Proof: God = Nature

[Chimp]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/


Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God ... the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature"



If my interpretation is correct, pantheism basically means that God is Nature and that God is omnipresent. I am not sure how to prove an infinite "omnipotent" God, but pantheism also entails a type of omniscience, since God is Universally self referential[self aware] and the omnipotence would probably be the fact that God is the greatest entity[totality] of all that exists.

An initial rough sketch:

[1.] x = properties of existence.

G is the totality of existence, which includes the term "multiverse, and universe" since G is the totality of all that exists.

[2.] x depends on G

G ---> x

not-G ---> not-x

[3.] G--->G means that G is self creating, or, that G is not dependent on another higher form of existence for its existence, since there is nothing outside of "G = the totality of existence".

[4.] [G--->G] or not-[G--->G]

[5.] not-[G--->G] --->G'

[6.] [5.] forms a contradiction since G is the totality of all that exists, there cannot be another greater G' that creates G

[7.] G = G'

[8.] G--->G

[9.] G is omnipresent if its laws of nature are logically consistent and hold at all points in G.

[10.] Suppose that two mutually inconsistent sets of laws [A,B] exist in G, with relational difference D. If that is true, then the relational difference logically distributes over [A,B]

D[A,B] = [DA , DB] ergo the supposition that the laws of G are inconsistent, is false.

[11.] [10.] means that G is omnipresent. G distributes over the sum of its parts, G[a+b+c+...+n] = Ga+Gb+Gc+...+Gn

[12.] [10.] & [11.] means that G is omniscient, since its laws are relations that are distributed over all points of G, G refers to itself with a physical "self reference" which is equivalent to a type of self awareness.

[13.] For all intents and purposes, G is omnipotent since it is the greatest possible entity, i.e. the totality of existence.

[14.] For all intents and purposes, G is God.

[pope fiction]

Do you believe in god, chimp?

[Chimp]

Originally posted by pope fiction
Do you believe in god, chimp?

Belief hinges on proof. I suspect that God exists but I need proof, or disproof.

[The Bearded One]

I'm not particularly interested in the pseudo-mathematical proofs. Others can deal with them.

Pantheism is the belief that "God" is identical to the Universe. I have no problem with that. If that's how you want to define God, go for it. But using that definition, there is no reason to suppose that the universe has any cognitive abilities or consciousness. All cognition that we are aware of is dependant on a brain-like material substrate. There are many such within the universe, but no indication that there is a Universal Consciousness.

I think the universe is a great place, but I'm not going to worship it.

-- The Bearded One

[Goliath]

Originally posted by Chimp

If my interpretation is correct, pantheism basically means that God is Nature and that God is omnipresent.



That is my understanding of pantheism, as well.



[1.] x = properties of existence.



What properties, exactly?



G is the totality of existence, which includes the term "multiverse, and universe" since G is the totality of all that exists.

[2.] x depends on G



First of all, I have no idea what you mean by "totality of existence", so your argument fails due to it being nonsensical. Also, you are assuming that G exists, whence your argument fails yet again.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Yahzi]

A) God = cheese grater
B) Pizza
QED: God exists.

You can prove God is "everything" simply by defining it so. There isn't an actual god we can compare your definition to and complain that it fails to match.

[haverbob]

I think the pantheistic view has a small flaw at the very end of it. If it means that God is the totality of what exists and vice versa, then it doesn't go far enough. While God, if it exists, can be said to be the totality of everything, it also has to be more. It needs to be the cause of the totality of everything as well or else something else can be said to have caused God (to which we can then ask if the cause of God is actually God). This is an added dimension that steps outside of the pantheistic view. The pantheistic view does not address the cause or perhaps origin of the totality, thereby leaving room for something else, which remains unanswered. So at best, perhaps pantheism identifies an attribute of God, but not the whole.

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by haverbob
I think the pantheistic view has a small flaw at the very end of it. If it means that God is the totality of what exists and vice versa, then it doesn't go far enough. While God, if it exists, can be said to be the totality of everything, it also has to be more. It needs to be the cause of the totality of everything as well or else something else can be said to have caused God (to which we can then ask if the cause of God is actually God). This is an added dimension that steps outside of the pantheistic view. The pantheistic view does not address the cause or perhaps origin of the totality, thereby leaving room for something else, which remains unanswered. So at best, perhaps pantheism identifies an attribute of God, but not the whole.

Yup.

Also, [2.] says:

x depends on G

G ---> x

not-G ---> not-x

but who says x depends on G? It looks far more liekly that G depends on x, for whatever x is, G is, and not the other way around.

[haverbob]

Originally posted by breathilizer
Yup.

Also, [2.] says:

x depends on G

G ---> x

not-G ---> not-x

but who says x depends on G? It looks far more liekly that G depends on x, for whatever x is, G is, and not the other way around.

Well...you are accurately taking one side of the fence. However, you realize that this can be flipped and work just as effectively. As far as being "more likely" that is kind of a statistical statement. So to arrive at your conclusion of likeliness, we need a sample and an actual population that we are taking that sample from. Our sample can be said to be the conglomeration of every human experience. The population can be said to be reality itself. So what percentage of reality is the conglomeration of all of our experiences to date? How can we be sure we have a large enough sample size to gain a probability?

[Yannis (J'ohn)]

Originally posted by haverbob
I think the pantheistic view has a small flaw at the very end of it. If it means that God is the totality of what exists and vice versa, then it doesn't go far enough. While God, if it exists, can be said to be the totality of everything, it also has to be more. It needs to be the cause of the totality of everything as well or else something else can be said to have caused God (to which we can then ask if the cause of God is actually God). This is an added dimension that steps outside of the pantheistic view. The pantheistic view does not address the cause or perhaps origin of the totality, thereby leaving room for something else, which remains unanswered. So at best, perhaps pantheism identifies an attribute of God, but not the whole.
Transtemporal consistency was never one of the strong suits of pantheism. ;)

Nevertheless, I do not think that a view on cosmogony is integral to the consistency of a religion (a pantheistic religion, in this case). For most intents and purposes, it can be said that pantheism supports the lack of a beginning, an "origin" as you call it.

SBS :)

[Ellis14]

Would it not be better to define pantheism as the belief that the universe is divine, since the word 'God' doesn't have the same meaning in pantheism, since pantheism is not a theistic belief.

[krazykatlady]

"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature."
Frank Lloyd Wright (1869 - 1959)

Yep, I always have seen much truth in that.

Ange =^..^=

[Thugpreacha]

Originally posted by Chimp
Belief hinges on proof. I suspect that God exists but I need proof, or disproof.

Why is it that you or I need no proof that we exist? If G=n, can you say that you believe that nature exists? If the concept is self evident, why is the pantheistic source as you put it "G" in need of proof?:confused:

[nermal]

The simplest rebuke of pantheism I've ever seen is to point to the absurdity of God killing God in the natural order of things.

Or, more humorously, God stubbing himself on himself when he goes barefoot in rocks.

Ed

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
Why is it that you or I need no proof that we exist? If G=n, can you say that you believe that nature exists? If the concept is self evident, why is the pantheistic source as you put it "G" in need of proof?:confused:

"I exist" is a self evident thought or expression. Everything else requires "proof".

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Chimps have no "faith".

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Ellis10
Would it not be better to define pantheism as the belief that the universe is divine, since the word 'God' doesn't have the same meaning in pantheism, since pantheism is not a theistic belief.

The definition of God needs to be as free from "ambiguity" as possible.

Here is an interesting definition of Pantheism, but I am not sure I completely agree with it yet:

http://www.solidstatelight.com/panthe/tenants.htm


Traditional pantheism associates God with the forces of Nature, Literally, it sees God in all things. The traditional Judaic/Christian/Muslim definition of God holds that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. By defining God in mathematical/physical terms, Logical Pantheists feel they have satisfied both Pantheist and the Judaic/Christian/Muslim definitions, as well as the need of science for a verifiable mathematical formulation of the concept.

Since God is the sum of all energy in the universe, God is, from this definition, omnipotent. Since energy is everywhere present in the universe (at least in the form of cosmic background radiation), it follows that from this definition, God is omnipresent. Since knowledge exists either in the form of matter (e.g. books, films, etc.) or energy (e.g. computer memory, human memory, etc.), and since matter is a form of energy (from E = MC^2) it follows that the sum of all energy includes all all knowledge, and thus from the Logical Pantheist definition God is omniscient.

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Yahzi
A) God = cheese grater
B) Pizza
QED: God exists.

You can prove God is "everything" simply by defining it so. There isn't an actual god we can compare your definition to and complain that it fails to match.

If a "cheese grater" is the greatest possible entity, i.e. the totality of all that exists, then the cheese grater becomes God by default. But a cheese grater is not the greatest possible entity, in fact, it is only one aspect of all that exists. So your counterexample is an insufficient/irrevelant one.

Keep trying :banghead:

[Goliath]

Chimp,

Could you please tell us what you mean by "greater than"?

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Chimp]

Originally posted by nermal
The simplest rebuke of pantheism I've ever seen is to point to the absurdity of God killing God in the natural order of things.

Or, more humorously, God stubbing himself on himself when he goes barefoot in rocks.

Ed

This appears to be an oversimplified "rebuke?" Who says that an unchanging "no death" universe is the ideal? It appears that change allows for optimal self creation.

[Goliath]

Chimp? Hello? Can you please answer my question?

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Goliath
Chimp,

Could you please tell us what you mean by "greater than"?

Sincerely,

Goliath

A > B, and A contains B

It is probably better to use the equation:

A >= B

Say that the set of blue objects, x = "blue object" has the "blueness" property.

B[x] >= x

The set[totality of existence] of G objects, G object = x, has the G property.

G[x] >= x

[Goliath]

Originally posted by Chimp
A > B, and A contains B


Great....what are A and B?



Say that the set of blue objects, x = "blue object" has the "blueness" property.



