for sure, I suspect it will be described in a more developed language of topological manifolds, but far more complicated than the (relatively) facile Lorentzian manifolds. Of course, this is pure speculation at this point, I honestly have no idea how it will end up, maybe it's really more simple than all of this, but, somehow, I suspect that isn't the case.

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. Wink ).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2010, 07:48:51 PM »

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. Wink ).

You're right, of course; but I'd still take as many trips in whatever vehicle has those 'engines', and I'd travel as often as I possibly could.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,043


« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2010, 10:59:03 PM »

“Near these march the
scientists, reverenced for their beards and the fur on their gowns, who teach
that they alone are wise while the rest of mortal men flit about as shadows.
How pleasantly they dote, indeed, while they construct their numberless
worlds, and measure the sun, moon, stars, and spheres as with thumb and
line. They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable
things, never hesitating a whit, as if they were privy to the secrets of nature,
artificer of things, or as if they visited us fresh from the council of the gods.
Yet all the while nature is laughing grandly at them and their conjectures. For
to prove that they have good intelligence of nothing, this is a sufficient
argument: they can never explain why they disagree with each other on every
subject. Thus knowing nothing in general, they profess to know all things in
particular; though they are ignorant even of themselves, and on occasion do
not see the ditch or the stone lying across their path, because many of them
are blear-eyed or absent-minded; yet they proclaim that they perceive ideas,
universals, forms without matter, primary substances, quiddities, and
ecceities – things so tenuous, I fear, that Lynceus himself could not see them.
When they especially disdain the vulgar crowd is when they bring out their
triangles, quadrangles, circles, and mathematical pictures of the sort, lay one
upon the other, intertwine them into a maze, then deploy – and all to involve
the uninitiated in darkness. Their fraternity does not lack those who predict
future events by consulting the stars, and promise wonders even more
magical; and these lucky scientists find people to believe them.”

- Erasmus, The Praise of Folly
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2010, 03:04:50 AM »

Yeah, those crazy scientists, who actually think they know what causes wind and eclipses and lightning.
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2010, 07:55:34 AM »

Yeah, those crazy scientists, who actually think they know what causes wind and eclipses and lightning.

laugh!  That made my morning.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 14, 2010, 09:12:30 AM »

Would this imply that it would be extremely difficult for humans to survive in an area with different laws?

It would seem as if we would have to stay in areas with the same laws as our region.


Back when I took Electo Magnetics, there was a problem in where we had to solve something that noone could solve. And the issue had to do with getting a different answer than what we should of got. The Professor told us that the universal constant that we were working with slightly fluctuates in real time. And so we really didn't have to worry about it.

And this professor was an atheist from Eastern Europe. When I told atheists this on myspace,, they were laughing at me and calling me a stupid and dumb young earth creationist because Constants don't change. And they kept pointing to the words "universal constant" and how that means it doesn't change, but I told them that we use these fixed numbers because it makes it easier for us to solve problems. But in the real world these things can slightly fluctuate.

I also told them that in real experiements we were told to use 9.68 instead of 9.8 when talking about gravity....etc, and they called me a stupid young earth creationist for  everyone knows that it's 9.8 and can't change.

But that was on myspace many many years ago. Now I wonder what they will say when it comes to this issue? They will probably forget that such a dispute ever happened......and they will still continue to call us dumb and stupid young earth creationists........etc.

Well, I'm no longer a Young Earth Creationist. At least not a strict one, but they will probably forget that this change in perception ever happened.

Every 5 years something in science keeps changing. I wouldn't be worried about it if the atheists and agnostics that call us dumb and stupid weren't so dogmatic about things they really don't know.

We wouldn't have to keep changing what we believe every 5 years if we really knew it.

Science should be about a build up of knowledge upon knowledge. Instead, what it has become is nothing more than a change of the very foundation of previous knowledge every 5 years.

It shouldn't be that way. We shouldn't have to change previous knowledge if the previous knowledge was correct. The fact that it wasn't correct shows an error in how we teach Science. An error in the philosophy of Science.

An error in being dogmatic in things we really don't know.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 09:39:38 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 14, 2010, 12:58:21 PM »

Yeah, those crazy scientists, who actually think they know what causes wind and eclipses and lightning.

I don't think anyone is saying that science, in general, is not a capable and wonderful method for understanding the universe around us. Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time). Which, ironically enough, is or should be the "orthodox" view of science itself.

