13
   

Religon Or Science ?

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 12:49 pm
@Setanta,
http://images.buzzillions.com/images_products/00/38/folgers-classic-roast-instant-coffee-crystals-8oz_148195_175.jpg
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 12:49 pm
Whew . . . thanks . . . i feel much better . . .
0 Replies
 
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 03:32 pm
@fresco,
not at all. Your argument actually reinforces my point, it just adds in another field of study in which it is relevant, QM.
As Wikipedia says, non locality is action at a distance. It is caused by something, but that something is not immediately adjacent to the effect it causes. I am not terribly well versed on the topic, but from my basic understanding of it, it simply rules out 'local' causes.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 03:37 pm
@joefromchicago,
I apologize, I think I did misunderstand with your first answer.

"I suppose it would be better if we all said that science was self-evident and leave it at that. Would that satisfy you?"

Well then we wouldn't need science at all, would we?

"If it can't potentially be disproved then it's not science. That's Popper. If your "law of causality" can't be tested, then it's just another unverifiable belief, worthy of no more credence than a belief in fairies or magic crystals."

If it can't potentially be disproven, then it's not scientifically verifiable. It's not scientific fact, but I thought I covered how that would be circular logic anyway.

I don't think I can make the Law of Causality any more clear at this point.
However, if you don't believe it, then you take it on faith that things can arise without a cause. Additionally, you cannot accept any scientific research as valid as it presupposes the law of causality.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 04:24 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
I think you are confusing the concepts "causality" and "determinism". Else where in Wiki you will read
Quote:
Confusion of causality and determinism is particularly acute in quantum mechanics, this theory being acausal (in consequence of its inability to provide descriptions of the causes of all actually observed effects) but deterministic in the mathematical sense.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 04:56 pm
@fresco,
Thank you for the clarification.
As I said, I have only a basic understanding of this theory, but isn't it more or less based on the fact that we are unable to see exactly where a particle is at any time?
We can only narrow it down to being in a certain radius, that is to say in Wiki's words:
"a system cannot be localized to a precision better than its Compton wavelength."
It seems that this theory is based on the fact that when we try to observe a particle, we influence it and cause it to move in a way we cannot predict. But unpredictability is not the same as something being uncaused.


Oooooh okay, so this is tied to the uncertainty principle. The problem with the uncertainty principle is exactly what I described above. It confuses predictability and causality. We cannot predict where the particle will be specifically, but we know it is still in that radius.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 05:01 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Note also that your "law of causality" would generally require a "time gap" in the sequence "cause" followed by "effect". This is violated by the instantaneous nature of "action at a distance" . Add to that concepts like "a positron is an electron travelling backwards in time" as used in QED (quantum electro dynamics) and your "law" will need serious revision if it is to remain coherent.
Science is all about "prediction and control" as indeed is general epistemology.
Insofar that "causality" serves this function it may be deemed to be useful. But this is a far cry from establishing any ontological claim about "the nature of an independent reality", if indeed such a "reality" actually exists. It is around this ontological problem that science locks horns with religion.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 05:09 pm
@fresco,
Unfortunately, that is all just theorizing and thinking(cool thinking, but still just thinking) in the study of the philosophy of science. There is no actual evidence that such a thing is possible. Your theory of retrocausation - "an electron travelling backwards in time" will need some serious investigation if it is to be considered true. And until such time as that investigation yields positive and empirical results, it is merely thought.

if a reality exists? I think therefore I am. At the very least I know I exist because I have to exist in order to consider whether or not I do. Everything else is based on probability.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 05:14 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
We crossed posts.

Positrons are an integral part of Feynman diagrams which successfully predict em data. When asked what the philosophical implications are of this, Feynman famously replied to the effect that he couldn't care less. It works !("Philosophers are intellectual tourists scratching their heads at the strange practices of scientists")
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 05:25 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Deconstruction of the cogito commences with the realization that for the "self" to contemplate "itself" is merely a continuation of a Wittgensteinian language game inherited from the Greek pre-occupation with vision and "the mind's eye". (Read Rorty).
0 Replies
 
mulout
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 10:29 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
1) Science is that which we defensibly believe and which is not based in authority.