This is nonsensical. What do you mean by a blue object? Which set are you talking about? Is 2 blue, for example? What about pi?

(emphasis mine)

B[x] >= x

The set[totality of existence] of G objects, G object = x, has the G property.



What do you mean by "totality of existence"? What is G? What is the "G property"?

Anyone can puke out mathematical symbols, but actual mathematicians define what the hell they're talking about.*

Sincerely,

Goliath

* - except for undefined terms.

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Goliath
Great....what are A and B?



This is nonsensical. What do you mean by a blue object? Which set are you talking about? Is 2 blue, for example? What about pi?



What do you mean by "totality of existence"? What is G? What is the "G property"?

Anyone can puke out mathematical symbols, but actual mathematicians define what the hell they're talking about.*

Sincerely,

Goliath

* - except for undefined terms.





:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Blue is an invariant property in that when we take away an object from the set of blue objects it still retains its identity.

Take away a natural number from the set of natural numbers and the set still retains its identity. On the other hand, take away an object from the set of "7" objects and the number 7 ceases to describe the set.

[Goliath]

Originally posted by Chimp

Blue is an invariant property



Invariant under what??



in that when we take away an object from the set of blue objects it still retains its identity.



What is "the set of blue objects?" What do you mean by an object in this set (whatever the hell it is) "retaining its identity"?



Take away a natural number from the set of natural numbers and the set still retains its identity.



If by "identity", you mean "multiplicative identity", then your claim is ridiculously false, since N \ {1} no longer has a multiplicative identity.*

If that wasn't what you meant, then I have no idea what you mean by "identity".

Sincerely,

Goliath

* - under the usual multiplication, of course.

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Goliath
Invariant under what??



What is "the set of blue objects?" What do you mean by an object in this set (whatever the hell it is) "retaining its identity"?



If by "identity", you mean "multiplicative identity", then your claim is ridiculously false, since N \ {1} no longer has a multiplicative identity.*

If that wasn't what you meant, then I have no idea what you mean by "identity".

Sincerely,

Goliath

* - under the usual multiplication, of course.


Let "blue" be a type of number, or, distributive identity.

B[a + b + c +...+ n] = Ba + Bc + ...+ Bn

"Blueness" distributes over the set...

:p :p :p

aleph_0 - number = aleph_0

[aleph_0]*[aleph_0] = aleph_0

etc.

aleph_0 - X = aleph_0

is an invariance principle.

What do you call it???

[Goliath]

Originally posted by Chimp
Let "blue" be a type of number, or, distributive identity.


WHICH type of number!? What are you talking about?! Are you making a graph out of the real numbers and doing a vertex coloring? What are you doing? Why? Please stop making vague pseudo-mathematical statements and explain--in plain English--exactly what the hell you're talking about!



B[a + b + c +...+ n] = Ba + Bc + ...+ Bn



What is B? What are a, b, ... , n?



"Blueness" distributes over the set...



WHAT SET!?



aleph_0 - number = aleph_0

[aleph_0]*[aleph_0] = aleph_0



Ah, so you're trying to say something about cardinality! Why the hell didn't you say so!?



etc.

aleph_0 - X = aleph_0

is an invariance principle.



No, it is an equation in cardinal arithmetic.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Goliath

No, it is an equation in cardinal arithmetic.

Sincerely,

Goliath


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant


An invariant is something that does not change under a set of transformations. The property of being an invariant is called invariance. For the laymen, let us just say an invariant is some kind of correspondence between two types of mathematical objects, so that two 'similiar' things correspond to one and the same object. Invariants are useful in discriminating complicated objects.




In physics, invariants are usually quantities conserved (unchanged) by the symmetries of the physical system. (See Noether's theorem.) The correspondance between symmetries and conserved quantities is apparent through conservation laws. Much work has been done, esp. in quantum physics, to relate every conserved quantity to some symmetry. One such quantity that still defies all such attempts is mass. Some other examples include:



aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0

It is an invariance principle despite your desire to infinitely nitpick?

Two photons moving in opposite directions have relative velocity?

c + c = c

c + c = [c + c]/[1 + c*c/c^2] = 2c/2 = c

According to relativity, the laws of physics are invariant under certain types of transformations.

aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0 is a symmetry operation, in that it remains unchanged after the operation is performed.

According to Richard Feynman in the book "Six Not So Easy Pieces":

"A thing is symmetrical if there is something we can do to it so that after so that after we have done it, it looks the same as it did before".

unchanged = invariant

[Goliath]

Originally posted by Chimp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant


Correct. Now, what are your transformations? Notice earlier that I asked the question "invariant under what?" The question stands unanswered.



aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0



Correct.



It is an invariance principle despite your desire to infinitely nitpick?



No, it's an equation in cardinal arithmetic. You have yet to present a well-defined function in your "arguments", so how can you possibly have presented an invariant of any kind?



Two photons moving in opposite directions have relative velocity?



Relative to what? What are you talking about, and what does it have to do with your god argument? For that matter, what does your tangent about cardinality have to do with your god argument?



c + c = c

c + c = [c + c]/[1 + c*c/c^2] = 2c/2 = c



Whoa! Wait just a minute! If you let c=aleph_0, then c/c is undefined!



According to Richard Feynman in the book "Six Not So Easy Pieces":

"A thing is symmetrical if there is something we can do to it so that after so that after we have done it, it looks the same as it did before".

unchanged = invariant


You have yet to present an invariant, since you have yet to give a coherently defined function in your "arguments".

Oh, and I'm not "infinitely nitpicking", I'm trying to figure out precisely what you're talking about.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Goliath


Whoa! Wait just a minute! If you let c=aleph_0, then c/c is undefined!

Goliath

In this case "c" is the speed of light in vacuum, as when two photons are moving in opposite directions relative to each other.

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

[Goliath]

Originally posted by Chimp
In this case "c" is the speed of light in vacuum, as when two photons are moving in opposite directions relative to each other.

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

Well, how was I supposed to know that!? You start talking about cardinality, and then you throw a variable out there in some equation that came out of nowhere (and seems to be more than irrelevant to the discussion at hand).

Could you please do me a favor and go back to defining what it is that you mean by your ordering used in your original arugment, please?

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Goliath
Could you please do me a favor and go back to defining what it is that you mean by your ordering used in your original arugment, please?

Sincerely,

Goliath


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory


Category theory is a mathematical theory that deals in an abstract way with mathematical structures and relationships between them. It is half-jokingly known as "abstract nonsense".

[...]

A category attempts to capture the essence of a class of related mathematical objects, for instance the class of groups. Instead of focusing on the individual objects (groups) as has been done traditionally, the morphisms, i.e. the structure preserving maps between these objects, are emphasized. In the example of groups, these are the group homomorphisms. Then it becomes possible to relate different categories by functors, generalizations of functions which associate to every object of one category an object of another category and to every morphism in the first category a morphism in the second. Very commonly, certain "natural constructions", such as the fundamental group of a topological space, can be expressed as functors. Furthermore, different such constructions are often "naturally related" which leads to the concept of natural transformation, a way to "map" one functor to another. Throughout mathematics, one encounters "natural isomorphisms", things that are (essentially) the same in a "canonical way". This is made precise by special natural transformations, the natural isomorphisms.

[...]


Special categories called topoi can even serve as an alternative to axiomatic set theory as the foundation of mathematics.

[Goliath]

Okay, so you're using a category instead of a set. Fine.

Define the category that you use in your god argument!!!

All of this hullabaloo hasn't fooled me, Chimp. You seem to be looking up and regurgitating terms and symbols without having the slightest idea what they mean. You seem to be trying to scare me off by using more and more abstract concepts, but it won't work (in fact, I've taken a course in homological algebra, where a lot of category theory was used).

I'll say it again: In your main god argument, you're using some kind of category. What is the SPECIFIC category that you're using in your argument??

Your argument continues to fail miserably.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Goliath]

Well, it's late, so I'm going to bed.

{removed}

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Chimp]

Originally posted by Goliath
I'll say it again: In your main god argument, you're using some kind of category. What is the SPECIFIC category that you're using in your argument??

Your argument continues to fail miserably.

Sincerely,

Goliath

God = U = G[x] = Category of categories

[haverbob]

Hi Yannis. This was good. I've been away, haven't had time to respond


Originally posted by Yannis (J'ohn)
Transtemporal consistency was never one of the strong suits of pantheism. ;)

Nevertheless, I do not think that a view on cosmogony is integral to the consistency of a religion (a pantheistic religion, in this case). For most intents and purposes, it can be said that pantheism supports the lack of a beginning, an "origin" as you call it.

SBS :)

So I suppose that pantheism would say that the universe is uncaused and infinite. So in this definition for universe (conglomeration of all existing things), we use logic to determine that each element of the whole is finite, and yet we are left with the illogical conclusion that the whole is infinite. This is kind of why I like to stay away from comparing God to "the whole". I tentatively accept the comparison, but for me, there needs to be something more, something beyond the totality.

[Goliath]

God = U = G[x] = Category of categories

I'm not at all convinced that there is such a thing as the category of all categories. What are the morphisms in this "category"?

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Chimp]

I'm not at all convinced that there is such a thing as the category of all categories. What are the morphisms in this "category"?

Sincerely,

Goliath

If the universe is a closed timelike curve,

alpha<--->omega

[Goliath]

If the universe is a closed timelike curve,

alpha<--->omega

Are you having a stroke? The universe is not a curve.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Chimp]

Are you having a stroke? The universe is not a curve.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Einstein's "non-Euclidean" geometry, remember? Spacetime is a non-Euclidean geometry[spacetime curvature].

http://www.math.siu.edu/Kocik/tm/tm-dic.htm


Closed causal curve paradox
Self conceiving. Something out of nothing. Two types: 1) matter; 2) information

Closed timelike curve
A closed curve in spacetime that is permitted by a particular spacetime as a trajectory of an object. Only st with a timemachine permits a ctc.