Therefore, to then take science as the sole vouching authority on how the universe works, could lead one astray.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2010, 04:32:11 PM »

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).
But the quote to which I was responding was...
Quote
They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,
Inexplicable?  Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained?  Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?
 
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,043


« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2010, 05:07:57 PM »

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).
But the quote to which I was responding was...
Quote
They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,
Inexplicable?  Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained?  Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?
 

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2010, 09:43:45 PM »

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. Wink ).

You're right, of course; but I'd still take as many trips in whatever vehicle has those 'engines', and I'd travel as often as I possibly could.

Oh, I would too...plus, it would be easier to jump forward a thousand years into the future and just have the information downloaded into your brain. I'd have to imagine that a ship capable of controlled navigation through the fourth dimension would be rather complex, if it can exist at all.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2010, 10:10:02 PM »

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).
But the quote to which I was responding was...
Quote
They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,
Inexplicable?  Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained?  Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?
 

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.

That it was written 500 years ago better makes the point about the anti-science position, this idiot you're quoting claimed that wind, eclipses, and lightning were inexplicable, today every school child knows the causes of these things. I suspect that in another 500 opponents to modern science will be laughed at in the same breath as Erasmus.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 10:10:39 PM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2010, 10:52:53 PM »

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. Wink ).
I am surprised here that you believe that a time machine is possible. Any travel into the past could lead to logical impossibilities. Suppose for example that you did travel into the past and you did meet one of your great-grandfathers. Suppose then that you arranged for him to be sterilised and not be capable of having children.
Or suppose that you met L. H. Oswald and you had him put in jail under lock and key on November 22, 1963.
It looks to me like the simple laws of logic would rule out any possibility of time travel into the past.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,043


« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2010, 11:14:34 PM »

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).
But the quote to which I was responding was...
Quote
They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,
Inexplicable?  Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained?  Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?
 

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.

That it was written 500 years ago better makes the point about the anti-science position, this idiot you're quoting claimed that wind, eclipses, and lightning were inexplicable, today every school child knows the causes of these things. I suspect that in another 500 opponents to modern science will be laughed at in the same breath as Erasmus.

You know, in the early 16th century most 'scientists' were still adamant that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,821


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2010, 11:29:52 PM »

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).
But the quote to which I was responding was...
Quote
They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,
Inexplicable?  Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained?  Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?
 

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.

That it was written 500 years ago better makes the point about the anti-science position, this idiot you're quoting claimed that wind, eclipses, and lightning were inexplicable, today every school child knows the causes of these things. I suspect that in another 500 opponents to modern science will be laughed at in the same breath as Erasmus.

You know, in the early 16th century most 'scientists' were still adamant that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
The simple fact that scientific advances led us to discard this theory, however, is nothing less than a testimony to the proper practice of science.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,043


« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2010, 11:34:53 PM »

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).
But the quote to which I was responding was...
Quote
They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,
Inexplicable?  Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained?  Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?
 

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.

That it was written 500 years ago better makes the point about the anti-science position, this idiot you're quoting claimed that wind, eclipses, and lightning were inexplicable, today every school child knows the causes of these things. I suspect that in another 500 opponents to modern science will be laughed at in the same breath as Erasmus.

You know, in the early 16th century most 'scientists' were still adamant that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
The simple fact that scientific advances led us to discard this theory, however, is nothing less than a testimony to the proper practice of science.

*sigh* I hate explaining my jokes…

The point is that these scientists, who we now believe were objectively wrong, at the time demanded to be treated as being right, simply on their own authority. It is this arrogant spirit that Erasmus is lampooning. Scientists today who demand to be treated with the same deference are just as liable to be proved wrong in the future as the scientists of the 16th century. If they adopted a humbler and more pious attitude, then there wouldn't be a need to poke so much fun at them.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2010, 12:08:25 AM »

Those that argue, I would imagine, argue that science doesn't have all the answers, some of the answers may be wrong, and/or some answers may be impossible to know (at least, at this time).
But the quote to which I was responding was...
Quote
They assign causes for lightning, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things,
Inexplicable?  Are you really prepared to say that lightning cannot be explained?  Or that for someone to claim to do so is the equivalent of claiming to be "fresh from the council of the gods"?
 

That was written about 500 years ago. Relax. It's meant to be a reflection on the whole spirit behind the scientific endeavor, not on whether there happens to be current scientific agreement on this or that particular issue.

