andrewcellini

an old howard stern bit with two guys both claiming to be the second coming of jesus

 

We don't know more than the authors on the recorded 'miracles', we know that they were recorded in the Bible as such. Meaning that they were witnessed as 'miracles'. Today there are things that are recorded that also go beyond our current grasp of the world.

we certainly do. for example, we know of a little thing called "conservation of momentum" which would have hampered survival of pretty much every living thing when god stopped the earth in the old testament.

The word "improbable" appeals to logic, but it doesn't exemplify a certainty.

i don't think you know what improbable means.

again this doesn't really help your case. you can discuss the double slit experiment in a classical way, at least for a laser (this is actually the way it was introduced to me in Physics III). it all depends on how deep you want to go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

this doesn't really help your case because, in the above, you're still doing physics even though there is a sort of perspective (and scale) change, and physics is in part guided by evidence. what you're suggesting is to somehow reconcile the evidence with a collection of stories which can't be corroborated by external sources and are not self consistent. this is not comparable to switching from classical to quantum descriptions; it's more like the idea of presenting creationism and evolution side by side, treating them as equals.

how many do you already know of?

I need your opinions to improve it so that it will never stop, and run permanently

add a driving force

objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force

objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force

why would the object stop? it's already begun to move in some direction at some speed, and it's assumed there are no external forces acting on it.

an external force would result in an acceleration.

If you look at the Bible as a history book you would find that it talks about someone by the name of Jesus Christ who performed miracles.

 

In the Bible there are multiple examples of these miracles. The miracles, however, don't seem to align with our understanding of the material world.

 

Considering that one of the goals of the Bible is to make us aware of these non-material occurrences and considering that the material world may in fact be made up of things which cannot be said to be 'real', wouldn't a solely historical discussion of Jesus Christ be an incomplete discussion?

 

Einstein was being logical and logic lead him to an incomplete conclusion.

why would i look at the bible as a history book? there are numerous inconsistencies in the life of jesus according to the bible, and a large gap of his life is unrecorded.

when you mention einstein coming to an incomplete conclusion, it doesn't strengthen your case. he was "being logical" when he examined the theoretical consequences of QM and noticed the peculiar phenomena of entanglement. he was being reasonably skeptical in rejecting it because he couldn't reconcile it with local realism, and thought there were hidden variables. this was, however, demonstrated by experiment to not be the case, but i'm not sure that einstein was alive when there was experimental confirmation (bell's theorem is from the early 60s), so his conclusion had the possibility of being correct at the time. had he known, he probably would have conceded.

the point is, the consequences of theories are important (that's how we get out predictions), but ultimately their fate is at the hands of experiment. we know that it's improbable for the "miracles" in the bible to have occurred; we know more than the authors of the bible who conceived of such events.

thank you for clarifying. that's essentially why i asked; it seemed as though uncool's interpretation could be used for something like a classical wave.

I'd say natural logic underlies math

what is meant by "natural logic?"

 

Interesting point. I would say that CS is a branch of (applied) mathematics that makes extensive use of logic. As such, it has probably had in impact on philosophy - e.g. models of how the universe or mind works.

that's precisely why i thought about it.

CS being related to maths, especially discrete mathematics, it seems necessary to include.

This question lends itself to a Venn diagram for discussion.

 

But only so long as we can agree boundaries and there is only one ring for each of the three words.

 

venn1.gif

i would think you'd also need to show the relationship between logic and computer science (as well as CS's relationship to the others).

 

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. – Niels Bohr"

 

We know that Jesus is recorded to have performed miracles, which some people claim weren't "real". As mentioned above, Niels Bohr tells us that everything we call "real" is made of things that cannot be regarded as "real".

that all depends on what exactly niels bohr was referring to when he said "everything," doesn't it?

also the claim that "we know that Jesus is recorded to have performed miracles" is contentious because the biblical story of jesus is not consistent with the supposed "historical" jesus.

and depending on your religious beliefs you may claim to "know" jesus didn't perform miracles, or performed different miracles than christians claim.

Einstein was being logical when it comes to his work on QM yet NIST showed that 'spooky action at a distance' is a real thing.

 

Can our logical thoughts lead us to illogical conclusions?

einstein showed that so called "spooky action at a distance" was a theoretical consequence of QM in the first place. that's why he rejected that interpretation of QM (he wanted a theory consistent with local realism). too bad entanglement is a measurable phenomena.

I suppose, I'm sorry for waisting all of your time with this. I just have a need to get my ideas out there, you know?

sure do. i've definitely had sillier "scientific" ideas lol

Logic is often used as "it makes sense to me" which can cause problems on a science forum.

yes that is quite irritating. i should clarify that is not what i mean lol

So the original question, as posed, is too vague to be meaningful or properly answerable.

this is actually what i was thinking about last night after posting, and i agree. for example, depending on how you define philosophy (or what "philosophies" you include) you could have mathematics falling under it. also as ydoa pointed out you could have logic falling under maths and philosophy.

 

Indeed. As if it is a singular noun.

can't have a philosophy thread without clarification of meaning lol

there are a few posts i've seen by members here which are along the lines of "logic is branch of mathematics." is "logic" considered indistinct from "mathematical logic?" if so that seems to be a narrow generalization of what logic is(at least in comparison to the descriptions i can find elsewhere such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic),but i could be wrong and that's why i wanted to ask.

Indeed, higher frequencies are best "seen" with the palm of the hand.

infrared has a lower frequency than red (in the visible spectrum).

Because anything is possiable until proven otherwise.

science is essentially guided by observation and theory. you're gonna need evidence of your predictions.

and the prediction is going to come from some preexisting mathematical model or one you make.

just because you can think it up doesn't mean it's logically consistent, or physically meaningful. it could very well be impossible (or highly unlikely) given the current theories.

my mistake, i accidentally downvoted your post ajb.

hopefully someone can correct this.

If a horse kicks three times in response to three fingers it might simply be kicking once for each finger rather than counting fingers and kicks.

that is counting

to count to three, you have to start at 1 and add 1 twice - > 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

i'm not sure what you're getting at when you say "extensive evidence an animal human language once existed," or why that is relevant.

don't let the work that lies ahead scare you though. stay interested and keep learning about it.

 

Logic is a branch of mathematics.

philosophy actually, at least that seems to be what it is conventionally classified under. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Well played! I guess you have a point, what I mean to say is... I understand how to read and comprehend quantum physics. Although, now that I think about it, that's not much different to saying I understand. Again, well played.

i have no doubt you've read about quantum mechanics and physics. the problem is saying you understand it. at your age that seems unlikely, but i guess you could have taught yourself the necessary mathematics to solve some problems. also what you're reading could just be a pop science journalism interpretation unless you're reading the original papers from peer reviewed journals.

I understand what quantum physics is.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

Why do philosophers make so much money? Honestly what jobs do you get with that type of degree?

work in academia or teach (as in the infographic above). you could become a banker or accountant which might bring in the money more than both of these from the start.

or you could get into law. the skills you develop are definitely valuable to being a lawyer.

or you could be a journalist or author

i'm sure there are others.

You must assume that your reference for length won't contract or expand, so again there are assumptions involved.

sure

also measured lengths are frame dependent, which slipped my mind

Nothing can be measured directly.

what about length? or is that still interpreted through theory?