A closed timelike curve or a closed self referential logic loop:

alpha<--->omega

[xorbie]

Moving to S&S.

xorbie
EoG Mod

[Goliath]

Einstein's "non-Euclidean" geometry,



No. Non-Euclidean geometry was brought about mostly via Lobachevsky and Bolyai, who lived long before Einstein was born.



Spacetime is a non-Euclidean geometry[spacetime curvature].

A closed timelike curve or a closed self referential logic loop:

alpha<--->omega

This is still nonsensical. What are you talking about? What is a "logic loop"? What is alpha, what is omega, what is "<-->"?

Any idiot can regurgitate symbols and terminology and dig up .pdf files. You haven't convinced me that you have the slightest fucking clue as to what you're talking about.

Why do you continue to try to fool me when I can see through you so easily?

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Demosthenes]

This thread is clearly going nowhere so I'm sending it to elsewhere.

[Bob K]

What is proof?

Proof consists of (A) physical evidence, (B) eyewitness reports, or/and (C) valid logical arguments.

A. Physical evidence consists of people/things/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy and who/which are observable by the perceptual senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste directly or indirectly by their observable effects upon people/things/events who/which can be observed directly.

B. Eyewitness reports consist of verbal or written descriptions of physical evidence.

Eyewitness reports must be given by individuals who are reliable/credible, who have no records of lying or of criminal activity, the reports must describe the physical evidence, and the reports must be corroborated by individuals who are also reliable/credible.

C. Valid logical arguments consist of premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified descriptions of physical evidence and which lead to relevant conclusions which are true if the premises are true; a logical argument is valid if the premises lead to relevant conclusions.

For any logical argument to be both valid and true, the premises must be verifiable/falsifiable/verified true and lead to a relevant conclusion.

Gods are considered to be either immanent--present in all people/things/events--or transcendent--present as a personality.

If god = everything (pantheism), then god is immanent and not transcendent.

Can you pray to an immanent god?

What response would you expect from an immanent god?

A transcendent god would have a personality, a set of desires [wants]/priorities, and superior knowledge and superior capabilities for using its superior knowledge when compared to the knowledge and capabilities of mankind.

Theoretically, and ideally, a transcendent god could hear and respond to prayers from humans, therefore there would be at least a possibility of a response of some kind from a transcendent god.

But there is a problem with accepting what appear to be responses to prayers as proof of the existence of gods: non-responses to prayers would have to serve as proofs of the non-existence of gods.

How many prayers can be certified to have responses from gods and therefore be judged to be 'answered' by the gods?

How many prayers can be certified to have no responses from gods and therefore be judged to be 'not answered' by the gods?

What would be proof of the existence of an immanent god?

If an immanent god = everything, then everything would be proof of the existence of an immanent god, which means there would be no unique proof of the existence of an immanent god, which makes the concept of an immanent god irrational, and therefore nonsense.

If a transcendent god = a unique personality and presence, then proof of the existence of a transcendent god would be the appearance of the god in a form humans could perceive, and the demonstration of its superior knowledge and capabilities by stunts which humans cannot (and possibly could not ever) duplicate, and, hopefully, ideally, the answering of any and all questions from humans.

Since gods are not readily perceivable, to prove they exist we would have to capture one and torture it until it confesses it is a god and then force it to perform stunts requiring knowledge and capabilities superior to the knowledge and capabilities of mankind, individually or collectively, which prove it is a god.

How likely is THAT?

[erimir]

If my interpretation is correct, pantheism basically means that God is Nature and that God is omnipresent. I am not sure how to prove an infinite "omnipotent" God, but pantheism also entails a type of omniscience, since God is Universally self referential[self aware] and the omnipotence would probably be the fact that God is the greatest entity[totality] of all that exists.

"proof"

Your proof seems to me to be either a tautology or a equivocation.

Nature = nature

Everything = everything

That is trivial and is useless. When you remove the word god, and simply say "I believe in nature" or "I believe in existence" the ridiculousness of saying you've actually proved anything is revealed.


Or, it could be an equivocation

Everything (all existence) = god

god = everything (all existence)

But the equivocation is that I'm not sure you're limiting your definition of god to simply being "everything". I think you're saying "god=everything" and "everything=god" but then you're applying attributes to god that you don't apply to all existence. For example, sentience or what have you.


Basically, your proof is either trivial or an equivocation fallacy.

[Chimp]

Let X be the perfect nonambiguous "definition" of God. If X exists then the question of God's existence can be settled.

If a perfecty nonambiguous definition for God exists then the assertion "God exists" can be proven to be true G, or proven to be false, not-G.

Let God be defined as the "Absolute" i.e. God is every possible type of infinity, an exhaustive collection. [God] = [every possible type of numerical combination] means that God is omnipotent, omninscient and omnipresent.


If it is possible that an infinite number of planets exist then does every possible planet exist? For example, is it possible for another planet to exist exactly like Earth that also has unicorns?

No it is not. A numerical analogy: Let E be the universe of even numbers; E contains infinitely many numbers, yet it does not contain every possible type of number. An exhaustive collection would probably need to be infinite, an infinite collection need not be exhaustive.

God is defined as every possible type type of infinity, the "Absolute", an exhaustive collection of every possible type of number. As you can see, this definition subsumes all definitons.

A person's mind and personality is equivalent to their "software", that is to say, the programming of their brain. Any software structure can be coded up by some large set of numbers.

Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction, independent of the physical universe. Therefore each individual's personality, along with all possible "personalities" exists as a mathemtical abstraction, along with all possible continuations.

God[the Absolute] exists as a mathematical abstraction, independent of the physical universe.

If physical existence is a subset of mathematical existence then physical existence is a subset of "God's" existence.

All that remains to be proved is that mathematical existence = physical existence.

The laws of physics are mathematical relations. The law of conservation of energy is "exact" as far as anyone can tell.

If a set of abstract mathematical relations exist that correspond exactly to physical laws[observable existence] then God exists.

[Bob K]

I recall that Einstein said, "The mathematics must fit the physics."

By this he meant that mathematics is to describe physics, and reality, and not to lead or create physics/reality.

Thus, at its best, mathematics is a description of reality; the reality stands before the mathematics, and reality would stand without mathematics.

By trying to equate gods with mathematical absolutes or purity you are forgetting that first comes the reality and then the mathematics, hence mathematics cannot prove the existence of gods.

The only acceptable proof of the existence of gods will be the gods themelves.

The proper mantra should then be thus: "Show us the gods!!!"

[Goliath]

Bob K,

Incorrect. Although some mathematics describes reality, Mathematics in general is anything but a description of reality.

For example, where would you find the Ext and Tor functors in reality? How about Dedekind domains with infinite class group and all prime ideals in only one (non-principal) ideal class?

As I sometimes tell my students, "To the mathematician, the real world is only a special case."

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Chimp]

I recall that Einstein said, "The mathematics must fit the physics."

By this he meant that mathematics is to describe physics, and reality, and not to lead or create physics/reality.

Thus, at its best, mathematics is a description of reality; the reality stands before the mathematics, and reality would stand without mathematics.

By trying to equate gods with mathematical absolutes or purity you are forgetting that first comes the reality and then the mathematics, hence mathematics cannot prove the existence of gods.

The only acceptable proof of the existence of gods will be the gods themelves.

The proper mantra should then be thus: "Show us the gods!!!"



Goliath wrote:

Bob K,

Incorrect. Although some mathematics describes reality, Mathematics in general is anything but a description of reality.

For example, where would you find the Ext and Tor functors in reality? How about Dedekind domains with infinite class group and all prime ideals in only one (non-principal) ideal class?

As I sometimes tell my students, "To the mathematician, the real world is only a special case."

Sincerely,

Goliath



Eugene Wigner appears to disagree with you Goliath:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences


The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, published by physicist Eugene Wigner in 1960, argues that the capacity of mathematics to successfully predict events in physics cannot be a coincidence, but must reflect some larger or deeper or simpler truth in both.

[Bob K]

Mathematics in general is anything but a description of reality.
You have proven my point--and Einstein's--precisely.

Of what good is mathematics if not for a description of reality?



For example, where would you find the Ext and Tor functors in reality? How about Dedekind domains with infinite class group and all prime ideals in only one (non-principal) ideal class?
Who cares about Ext and Tor functors if they have no relationship to reality?



As I sometimes tell my students, "To the mathematician, the real world is only a special case."
For most people, the real world is the only 'world' they care about, to which mathematics and mathematicians must always remain subservient.

[haverbob]

You have proven my point--and Einstein's--precisely.

Of what good is mathematics if not for a description of reality?



Who cares about Ext and Tor functors if they have no relationship to reality?



For most people, the real world is the only 'world' they care about, to which mathematics and mathematicians must always remain subservient.

Hey Bob, it looks like you are on to something (curious to see where it leads). Mathematics can be nothing more than descriptions or notions that are designed to "illustrate" a proposed reality. They can't be anything more. If the math works, then the math does not become reality, it becomes an accurate description for reality (when in actuality, there will never be a complete description or notion for reality). Math is never guilty of providing an inaccurate picture of reality (persay). It is not guilty of deception. However, it will always be guilty of ommission in some sense. To me, reality represents a continually flowing, changing and seamless thing. Like a river. Our math, words, descriptions, categories....fragment this river. We create "peices of river", but if you think about it, it is impossible to have "peices of river" like we can have peices of pie. Once you fragment a river, it is no longer a river, it becomes fragments of water. I can't take some water from a river, put it in a flask and give it to someone as a peice of river because it isn't. It is now merely water.

