iNow Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 22 minutes ago, Holmes said: So you accept that "one cannot use material laws to explain their own origin" No. Read again. I said EVEN IF I chose to concede this point, then your conclusion is still nonsequitur. My concession would offer no weight nor value to your conclusion that a supernatural explanation is the only valid one. 24 minutes ago, Holmes said: It's not that supernatural explanations are the only valid ones, it is more that supernatural explanations is the name I use for explanations that are not scientific, not based on material or laws. Doesn’t matter what you call them. Call them Fred for all I care. My point stands independent of the label you choose to apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, iNow said: No. Read again. I said EVEN IF I chose to concede this point, then your conclusion is still nonsequitur. My concession would offer no weight nor value to your conclusion that a supernatural explanation is the only valid one. Quote Doesn’t matter what you call them. Call them Fred for all I care. My point stands independent of the label you choose to apply. Well you haven't really made much of a point. You seem reticent to admit an obvious self evident truth and because the word "supernatural" is being used (and used quite appropriately I might add) you are stubbornly fixated on that. Here's a definition of supernatural, since we're discussing laws of nature this term is absolutely appropriate for denoting situations where there are no laws of nature: Since the origin of the laws of nature was an event obviously not subject to the laws of nature, we are, I'm afraid, very much dealing with the supernatural. I can only assume that bias, prejudice and preconceptions are making this rather straightforward discussion a struggle for you. Edited June 30, 2021 by Holmes -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Holmes said: Here's the question as a reminder: How can one use material and laws to explain the origin of material and laws? You've already given me credit for the 'always been there' argument. And as I get the impression you are comfortable with computing, don't self-referencing algorithms also answer your question ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 (edited) 20 minutes ago, MigL said: You've already given me credit for the 'always been there' argument. And as I get the impression you are comfortable with computing, don't self-referencing algorithms also answer your question ? All scientific explanations, theories are reductionist, the explained thing is "bigger" than the things used in the explanation, this characterizes scientific explanations. "Always been there" is an answer, but not a scientific answer, it is not a scientific explanation (it is not reductionist for one thing) and if we're willing to admit that reality can be explained by non scientific explanations then introducing a "God" is no big deal. The "always been there" answer means that the universe cannot be explained, it just "is" whereas a "God" bringing it into existence with some motive, intent is an explanation, it is reductionist. On this basis it is more attractive as an explanation - IMHO. Self referential algorithms are man made abstractions, they are created by human intelligence, I'm not aware of anything resembling them in nature. Edited June 30, 2021 by Holmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Perhaps it’s always been there ≠ Cannot be explained Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, iNow said: Perhaps it’s always been there ≠ Cannot be explained God created the universe ≠ not an explanation. Edited June 30, 2021 by Holmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kartazion Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 11 minutes ago, Holmes said: God created the universe Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Holmes said: The conservation laws are examples of axioms in theoretical physics, that the laws of physics are homogenous and isotropic are examples of axioms, need I go on? Well, I see what you are getting at, in that the conservation laws are fundamental to physical science (temporary deviations from them in QM notwithstanding.) However my - rather simplistic - understanding is that the conservation laws are derived - from Ockham's Razor by way of Noether's Theorem, if you like - in that if we assume the (other) laws of physics do not change with time and place, then the conservation laws are the consequence. I suppose you can argue that that assumption is axiomatic, but really it is just observing and then assuming that what we observe is generally applicable, by invoking Ockham's Razor. Isn't it? And then, I suppose, there are things like the postulates of QM. But a postulate is not an axiom. The choice of term indicates it is a model being put forward, not something taken as definitively true. On which point, I couldn't help noticing that in one of your other posts you say: "The laws of physics are unproven and unprovable (science relies on inductive reasoning) therefore - like axioms in mathematics - they are assumed to be true, taken for granted, believed, I make no apology for labelling these as "axioms" it is a legitimate label epistemologically speaking. " This seems to betray a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Yes of course theories in science, including those we dignify with the description "laws", are unprovable. Science does not deal in proof. But, per Popper, they are all in principle falsifiable. That means that science does not assume them to be true. They are not "taken for granted". They are provisional models of