OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 25, 2014, 10:03:14 PM *
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 5221 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #45 on: September 15, 2010, 03:10:24 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?

It essentially has, 'consistency' has been defined as 'as consistent as the natural numbers', granted one cannot prove the consistency of the natural numbers in any 'absolute' manner (whatever that means); but one can prove various axiomatic system to be as consistent as they are. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is an understood qualifier to every mathematical proof of consistency, sometimes explicitly stated, but it's in the realm of general knowledge so often omitted from the text.

It's theoretically possible that the natural numbers do create a contradiction, thus having only local consistency, if would be fascinating if someone could find such a contradiction, it would open up entire new fields in mathematics.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #46 on: September 15, 2010, 03:17:56 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?

It essentially has, 'consistency' has been defined as 'as consistent as the natural numbers', granted one cannot prove the consistency of the natural numbers in any 'absolute' manner (whatever that means); but one can prove various axiomatic system to be as consistent as they are. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is an understood qualifier to every mathematical proof of consistency, sometimes explicitly stated, but it's in the realm of general knowledge so often omitted from the text.

It's theoretically possible that the natural numbers do create a contradiction, thus having only local consistency, if would be fascinating if someone could find such a contradiction, it would open up entire new fields in mathematics.
What of the contradictions in set theory? I am not challenging you. BTW, I am generally interested in this topic.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #47 on: September 15, 2010, 03:31:39 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.

Neither is the testimony of Christianity reliable, people have suffered martyrdom for various religions, philosophies, and political ideologies. There are cults to this day that commit mass suicide based on the word of a single individual and there were several of these cults in the ancient world, Christianity is one that just happened to occur during the right time in the Roman Empire and eventually got lucky and Converted and Emperor, has a few things gone slightly differently, you would be worshiping Mithras today instead of Jesus. From a rational and empirical perspective, Christianity is no more valid than other Cults of the day, heck, it might not have even been the best one. But as the rise of communism demonstrated, the best or most reasonable system is not always the system that prevails, there are many other factors that come into play, not the least of which is a leader's charisma and the system's propaganda.

The problem I have discussing this issue is that no one can offer me repeatable and verifiable evidence. I know how you feel about your religion, I was once a devout Christian, but all that I ask is that people take a step back, undergo the thought experiment of Descartes, dismiss all presuppositions (not that I believe Descartes managed to do this, but I'll give him credit for trying), question everything you believe, demand proof for every thing said. Don't even take such things as gravity and EM forces for granted, go through the data yourself, analyze the experiments, recreate them yourself (assuming they're something you can recreate, most of us can't afford to build our own particle accelerator for example, we'll just have to rely on data from various sources and check it for consistency). Don't accept QM and GR because Einstein or Planck said it was true, or because it's the scientific consensus. Go through the equations and derivations yourself and don't just use the Algebra and Analysis involved because your college professor told you that's how things work. Go to the axioms, go through the proof demonstrating consistency tantamount to the real numbers, derive the procedures and equations you use from that axioms of mathematics.

I don't ask people simply take me at their word on this matter, I ask much more of people. I expect them to go through the mathematical theorems and physics theories themselves, understand them...after that, if you find a problem with the systems, you can actually say what the problem is, you can say 'this is the problem with assumption X, instead we should use assumption Y...if we do that, these are the equations we get, they satisfy all the data of the time PLUS they also explain Z, which did not fit into the equations derived from assumption X.'

If you want to criticize physics, GREAT, we need more people to criticize and refine existing theories, BUT I have what I consider to be a very reasonable expectation, I expect you understand what you're criticizing and be able to explain why you're criticizing it logically.
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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,681


« Reply #48 on: September 15, 2010, 03:46:30 PM »

Yes, millions have died for false religions and ideologies. But I don't think anyone ever laid down their life for an empirical fact they knew to be false. At the time of Christ's resurrection, there was as yet no religion that demanded belief in the risen Christ. Everyone knew He was dead, and with a guard posted at the tomb under Pilate's seal to boot, there was absolutely no reason to doubt that His body was there. The Apostles all believed that Jesus Christ had failed. So you are asking me to believe that the disciples changed their minds, thought it would be a good idea to make up a story that Christ had risen, somehow persuade the guards that it was worth losing their lives if they could just open the tomb and let the disciples steal the body, and that they were happy to be killed or tortured in order to preserve this lie.