More about "notions". The most startling thing we can realize is that we do not believe or disbelieve in God (short of someone who perhaps was visited by God, not many of those, maybe none). We believe or disbelieve in a "notion" of God that either we have been told or we have created for ourselves. To believe or disbelieve in God itself would only be done by someone who has seen God. Sometimes i go on forums like this and start a thread called "to the atheists, you cannot disbelieve in God" and then I try to explain this concept. You would be amazed by the fact that all these intelligent people with all their formulas...that they like to use, can't understand this simple concept. No matter what I do, they keep thinking that I'm saying they "have no right or reason" to disbelieve in God, rather than understanding that they don't disbelieve in God, they disbelieve in a "concept" of God. Their stubborn defensiveness goes so wild at the title of the thread that they lose what I was really saying. The human mind is quite amazing. I think we all need to be disarmed.

[Goliath]

You have proven my point--and Einstein's--precisely.

Of what good is mathematics if not for a description of reality?


It's good because people enjoy doing it. I'm sure you have hobbies. What "good" are they?

Frankly, I'm tired of justifying the "good" of mathematics to people who have no idea as to what they're talking about.

However, I'll give it one last try. Even you probably realize that scientists use mathematics. As science advances, uses for more mathematics have been found (for example, physicists have recently used group theory and Lie algebras). If mathematicians didn't "stay ahead" of scientists in this regard, then there would come a day when scientists would pound down the doors of mathematics departments everywhere, demanding more mathematics. I don't want to see such a thing happen, do you?

Of course, there are probably some mathematical concepts and results that will never see real world application. That doesn't mean that they are any less legitimate than applicable results. Mathematics is mathematics, whether it has application or not.



Who cares about Ext and Tor functors if they have no relationship to reality?



How about the thousands of mathematicians who have found them interesting? Or do they not count to you?


For most people, the real world is the only 'world' they care about,


Oh, I wasn't aware that my work had to be approved by "most people." :rolleyes:


to which mathematics and mathematicians must always remain subservient.


Mathematicians? Yes. Mathematics? No.

Thank you for showing me your vast wealth of ignorance. When you're ready to have an intelligent conversation on something that you know something about, let me know.

Sincerely,

Goliath

(edited to make a statement a bit less harshly...)

[Goliath]

Eugene Wigner appears to disagree with you Goliath:


I see no logical argument in that link that shows that all of mathematics must apply to the real world. The link basically boils down to "Oooh, Math is useful in Physics! It's a miracle!" :rolleyes:

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Goliath]

Mathematics can be nothing more than descriptions or notions that are designed to "illustrate" a proposed reality. They can't be anything more.


If by "a proposed reality" you mean the real, physical world around us, then you are absolutely incorrect. You are equivocating mathematics with applied mathematics.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Goliath]

More thoughts on the "what good is mathematics?" question:

When you hear a piece of classical music, or look at a painting, do you ask yourself "What good is this crap in the real world!? Why do people do this if it isn't an accurate description of reality?!"

Probably not. Why not?

The truth is that Mathematics, like Art or Music is a part of our intellectual heritage. Unfortunately, it's more than likely also the most misunderstood human endeavor in all of history. If you don't like mathematics, that's fine. Not everyone likes listening to Beethoven or looking at a Picasso or Van Gogh, either. However, to say that entire brances of mathematics aren't mathematics because they don't conform to your ignorant, narrow, high-school-algebra view of "what math is" is bigoted at worst and extremely ignorant at best.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[haverbob]

If by "a proposed reality" you mean the real, physical world around us, then you are absolutely incorrect. You are equivocating mathematics with applied mathematics.

Sincerely,

Goliath

No, I meant a "proposal" of the real, physical world. Kind of like what I said by "proposed reality". In non applied mathematics, what is the goal?

[Goliath]

In non applied mathematics, what is the goal?

Understanding, of course.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Bob K]

Goliath

You have proven my point--and Einstein's--precisely.

Of what good is mathematics if not for a description of reality?


It's good because people enjoy doing it.

Fair enough.


I'm sure you have hobbies. What "good" are they?

They are 'good' for me personally and my participation in them is 'good' for the other people who similarly participate when the common interest promotes benefits to other people beyond those who participate directly--such as general aviation being 'good' for non-aviators by keeping open individual options for transportation and communications which often result in helping small communities develop their business bases.

What 'good' for non-mathematicians is produced by esoteric mathematics/mathematicians?


Frankly, I'm tired of justifying the "good" of mathematics to people who have no idea as to what they're talking about.

However, I'll give it one last try. Even you probably realize that scientists use mathematics. As science advances, uses for more mathematics have been found (for example, physicists have recently used group theory and Lie algebras). If mathematicians didn't "stay ahead" of scientists in this regard, then there would come a day when scientists would pound down the doors of mathematics departments everywhere, demanding more mathematics. I don't want to see such a thing happen, do you?

On the basis of the premise of developing mathematics in advance of the necessity for mathematics I can agree with your conclusion that mathematics can be 'good' for some people including scientists and the non-scientists who benefit from the results of scientific research.

My problem has been exactly as I described it--that mathematics when applied to physics should describe physics and not be claimed to produce physics.

Example: Does the universe really consist of parallel/multiple universes?

If mathematics were to 'prove' that the universe consists of parallel/multiple universes we would then still have the problem of developing physical data--physical evidence--the extra universes themselves--which verify the premises and justify the conclusion.

Have you personally seen any parallel/multiple universe lately? Do you know of anyone who has?

Example: Dimensions beyond the usual four of length/width/height/time?

Have you seen any extra dimensions lately? Do you know of anyone who claims he has seen any extra dimensions lately?


Of course, there are probably some mathematical concepts and results that will never see real world application. That doesn't mean that they are any less legitimate than applicable results. Mathematics is mathematics, whether it has application or not.

The focus has been the utility of mathematics, the point being that mathematics is practically useful when used to describe physics, and becomes questionably useful when it claims to create physics.


Who cares about Ext and Tor functors if they have no relationship to reality?

How about the thousands of mathematicians who have found them interesting? Or do they not count to you?

My point has been that if mathematics such as the Ext and Tor functors do not describe reality and do not produce benefits to normal people--humorously defined as non-mathematicians, the humor being the implication that mathematicians are abnormal people, in the sense of being eccentric nerds, similar to computer geeks--then such mathematics are useless to the great majority of the human race.

BTW, when esoteric mathematicians get mad at each other, for esoteric reasons, of course, do they use esoteric foul language:

A. "Go funct yourself!!!"
B. "Go functor yourself!!!"
C. "Go funct/functor yourself with Ext functors!!!"
D. "Go funct/functor yourself with Tor functors!!!"

I see an immediate problem herein: 'Funct' is not a four-letter word.

What would be the esoteric mathematical solution to the problem wherein 'funct' is not a four-letter word?


For most people, the real world is the only 'world' they care about, ...


Oh, I wasn't aware that my work had to be approved by "most people."

Your hobby/work cannot be appreciated by most 'normal' people if it is useless to them, because it does not describe reality.


... to which mathematics and mathematicians must always remain subservient.


Mathematicians? Yes. Mathematics? No.

Again, as mathematics and mathematicians do not describe reality and thereby produce no useful benefits to 'normal' people, then such esoteric mathematics and mathematicians are useless to 'normal' people.


Thank you for showing me your vast wealth of ignorance. When you're ready to have an intelligent conversation on something that you know something about, let me know.

You are obviously a graduate of the Joint Academy of Confused Knowledge, Obfuscation, and Fictitious Facts.

You can check my website for stuff of which I have knowledge:

bobkwebsite.com

[Goliath]

What 'good' for non-mathematicians is produced by esoteric mathematics/mathematicians?



Like I said, some of it may have application to science.

That brushed aside, however, why must there be such a "good" for non-mathematicians?



My problem has been exactly as I described it--that mathematics when applied to physics should describe physics and not be claimed to produce physics.



I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Mathematics is applied to physics, but it doesn't produce physics. Physicists produce physics.



Example: Does the universe really consist of parallel/multiple universes?

If mathematics were to 'prove' that the universe consists of parallel/multiple universes we would then still have the problem of developing physical data--physical evidence--the extra universes themselves--which verify the premises and justify the conclusion.



No, if mathematicians were somehow able to prove that multiple universes exist, then physical evidence would be unnecessary to answer the question, as the question has already been answered. Of course, that's not to say that physical evidence gathering of multiple universes (if such is even possible) would be worthless to science...it just wouldn't be useful to answer the question of the existence of multiple universes if mathematicians were to answer said question in the affirmative.



Example: Dimensions beyond the usual four of length/width/height/time?

Have you seen any extra dimensions lately? Do you know of anyone who claims he has seen any extra dimensions lately?



How is this relevant? So what if the answer is "no"? Why should I care aobut your hatred of mathematics?



The focus has been the utility of mathematics,



No. The focus to you has been the utility of mathematics.



the point being that mathematics is practically useful when used to describe physics, and becomes questionably useful when it claims to create physics.



Again, I don't know what you mean by mathematics "creating" physics.



My point has been that if mathematics such as the Ext and Tor functors do not describe reality and do not produce benefits to normal people...then such mathematics are useless to the great majority of the human race.



And again, my answer is So what?! Beethoven's music is probably useless to a majority of the human race (since people in third world countries probably don't fire up the old Vitrolli...), but you aren't trying to spew any of your hatred onto classical musicians, are you?

Read what I wrote above: Mathematics is a part of our intellectual heritage. If you don't like it, that's fine. I'm certainly not going to try to force you to like mathematics. However, stop trying to declare that the only legitimate mathematics is mathematics that fits your bigoted, high-school-level view of "what math is".



BTW, when esoteric mathematicians get mad at each other, for esoteric reasons, of course, do they use esoteric foul language:

A. "Go funct yourself!!!"
B. "Go functor yourself!!!"
C. "Go funct/functor yourself with Ext functors!!!"
D. "Go funct/functor yourself with Tor functors!!!"

I see an immediate problem herein: 'Funct' is not a four-letter word.



Mathematicians have been known to tell jokes, yes (albeit your pun above is rather lame...). Your "problem", however, is lost on me.



What would be the esoteric mathematical solution to the problem wherein 'funct' is not a four-letter word?