That it was written 500 years ago better makes the point about the anti-science position, this idiot you're quoting claimed that wind, eclipses, and lightning were inexplicable, today every school child knows the causes of these things. I suspect that in another 500 opponents to modern science will be laughed at in the same breath as Erasmus.

You know, in the early 16th century most 'scientists' were still adamant that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
The simple fact that scientific advances led us to discard this theory, however, is nothing less than a testimony to the proper practice of science.

*sigh* I hate explaining my jokes…

The point is that these scientists, who we now believe were objectively wrong, at the time demanded to be treated as being right, simply on their own authority. It is this arrogant spirit that Erasmus is lampooning. Scientists today who demand to be treated with the same deference are just as liable to be proved wrong in the future as the scientists of the 16th century. If they adopted a humbler and more pious attitude, then there wouldn't be a need to poke so much fun at them.

But these astronomers essentially told the theoretical physicists that they were wrong, no one has attacked or belittled them, not even those people whose theories they may have potentially undermined. The difference is that they told these scientists that they were wrong in the correct manner. Science thrives on new discoveries, improving, or even replacing, existing theories. But it's not enough to say 'Theory X is wrong.' For years I have taken issue with certain fundamental assumptions of Quantum Mechanics (the fundamental assumptions of General Relativity are too fundamental, but I will admit that they're localized enough to possibly fail to give a complete insight into the entire universe, depending on the nature of the Manifolds that define the universe...assuming of course they're manifolds, but nothing thus far suggests otherwise).

But, with that said, I would never dream of telling the scientific community they were wrong about this matter because my opinion is utterly worthless and meaningless UNLESS I can come up with a conflicting observation, a more complete verifiable theory, or, better yet, both a conflicting observation AND a more complete verifiable theory that explains the conflicting observation as well as all other discovered natural laws.

In science, it's not enough to merely be right, being right doesn't mean a lot if you can't explain and demonstrate why you are right, you must also be able to demonstrate it by repeatable, verifiable observations.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,043


« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2010, 12:37:30 AM »

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2010, 12:46:55 AM »

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. Wink ).
I am surprised here that you believe that a time machine is possible. Any travel into the past could lead to logical impossibilities. Suppose for example that you did travel into the past and you did meet one of your great-grandfathers. Suppose then that you arranged for him to be sterilised and not be capable of having children.
Or suppose that you met L. H. Oswald and you had him put in jail under lock and key on November 22, 1963.
It looks to me like the simple laws of logic would rule out any possibility of time travel into the past.

I suspect that time travel is possible, whether or not matter and energy can survive it in the same form that it began the trip is another question entirely.

As for the 'logical paradox', I don't see it as an issue. Why assume causality with what may simply be a move along a coordinate system? Perhaps the four dimensions are merely a recursive function, if I feed an output back as an input, it doesn't create a contradiction, merely a different output (in most cases) and this recursive behavior is not dependent on time, though in computer programs we envision it as a sequence of time,  groups, rings, and fields are inherently independent of any physical reality. Then there's the 'many worlds' explanation of QM: 'anything that can occur does occur'. With an infinite number of worlds, everything that can potentially happen does happen, by changing the past, you're merely entering into a 'parallel reality' and didn't affect the 'reality' from which you came at all, because your returning and your not returning must, by necessity, both occur.

Four dimensional space-time with a dimension of causality is just too simplistic a concept to explain the physical observations of the last hundred years. Especially with this new possibility of variable physical 'constants'.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2010, 01:03:18 AM »

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2010, 01:04:03 AM »

When you manage to get your hands on a time machine, we'll go for a ride and see (of course, if we have a time machine, the architecture of its 'engines', for lack of a better term, may give us all the answers we need, making the trip redundant. Wink ).
I am surprised here that you believe that a time machine is possible. Any travel into the past could lead to logical impossibilities. Suppose for example that you did travel into the past and you did meet one of your great-grandfathers. Suppose then that you arranged for him to be sterilised and not be capable of having children.
Or suppose that you met L. H. Oswald and you had him put in jail under lock and key on November 22, 1963.
It looks to me like the simple laws of logic would rule out any possibility of time travel into the past.

I suspect that time travel is possible, whether or not matter and energy can survive it in the same form that it began the trip is another question entirely.