You see, although all these other religions and ideologies are false objectively speaking, but their followers believe them to be true. That is why they die for them. How do you account for people dying for something they believe to be false?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2010, 03:48:52 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?

It essentially has, 'consistency' has been defined as 'as consistent as the natural numbers', granted one cannot prove the consistency of the natural numbers in any 'absolute' manner (whatever that means); but one can prove various axiomatic system to be as consistent as they are. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is an understood qualifier to every mathematical proof of consistency, sometimes explicitly stated, but it's in the realm of general knowledge so often omitted from the text.

It's theoretically possible that the natural numbers do create a contradiction, thus having only local consistency, if would be fascinating if someone could find such a contradiction, it would open up entire new fields in mathematics.
What of the contradictions in set theory? I am not challenging you. BTW, I am generally interested in this topic.
It is related to the problem with some self-referential statements such as the barbar in the village shaves everyone who does not shave himself.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,613



« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2010, 04:08:17 PM »

but all that I ask is that people take a step back, undergo the thought experiment of Descartes, dismiss all presuppositions (not that I believe Descartes managed to do this, but I'll give him credit for trying), question everything you believe, demand proof for every thing said. Don't even take such things as gravity and EM forces for granted, go through the data yourself, analyze the experiments, recreate them yourself (assuming they're something you can recreate, most of us can't afford to build our own particle accelerator for example, we'll just have to rely on data from various sources and check it for consistency).

GiC,

Lurked here a long time. You are a smart *choice word*.

Descartes did not fail as such, because his project is impossible in the first place. One has to admire his commitment to his task and the brilliance of his writing and achievement of thought.

You cannot dismiss "all presuppositions" (How do you dismiss the project of "dismissing all presuppositions"?). Presuppositions are the very ground of our ability to engage in the world. We can make some more explicit, but we are never going to get "clear" about all our prejudices and this is not a "problem" as such.

We always come to every question too late. It is always in virtue of something(s) we are able to pose a question. That posing of the question might allow us to shed light on that which allowed the questioning (not that all questioning is a questioning of that which allows the questioning), but that questioning too occurs in virtue of something else, if the very questioning itself.

You probably recognize this as hermeneutics and are aware of how it became applied to understanding as such rather than just "religious texts".

On a practical, "thought experiment" note, how are you ever going to question "everything" for yourself? This would of course include the project of questioning of everything, which would include the project of questioning the questioning of everything and so on.

The mathematical natural sciences have their method and manner of questioning. And their method and rigor have become the dominant ideal of understanding of our time. The consequences of this turn in prevailing understanding of understanding are another discussion.





Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2010, 05:20:58 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?

It essentially has, 'consistency' has been defined as 'as consistent as the natural numbers', granted one cannot prove the consistency of the natural numbers in any 'absolute' manner (whatever that means); but one can prove various axiomatic system to be as consistent as they are. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is an understood qualifier to every mathematical proof of consistency, sometimes explicitly stated, but it's in the realm of general knowledge so often omitted from the text.

It's theoretically possible that the natural numbers do create a contradiction, thus having only local consistency, if would be fascinating if someone could find such a contradiction, it would open up entire new fields in mathematics.
What of the contradictions in set theory? I am not challenging you. BTW, I am generally interested in this topic.

The contradictions simply mean that our current axiomatic system of set theory is wrong, probably not very wrong they seem to make a good approximation, but something's wrong. Mathematics certainly needs more work here. That doesn't mean I suggest we don't learn it, because the best way to correct the mistakes is to fully understand the system, how the axioms interacts, and what goes wrong in the very few instances where it does create a contradiction. I don't think the problems is with sets, per se, but rather with our understanding of sets.