And why would such a "problem" be a problem? There are obscene words which have more than four letters, you know.



Your hobby/work cannot be appreciated by most 'normal' people if it is useless to them, because it does not describe reality.



Again, so what and who cares? See above.



Again, as mathematics and mathematicians do not describe reality



Wrong. Some mathematics describes reality.



You are obviously a graduate of the Joint Academy of Confused Knowledge, Obfuscation, and Fictitious Facts.



I'll let the readers decide that. It's quite obvious who among us is more knowledgeable about mathematics than the other.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Bob K]

if mathematicians were somehow able to prove that multiple universes exist, then physical evidence would be unnecessary to answer the question, as the question has already been answered. Of course, that's not to say that physical evidence gathering of multiple universes (if such is even possible) would be worthless to science...it just wouldn't be useful to answer the question of the existence of multiple universes if mathematicians were to answer said question in the affirmative.

This proves my point.

Mathematics can never prove multiple/parallel universes exist--only physical evidence--the universes themselves--will prove that multiple/parallel universes exist, and beyond that confirmation mathematics can only be used to describe what has been discovered.

Thus, the mathematics must describe the physics.

Besides Einstein, another physicist who disliked mathematics for descriptions of physical processes was Michael Faraday, who asked Maxwell to explain his theories of electromagnetism in words as well as by mathematics.

Mathematicians can predict physical phenomena--Dirac predicted anti-matter, but, nevertheless, observation/experimentation was necessary to confirm anti-matter.

Einstein's special relativity required experimental confirmation via physical phenomena--its mathematics could not compel confirmation/acceptance.

Thus, the mantra stands: Mathematics must describe the physics.

[davidm]

Mathematics is so good at describing physics because Mathematics is physics (http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/AIG/mathematics.htm), the physicist Max Tegmark says.

Tegmark says that every formal system in math instantiates a real universe. He arrived at this conclusion by applying the Copernican principle to the tree of mathematics, and deciding that there was nothing special about the math that describes our universe. From the linked article:

Tegmark is saying that, in addition to a universe that dances to the tune of the theory of everything -- the one we find ourselves living in --there is a universe governed by the laws of arithmetic, a universe ruled by the laws of two-dimensional geometry, and so on, ad infinitum. Out there in the big wide multiverse, perhaps beyond the farthest limits yet probed by our telescopes, there are universes that dance to the tune of all conceivable mathematical equations.

If true, this would seem to make math pretty damned important, beyond its aesthetics, which Goliath has correctly likened to art. And art is its own justification.

[Bob K]

Mathematics is so good at describing physics because Mathematics is physics, the physicist Max Tegmark says.

Physics can be described by words as well as mathematics.

Einstein developed his premises for relativity through thoughts and images--intuitions, not through mathematics.

He had to get help from a mathematician for developing the equations needed for general relativity, but prior to the mathematics he had the physics already worked out.

The mathematics must describe the physics.

Mathematics must always be subservient to the physics.

[Gurdur]

......The mathematics must describe the physics.

Mathematics must always be subservient to the physics.
Eh ?
Aren't you making a categorical error there ?

You've shown that in order to prove certain hypotheses, one must observe and/or experiment.
However, that does not make maths "subservient" to physics; using such an emotionally laden term also admits of a great many implied errors, such as supposing that somehow physics is more basic than maths is, which would be completely untrue.
Maths and physics occupy different categories; neither is "subservient" to the other.
Horses for courses; there are many things maths can do that physics can't; physics excels at application, where in certain cases the descriptive maths comes later.

And as DavidM and Goliath have been pointing out:
Maths exists for its own sake, like art.

[JHamblin]

This is an interesting discussion. One of the issues at hand seems to be "what good is mathematics that has no practical application?" As a mathematician whose research has no discernable application, I think I might be qualified to answer this question.

Goliath's answer seems to be that the pursuit of knowledge is worthwhile in its own right. But I can see how that might be an unsatisfying response. I would say that most areas of mathematical study have some applications, though not always exclusively to physics.

Take group theory, for example. This is a pretty abstract subject, but it has applications to symmetry groups of molecules and crystals. However, there are many many more kinds of groups than can be modeled in this way. So does the group theorist simply restrict their attention to these "physical" groups? Or does he/she try to extend the definition of "group", to try to understand the structure and behavior observed in these physical models? My advisor used to tell me that a mathematical theory was no good unless it answered a question that it did not itself ask. But that doesn't mean that we can't (or shouldn't) ask those internal questions. Groups themselves are important, and groups have properties, even if some of those properties can never be physically modeled. There is no crystal that has a symmetry group of Alt(7) x Q_8, but that is still an interesting group that can be analyzed.

So I would say it's a little bit of both. Mathematics is a service discipline in the sense that it provides the underlying structure for most sciences. But mathematics can also ask and answer its own questions, in a quest to better understand itself.

JH

[Goliath]

Mathematics can never prove multiple/parallel universes exist


Unproven assertion.

And I'm really not saying that to be coy. The assertion that you made is one that would need (mathematical) proof.



Thus, the mantra stands: Mathematics must describe the physics.

No, you have failed yet again. Some mathematics describes physics. Some mathematics does NOT describe physics. Deal with it.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Goliath]

:eek: :eek:
Holy shit! Gurdur and I agree on something!

Sincerely,

Goliath

[JHamblin]

The mathematics must describe the physics.
What about the fact that mathematics can describe infinity, but the universe is finite?

JH

[Bob K]

... You've shown that in order to prove certain hypotheses, one must observe and/or experiment.

However, that does not make maths "subservient" to physics; using such an emotionally laden term also admits of a great many implied errors, such as supposing that somehow physics is more basic than maths is, which would be completely untrue.

Maths and physics occupy different categories; neither is "subservient" to the other. ...

Since I have brought up "The mathematics must fit the physics!!!" mantra inre: the holiness of mathematics let me rephrase the mantra thus: "When applied to physics, the mathematics must fit the physics!!!"

Then let the mathematicians ride off into their sunset(s).

But forever inre: physics, the mathematics must always be subservient to the physics.

I.e. for using mathematics to describe physics, there must be a firm connection between physics and mathematics such that mathematics must describe and not create physics.

If multiple/parallel universes are at present mere mathematical constructs, then they are not to be regarded as realities until observation of such universes provides the physical evidence they exist.

I.e. physical evidence must confirm a theory or a mathematical claim.

Abstract mathematics must be brought into reality by physical evidence.

For example, what is the physical evidence that multiple/parallel universes exist?

If multiple/parallel universe 'must exist' to satisfy abstract mathematics, then that 'must exist' requirement without physical evidence of existence suggests that the possibility is excellent that the mathematics have run away from and therefore do not 'fit the physics.'

What is the physical evidence that additional dimensions exist beyond the observable and therefore physical--material--dimensions of x/length, y/width, z/height, and t/time?

Again, if there is a 'must exist' requirement to satisfy abstract mathematics, then, without physical evidence of the actual existence of the additional dimensions, the possibility is excellent that the additional dimensions do not exist.

[Bob K]

... Mathematics is a service discipline in the sense that it provides the underlying structure for most sciences. But mathematics can also ask and answer its own questions, in a quest to better understand itself.

As in another Reply, let the mantra be rephrased: "When applied to physics, mathematics must fit the physics!!!"

[Bob K]

... Some mathematics describes physics. Some mathematics does NOT describe physics. ...

As stated in previous Replies, let the mantra be rephrased: "When applied to physics, the mathematics must describe the physics!!!"

Abstract mathematics--mathematics not descriptive of physical reality, by the way, can never be used as proof of any physics hypothesis--the only acceptable proof to be used for confirmation of a physics hypothesis is physical evidence gained from observation and/or experimentation.

The mathematics of relativity enabled scientists to predict physical phenomena which would confirm relativity, but the observations/experiments had to be done to obtain the physical evidence which confirmed relativity.

[Gurdur]

:eek: :eek:
Holy shit! Gurdur and I agree on something!
Sincerely, Goliath

Actually, Goliath, I quite agreed with most of what you've said in this thread.
The bit on humour in mathematics was quite interesting, I having read a bit on both humour in maths and the maths of humour; plus I'm a fair bit aware of the historical fights between applicabilty and pure theory in science vs. engineering.
Regards,
Gurdur ;)

[Bob K]

What about the fact that mathematics can describe infinity, but the universe is finite? ...

Verbal operational definition of infinity:

Infinity = Without mathematical or physical limits.

Now provide a mathematical description of infinity.

If you believe the following mantras --

(1) Space = Gravity/Gravitational Field!!!
(2) The gravity/gravitational field which is space has a center of mass!!!

... then you can believe that the universe is finite.

But if you believe these mantras --

(1) Space n= Gravity/Gravitational Field!!!
(2) Space = Pure vacuum in areas of space devoid of matter/energy including gravity!!!
(3) Space is describable in words as an infinite volume, a volume having no mathematical or physical limits!!!
(4) Space is describable as a mathematical expression of x + i wherein for every finite volume of x radius/diameter (for every x-volume) there exists the surrounding infinite volume--the i-volume!!!

... then you can believe that the universe is infinite in spatiality, in the spatial reality, inre: space.

If space = spatial reality = a reality inre: the universe, what other realities might comprise the universe?

How about time/the temporal reality--the use of time-intervals as units of measurement of the occurrences of events, and physics/the physical reality, physics = matter/energy?

Thus, the universe can be intuited/conceptualized as comprised of three realities:

(1) Space-The Spatial Reality.
(2) Time-The Temporal Reality.
(3) Physics-The Physical Reality.

In physics, according to Lawrence Krauss, in Fear of Physics, all measurements fit one of three basic categories: (1) Length; (2) Duration; (3) Mass.

Then the three realities of the universe can be measured thus:

(1) Space-The Spatial Reality--Measureable by Units of Length/Space.
(2) Time-The Temporal Reality--Measureable by Units of Duration/Time.
(3) Physics-The Physical Reality--Measureable by Units of Mass/Physics (Matter/Energy).

The three realities answer three basic questions inre: physics of Where?, When? and What?:

(1) Where? = Space-The Spatial Reality--Measureable by Units of Length/Space.
(2) When? = Time-The Temporal Reality--Measureable by Units of Duration/Time.
(3) What? = Physics-The Physical Reality--Measureable by Units of Mass/Physics (Matter/Energy).

Inre: infinity --

(1) Where? = Space-The Spatial Reality--Measureable by Units of Length/Space = Infinite in Length/Volume.
(2) When? = Time-The Temporal Reality--Measureable by Units of Duration/Time = Infinite in Duration/Time.
(3) What? = Physics-The Physical Reality--Measureable by Units of Mass/Physics (Matter/Energy) = Infinite in Mass/Physics [Matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed, E = mc2 and m = E/c2].

Inre: the universe, the three realities have infinite existence --

(1) Where? = Space-The Spatial Reality--Measureable by Units of Length/Space = Infinite in Length/Volume = Infinite Existence.
(2) When? = Time-The Temporal Reality--Measureable by Units of Duration/Time = Infinite in Duration/Time = Infinite Existence.
(3) What? = Physics-The Physical Reality--Measureable by Units of Mass/Physics (Matter/Energy) = Infinite in Mass/Physics [Matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed, E = mc2 and m = E/c2] = Infinite Existence.

Notice that these descriptions of the three realities of the universe are presented primarily by words, with minimal backup by mathematics.

[Gurdur]

Since I have brought up "The mathematics must fit the physics!!!" mantra inre: the holiness of mathematics let me rephrase the mantra thus: "When applied to physics, the mathematics must fit the physics!!!"
Now that we've all agreed on the correct solution, :)
I would just like to state:
if I was feeling in a particularly evil mood, I could use this all to demonstrate that physics is subservient to syntactical linguistics.
And I could make a real hard and good argument for that. ;)

....Notice that these descriptions of the three realities of the universe are presented primarily by words, ....

[Bob K]

... I could use this all to demonstrate that physics is subservient to syntactical linguistics. ...

One of the requirements of the Code of Science is that important terms to be used in science are to be given operational definitions.

An operational definition is a definition in which a term/phrase is defined by a description of the people/things/events relevant to the term/phrase.

Operational definitions create the possibility of connecting abstract terms/phrases to reality, by the requirement that real people/things/events be included in the description of a term/phrase.

Children have been observed to create operational definitions.

They often use a sentence structure like this:

_____ [Term/phrase being operationally defined] is when __________ [description of the people/things/events relevant to the term/phrase being operationally defined].

Example: Love [term/phrase being operationally defined] is when someone says they like you, and they do good things for you and with you [description of the people/things/events relevant to the term/phrase being operationally defined].

Thus, to fit the Code of Science, physics must have a verbal basis of operational definitions of important terms/phrases.

Does the requirement of the Code of Science for operational definitions of important scientific terms/phrases connect positively to your phrase syntactical linguistics?

[Gurdur]

......Thus, to fit the Code of Science, physics must have a verbal basis of operational definitions of important terms/phrases.

Does the requirement of the Code of Science for operational definitions of important scientific terms/phrases connect positively to your phrase syntactical linguistics?
And how it does ! ;)

A come-back against the "physics is subservient to grammar" bit would be that grammar must be organized according to physics within the brain; at which stage I would quote Chomsky's interminable and incoherent theories that grammar must be organized according to classical physics, and having done that, I would then show that to be completely false, thus creating a massive smokescreen, then I would throw in some actually quite correct evidence on huge oddities in morphology, enabling me to conclusively demonstrate that physics is still subservient to grammar.
:)
It makes it far easier that only 3 people on this board know the in's-and-out's of that particular debate (how language is organized in the brain), and two of those three have given up posting on this board; plus those two would have most likely agreed with me.

[Goliath]

As stated in previous Replies, let the mantra be rephrased: "When applied to physics, the mathematics must describe the physics!!!"


Yes...WHEN applied to physics...pay attention to the words coming out of your mouth, please.



Abstract mathematics--mathematics not descriptive of physical reality, by the way, can never be used as proof of any physics hypothesis



Since solipsism has not been disproved, it is impossible to prove any hypothesis in physics. Terminology exists the way it exists for a reason. Stop abusing it.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Bob K]

[It] is impossible to prove any hypothesis in physics

Hypothesis: If Goliath were to run headfirst through the space coordinates of North Brookings Hall of Washington University, in St. Louis, MO, the resultinig impact/change of inertial state would cause Goliath to suffer severe head trauma.

Want to try this experiment of confirm/disconfirm the hypothesis?

[Hugo Holbling]

Want to try this experiment of confirm/disconfirm the hypothesis?

Experiment neither confirms nor disconfirms an hypothesis. To suppose otherwise is unfortunately a rather basic logical error. Goliath is quite correct.

[Gurdur]

...Want to try this experiment of confirm/disconfirm the hypothesis?
Note what Goliath wrote about solipsism.
He is completely correct.

[Goliath]

Hypothesis: If Goliath were to run headfirst through the space coordinates of North Brookings Hall of Washington University, in St. Louis, MO, the resultinig impact/change of inertial state would cause Goliath to suffer severe head trauma.

Want to try this experiment of confirm/disconfirm the hypothesis?

You aren't listening. I was talking about PROOF, not EXPERIMENTATION.

Pay attention.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Light]

Pantheism simply infers that all things are Created by God. Certainly you did not create this planet yourselves.

Therefore all things are the direct consequence of God's Initial Act Of Creation.

Problem.

Man reproduces at far too high a rate, overpopulates the planet, ruins God's Creation and then blames God for his own stupidity.

But then Christ was the Model of the Single Divine and uncorruptible Child-God, Who is well-know to have said.

"Father forgive them, they know not what they do."

But that was a very long time ago.

For the Second time.

I forgive you.

Especially for not loving Me as I had wanted you to.

[Bob K]

Experiment neither confirms nor disconfirms an hypothesis. To suppose otherwise is unfortunately a rather basic logical error. Goliath is quite correct.

Would you like to perform the proposed experiment?

After all, the hypothesis is that anyone running through the space coordinates of North Brookings Hall of Washington University, St. Louis, will suffer severe head trauma, but if this is only an hypothesis and an experiment cannot confirm/disconfirm an hypothesis, then you should have no worry about what would happen to your head if you were to run through the space coordinates of North Brookings Hall.

[Bob K]

Note what Goliath wrote about solipsism.
He is completely correct.

Solipsism is the metaphysical belief that only oneself exists, and that "existence" just means being a part of one's own mental states - all objects, people, etc, that one experiences, are merely parts of one's own mind. One is like a God, creating the reality in which one exists. Solipsism is logically coherent, but not falsifiable, so it cannot be established (or disproved) by current modes of the scientific method.

Note that the proposed hypothesis wherein Goliath, H. Holbling, and any and all other 'philosophers' of similar 'mind' are predicted to suffer severe head trauma if they run headfirst through the space coordinates of North Brookings Hall of Washington University would confirm/disconfirm the solipsistic hypothesis that 'only oneself exists' and 'all objects, people, etc, that one experiences, are merely parts of one's own mind.'

Mathematically, and logically, the space and time coordinates of Goliath, Holbling, et al, n= the space and time coordinates of North Brookings Hall.

[Bob K]

You aren't listening. I was talking about PROOF, not EXPERIMENTATION.

Question: Does/does not OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENT and EXPERIMENTATION provide PROOF, i.e. (A) physical evidence--people/things/events comprised of matter/energy, (B) eyewitness reports--of people/things/events comprised of matter/energy--physical evidence--by credible eyewitnesses [credible = not known to lie, not known to have motivation for lying, not prven to have lied, etc.] and corroborated by credible corroborators, and (C) logical arguments consisting of premises which are verifable/falsfiable/verified by physical evidence leading to relevant conclusions which are valid if relevant to the premises and true if the premises have been verified, proof which can confirm/disconfirm a scientific hypothesis!!!

[Light]

If you were One with God you would not need proof.

You would already ... know.

Omni Science

What proof do you need?

Know yourself.

[Gurdur]

Note that the proposed hypothesis wherein Goliath, H. Holbling, and any and all other 'philosophers' of similar 'mind' .....

Before you start popping off about philosphers, you should know that physics is far more prone and subject to philosophy than most other empiricist phsyical sciences are.
Examples: the debunking of vital fluids, phlogiston, quantum effects, etc. etc. etc.
These were hardly problems that afflicted biology or chemistry.

And now we're back to this point:
Naive empiricism works, but only under certain very set conditions, and with a fair number of presuppositions.
That's OK, but
you continually insist on extrapolating from certain tightly-confined conditions to a general set of overall statements.
That won't work whatsoever.

[Hugo Holbling]

Question: Does ... OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENT and EXPERIMENTATION provide PROOF

The answer, of course, is no. As i said before, prior to this shouting, the logical error is basic.

Would you like to perform the proposed experiment?

I pledge to do so, immediately after you read some elementary philosophy of science and explain why there isn't a basic logical error at play here. After that, i'll headbutt Gurdur for you and do a little dance for Goliath, or vice versa.

[Light]

Matter and Energy are interchangeable. So if the Energy is Eternal, which it is, then ... if you turn into pure eternal energy, you become ... Eternal.

From Basic Principles:

"In the Beginning, God Created The Heaven & the Earth." (QED)

As I always say, when all else fails, read the Handbook.

Genesis Chapter One

[Bob K]

If you were One with God you would not need proof. ...

Mantra: "He who asserts must prove!"

You claim gods exist, you prove gods exist!

The only acceptable proof of the existence of gods will be physical evidence in the form of a god. Eyewitness reports are not acceptable because no eyewitnesses, or their corroborators, have ever been proven credible beyond a reasonable doubt. Logical arguments require premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified by physical evidence, and if any of the premises are unverified then any conclusion of a logical argument claiming to prove gods exist is immediately invalid.

Capture a god, torture it until it confesses it is a god, then force it to perform stunts which prove it is a god, namely, that it has superior knowledge to man and it also has superior capabilities for using its knowledge than man.

Mantra: "Show us the gods!!!"

Until you can prove--by physical evidence--the gods themselves--that gods exist, you have no credibility, and your words are nonsense.

[Light]

I think that you are just a doubting Thomas Bob.

I know I exist.

If you were God you would know that you exist too.

[Bob K]

Before you start popping off about philosphers, you should know that physics is far more prone and subject to philosophy than most other empiricist phsyical sciences are.

Examples: the debunking of vital fluids, phlogiston, quantum effects, etc. etc. etc. ...

And how were all these claims debunked?

Did the debunkers use observation/measurement/experimentation?

Did they pray to God/Jesus/The Holy Ghost/Allah/Jehovah/Etc. for guidance and the truth?

Naive empiricism works, but only under certain very set conditions, and with a fair number of presuppositions.

The scientific method works quite well and is certainly preferrable to philosopher's confusions.

[You] continually insist on extrapolating from certain tightly-confined conditions to a general set of overall statements.
That won't work whatsoever.

The scientific method has liberated mankind from religionists and from confused philosophers.

I notice that you have not bothered to offer any concepts/principles which will suffice to provide mankind with truth, justice, and the American Way; you have only condemned the scientific method and inductive logic without showing providing what is a better way than the scientific method and inductive logic to obtain accurate and useful knowledge.

I am not in any way obligated to conduct research into what is clearly unproductive nonsense.

[Gurdur]

And how were all these claims debunked?

Did the debunkers use observation/measurement/experimentation?
I suggest you read up on various history of science,
They used concepts like elegance where observation/experimentation was not possible.
Did they pray to God/Jesus/The Holy Ghost/Allah/Jehovah/Etc. for guidance and the truth?
*shrug*
I couldn't give a fuck about convincing you, if you don't feel like rationally discussing it; if you are on a campus, do some history of science.
The scientific method works quite well and is certainly preferrable to philosopher's confusions.
You show nothing more than your own ignorance about science overall, let alone philosophy.
The scientific method has liberated mankind from religionists and from confused philosophers.
Complete and utter nonsense.
What has liberated mankind has been the ethical and other philosophical secularization.
Which country today has or buys the most PhD students ? The most Nobel Prize winners ? Has the best science, quantitatively seen ?
Why, the USA.
And the percentage of religious people in the USA ?
Far higher than anywhere else in the fully industrialized nations.
Oooooo, I forgot; and Americans are so scientifically liberated, they regularly elect Presidents who claim a direct hotline to God.
I notice that you have not bothered to offer any concepts/principles which will suffice to provide mankind with truth, justice, and the American Way;
D'oh.
I'll give you one guess as to what you can do with The American Way.
you have only condemned the scientific method and inductive logic without showing providing what is a better way than the scientific method and inductive logic to obtain accurate and useful knowledge.
Ohhhhhhhh, tell me what the scientific method has to say about prescriptive ethical exploration, please.
With experimentation. ;)
I am not in any way obligated to conduct research into what is clearly unproductive nonsense.Nobody's asking you to.
Uninformed prejudice is a very poor start, and kinda disqualifies you from the start.

[Bob K]

The ... logical error is basic.

And why have you refused to provide the concepts/principles which prove your claim?

Mantra: "He who asserts must prove!!!"


... [You must] read some elementary philosophy of science and explain why there isn't a basic logical error at play here. ...

Why must I do such reading?

Why are you not able to provide the basic concepts and principles of an 'elementary philosophy of science' and thereby 'explain why there [is] a basic logical error at play herein?'

You are making an assumption which you have not proven, unless, of course, you want to do a fundie denial/evasion/obfuscation/attack routine and claim "Everyone knows the scientific method and inductive knowledge cannot possibly produce any knowledge that would be practical and therefore beneficial to mankind."

Breaking News: Until you can prove there is no practical benefit to mankind of the scientific method and inductive logic, I am not obligated to believe that there is no practical benefit to mankind of the scientific method and inductive logic because of 'a basic logical error.'

[Bob K]

I think that you are just a doubting Thomas Bob.

Did not Doubting Thomas require proof--physical evidence--the God/Mangod/Ghostgod and One-and-Only Dying/Rising Savior God--to show up and perform a stunt that would prove he/she/it is the God/Mangod/Ghostgod and One-and Only Dying/Rising Savior God before he would believe?

I know I exist.

Call the local and major television news organizations and see if what you offer is newsworthy, then let the rest of us know what responses you get, including foul language and obscene gestures.

If you were God you would know that you exist too.

If I were God?

I do not have to be a god to know that I exist.

I've got my desires and feelings to keep me warm.

If I were a god I would not keep mankind without physical evidence of my existence--I would show up and prove that I exist and that I am a god.

Show us the gods!!!

[Hugo Holbling]

Did the debunkers use observation/measurement/experimentation?

Sometimes, but not always: there are plenty of examples. They also used philosophy, their presuppositions, alternative theories and sometimes took a break for coffee and cake.

The scientific method works quite well and is certainly preferrable to philosopher's confusions.

We have had this discussion before (http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=144): there is no scientific method. Rather than dismissing philosophers so sweepingly, you might care to explain why they are all confused.

The scientific method has liberated mankind from religionists and from confused philosophers.

How do you suppose mankind has been liberated from the philosophers?

I am not in any way obligated to conduct research into what is clearly unproductive nonsense.

We are not obliged to correct you either, but sometimes the community spirit can get the better of us all.

Mantra: "He who asserts must prove!!!"

As you know, several of us are still waiting for you to justify the existence of scientific method, so-called. Like a gentleman, i insist you go first.

Why are you not able to provide the basic concepts and principles of an 'elementary philosophy of science' and thereby 'explain why there [is] a basic logical error at play herein?'

I had hoped you were capable on your own. A theory can never be proven from the evidence since all theories are underdetermined; that is, there are always infinitely many possible theories that accord with a finite set of data points - hence the need for more than mere experiment in science and other areas of life and inquiry. In simpler terms, the same experimental facts may support two or more conflicting theories, of which examples are legion.

Until you can prove there is no practical benefit to mankind of the scientific method and inductive logic, I am not obligated to believe that there is no practical benefit to mankind of the scientific method and inductive logic because of 'a basic logical error.'

Unfortunately it does not follow that i need prove any such thing. Your arguments fail on their own terms, irrespective of whether i am a fundie or not. You are knocking up a rather empty straw man, since none of us are asserting that there is no "practical benefit to mankind" or that you should believe anything; instead, we are merely dissecting your earlier claim about confirmation.

Perhaps you should calm down?

[Goliath]

Question: Does/does not OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENT and EXPERIMENTATION provide PROOF

No. It does NOT.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Bob K]

I suggest you read up on various history of science ...

And where herein have you provided the concepts and principles which prove that the scientific method and inductive logical are not productive in producing practical knowledge which benefits mankind?


I couldn't give a fuck about convincing you, if you don't feel like rationally discussing it; if you are on a campus, do some history of science.

{Edit}


You show nothing more than your own ignorance about science overall, let alone philosophy.

In fact, I have considerable knowledge of science--check my website.

{Edit}


What has liberated mankind has been the ethical and other philosophical secularization.

Ethical and other philosophical secularization has liberated mankind?

Finally I get some terms/phrases!!!

One of the requirements of the Code of Science (on my website) is that all important terms and phrases to be used in an exposition or a discussion be defined by operational definitions.

Try your best to provide operational definitions of the following:

secularization
ethical secularization
philosophical secularization


[Tell] me what the scientific method has to say about prescriptive ethical exploration, please.

More terms/phrases!?!?

More operational definitions:

prescriptive
ethics/ethical
prescription ethical exploration

BTW, check out natural morality on my website.


Uninformed prejudice is a very poor start, and kinda disqualifies you from the start.

{Edit}

[Hugo Holbling]

I was going to reply to your outburst, Bob, but i think your behaviour speaks for itself. Maybe you should calm down and apologise?

[Gurdur]

Either that, or Bob K should read up on the psychological phenomenon of "projection".

[Light]

If I were a god I would not keep mankind without physical evidence of my existence, I would show up and prove that I exist and that I am a god.

Show us the gods!!!

But ... YOU ... are supposed to be one with God all on your own Bob!

And if YOU are one with God then YOU are God too Bob!

So show ... yourself, as in KNOW yourself!

If YOU don't believe in being God, how can you possibly become one?

Just take a look in the mirror, and keep on walking!

[Bob K]

Did the debunkers use observation/measurement/experimentation?


Sometimes, but not always: there are plenty of examples. They also used philosophy, their presuppositions, alternative theories and sometimes took a break for coffee and cake.

I note that you have claimed examples but have not provided any.

You have claimed that debunkers used their philosophy without any explanation of what were the concepts and principles of their philosophies they used for debunking.

You have claimed that debunkers used their presuppositions without any description of those presuppositions.

Your 'coffee and cake' comment is indicative of your inability to get real inre providing useful information herein inre the concepts/principles/techniques debunkers used to debunk previous physics mantras.


The scientific method works quite well and is certainly preferable to philosopher's confusions.


We have had this discussion before: there is no scientific method. Rather than dismissing philosophers so sweepingly, you might care to explain why they are all confused.

Real scientists follow the Code of Science and use the scientific method because there is no other demonstrated means of inquiry--intuition, authority, faith--which produces reliable information which can be used for solving practical problems.

I am a pilot, and I would never fly an airplane designed according to information gathered by intuition/authority/faith.


The scientific method has liberated mankind from religionists and from confused philosophers.


How do you suppose mankind has been liberated from the philosophers?