As for the 'logical paradox', I don't see it as an issue. Why assume causality with what may simply be a move along a coordinate system? Perhaps the four dimensions are merely a recursive function, if I feed an output back as an input, it doesn't create a contradiction, merely a different output (in most cases) and this recursive behavior is not dependent on time, though in computer programs we envision it as a sequence of time,  groups, rings, and fields are inherently independent of any physical reality. Then there's the 'many worlds' explanation of QM: 'anything that can occur does occur'. With an infinite number of worlds, everything that can potentially happen does happen, by changing the past, you're merely entering into a 'parallel reality' and didn't affect the 'reality' from which you came at all, because your returning and your not returning must, by necessity, both occur.

Four dimensional space-time with a dimension of causality is just too simplistic a concept to explain the physical observations of the last hundred years. Especially with this new possibility of variable physical 'constants'.
How old are you now? Let's say you are 35 years old?
Ok. Then you go back in time thirty years and you see yourself as a 5 year old. You then decide to kill yourself. Then since you died 30 years ago,  how can you be 35 years old now?
Or suppose you go 35 years into the future. You then see yourself as an old man.  Then you are talking to the old man. So are there two of you now or only one?  Anyway, the old man, says he made a mistake in spending too much time on subject A and advises you no to spend all that much time, So now you go back to where you were as a 35 year old, and you decide that the old man was right and so you do not spend all that much time on subject A. But now fast forward 35 years from now. Then has the old man spent too much time on subject A or not?
So any time travel is impossible since it could result in a logical contradiction, e.g., you killed yourself in the past, but you are still living now in the present.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,436



« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2010, 01:07:08 AM »

How old are you now? Let's say you are 35 years old?
Ok. Then you go back in time thirty years and you see yourself as a 5 year old. You then decide to kill yourself. Then since you died 30 years ago,  how can you be 35 years old now?
Or suppose you go 35 years into the future. You then see yourself as an old man.  Then you are talking to the old man. So are there two of you now or only one?  Anyway, the old man, says he made a mistake in spending too much time on subject A and advises you no to spend all that much time, So now you go back to where you were as a 35 year old, and you decide that the old man was right and so you do not spend all that much time on subject A. But now fast forward 35 years from now. Then has the old man spent too much time on subject A or not?
So any time travel is impossible since it could result in a logical contradiction, e.g., you killed yourself in the past, but you are still living now in the present.

Quote
I know where I came from—but where did all you zombies come from?

I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once—and you all went away.

So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light.

You aren’t really there at all. There isn’t anybody but me—Jane—here alone in the dark.

I miss you dreadfully!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2010, 01:11:38 AM »

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.
But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2010, 01:13:04 AM »

How old are you now? Let's say you are 35 years old?
Ok. Then you go back in time thirty years and you see yourself as a 5 year old. You then decide to kill yourself. Then since you died 30 years ago,  how can you be 35 years old now?
Or suppose you go 35 years into the future. You then see yourself as an old man.  Then you are talking to the old man. So are there two of you now or only one?  Anyway, the old man, says he made a mistake in spending too much time on subject A and advises you no to spend all that much time, So now you go back to where you were as a 35 year old, and you decide that the old man was right and so you do not spend all that much time on subject A. But now fast forward 35 years from now. Then has the old man spent too much time on subject A or not?
So any time travel is impossible since it could result in a logical contradiction, e.g., you killed yourself in the past, but you are still living now in the present.

Quote
I know where I came from—but where did all you zombies come from?

I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once—and you all went away.

So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light.

You aren’t really there at all. There isn’t anybody but me—Jane—here alone in the dark.

I miss you dreadfully!
Yes!
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,043


« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2010, 01:39:30 AM »

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.

What you are missing is that the value of your scientific and even mathematical observations are limited by your own fallen intellect. Revealed truth, on the other hand, is not subject to fallen reasoning. That is why I am insisting they be relegated to different planes of knowledge.

And the verifiability of religion really depends on the religion. With respect to Christianity, for example, we rely on the evidentiary value of the witnesses of the Resurrection. If you want to argue that the Resurrection never happened, you have to account for why all these alleged witnesses risked and often faced death for the sake of a lie.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,352


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2010, 09:15:59 AM »


And the verifiability of religion really depends on the religion. With respect to Christianity, for example, we rely on the evidentiary value of the witnesses of the Resurrection.
I would have thought that Christianity relies on the living presence of the Holy Spirit. Roll Eyes
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,043


« Reply #38 on: September 15, 2010, 11:21:49 AM »


And the verifiability of religion really depends on the religion. With respect to Christianity, for example, we rely on the evidentiary value of the witnesses of the Resurrection.
I would have thought that Christianity relies on the living presence of the Holy Spirit. Roll Eyes