To use a historical analogy in mathematics, there was great debate for centuries about whether Euclid's fifth postulate was an axiom or a theorem, in the 1820's it was finally determined that it was an essential axiom (assuming the opposite creates the equally consistent system of hyperbolic geometry). In that case, we were fortunate that Euclid had the foresight to understand that the fifth postulate was essential to the axiomatic system. It's quite possible that in set theory we have an unnecessary axiom or an axiom that is slightly incorrect. Perhaps we're trying to make set theory be too specific when it's inherently more general, perhaps another system is required within set theory to explain some mathematical phenomena we're trying to apply to it.
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 #52 on: September 15, 2010, 05:39:55 PM »

Yes, millions have died for false religions and ideologies. But I don't think anyone ever laid down their life for an empirical fact they knew to be false. At the time of Christ's resurrection, there was as yet no religion that demanded belief in the risen Christ. Everyone knew He was dead, and with a guard posted at the tomb under Pilate's seal to boot, there was absolutely no reason to doubt that His body was there. The Apostles all believed that Jesus Christ had failed. So you are asking me to believe that the disciples changed their minds, thought it would be a good idea to make up a story that Christ had risen, somehow persuade the guards that it was worth losing their lives if they could just open the tomb and let the disciples steal the body, and that they were happy to be killed or tortured in order to preserve this lie.

You see, although all these other religions and ideologies are false objectively speaking, but their followers believe them to be true. That is why they die for them. How do you account for people dying for something they believe to be false?

The same reason people struggle to maintain a dying system even though they know it has run its course. The reason people were willing to and did give their lives to preserve the dead Soviet Union. They had too much invested in the system to give it up so easily. These apostles had too much invested in their sect to give it up that easily, they had given up their jobs and earthly possessions to follow this man they viewed as a visionary and now he was dead, they were homeless, they had nothing. Without Jesus the movement was dead as was their positions in it. So, they decided that a story of a resurrection would help them maintain their popular support, heck they'd even be more visual members of the picture after Jesus was dead. Also, I do believe that these apostles honestly believed that what Christ taught was an important reform of the Jewish religion, Jesus was their vehicle towards this reform, they needed to maintain a connection to him in order to advance their reform movement. So they bribed or tricked the guards (assuming there were even guards and the apostles didn't add this latter to make their story seem more spectacular, even professional historians of the day were loose with the facts, history was viewed as a form of propaganda in the ancient world) and stole the body; this added fire to the myth and helped them secure the position they needed to advance their reform movement.

Martyrdom came later, by that point they were heavily invested in their reform movement, they probably did die for their beliefs; and I'm not saying that they were bad people for making up the resurrection, as I said before everyone was a bit looser with the facts back then than is expected in this day and age. Their beliefs were that the teachings of Jesus represented an improvement to traditional Judaism and the resurrection was a powerful myth that helped them to that end; to deny that myth after it had become so well established would have been damaging to their goals based on their real beliefs that the world needed the philosophical teachings of Jesus.

And, the empire could have ended up with worse religions (there were probably better ones too, but who knows, they may have become just as corrupted if they had achieved the power and status of Christianity), the apostles may have been right that the myth of Jesus' resurrection was a better myth than those commonly believed in the day. But that doesn't make them true and it doesn't make Jesus a 'god'.

Now, really, wasn't our original discussion about theoretical physics more interesting? 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
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,681


« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2010, 05:48:46 PM »

I'm sorry but I do not believe anyone ever willingly died for communism knowing it to be a false ideology. You would have to provide some irrefutable examples. And I think if the Apostles did lie about the resurrection, that would have been very wicked and they would have probably deserved whatever they got from the Jews. I don't think lying is good for any reason.

You basically concede that the whole story is much easier to explain assuming the Resurrection did in fact occur, because now you have resorted to dismissing the accounts themselves. Of course, if you do that you can argue anything, making your assertions unfalsifiable.

But I'll let you guys back to talking about theoretical physics and other useless things. Wink If you want, we can continue this discussion on another forum.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2010, 06:22:46 PM »

I'm sorry but I do not believe anyone ever willingly died for communism knowing it to be a false ideology. You would have to provide some irrefutable examples. And I think if the Apostles did lie about the resurrection, that would have been very wicked and they would have probably deserved whatever they got from the Jews. I don't think lying is good for any reason.

You basically concede that the whole story is much easier to explain assuming the Resurrection did in fact occur, because now you have resorted to dismissing the accounts themselves. Of course, if you do that you can argue anything, making your assertions unfalsifiable.

But I'll let you guys back to talking about theoretical physics and other useless things. Wink If you want, we can continue this discussion on another forum.