2) There is no such thing as causality. The multiverse is simply everything, infinitely so. Consciousness exists between those infinite combinations of the possible in a ordering in which consciousness is possible. Past orderings look like causal agents, but are simply those conditions which are compatible with present consciousness.
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jan, 2011 12:22 am
@mulout,
Forgive me if I am speaking in error, but as one who is not scientifically knowledgeable, I have a couple of questions for my own clarity.
You speak very confidently of the multiverse theory and that causality is defunct, is it a belief you have, or is it favoured within science as the currently accepted belief system?
Have any experiments been carried out that can back up the hypothesis that alternate universes exist?
If the alternate universe theory has not been proven, is it any less logical to consider a God theory?
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jan, 2011 09:24 am
@HeroicOvenmitt,
HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
"I suppose it would be better if we all said that science was self-evident and leave it at that. Would that satisfy you?"

Well then we wouldn't need science at all, would we?

Well, you wouldn't.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
"If it can't potentially be disproved then it's not science. That's Popper. If your "law of causality" can't be tested, then it's just another unverifiable belief, worthy of no more credence than a belief in fairies or magic crystals."

If it can't potentially be disproven, then it's not scientifically verifiable. It's not scientific fact, but I thought I covered how that would be circular logic anyway.

Yes, you've said that science can't prove itself, even though science proves itself all the time. But you still haven't provided a single experiment that proves the "law of causality." I'll assume, therefore, that there are no such experiments and that you're just making stuff up as you go along.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
I don't think I can make the Law of Causality any more clear at this point.

I'll agree with you on that one.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
However, if you don't believe it, then you take it on faith that things can arise without a cause. Additionally, you cannot accept any scientific research as valid as it presupposes the law of causality.

And you can't accept any scientific research as valid if you deny that scientific methods can be used to disprove scientific theories.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jan, 2011 10:33 am
@saab,
saab wrote:

This is a absurd claim. Take Scandinavia where up till resently 90% were church members and more or less religious no one was against science. There has always been some crackpots - but I never met one.
The same is for most other Europeans countries.



This is quite true, as evidenced by the excellent scientific research conducted in many Swedish Universities, as for example, the University of Uppsala. Likewise, consider (over the past 100 years) the significant number of Nobel prize winners in the sciences who have been Swedish .

Nothing suggests that religion negatively impacted Swedish science.



0 Replies
 
special ed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2011 08:26 pm
@Yahweh,
Do you feel you're taking God's name in vein? YHWH
0 Replies
 
mulout
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jan, 2011 11:35 pm
@Smileyrius,
Sorry it took so long for me to reply. I didn't know there was a response. I'm not a scientist, I'm a pinball mechanic. In defense of my position: Democritus, sometime BC, observed that we are made of 'atoms', some basic building block, not because he had any evidence, but because nothing else made any sense. I believe that the infinite all is everything, without end. The universe is one combination of everything, but there are infinite combinations, and so multi-verses exit, even if not consciously so, simply because nothing else makes any sense. Sorry again, (I am not anti-god, when things go seriously wrong I pray because I am a human being) but god theories make no sense, if the stuff of god can exist without beginning why can't any other combination of stuff exist without beginning? The problem of god is that the idea is too convenient: we as a species need god to introduce 'obeying authority', as in 'being social', into a basically predatory species (that species would be us). A human brain 'god-center' works in terms of evolutionary advantage, but it doesn't work in terms of explaining the universe. (I'm not encouraging anyone to not believe in God or not go to church. I believe in the business of living life as human beings, and we should act like human beings, and that means believing in God. The trick of high intelligence is to be able to keep both of the above ideas in mind at the same time. As the Greeks said a long time ago, to perfectly command your life and soul, create an understating in which you will never be surprised by anything.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2011 11:56 am
@mulout,
Are you using "stuff" in the religious or materialist sense?
mulout
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 10:54 pm
@spendius,
These things are a matter of faith: faith that god's existence is infinite; faith that the stuff of atomic construction is not. I will not argue about those things which people hold dear for their own reasons. My mother lived a difficult life; my father was a veteran who did not live well with having gone to war. The fallout was financial, physical, mental. My mother became a deeply religious person, which is to say, she coped as best she could. She was wrong in some of her beliefs about god, but I would not have told her so even if threatened by penalty of death.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 05:34 am
You can't even write coherent English, and you're trying to use this site to sell term papers online ? ! ? ! ?

In-*******-credible . . .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/29/2022 at 07:29:25