nature, that is all, ready to be overthrown if new observations cannot be reconciled with them. Now, sure, in daily work the scientist relies on a multitude of these laws without questioning them, but he or she is - or should be - always implicitly aware that they are man-made models, open to challenge. So I don't think the term axiom is very helpful in describing them. Edited June 30, 2021 by exchemist 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 1 minute ago, exchemist said: Well, I see what you are getting at, in that the conservation laws are fundamental to physical science (temporary deviations from them in QM notwithstanding.) However my - rather simplistic - understanding is that the conservation laws are derived - from Ockham's Razor by way of Noether's Theorem, if you like - in that if we assume the laws of physics do not change with time and place, then the conservation laws are the consequence. I suppose you can argue that that assumption is axiomatic, but really it is just observing and then assuming that what we observe is generally applicable, by invoking Ockham's Razor. Isn't it? And then there things like the postulates of QM. But a postulate is not an axiom. The choice of term indicates it is a model being put forward, not something taken as definitively true. On which point, I couldn't help noticing that in one of your other posts you say: "The laws of physics are unproven and unprovable (science relies on inductive reasoning) therefore - like axioms in mathematics - they are assumed to be true, taken for granted, believed, I make no apology for labelling these as "axioms" it is a legitimate label epistemologically speaking. " This seems to betray a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Yes of course theories in science, including those we dignify with the description "laws", are unprovable. Science does not deal in proof. But, per Popper, they are all in principle falsifiable. That means that science does not assume them to be true. They are not "taken for granted". They are provisional models of nature, that is all, ready to be overthrown if new observations cannot be reconciled with them. Now, sure, in daily work the scientist relies on a multitude of these laws without questioning them, but he or she is - or should be - always implicitly aware that they are man-made models, open to challenge. So I don't think the term axiom is very helpful in describing them. The whole point of my earlier post is in danger of being lost if we dwell on the merits or want thereof of specific terms. What is important is this - can one have a scientific, mathematical theory that does not base its conclusions on assumptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Holmes said: The whole point of my earlier post is in danger of being lost if we dwell on the merits or want thereof of specific terms. What is important is this - can one have a scientific, mathematical theory that does not base its conclusions on assumptions? Surely the point about all scientific theories is that they are rooted, not in assumptions, but in reproducible observation of nature. So, while one may make assumptions in constructing a hypothesis, the hypothesis is not a scientific theory until it has been put to the test by making observations. If it has passed the tests, then the assumptions made have been shown to be consistent with nature, so they are validated to some degree and cease to be mere assumptions. I guess one can argue the toss about whether they still qualify as "assumptions" or not, in those circumstances, but they are at least not "just" assumptions now: they are assumptions that are a good fit to reality. Edited June 30, 2021 by exchemist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 10 minutes ago, exchemist said: I guess one can argue the toss about whether they still qualify as "assumptions" or not, in those circumstances, but they are at least not "just" assumptions now: they are assumptions that are a good fit to reality. All models are wrong, but some are useful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 (edited) 12 minutes ago, exchemist said: Surely the point about all scientific theories is that they are rooted, not in assumptions, but in reproducible observation of nature. One can argue that yes, theories are rooted in various things I suppose, history being one of them along with testability and so on, but without stating assumed truths there is no theory, no ability to reason because there's nothing to reason from. Quote So, while one may make assumptions in constructing a hypothesis, the hypothesis is not a scientific theory until it has been put to the test by making observations. I don't think its a question of "may make assumption" but of "must make assumptions". I also disagree that a theory is not a theory until its been subjected to some kind of verification only that it must lend itself to verification, that is be falsifiable. Quote If it has passed the tests, then the assumptions made have been shown to be consistent with nature, so they are validated to some degree and cease to be mere assumptions. Yes I agree, this is what we call inductive reasoning as I'm sure you know but the assumptions are still assumptions. It was assumed the aether existed and played a role in what we observe until it was abandoned, assuming it was therefore wrong despite the sensible reasons that it was initially considered. You can take any law and argue that because we've tested it a billion times we are confident in it and elevate to the status of an axiom, regard it as universally true but that is very far from establishing that it is invariably true. For all we know speed of light may