Jump to content

Can Science be my religion?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, swansont said:

We don't measure time, or length, the same if we are in different frames of reference

True.

Because the observer is always impacted by the physically presented circumstances. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

! Moderator Note We're done with this. If you've read 8 pages of people telling you why science doesn't equal religion and can still make this statement, it's clear you aren't li

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 b

I agree, with the exception of "religions have no evidence to support what they claim". It would be more accurate to say they have 'no evidence to support much of or some of what they claim'. It is no

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Lasse said:

True.

Because the observer is always impacted by the physically presented circumstances. 

 

What is a "physically presented circumstance" and where does it pop up in an equation?

(the correct answer is "because the speed of light is invariant, and physics works the same in all inertial frames")

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Would you mind walking me through the logic and signs of application?

It is not that short that I can place it here but my sum up would be:

The null hypothesis is that nothing, zero is a physical reality based mathematical conception which we can perceive as an energy, matter, information, space, time free state. Revealing as our common physical, mathematical, philosophical origin, a physical reality based mathematical reference point. I recognize that in proportion to this physical reality based sense (conception) everything has some kind of mathematically expressible value.

Space, time, energy, matter, information.

Even koti's pink unicorn(information). At least i know He has one in his head :)

The sign of application is Nature. The Natural Reality.

35 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is a "physically presented circumstance" and where does it pop up in an equation?

Energy and matter in space (time)

E=mc2 (I would say...)

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lasse, it's very difficult to discuss your ideas when you mis-use words that have a defined meaning in science, like faith, logic, application, nature, reality, etc. Wouldn't it be easier if you learned the proper terminology instead of all of us learning how you have interpreted their meanings and definitions? Most of this thread is people correcting you about your insistence on using the word "faith" to mis-describe the way you view scientific knowledge. 

Science is all about methodologies and shared definitions, and approaching knowledge in very specific ways in order to reach the most trustworthy conclusions. Please listen and learn from these wonderful members who are trying to help you. It's a VERY IMPORTANT distinction, the difference between explanations you trust because you can know exactly how they were derived, and explanations you have to take on faith because there is no evidence so you must simply believe. Please stop trying to make them equal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, koti said:

Then your faith is not faith, its trust like I suspected. Trust earned by proof like you phrase it is the very definition of science. Science is in direct contradiction to faith which is based on blind, baseless belief that pink unicorns will glaze you with rainbows next Sunday. 

 

57 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Even koti's pink unicorn(information). At least i know He has one in his head :)

You need to start understanding the meaning of what is being said. The discussion is pointless if you cannot understand simple posts like mine above.

Edited by koti
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Please listen and learn from these wonderful members who are trying to help you.

I truly appreciate every word. 

I recognize the effort your community make to help scientific development and clarification. This is one of the reasons I have faith while I do not fully understand but trying to discover Einstein's relativity.

My questions might be different and sometimes not well articulated but led by logic (or at least I like to think so) 

If I generated few thoughts on the topic by the questions than my goal is basically achieved.

I do not have the necessity to be right. I just try to be reasonable. I evaluated every question and recognition few times....

I love Nature. I think I partially know what it is.

1 hour ago, koti said:

 

You need to start understanding the meaning of what is being said. The discussion is pointless if you cannot understand simple posts like mine above.

I understand the posts.

Do you understand mine's?

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I understand you posts.

Do you understand mine's?

No, not really. There are too many assumptions I have to make to try to make out what you’re saying due to lack of coherence in your posts. I do understand one thing though, in spite of people giving you very good and straight forward reasonining to the contrary, you keep on insisting that your faith can interweave with science on equall terms. Consider this... Physicists like all other scientists never claim they know answers to all the  questions. Faith on the other hand claims that the answer to everything is God. This is a fundamental difference between religion and science - Science is full of evidence yet it is humble where Religion is full of **it yet its arogant in its fake claims to know it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you are misunderstanding me. Time will solve this problem.

Your recognition is related to your knowledge and understanding. It is relative. Your relativity does not change reality(the laws of Nature). The perception supposed to be always relative...

Does a second is finite or infinite Now? Why?

iNow wrote it well.

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I see you are misunderstanding me. Time will solve this problem.

True. I see two paths:

1. You take the time to learn the same terminology everyone else here took the time to learn, or

2. Everybody else takes the time to learn how you define things.

?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both.

We will meet somewhere in the Future.

I do everything to generate understanding.

I do not deny that it takes time.

I am relatively primitive at the end of the day...

Thanks everyone the contribution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lasse said:

This I would question because this would indicate that time does not pass somewhere.

Why? That is a complete non sequitur. 

6 hours ago, Lasse said:

There is no infinite now

What does “infinite now” even mean?

There is no blue yesterday. Makes about as much sense. 