If you open another thread and link to it I'll continue the conversation, but I don't want this one to get further off course.
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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,681


« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2010, 06:35:17 PM »

I'm sorry but I do not believe anyone ever willingly died for communism knowing it to be a false ideology. You would have to provide some irrefutable examples. And I think if the Apostles did lie about the resurrection, that would have been very wicked and they would have probably deserved whatever they got from the Jews. I don't think lying is good for any reason.

You basically concede that the whole story is much easier to explain assuming the Resurrection did in fact occur, because now you have resorted to dismissing the accounts themselves. Of course, if you do that you can argue anything, making your assertions unfalsifiable.

But I'll let you guys back to talking about theoretical physics and other useless things. Wink If you want, we can continue this discussion on another forum.

If you open another thread and link to it I'll continue the conversation, but I don't want this one to get further off course.

Here's the new thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29895.new.html#new
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #56 on: September 15, 2010, 09:56:52 PM »

The problem I have discussing this issue is that no one can offer me repeatable and verifiable evidence.
Can anyone offer repeatable and verifiable evidence that six million Jews were gassed to death in the Nazi concentration camps? Can anyone offer repeatable and verifiable evidence that Antoine Lavoisier was guillotined at the time of the French revolution when a judge declared: "The Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists..."
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,681


« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2010, 10:04:33 PM »

The problem I have discussing this issue is that no one can offer me repeatable and verifiable evidence.
Can anyone offer repeatable and verifiable evidence that six million Jews were gassed to death in the Nazi concentration camps? Can anyone offer repeatable and verifiable evidence that Antoine Lavoisier was guillotined at the time of the French revolution when a judge declared: "The Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists..."

Good point. Historical and evidentiary evidence is not repeatable. They are verifiable, but not by controlled experiment, so any standard of truth that only accepts the results repeatable experiments as evidence is severely limited.

But really we should be moving to the new thread.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 10:05:05 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2010, 10:13:51 PM »

Is this thread that started out awesome really devolving into the false dichotomies of science vs. religion and reason vs. faith? ughhhh
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
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 #59 on: September 15, 2010, 10:33:35 PM »

Is this thread that started out awesome really devolving into the false dichotomies of science vs. religion and reason vs. faith? ughhhh

Welcome to OC.net!  laugh
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #60 on: September 15, 2010, 10:35:01 PM »

lol, FrChris, I was just about to post the same thing! Cheesy
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #61 on: September 15, 2010, 10:43:38 PM »

Is this thread that started out awesome really devolving into the false dichotomies of science vs. religion and reason vs. faith? ughhhh
Sorry that I got off track.
With reference to the question as to whether or not the laws of physics vary throughout the universe, which "laws of physics"  are they talking about?
I think that some physicists believe that in the early days of the universe, 14 billion years ago, that some of the constants, such as alpha, the fine structure constant, may have been different from what it is now. However, the variation claimed appears to be extremely small and not everyone agrees.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #62 on: September 16, 2010, 02:12:37 PM »

Is this thread that started out awesome really devolving into the false dichotomies of science vs. religion and reason vs. faith? ughhhh
Sorry that I got off track.
With reference to the question as to whether or not the laws of physics vary throughout the universe, which "laws of physics"  are they talking about?
I think that some physicists believe that in the early days of the universe, 14 billion years ago, that some of the constants, such as alpha, the fine structure constant, may have been different from what it is now. However, the variation claimed appears to be extremely small and not everyone agrees.
And even if there is a variation, we would seek out the system of rules that governs that variation... another constant... somewhere.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #63 on: September 16, 2010, 03:30:49 PM »

Is this thread that started out awesome really devolving into the false dichotomies of science vs. religion and reason vs. faith? ughhhh
Sorry that I got off track.
With reference to the question as to whether or not the laws of physics vary throughout the universe, which "laws of physics"  are they talking about?
I think that some physicists believe that in the early days of the universe, 14 billion years ago, that some of the constants, such as alpha, the fine structure constant, may have been different from what it is now. However, the variation claimed appears to be extremely small and not everyone agrees.
And even if there is a variation, we would seek out the system of rules that governs that variation... another constant... somewhere.
I am not so sure that it is a matter of finding constants, since if there was a Big Bang and that was the point where t=0, as some have hypothesized, then we have a cosmological singularity, where these constants may not be valid.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #64 on: September 16, 2010, 06:05:10 PM »

Is this thread that started out awesome really devolving into the false dichotomies of science vs. religion and reason vs. faith? ughhhh
Hey, you can't prove that this thread devolved at all. 
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #65 on: September 16, 2010, 06:14:02 PM »

Is this thread that started out awesome really devolving into the false dichotomies of science vs. religion and reason vs. faith? ughhhh
Hey, you can't prove that this thread devolved at all. 
laugh
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,434



WWW
« Reply #66 on: September 16, 2010, 08:02:36 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?