drop by 5% in 1 million years and remain at that speed for the next trillion years, this could be the case and all our misplaced confidence based on our relatively brief history would be but a blip. Quote I guess one can argue the toss about whether they still qualify as "assumptions" or not, in those circumstances, but they are at least not "just" assumptions now: they are assumptions that are a good fit to reality. All well and good, but is it possible to formulate a mathematical theory in physics that makes no assumptions? of course it is not, so this begs the question what is the origin of the truths we are assuming? until that is answered we have not explained the universe's presence. Edited June 30, 2021 by Holmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 16 minutes ago, Holmes said: What is important is this - can one have a scientific, mathematical theory that does not base its conclusions on assumptions? Actually you can. Not a very great theory but a truly scientific theory none the less. Here are the measurements. 135T, 120T, 104T, 119T, 119T, 114T, 124T, 112T, 120T, 121T Can you guess what the theory is ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 7 minutes ago, studiot said: Actually you can. Not a very great theory but a truly scientific theory none the less. Here are the measurements. 135T, 120T, 104T, 119T, 119T, 114T, 124T, 112T, 120T, 121T Can you guess what the theory is ? Well you use the term "measurements" so if I assume T represents Tesla, then these are measurements of a magnetic field strength. 45T is the strongest magnetic field we've created so far on earth so these must be extra terrestrial values. But such a set of measurements (perhaps of stars) does not seem to make much of a theory, perhaps it represents a fluctuation, a series of measurements over time of the same object. No, I cannot guess from that data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Holmes said: Well you use the term "measurements" so if I assume T represents Tesla, then these are measurements of a magnetic field strength. 45T is the strongest magnetic field we've created so far on earth so these must be extra terrestrial values. But such a set of measurements (perhaps of stars) does not seem to make much of a theory, perhaps it represents a fluctuation, a series of measurements over time of the same object. No, I cannot guess from that data. Why assume anything ? T stands for Tonne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, Holmes said: One can argue that yes, theories are rooted in various things I suppose, history being one of them along with testability and so on, but without stating assumed truths there is no theory, no ability to reason because there's nothing to reason from. I don't think its a question of "may make assumption" but of "must make assumptions". I also disagree that a theory is not a theory until its been subjected to some kind of verification only that it must lend itself to verification, that is be falsifiable. Yes I agree, this is what we call inductive reasoning as I'm sure you know but the assumptions are still assumptions. It was assumed the aether existed and played a role in what we observe until it was abandoned, assuming it was therefore wrong despite the sensible reasons that it was initially considered. You can take any law and argue that because we've tested it a billion times we are confident in it and elevate to the status of an axiom, regard it as universally true but that is very far from establishing that it is invariably true. For all we know speed of light may drop by 5% in 1 million years and remain at that speed for the next trillion years, this could be the case and all our misplaced confidence based on our relatively brief history would be but a blip. All well and good, but is it possible to formulate a mathematical theory in physics that makes no assumptions? of course it is not, so this begs the question what is the origin of the truths we are assuming? until that is answered we have not explained the universe's presence. Well if you want to call these validated assumptions assumptions still, I don't mind particularly. But I do object to your attempt to denigrate the defining feature of science as an approach to understanding the world. A hypothesis is not a theory until it has been tested by reproducible observation of nature. This strictly empirical foundation of science is absolutely basic to the scientific method and is central to its success. Trying to belittle this by mixing it up with historical influences is an error on your part. I see you persist with this wrong notion of elevating laws to the status of an axiom, when I have been at pains to explain this is not what science does and that axiom is a bad term to use. There is, to my mind, only one "assumed truth" in the whole of science, and that is that there is a reality that we can model by observing nature. If you think there are others, please give me an example of one, to help me understand what have in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 7 hours ago, Holmes said: Characterizing my posting as "religious" is a strawman, I've made no mention of organized religions or belief systems. I just did, I've made no mention of organized religions, no part of my argument for "God" is based on anything other than reason and logic and inference the very same concepts we use in scientific inquiry. No it is not. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects": :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: And I didn't mention anything about any "orginized" religion, simply that your your arguments/inferences boil down to supernatural, unscientific myths, as of course is any belief in any god. Therefor, no reason or logic involved. My advice, stop being obtuse. 