6 hours ago, Lasse said:

The uncertainty principle feels a bit missguiding

It has a sound theoretical basis and is supported by evidence. So why you think it is “misguiding” is beyond me. And irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lasse said:

If this is true then there has to be an universal very big but finite Now.

That does not follow. It is a logical fallacy known as nonsequitur. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Science becomes a religion when absolute faith is put into scientific thinking, to the point that other ways of thinking, when they lead to reasoning not complying with the standard scientific paradigim, are simply dismissed because of a reluctance and unwillingness to accept any other ways of thinking, out of a faith in science only.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Strange said:

What does “infinite now” even mean?

That a moment of time would have the nature to last forever and by that being absolute infinite in size, and in the amount of energy and matter it contains. 

"There is no universal now"

13 hours ago, Lasse said:

This I would question because this would indicate that time does not pass somewhere.

 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Why? That is a complete non sequitur. 

 

Time is a continuum and passes with a rate the given physical circumstances promote.

We observe 2 objects, one in a black hole and the other in interstellar space, time passes for both as a continuum,

If i execute an observation in a moment of time, in that moment regardless of their fundamental nature being relative,  both will exist with exact physically measurable attributes. Including time.

If we can not measure any of the attributes it is not Natures fault...

So because times do pass everywhere as a continuum, there should be a moment which regardless relativity, is common.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is energy, matter and information in space-time. They all related to one another. In this case we could call it the theory of Everything.

Everything has mathematically expressible value.

I can believe this until it is proven otherwise.

I have Nature to prove and our scientific recognitions that it is true.

Nature is Real.

 

I trust what I see and the theory tries to express reality has to include reality itself.

Relativity is true.

I might be misguided but I think my argumentation is valid at some point.

I am 100% sure that I am not 100% right.

I might be misguided but I think my argumentation is valid at some point.

I am 100% sure that I never can be 100% right. I.e I will always miss some information...

The question is than what I believe in? 

That would be at the end Natural Reality for me. Independent that this expression will ever mean anything to anyone.

I think that is faith....somewhere it is religious...

Obviously I do not say that anyone should be or has to be.

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lasse said:

Yes. It could not be. If time would be infinite it could be...

Then you have changed the definition of "moment". At which point the discussion becomes meaningless because how am I supposed to now what any of your words mean. You might as well say a second is a year long. It is meaningless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Then you have changed the definition of "moment

A moment suggest a point of time. However small it is

That is what I mean. 

What does a moment mean if I am mistaken?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You might as well say a second is a year long. It is meaningless

Exactly. 

 Everything is energy, matter and information in space-time. They all related to one another. In this case we could call it the theory of Everything.

Everything has mathematically expressible value.

I can believe this until it is proven otherwise.

I have Nature to prove and our scientific recognitions that it is true.

I just can hope you understand what I mean and One should not have faith...

Time will solve this problem right. :)

I work on my language and we see what Future will bring.

We won't have less information and understanding. That is sure. At least I know what/how you are thinking.

Science is a process as does learning.

 

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites

And than as a final recapitulation, a small geometry on religions relatedness to Science...

5D Space-Time(there is some small information :) ): 

15234777845151575233708.jpg

Does everything has some kind of geometry?

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lasse said:

A moment suggest a point of time. However small it is

Then it can't be infinite. How can a point, which is small, be infinite? 

It is like saying you have an ant that is the size of an elephant. And it is grey. And has  trunk. And big ears.  And four legs. Therefore, it is an elephant, not an an ant.

3 hours ago, Lasse said:

I can believe this until it is proven otherwise.

You can believe what you like. It obviously has nothing to do with science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 12:48 PM, Lasse said:

I believe the Einstein is right. I do not exactly know since it can not yet explain my metaphysical values but for sure so far perfectly points every physical entities whereabout and whatabout(energy, matter in space (time)

I am excited about what our scientists seek to discover and understand.

I believe (I dont exactly know) but I sense that Science raises Humanity out of darkness.

Does science is my religion than?

Q: Can Science be my religion?

A: No. Archaic Science/Religion/Mythology became Modern Science in the scientific revolution. So, Modern science (what we call science today), is not religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lasse said:

Everything has mathematically expressible value.

What is the mathematically expressible value of a poem?

11 hours ago, Lasse said:

And than as a final recapitulation, a small geometry on religions relatedness to Science...

5D Space-Time(there is some small information :) ): 

That is pretty meaningless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is the mathematically expressible value of a poem?

It is One poem by someOne.

Look it from the digital point of view and see how many ones and zeros required to make sense about it (e.g on my phone).

You can look it from the realities point of view and recognize it's space and time of creation and length, number of caracters....

Does digitization has anything to do with mathematics? Which poem you could not digitize?

You make your recognition that the poem is good or bad, clear or blur ( you even can scale it).... could you digitize your conclusion?

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.