It's not a problem of scientists only. Many scientists are pretty ok with a personal God above creation. The real issue is a divide about two mentalities about the divinity (this divide occurs in pagan religions as well): one mentality believes that even the divinity is under the laws of reality and the other believes that the divinity is utterly above it.

In Christian context, the RC I had contact with deeply believe, for example, that God must abide by the laws of Logic. Their reasoning is that Logic is an expression of the Logos, so it is not so much that God is "under" these laws, but He *is* these laws.

I find that to be just metaphysical pantheism, that is, instead of saying that the world in its totality is God, it says that the metaphysical laws of the world are God. I understand the tradition of the Catholic Orthodox Church to be that God is above every law (what makes sense since He is One and Three at the same time). The laws of logic were created by the Father through the Logos, but they are *not* the Logos Himself. Also, the idea that logic is the manifestation of the Logos seems flawed in the sense that according to Revelation, we live in Fallen, broken world. That might have been true in the world when it was "Paradise", but it certainly seems to not be the case now.

The evidence that the laws of physics are changing suggest converge with this last explanation, since God is immutable. Will there be a day when 1 +1 is not 2? Is it possible that in an inimaginably distant point in space-time 1 + 1 is not 2? I don't know. I concede it would mean the collapse of reality or at least reality as we are able to understand it. But, then again, if reality is creation, as with all creations it must die someday and must be dying right now. Eiher the Second Coming prevents this collapse or if the laws are really immutable themselves, then reality is eternal as the Greeks first imagined.

Then again, there is the possibility that Logic *is* the Logos and that in those points where the world is illogical (some of the uncertainties of quantics and in the human mind), these are precisely the points where creation is falling away from the Creator, and thus allowing enthropy to reign.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #67 on: September 16, 2010, 08:17:40 PM »


Then again, there is the possibility that Logic *is* the Logos and that in those points where the world is illogical (some of the uncertainties of quantics and in the human mind), these are precisely the points where creation is falling away from the Creator, and thus allowing enthropy to reign.
So, entropy is the absence of God?
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.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #68 on: September 16, 2010, 09:52:29 PM »

The evidence that the laws of physics are changing suggest converge with this last explanation, since God is immutable. Will there be a day when 1 +1 is not 2? Is it possible that in an inimaginably distant point in space-time 1 + 1 is not 2? I don't know. I concede it would mean the collapse of reality or at least reality as we are able to understand it.
As far as logic goes, we read in Scripture: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a SOUND MIND." (II Tim.1:7) A sound mind may imply that as humans we must be logical and reasonable. Is God above logic? In some sense He is, but that does not mean that in order to know about God, we must be illogical.
As far as 1+1 = 2 goes, it will not be true if you are speaking of velocities v, close to the speed of light c. In a case like that 1v + 1v < 2V since you cannot exceed c.

Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,434



WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 16, 2010, 11:02:31 PM »

In a case like that 1v + 1v < 2V since you cannot exceed c.

But does that happen because 1v + 1v ceases being 2v or because the extra 1v is converted into mass instead of speed? I think it is the second case.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #70 on: September 16, 2010, 11:20:46 PM »

In a case like that 1v + 1v < 2V since you cannot exceed c.

But does that happen because 1v + 1v ceases being 2v or because the extra 1v is converted into mass instead of speed? I think it is the second case.
It is a result of special relativity.  The result of adding v+v is given by (2v/(1+v*v/c*c)
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #71 on: September 16, 2010, 11:51:13 PM »

In a case like that 1v + 1v < 2V since you cannot exceed c.

But does that happen because 1v + 1v ceases being 2v or because the extra 1v is converted into mass instead of speed? I think it is the second case.