7 hours ago, Holmes said: Yes and that's intentional because - as I've shown and you've failed to rebut - a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe leads to a paradox (we cannot use the material to explain the origin of the material). I have given a possible scientific explanation for the origin of the universe/space/time, as detailed by Professor Lawrence Krauss, and the possibility of the pre BB quantum foam, being the "nothing" that simply has always been there. That is far more logical and reasonable then resorting to some supernatural myth about some supernatural old bloke sitting on a cloud. By the same token one could accept fairies at the bottom of your garden. 8 hours ago, Holmes said: We can resolve the paradox in several ways, one is to postulate an explanation that is not scientific, another of course is to bury one's head in the sand or simply deny reality as you appear to be doing. The usual "God of the gaps" argument again...sheesh! 8 hours ago, Holmes said: Irrelevant and possibly and example of the genetic fallacy. See? the genetic fallacy, even if true, adopting a belief because there are no other viable options does not prove that that belief is false. Irrelevant, first the genetic fallacy is a fallacy so any reasoning based upon it is also fallacious, second none of the arguments I've put forward hinge in any way of myths. My only "fallacy" as you put it, is simply the scientific methodology over religious supernatural unscientific myth, generally shown to be brought about to maintain a warm cozy inner peace, rather then the cold, natural finality of death and the cessation of everything. 3 hours ago, Holmes said: Some here are not actually willing to face the music, not willing to be brutally honest with themselves, instead their position is "how can I answer these questions without abandoning my deeply held belief in philosophical materialism" - it is not truth they seek. !!! Holy hell!!! that just about sums up what I was going to say about you!!! 8 hours ago, Holmes said: Which remark please? it always help to quote one's opponent accurately, avoid paraphrasing etc. The remark you made when misunderstanding Feynman..............thus... "This is exactly what Feynman explains here in the video I posted already, perhaps you missed it: So if you are wont to reject explanations that raise further questions you might as well reject all of science my friend." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 7 hours ago, Holmes said: But is it not the case that we are left with a blank sheet of paper for our "theory of everything"? you say nothing of that, you seem only concerned with my use of the term "God". No. I didn't talk about any theory of everything; I was talking about inflationary scenarios, which are falsifiable. Your explanation "god did it" is no explanation at all. I don't mind the term god, if explanatory mechanisms were provided. "God" is just a word. It doesn't bother me at all. You see? 7 hours ago, Holmes said: Start a thread on that if it interests you, this thread is about the inability of scientific inquiry to explain the origin of the universe, you seem reticent to focus on this. It's you who's interested in using god as a travesty for an explanation. I'm just calling you to task: Which god? How does this god operate? 7 hours ago, Holmes said: Translation - "I am unable to form a sound reasoned rebuttal so I'll be dismissive instead". I don't need you to translate anything I say. It is intellectually dishonest to do so, and I would suggest you play by the rules. If you think my English is not up to par, ask me for clarification and I will oblige. You're playing semantic games because you're resting your whole case on an awe-inspiring traditional word that doesn't explain anything but is fraught with mystique. One is supposed to accept it only because of a cultural emotional baggage that we all share as a people. In fact, for centuries it has been forced on people. In a scientific theory, the whole structure would be completely the same even if you changed a key word by an arbitrary word. Example: "energy" by "mush": There is kinetic mush and potential mush. The sum of kinetic mush and potential mush is always conserved. Well, it is a bit strange that we call it "mush", but it doesn't affect at all the interrelations in the theory. On the contrary, take your first post on this thread and substitute "god" by "mush": Mush is that which brought the universe into existence, mush can be rationally inferred from that observation, it is a definition of mush. It is plain to see how ridiculous your thesis is. It doesn't prove anything, it's not falsifiable. In fact, it doesn't mean anything (much). 8 hours ago, Holmes said: You're not doing a very good of rebutting me. I made no effort to rebut you because you made no argument. May I remind you that, On 6/28/2021 at 6:43 PM, Holmes said: God is that which brought the universe into existence, God can be rationally inferred from that observation, it is a definition of God. is no argument. It's just your opinion. Translating my words to other words of your choice is also no argument. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 3 hours ago, Holmes said: Self referential algorithms are man made abstractions, they are created by human intelligence, I'm not aware of anything resembling them in nature. Are not ALL theories mathematical abstractions, or models, that describe the physical reality to some extent ? Conservation laws are not fundamental; symmetries are. Some of those conservation laws, like mass-energy conservation, make no sense on a global scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, studiot said: Why assume anything ? T stands for Tonne. OK, I'll assume nothing, the list is a randomly generated list. 16 hours ago, exchemist said: Well if you want to call these validated assumptions assumptions still, I don't mind particularly. I steer away from misleading terms like "validated assumption" science deals with falsification, it can only ever invalidate an assumption. Consider Newtonian gravitation, was the inverse square law "validated" and if so when was it validated? it was regarded as such for two and a half centuries by many until the unexpected and stubborn deviation of the perihelion of mercury refused to play ball. At that stage the assumption (that the inverse square law is true) was invalidated and was eventually abandoned as I'm sure you know. So how can something be validated if it can later be shown to be invalid? the answer is very obvious, it was never "validated" at all. Quote But I do object to your attempt to denigrate the defining feature of science as an approach to understanding the world. I too object, to your misleading attempt to imply that scientific theories are not based on assumption, unprovable beliefs. Quote A hypothesis is not a theory until it has been tested by reproducible observation of nature. This strictly empirical foundation of science is absolutely basic to the scientific method and is central to its success. Trying to belittle this by mixing it up with historical influences is an error on your part. Newtonian gravitational theory was tested by reproducible observations of nature, tell me please at what point do you think the inverse square law became validated? if it was validated then how on earth could it later be invalidated? Quote I see you persist with this wrong notion of elevating laws to the status of an axiom, when I have been at pains to explain this is not what science does and that axiom is a bad term to use. The conservation laws are assumptions, mathematical theories that hinge upon them draw their conclusions on the basis that the laws are assumed to be true. So far as the mathematical analysis goes they are axiomatic. Quote There is, to my mind, only one "assumed truth" in the whole of science, and that is that there is a reality that we can model by observing nature. If you think there are others, please give me an example of one, to help me understand what have in mind. I did give an example, there are in fact many, the inverse square law assumed by Newton is an excellent example as is the luminiferous aether hypothesis. I do not really think your making a good rebuttal, nothing I've said is false, at odds with reality or history. You object it seems to the fact that I refuse to elevate science and theories to the status of unquestioned absolute truth. 16 hours ago, beecee said: No it is not. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects": :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Completely irrelevant to our discussion. Quote And I didn't mention anything about any "orginized" religion, simply that your your arguments/inferences boil down to supernatural, unscientific myths, as of course is any belief in any god. Therefor, no reason or logic involved. My advice, stop being obtuse. This is partly true but you've misunderstood. Yes it is unscientific (I've stressed that point several times in this thread) and that is because the explanation for the origin cannot possibly be scientific if we are to avoid paradoxes. I make no apologies, very clearly, the logic is trivially simple here, if the explanation for the origins of the laws of nature cannot be explained scientifically then we must accept the fact that the explanation will not be scientific, we must accept the fact that non-scientific explanations must be considered. Quote I have given a possible scientific explanation for the origin of the universe/space/time, as detailed by Professor Lawrence Krauss, and the possibility of the pre BB quantum foam, being the "nothing" that simply has always been there. That is far more logical and reasonable then resorting to some supernatural myth about some supernatural old bloke sitting on a cloud. By the same token one could accept fairies at the bottom of your garden. Here you go again, I made no mention of "myth" or "old bloke" or "sitting on clouds" this is an attempt at a strawman, an attempt to misrepresent what I actually said, this is not the first time you've stooped to this level and it makes your attempt at rebuttal look intellectually rather weak not say rude. Saying a "quantum foam" has always been there is fine, by all means one can propose that but it is not a scientific explanation it is a belief an assumed absolute truth that cannot be subject to test, it cannot be falsified. It leads one to just dumbly stare and say "it's just always been there" how that is a "better" explanation than an agency with power and will, intentionally bringing it into existence? I do not think it is a better explanation, perhaps it is more palatable because of deep seated prejudices, biases against what you think "God" may represent or imply but that's your choice. We are all familiar with agencies that have power and will, just look in the mirror, will, intent does exist in the universe. Quote The usual "God of the gaps" argument again...sheesh! My only "fallacy" as you put it, is simply the scientific methodology over religious supernatural unscientific myth, generally shown to be brought about to maintain a warm cozy inner peace, rather then the cold, natural finality of death and the cessation of everything. More mischaracterizations! you