|May15-05, 07:45 AM||#1|
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
This is a proper hypothesis which remains unproven, which is a step forward from the seemingly completely out of the blue hypothesis of god. The aim of this hypothesis is also to provoke discussion on how do you choose a hypothesis, that most malleable element of scientific method and one which is very relevant to today's physics. Possibly also the element which einstein refused to work with and led to his stagnation.
You cannot measure anything certainly due to the heisenburg uncertainty principle and also because you cannot measure anything precisely. You cannot for instance say a ruler is exactly 30 cms long as the chances are it could very well be
cms long and you cannot measure with such precision and if you could measure with such precision you still wouldn't know whether the ruler is
30.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000001
cms long or not.
You would need to be able to measure things to an infinite degree of precision in order to know the exact length of the ruler.
If there was an omnipotent sentient being he would have the ability to measure things to an infinite degree of precision and thus with the laws of the universe be able to predict the entire universe. God is also creditted with being the creator of the universe and that the laws of the universe exist becasue he is a watchmaker god, whom does not externally influence the universe after it has been set in motion.
The relationship between observation 1 and 2 with observation 1 is not a coincidence. Bear in mind observation 3 is an observation of irrational opinions.
The possibility of the relationship being a coincidence is unknown. There is also the possibility that the idea of god has caused me to introduce it into my observations, which would be circular. However it is an observation and allowed by scientific method and so should not be ignored on that basis. More scientific observations which correlate with ancient ideas of god are required before the possibility of this relationship can no longer be considerred a relationship.
|May15-05, 09:14 AM||#2|
You can't measure infinites. I like your speech. I'm only posting a conversation from about 200 years ago, adn that's all because I think it says everything I need/think:
Napoleon-I have heard that you haven't included god, in your explenation about the universe?
Laplace-No; I didn't require that hypothesis.
Napoleon-Oh, it's a very good theory, it explains many things.
Poor Napoleon, he was very inteligent for strategy though.
|May27-05, 03:56 PM||#3|
Yeah.. Shuffle 500000 men into Siberia, great idea.
|Similar discussions for: God Hypothesis|
|Help for a hypothesis about gravity etc||General Discussion||3|
|The Riemann Hypothesis||Calculus||8|