The same way that mankind got liberated from religionists--by observation/measurement/experimentation--all part of the requirements of the scientific method.

It is my recollection that Hippocrates observed a man going through an epileptic fit and decided to seek a natural explanation despite the supernatural explanation of the priests which asserted that devils were causing the man's behavior. Hippocrates--Hippocratic oath--started the discipline we now know as medicine.

What method of inquiry did Hippocrates use therein?

What method of inquiry do modern medical researchers use to obtain useful medical information?


As you know, several of us are still waiting for you to justify the existence of scientific method, so-called. ...

The scientific method was developed to eliminate useless information developed through intuition/authority/faith.

Information developed through intuition had to be confirmed by observation/measurement/experiment--by the scientific method.

Authority/faith provided no means of testing the claims of fact in the 'information' developed through authority/faith, and authorities and religionists tended to be protective of their status and would not permit challenges to their authority or faith--a guaranteed method for keeping people ignorant of the true causality of people/things/events who/which are causes causing people/things/events who/which are effects and for keeping authorities and religionists in power.

A scientific explanation is a description of the causality of a phenomenon--first as an hypothesis and if supported by data as a confirmed scientific fact.

The scientific method is justified for the useful information it provides which has benefitted mankind in contrast to the useless information which has not benefitted mankind provided by unconfirmed intuition/authority/faith.

Consider authority/faith.

Consider the xn religion.

The xn religion requires individuals to believe that they are pieces of crap/sinners because of the Fall of Man in Genesis, that they should feel fear and shame and guilt inre enjoying the pleasures of the body, that they need to be saved/they need salvation, that they cannot save themselves, that they will go to Hell if they are not saved, that they can only be saved by a dying/rising savior-god, and that only Jesus = God/Godman/Godghost = One-and-Only Dying/Rising Savior-God. The potential psychological damage which can be caused by requiring people to regards themselves to be pieces of crap/sinners, parents to regard their children to be pieces of crap/sinners, neighbors to regard neighbors to be pieces of crap/sinners, people of different religions to be pieces of crap/sinners, etc. is serious and severe, especially when in consideration of the fact that xns require people to believe in unobserved unobservables in flagrant disregard for the requirements of the scientific method.

How does anyone refute the xn religion?

By following the scientific method and requiring xns who claim an unobserved unobservable--God/Godman/Godghost/etc.--exists to prove their claim by means of observable/measurable/experimentable physical evidence--the God/Godman/Godghost/etc.

The fundamental question inre religion [when religion is defined as a philosophy--a set of concepts {mental representations of people/things/events} and principles {mental representations of relationships between/among people/things/events} which includes a belief in the existence of gods] is this: Do gods exist?

When xns cannot produce physical evidence of their claim that gods exist, then they have lost their claim of credibility.

The same logic--thanks to the scientific method--applies to all claims of other religionists inre the existence of gods or any other mystical unobserved unobservables.


Why are you not able to provide the basic concepts and principles of an 'elementary philosophy of science' and thereby 'explain why there [is] a basic logical error at play herein?'


... A theory can never be proven from the evidence since all theories are underdetermined; that is, there are always infinitely many possible theories that accord with a finite set of data points - hence the need for more than mere experiment in science and other areas of life and inquiry. In simpler terms, the same experimental facts may support two or more conflicting theories, of which examples are legion.

Finally you make an assertion in defense of your claims.

Herein you hang yourself.


A theory can never be proven from the evidence since all theories are underdetermined; that is, there are always infinitely many possible theories that accord with a finite set of data points ...

There are not always infinitely many possible theories which explain a finite set of data.

NOTE: Infinite = Having no mathematical or physical limitations.

When you crash into North Brookings Hall and experience severe head trauma the number of theories of explanation of the causation of your severe head trauma are limited (A) to your basic stupidity for running headfirst through the space and time coordinates of North Brookings Hall and (B) for your physical inability to withstand the inertial consequences.

There exist natural relationships among people/things/events such that causality limits the number of possibilities for any given set of people/things/events as causes to cause people/things/events as effects.

The natural relationships among people/things/events has produced evolution of life from non-life; the limitations of the natural relationships produce the causality, but the causality is real nevertheless.

Creationists like to claim that life could not possibly have evolved randomly from non-life without realizing or admitting that if life were to evolve from non-life it would do so not from random relationships but from natural non-random relationships.

Atoms exist in stable states and unstable states called ions, wherein some atoms have deficiencies or excesses of electrons. When ions have a deficiency they will produce movement--motion--to share or steal an electron from another atom [potential atomic thief] and when ions have an excess they will produce movement to get rid of an electron by either sharing it or giving it to another atom [potential atomic rapist]. When ions share electrons molecules are formed, leading to cells, and organs within organisms--all because of non-random natural relationships, no gods needed.

Evolution works with what is present in a population of individuals of a species and observation of the fossil record produces physical evidence which shows those individuals with genetic advantages tend to be more successful in dealing with the environment and the competition for food and mates and reproduction, and therefore evolution has time on its side to eventually produce the eye in defiance of creationist claims that the eye is an example of irreducible complexity (IC--part of the intelligent design/ID teleological nonsense) which is supposed to debunk evolution but which cannot because no one can prove eyes are examples of IC/ID and other creationist mantras including "Gods exist!!!" and "Goddidit!!" as explanations of the causality of speciation fail for lack of verification of their premises.

The Hafele-Keating experiment in which atomic clocks were either Earth-bound or air-born aboard airliners and the readouts of the air-born accelerated clocks were less than the readouts of the Earth-bound non-accelerated clocks can have only the explanation that acceleration/deceleration causes changes of the rates of operation/ticking of clocks which are not adjusted for accelerations/decelerations and not an infinite number of theoretical explanations of causality.

The atomic clocks used for the Hafele-Keating experiment were clocks for which their design did not permit internal or external adjustment for changes of inertial states caused by accelerations/decelerations.

If air-born accelerated clocks were used for which their design were to permit (A) internal adjustment by the use of accelerometers/decelerometers which detect accelerations/decelerations and computers which adjust for the sensed accelerations/decelerations or (B) external adjustment by means of radio signals from Earth-bound non-accelerated master clocks, then the readouts of the air-born accelerated clocks would be identical to the readouts of the Earth-bound non-accelerated clocks. Type A and Type adjustable clocks exist--Type A clocks are used in inertial guidance systems for ships, submarines, aircraft, etc., and Type B clocks are used in the US GPS and the Russian GLONASS navigational systems.


... hence the need for more than mere experiment in science and other areas of life and inquiry.

And what--exactly--are the non-scientific method methods of inquiry which could possibly produce confirmation of an hypothesis--of either the theory of evolution or the theory that acceleration can cause the slowdown of the rate of ticking of non-adjusted clocks?


... the same experimental facts may support two or more conflicting theories, of which examples are legion.

What examples?

And are there any examples of experimental facts which support only one theory--only one causal explanation?

I have cited the Hafele-Keating experiment and its facts which support only the causal explanation that acceleration will cause a decrease in the rates of operation of accelerated people/things/events.

When penicillin was discovered, repeated experiments provided the observations and measurements which confirmed the hypothesis that penicillin would kill certain types of bacteria. These experiments were conducted to eliminate the possibilities that some other substance was causing the events of the killing of certain bacteria and thus the only causal explanation which remained was that penicillin was the cause of the killing of the bacteria--and thus the hypothesis was confirmed.

It is a fact that the scientific method provides confirmations which are open to public scrutiny and challenge. And if future data provides disconfirmation then scientists are required to either set aside the hypothesis or revise it to fit the new data. this is a huge benefit to mankind because it requires scientific inquiry to be open to public observation and eventual disconfirmation, and so long as that disconfirmation does not happen and the confirmation produces practical results and predictions and therefore useful knowledge then the confirmed hypothesis stands as a natural relationship among people/things/events.


Until you can prove there is no practical benefit to mankind of the scientific method and inductive logic, I am not obligated to believe that there is no practical benefit to mankind of the scientific method and inductive logic because of 'a basic logical error.'


Unfortunately it does not follow that i need prove any such thing. Your arguments fail on their own terms, irrespective of whether i am a fundie or not. You are knocking up a rather empty straw man, since none of us are asserting that there is no "practical benefit to mankind" or that you should believe anything; instead, we are merely dissecting your earlier claim about confirmation.

Whether you agree or not, a method of inquiry is only as good as its practical results, since practical results confirm an hypothesis and a lack of practical results disconfirm an hypothesis.

The Hafele-Keating experiment cited produced practical results--the lesser readouts of the air-born accelerated clocks--which confirmed the hypothesis that acceleration will cause a decrease in the rate of operation/ticking of clocks (and deceleration will cause an increase in the rate of operation/ticking of clocks).

The Hafele-Keating experiment was conducted according to the Code of Science and the scientific method including observation/measurement/experimentation and definitely not by intuition/authority/faith.

In books written by scientists including the Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner and The Dancing Universe by Marcelo Gleiser the authors provide a description of the development--the evolution--of the scientific method, and the requirement that all claims of fact be supported by observation/measurement/experimentation. The development of scientific knowledge marked by the continuous increase in knowledge derived from the scientific method whereas intuitively conceived hypotheses are confirmed by physical evidence produced by observation/measurement/experimentation. In all cases repeated observations/measurements/experiments produced date that either confirmed or disconfirmed the previous concepts/principles of physics and caused the body of scientific knowledge to evolve into more narrowly focused concepts/principles which became more reliable as practical information to be used for decision-making and problem-solving and for creating benefits to mankind.

[Bob K]

Question: Does/does not OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENT and EXPERIMENTATION provide PROOF?

No. It does NOT.

Yes!!! It DOES!!!

If you disagree, then provide an operational definition of proof.

And then prove how proof as you define it operationally cannot be obtained by observation/measurement/experimentation, i.e. the scientific method.

If you refuse, then you prove that you are employing fundi