Yes, do I deny that? But don't we have witnesses? Or are you saying that Christ's disciples were persuaded of the Resurrection without the need of any testimony?
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,352


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 15, 2010, 12:35:18 PM »


And the verifiability of religion really depends on the religion. With respect to Christianity, for example, we rely on the evidentiary value of the witnesses of the Resurrection.
I would have thought that Christianity relies on the living presence of the Holy Spirit. Roll Eyes

Yes, do I deny that? But don't we have witnesses? Or are you saying that Christ's disciples were persuaded of the Resurrection without the need of any testimony?
I'm saying that merely reading someone's testimony won't do the trick, unless the Holy Spirit is involved. Otherwise, there are plenty of testimonies by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., that are waiting to convert you to their respective faiths. Cool
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #40 on: September 15, 2010, 12:36:51 PM »

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.
But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.
This is a good point. Can the problem be resolved?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,352


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 15, 2010, 12:53:09 PM »

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.
But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.
This is a good point. Can the problem be resolved?
Empirical science is the solution.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: September 15, 2010, 01:28:23 PM »

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.
But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.
This is a good point. Can the problem be resolved?
Empirical science is the solution.

Aw, the old dichotomy: empericism vs. rationalism. I am unaware of any peer reviewed paper that resolves this, though I don't yet have my masters in philosophy. I know that Kant tried, but failed.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 01:29:01 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 15, 2010, 01:32:42 PM »

As long as scientists never demand that their theories be treated on the same level as revealed truth, but of only impermanent and relative value, i.e. until someone comes along and disproves them, then I don't see a problem.

The only 'revealed truth' is mathematics and nothing in this universe or any universe, this reality or any reality, can ascend to that level of absoluteness. Everything but theoretical mathematics is merely a probabilistic analysis. The scientific method controls the variables better than is done in other disciplines (and not all branches of science are equal) thus it gives more probable results. So, to apply this to a subject you seem to be stuck on, say science and religion conflict. The scientific observations are observable and verifiable, sure we could have 10 observations all having the exact same errors in measurement, but that's not very probable. There could be something particular to our coordinates in space-time that manipulate energy and matter in such a way that it appears to follow different laws locally than it does in the rest of the universe, but based on astronomical observations, this doesn't seem very probable either.

Science is not mathematics, so it's not absolute, but through repeated observation and verification it's highly probable that the observations are real and thus that science is 'truth' (that's a word with so much nonsensical philosophical baggage that it's very use is nearly an abuse of the concept). Religion on the other hand relies on myths that are not observable or verifiable, they cannot be mathematically extrapolated based on current observations, thus it seems much less probable that they are true.
But axiomatic systems have inherent limitations due to the incompleteness theorems of Goedel.
This is a good point. Can the problem be resolved?
Empirical science is the solution.

Empirical Data must always be interpreted. The problem I see is making local present Data a Universal and timeless Data.

If we just stick to local Data as simply being local and in the present, then we could solve many of the errors in modern science.


What goes on in my backyard should only be explained as being the present reality for my back yard. It should never be explained as being the reality for everyones backyard. Nor should it be explained as some sort of timeless reality for all time.


This is why errors exist in modern science, and this will continue to be the reason why we will always see future errors in this system.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 01:41:46 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,043


« Reply #44 on: September 15, 2010, 02:20:29 PM »


And the verifiability of religion really depends on the religion. With respect to Christianity, for example, we rely on the evidentiary value of the witnesses of the Resurrection.
I would have thought that Christianity relies on the living presence of the Holy Spirit. Roll Eyes

Yes, do I deny that? But don't we have witnesses? Or are you saying that Christ's disciples were persuaded of the Resurrection without the need of any testimony?
I'm saying that merely reading someone's testimony won't do the trick, unless the Holy Spirit is involved. Otherwise, there are plenty of testimonies by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., that are waiting to convert you to their respective faiths. Cool

You're right that merely calling somebody a witness doesn't mean he's reliable. You have to look at other factors. Like the fact, as I said, that the disciples of Christ who witnessed the Resurrection were putting their lives on the line, and often paid with their lives. Wouldn't they have recanted if they knew that they had lied about such a thing?

The testimonies of the false religions are just not reliable. That is why I do not believe them. And I am sure the action of the Holy Spirit has something to do with the fact that our witnesses are reliable, while the witnesses of falsehood are not.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.182 seconds with 72 queries.