Lasse

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Or, you have changed the meaning of "predetermined" to mean "not determined at all; the future can change at any time"?

Why such radical thinking. Just black and white. True or false, one or zero. 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Not if it is predetermined. 

If it is predetermined that you will eat it at 15:03 then that is when you will eat it. That is what "predetermined" means. 

Absolutely predetermined can not be.

Predetermined in the past until the present moment.

In the present i can have impact on the course of action.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

If it is predetermined that you will eat it then you cannot choose not to eat it.

If it is predetermined that you will not eat it then you cannot choose to eat it.

I don't know why that is so hard to understand. I think you need to take an introductory logic course. (I have had the same problem with religious people claiming that both an omniscient god and free will can be true at the same time.)

This is true.

Sooner or later if I am hungry I would eat it. Still I would have a level of integrity to change the course of action (i.e determin when I eat it)

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because if things are predetermined then the outcome is fixed in advance, therefore you can't have a free choice. 

So if I have a banana I can not decide that I eat it ot not.

Everything is predetermined but I still have a free choice. It is some level of freedom. This freedom obviously can not be absolutely independent from everything else.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

If we had freedom of choice, that would contradict your claim that everything is predetermined

Why? Our freedom of choice will be as well always relative. It will be always effected by past social and cultural impacts, genetics, learned knowledge, experience, physical circumstances...

Absolute "freedom" (separation) from the system can not be.

Some level of individual integrity is detectable. 

If a theory does not describe the macro aspects of reality, than the theory is incomplete.

Death is an energetic change in reality.

Every matter, every atom is there for the function, just not the Enegy One is.

We know from thermodynamics that energy can not get lost just be the subject of change.

I do not know you can call it life (most likely) but for sure that some level of conscious existence after experiencing death supposed to be...

How could anything become energy, matter, information, space (time) free Noting...

49 minutes ago, Strange said:

You seem to be ignoring the probabilistic nature of quantum theory, which suggests things are not predetermined.

So you think there is a possibility(probability) that at the next moment of existance I am not me, what Nature ment me to be, but I could be anything and become a pink unicorn somehow? 

The freedom of choice impacting reality in the present moment seems to be true.

You can not change the atomic structure without a lot of work. You can impact it's course in space

Matter (the atoms you are) is impacted by energy i.e you still have to think to move.

For me is seems to be a fundamentally predetermined system with some level of freedom...

On 2018. 03. 09. at 1:57 AM, koti said:

Its even more bizzare...I initially wanted to pick the Heisenberg drivel too but decided to target the double slit faulty example presented in the article. I’m not sure why, maybe because I thought its closest to sanity. Article quantum superposition right back at ya  

I think it was Richard Feynman, one of the most renowned phycisists who expressed a duality in thinking about nature. He was equally comfortable with an ultimate model of reality and one that reveals endless layers uppon layers of things to discover. For me it is comfortable to think in these terms and not try to predetermine anything. 

It is good that you base your thinking on reality.

Everything seems to be predetermined until the current moment.

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

As far as I can tell, that's the point.
You think that stuff in maths has to represent some sort of reality.

But there are things in maths that are clearly non-physical.

 

You don't understand how that can happen because you don't understand that you are wrong.
I used to spend a bit of my time at work calculating angles in 256 dimensions.

They weren't real (obviously) but the maths still works just fine.

Interesting point.

My sense is that, if it is possible to calculate in such high dimensions with mathematics, than it is just showing the potential of mathematics and by that at least it should be able to express the recognisable physical reality.

Clearly for the masses including me...

I wanna see reality and I would like to count with it. 

I see that our sciences dealing with as much information (reality) as they are able to perceive. Including medical sciences. 

I think Science is on a good path.

Thank you for the possibility to communicate my problems and recognitions. 

It helped at least me.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Sciences are! and should be united and rigoursly follow nature based evidences...

1/0=

It has an answer.

Science will have the answer.

I can just believe this. 

I have faith and trust in Science.

Science can be my Religion. 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

There are classes of mathematical functions that have an infinite number of dimensions, i.e. they are all orthogonal to each other (e.g. Legendre polynomials). We don't have an infinite number of physical dimensions

If the second is true how the first can be true? 

6 hours ago, swansont said:

infinite number of dimensions,

What is proving this?

And that it is true at the present time?

The Future, since it did not happened yet, you can not count.

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

You said physics, and we're discussing science. 3000 years ago, we did not have science. As you acknowledge, these were philosophers.

They were the first ones seek to understand Nature.

Some of their questions still makes me think...

It was a pre(different) state of science.

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

Quote

Could you think without your brain? Could you have any mathematical recognition without it?

non sequitur

Mathematics fundamentally connected to the physical reality.

Try to recognize something without it if you are looking for non sequitur. Or deny it's absolute necessity. 

Nature is the final source of information. Reality.

How we think is Reality in every moment of spacetime.

Digitally can even last forever... and I should not have believe in, that there is something to work for and it is achievable through Science. 

I like Scientific Clarity specially at it's fundamentals...

It worth a question and a Honest (believed to be the best) answer. 

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

. Physics is not 3000 years old

Did not say that. I pointed that back than people seek to understand the nature of the physical reality. I.e. primitive(simple) physics presented through e.g. the Greek philosophers.. 

1 hour ago, koti said:

Mathematics does not follow "Natural Reality

What about natural numbers?

Pfff...enlightment that I recheck what is real end what is not... Koti...

1 hour ago, koti said:

Mathematics is just a tool (a very powerful one) like a hammer or a screwdriver. 

Exactly. And by that as good (true) as it possible. Mathematics is Science at the end of the day, Scientific principles apply on mathematics as well...It is the language of the Universe...

Tell me something, what has no mathematically recognisable value through space, time, energy, matter or information... 

33 minutes ago, koti said:

To bring this thread on track as its in the religion section; Science doesn’t really like impossible, it rather say „I don’t know” where religion/faith/belief does the opposite. Another argument to support the irrationality of having science as your religion. 

You said there is everything to know

33 minutes ago, koti said:

?

Obviously I recognized that what I say is opposite somewhere what 7 billion ppl learned and know today...

I had few questions along the path

I think fundamental mathematics MINIMUM! has to follow Natural Reality i.e. natural Numbers. 0.

0 is a physical, mathematical, philosophical reference point. In our current recognition space (time) itself.

An observation in the Universe can be executed just with one result and almost infinite physical reality related relative perceptions.

19 minutes ago, koti said:

I woudln’t throw „impossible” so litely

It took 10 years to recognize that....

22 minutes ago, koti said:

Your 1*0=0 is a good example as in nature the concept of nothing (zero) is ambiguous but in math its a simple and a very clear concept. 

In nature it is not ambiguous it is impossible, the closest you can get is energy and matter free space(time). 

Could you share that clear, simple concept with an explanation what is it based on and why?

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Math does not rely on nature, so there is no guarantee that you can find a physical example to represent any mathematical concept.

Could you provide an example where the mathematical recognition is absolutetly has no relation to Nature? 

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Quote

Does not every mathematical recognition fundamentally connected to the physical reality

No, it does not

Could you think without your brain? Could you have any mathematical recognition without it?

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Medicine has a long history of using conventional wisdom, rather than empirical data.

True, as does physics. Check the perception of space and time in the past 3000 years.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

While it has become more adept at basing its decisions on science, that still doesn't make it science.

So you think anatomy, physiology, microbiology, internal medicine, surgery, histology, pathophysiology, pathology etc.. is not based on evidence after a significant amount of time of rigours investigations, and by that the findings of Medical Sciences does not belong to Science and the trusted, Nature based, overall knowledge of humanity....

Do you think a physician could explain and execute a heart transplantation....?

Can physics and mathematics show the same rigour with their results as Medical Sciences do? (e.g: infinite vs finite or 1/0=....)

On 2018. 04. 05. at 8:55 PM, Phi for All said:

with science, you could support your beliefs by learning what the evidence suggests. You don't have to use faith alone, you also have something to trust.

Very true.

On 2018. 04. 05. at 7:51 PM, John Cuthber said:

In science, you accept  the facts even if they don't agree with your beliefs.

True. 

On 2018. 04. 05. at 8:12 PM, koti said:

There is everything to know. Science deals with knowing not believing.

True

On 2018. 04. 05. at 9:17 PM, dimreepr said:

When one thinks one knows, understanding is not to be trusted and belief takes over.

You can not know without evidence.

On 2018. 04. 05. at 9:55 PM, Phi for All said:

Science uses evidence to ensure that our explanations for natural phenomena are the best currently available, and always subject to change when new evidence is uncovered. Scientific explanations can be trusted, and I think that's a stronger form of belief than faith or wishful thinking.

True

On 2018. 04. 06. at 12:15 AM, Phi for All said:

People of science find it trivially easy to change what they choose to trust when better evidence provides a better, more trustworthy explanation. Science requires a great deal of critical thinking.

Let it be.

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

To what end

It impacts human cognitiv functions. The axiom that Never! can be proven true I think  corrupt Science and the philosophy of science we spoke about.

Prove the following mathematical axiom with a physical example:

1*0=0

I don't really know why and how we count it like this but it not seems to follow any of Nature's  principles....

Does not every mathematical recognition fundamentally connected to the physical reality?

How can physics and mathematics say 2 different thing?

And I should not be religious....

1 minute ago, koti said:

Your clumsy attempts at straw man to bring me off ballance certainly are not something that I will fall for. 

You own the freedom of mind, you think what you want.

That is not Science.

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

is NOT the definition of science.

True. The other perspectives of science is in the thread. I wanted to point that Science is APPLIED (purpose in the scenario and not the fundamental philosophy of science.)

I really like the members responses. It takes time to digest information.... could not a moment be infinite? ..That looks quite impossible...but maybe it could last very very long, related to the physical circumstances.

Medical science is science. Has to understand a lot of different aspects of sciences so please do not look down on it. It can save your life...

23 minutes ago, koti said:

My moral and ethical code of conduct is disrespected by every post you write in this thread. I expect respect, rationality, evidence based statements and coherence from you and Im not getting that. Being respectful to religious beliefs creates a safe space for people who want to do harm based on their faith. There is no virtue in saying that you believe something because you believe something, especialy when its fallacious statements like the ones you like to push to marry science with belief/faith/religion. I respect you as a person and a fellow human but dont expect or demand respect from me as to your beliefs.

I think we should examine your pink unicorn example a bit more profoundly. No harm...

4 hours ago, swansont said:

What? Science's purpose is to explain how nature behaves. We do this by making and testing models. We reject the ones shown not to work.

True

4 hours ago, swansont said:

You can only make science into a religion by redefining what science is, as you have done here. Some attempted intellectual dishonesty sleight-of-hand.

This we disagree on...

I did not redefine what science is I supported it.

I have showed a perspective from the "users point of view" 

I did this for a reason even you recognize that or not. My goals and faith depends just from Nature. I.e. even Science would take a religious turn and promote dogma(1/0) instead facts, I will believe that Natural Reality based knowledge, experience, questioning and learning is which can move me forward on my cognitive journey.

I still think science is my Religion independent science has that recognized role or not. Believe systems are very personal and everyones should be respected until tgat does not harm anyone. 

A personal believe is not science independent from that is built on science or not. 

Scientifically proven and systemically tested valid theory just true and right can be.

Does Time infinite or finite Swansont(The Time Keeper)? If some you know that best.

What is your recognition after so many years of learning, studying and experiencing what it is? 

Can a moment be infinite?

1 hour ago, koti said:

It has been adressed days ago that science which does not deal with belief is as much a religion as boldness is a hair color or not playing golf is a sport. You failed to adrss this argument and instead you are repeating your irrational arguments. You can believe what you want  as swansont noted but that doesn’t make that thing a confirmed and evident fact. You failed to engage in that argument as well, instead you keep on distorting statements and arguments to fit your current view. Thats not how science works and you refuse to accept that. Why?

You are right.

Sorry for the expession.

Science has religious tendencies.

Imagine the human before the mayor surgery. Doesn't it need trust and faith that s/he lets an other human physically manipulating in the brain? If there is any problem during the operation his/her knowledge and experience and the our technical advancements s/he can believe in...

That is science in application 

1 hour ago, koti said:

You failed to engage in that argument as well, instead you keep on distorting statements and arguments to fit your current view. Thats not how science works and you refuse to accept that. Why?

I often find that things I find irritating on others are fundamentally my problems...

I am in constant conversation and I try to speak about things I think is interesting and important. I layed out why.

I work as well so I do not have infinit (chuckle) time....

And you are accusing again...

Why I can not take my time to learn and understand... why are you so stressed?

We can have different opinion, I accept and respect that.

That is why the conversation.

There are few questions and recognitions in the thread which you could argue with reason.

You seems to be lack of that. You rather accusing most of the time...

Are you a scientist?

You rather show the tendencies of a tired priest (chuckle)

I have layed out a thought experiment based theory on space and time.

We discussed the Nature of time and whether it can or can not be infinite.

My conclusion is that it is finite and I reasoned this point in the thread.

Point please if you comprehend where  and why I am mistaken.(e.q expession of Nothing).