do like to garnish your posts with emotive terms like "warm cozy inner peace" you seem unable to discuss this without using such emotive terms, well let me say here and now these are your terms, reflecting your perceptions not mine. Quote !!! Holy hell!!! that just about sums up what I was going to say about you!!! The remark you made when misunderstanding Feynman..............thus... "This is exactly what Feynman explains here in the video I posted already, perhaps you missed it: So if you are wont to reject explanations that raise further questions you might as well reject all of science my friend." I don't think you're making a very strong case, as rebuttals go this is intellectually disappointing, I've debated with many competent thinkers over the years, this is not my first rodeo as the saying goes. Edited July 1, 2021 by Holmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 15 hours ago, joigus said: No. I didn't talk about any theory of everything; I was talking about inflationary scenarios, which are falsifiable. Your explanation "god did it" is no explanation at all. I don't mind the term god, if explanatory mechanisms were provided. "God" is just a word. It doesn't bother me at all. You see? If god did "do it" then how would one state that fact? If it were found to be true how would one write this fact? Obviously we'd write "god did it". This is akin to how some here want to write "it just always existed". If the former is "no explanation at all" then I do not see how the latter is any better. 15 hours ago, joigus said: It's you who's interested in using god as a travesty for an explanation. I'm just calling you to task: Which god? How does this god operate? This is interesting, your question "how does god operate" is a bit like the example I mentioned from Feynman when asked "how do the two magnets repel". Are you seeking a scientific explanation for how god "operates"? are you seeking a reductionist explanation? on what basis do you insist that there should be such an explanation? particularly when the alternative is "it has always existed", tell me please how does "it has always existed" operate? 15 hours ago, joigus said: I don't need you to translate anything I say. It is intellectually dishonest to do so, and I would suggest you play by the rules. If you think my English is not up to par, ask me for clarification and I will oblige. Very well I will not paraphrase you, I don't like that myself so thanks for mentioning it. 15 hours ago, joigus said: You're playing semantic games because you're resting your whole case on an awe-inspiring traditional word that doesn't explain anything but is fraught with mystique. One is supposed to accept it only because of a cultural emotional baggage that we all share as a people. In fact, for centuries it has been forced on people. This is not true, my "whole case" rests on logic and reason, I've rationally inferred god by recognizing the futility of believing that all explanations must be scientific, reductionist, of believing that the presence of the laws of nature can be explained by recourse to other laws. Since this leads to paradoxes I must - if I care about being honest - reject the belief that everything has a scientific explanation. Nothing in my thesis is being forced upon you, I have no emotional baggage, my words are plain, my reasoning is sound. Objecting to my thesis because I happen to use a term that you personally find distasteful is not a very good basis for a rebuttal. 15 hours ago, joigus said: In a scientific theory, the whole structure would be completely the same even if you changed a key word by an arbitrary word. Example: "energy" by "mush": Yes. 15 hours ago, joigus said: There is kinetic mush and potential mush. The sum of kinetic mush and potential mush is always conserved. Yes, I see that. 15 hours ago, joigus said: Well, it is a bit strange that we call it "mush", but it doesn't affect at all the interrelations in the theory. On the contrary, take your first post on this thread and substitute "god" by "mush": Mush is that which brought the universe into existence, mush can be rationally inferred from that observation, it is a definition of mush. It is plain to see how ridiculous your thesis is. It doesn't prove anything, it's not falsifiable. In fact, it doesn't mean anything (much). I made no effort to rebut you because you made no argument. May I remind you that, is no argument. It's just your opinion. Translating my words to other words of your choice is also no argument. This is odd, first you express disapproval of my choice of the word "god" then you go to great lengths to show that the terms we use don't really matter, does not diminish an argument. If this is the case then "god" is as good as any other term. Well the claim that I presented no argument is likewise, just your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Holmes said: unquestioned absolute truth. One strategy to stay ahead in an argument, is to keep introducing new undefined terms and blaming the other party for them. Can you offer any instance of a Scientist offering the 'unquestioned absolute truth' as part of a scientific statement ? One thing no one has mentioned about scientific statements is that they should always come complete with caveats and descriptions of their applicability and limitations. Sadly these are often overlooked even if offered. My simple law does not overlook this aspect however. I also thought you were undertaking to 1 hour ago, Holmes said: OK, I'll assume nothing, so how is this not a further assumption in the same sentence? 