But that doesn't affect the underlying axiomatic algebraic group theory, it simply means that the '+' operator in relativity is a different operator than the one you were taught in grammar school.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #72 on: September 17, 2010, 12:00:29 PM »

In a case like that 1v + 1v < 2V since you cannot exceed c.

But does that happen because 1v + 1v ceases being 2v or because the extra 1v is converted into mass instead of speed? I think it is the second case.

But that doesn't affect the underlying axiomatic algebraic group theory, it simply means that the '+' operator in relativity is a different operator than the one you were taught in grammar school.
Well stated
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,204


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #73 on: June 27, 2013, 03:42:17 AM »

How did I miss this thread the first time around?  Huh
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,434



WWW
« Reply #74 on: June 27, 2013, 09:30:57 AM »

Maybe you were in another spacetime. Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,289



« Reply #75 on: June 27, 2013, 10:08:32 AM »

How did I miss this thread the first time around?  Huh
Entropy? Wink
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,204


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #76 on: July 10, 2013, 05:32:26 PM »

Maybe you were in another spacetime. Smiley

Entropy? Wink

ƚɔɘɿɿoɔ ɘd yɒm uoy ʇo ʜƚod ɿo ɘno ƚɒʜƚ ɿɒɘʇ I
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #77 on: July 10, 2013, 05:55:51 PM »

Maybe you were in another spacetime. Smiley
But do space and time really exist and independently existing entities or, considered in themselves, are they merely abstractions? What would be the meaning of time and space if we were to subtract all physical changing bodies?


Ok... Just being silly.  Wink
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #78 on: July 12, 2013, 02:46:52 AM »

Maybe you were in another spacetime. Smiley
But do space and time really exist and independently existing entities or, considered in themselves, are they merely abstractions? What would be the meaning of time and space if we were to subtract all physical changing bodies?


Ok... Just being silly.  Wink
Have you been reading Kant? In any case, physical descriptions of the universe soon after the big bang assumes the independent existence of time and space since there were no live bodies then.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #79 on: July 12, 2013, 09:03:26 AM »

Maybe you were in another spacetime. Smiley
But do space and time really exist and independently existing entities or, considered in themselves, are they merely abstractions? What would be the meaning of time and space if we were to subtract all physical changing bodies?


Ok... Just being silly.  Wink
Have you been reading Kant? In any case, physical descriptions of the universe soon after the big bang assumes the independent existence of time and space since there were no live bodies then.

What, only dead ones?  Eeek!  Cool


(Just out of curiosity, how do you know this  Grin Grin?)
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,434



WWW
« Reply #80 on: July 12, 2013, 09:17:29 AM »


Quote

About the Author
Quote
Wolfgang Smith graduated from Cornell University at age eighteen with majors in physics, philosophy, and mathematics. After taking an M.S. in physics at Purdue, he pursued research in aerodynamics, where his papers on diffusion fields provided the theoretical key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith held faculty positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State University, where he served as Professor of Mathematics until his retirement in 1992. In addition to numerous technical publications (relating to differential topology), Dr. Smith has published three previous books and many articles dealing with foundational and interdisciplinary problems. He has been especially concerned to unmask conceptions of a scientistic kind widely accepted today as scientific truths.


And a short review

Quote
4.0 out of 5 stars

a breath of fresh air June 8, 2007

By some guy

As a graduate student in Physics, I can attest that this is an great book. Smith, who has evidently made much effort to study eastern and western philosophy in addition to physics, is able to do something so many other writers fail to do. In this volume, he succesfully separates good science-quantum mechanics-from bad metascience-the Cartesian dualism that splits the mind forever from the body, in addition to the embarrasing pseudo-philosophy of many physicists). If anything, this book shows how fallacious it is to assume that science has totally replaced philosophy. There are always metaphysical and logical assumptions underlying theory of natural science, even if we refuse to admit as much. The only caveat is that someone should have some familiarity with basic topic in quantum mechanics before trying to read this book
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,434



WWW
« Reply #81 on: July 12, 2013, 09:21:59 AM »

The book above is the first attempt I know of to reconciliate aristotelian and thomism with contemporary quantum physics by someone who actually studied and understands both science and philosophy.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 09:22:23 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
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 0.16 seconds with 65 queries.