1 hour ago, Holmes said: the list is a randomly generated list. I note that you have also now introduced the word 'assumption' as a general term in place of 'axiom'. Further you have relegated axiom to Mathematics, where it belongs. This action I applaud as I have a lot of sympathy with the view or observation that most things depend upon assumptions, not only in Science but more widely as well. The thing is that the moment you introduce assumptions, be they axioms, principles, laws or other such statements, you must also introduce definitions. Definitions are so similar to assumptions (but generally more numerous) that there has been over 2000 years of controversy about the definitions supporting the prototype axiomatic system - that of Euclid. So on to my theory. You need to know that we are dealing with rope and the list of loads are the breaking loads for a particular length of the rope. The theory concerns how we go about establishing that a length of this rope is safe to lift a 50 tonne weight. No assumptions have been made, we have only (as Perry Mason would say ) the facts in evidence. The theory also complete complete with its limitation. Notably that all ropes gradually deteriorate with time so cannot be relied upon indefinitely into the future. As I said it is not a grand theory, but it has saved many lives and much property over the years and continues to do so every day all over the world. Edited July 1, 2021 by studiot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) I think this short clip from a formal debate between William Craig and Peter Atkins may help explain my position. You'll note how Craig eventually shows that he has a deeper understanding of the foundations of science than Atkins. I think Atkins comes up short, does not seem to appreciate his predicament in the debate. Note too that Craig does not reject the assumptions that he calls out, he agrees and says so, that these are rational sensible things to assume but they are nevertheless beliefs, accepted as true but not provable. 21 minutes ago, studiot said: One strategy to stay ahead in an argument, is to keep introducing new undefined terms and blaming the other party for them. Can you offer any instance of a Scientist offering the 'unquestioned absolute truth' as part of a scientific statement ? One thing no one has mentioned about scientific statements is that they should always come complete with caveats and descriptions of their applicability and limitations. Sadly these are often overlooked even if offered. My simple law does not overlook this aspect however. I also thought you were undertaking to so how is this not a further assumption in the same sentence? I note that you have also now introduced the word 'assumption' as a general term in place of 'axiom'. Further you have relegated axiom to Mathematics, where it belongs. This action I applaud as I have a lot of sympathy with the view or observation that most things depend upon assumptions, not only in Science but more widely as well. The thing is that the moment you introduce assumptions, be they axioms, principles, laws or other such statements, you must also introduce definitions. Definitions are so similar to assumptions (but generally more numerous) that there has been over 2000 years of controversy about the definitions supporting the prototype axiomatic system - that of Euclid. Well science is littered with undefined terms, that's all I have to say about these remarks of yours. 21 minutes ago, studiot said: So on to my theory. Good. Quote You need to know that we are dealing with rope and the list of loads are the breaking loads for a particular length of the rope. The theory concerns how we go about establishing that a length of this rope is safe to lift a 50 tonne weight. No assumptions have been made, we have only (as Perry Mason would say ) the facts in evidence. The theory also complete complete with its limitation. Notably that all ropes gradually deteriorate with time so cannot be relied upon indefinitely into the future. As I said it is not a grand theory, but it has saved many lives and much property over the years and continues to do so every day all over the world. But what is the theory? what is the hypothesis, what does it predict that we can test? You seem to have skirted around this part of your argument. Show me the theory, the hypothesis and I'll show you some assumptions. 15 hours ago, MigL said: Are not ALL theories mathematical abstractions, or models, that describe the physical reality to some extent ? Absolutely, yes. Quote Conservation laws are not fundamental; symmetries are. Some of those conservation laws, like mass-energy conservation, make no sense on a global scale. Yes, this is true, I've read about this recently (in a book by Susskind) but only scratched the surface. @MigL I just stumbled upon this paper, looks like a relevant read. Edited July 1, 2021 by Holmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Holmes said: my reasoning is sound. Except for all those logical fallacies being pointed out and which you consistently ignore. Special pleading is the most obvious one, but your appeals to personal incredulity have been rampant, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, iNow said: Except for all those logical fallacies being pointed out and which you consistently ignore. Please post a numbered list of these purported fallacies and lets examine them together one at a time. Quote Special pleading is the most obvious one, but your appeals to personal incredulity have been rampant, too. Do you think that "it's always been there" qualifies as special pleading? (Here's the definition of special pleading to help you answer this question). Edited July 1, 2021 by Holmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts