i think "aleph0 = aleph1" may represent, in some sense, something in reality.
If it does, then we can discuss it scientifically. If it doesn't there is no point trying to argue if it is true or otherwise to someone who does not hold the same axioms to you.
so the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and whatever else in science that involves the indeterminate, can not be conversed about in a meaningful way?
It gives tangible predictions. The involvement of the indeterminate is utterly irrelevant, but the tangible results are. HUP provides a violation of the bell inequalities. We have found these inequalities, so until further notice HUP is true. And scientific.
that's odd. then the name "falsification" is utterly misleading if it has nothing to do with falsehood.
Yep. It is.
is it or is it not true that in science, one does the experiment without forming an expectation about the result? in other words, if you look for a certain outcome, then one may be tempted to see patterns that aren't there or fudge the data a little to get the conclusion that is desired?
It is not true. A formulation of a hypothesis which is then tested is an essential part of science. Preliminary experiments may help to give you an idea of the hypothesis to form, but testing predictions is essential. To prevent too much subjectivity getting through, we preform falsification - ie. we do the opposite and look for evidence that disproves the hypothesis. And to allow this, and so lend scientific credibility to our theory, we make our the theory as vulnerable as possible, and spread it about for people to attempt to tear it apart.
Science is realistic. No one is ever going to conduct an experiment without a desire for a particular result.
when you title this thread "debunking religion," you have set a desired outcome.
Further, this thread isn't science. This thread is a discussion to set out common boundaries. The title debunking religion shows the subject of discussion. I didn't say that this would be successful. Indeed, my repeated position is that in most cases, any attempt would be futile.
well, if I'm not understanding the statement, "insisting 1+1!= 2 is rather non-useful," i don't see how.
I am talking in two avenues.
One is formalistic - saying that maths is created for our convenience. Hence, 1+1 can equal whatever we like. We say it equals 2 usually because its helpful. And when we want, we can make it equal 0. Or any such stuff. We cannot say either is true, but rather useful in a particular context, and consistent with other matters at hand.
One is platonic. In such a case, the apparent inconsistency of the two equations is due to a lack of clarity in our language - that we mean different 1s and 2s and +s and =s in these cases. Maths is true, and is a science, because the mathematical laws are real laws and we can consider each successful prediction as a triumph of the theory of maths.
how can you say what reality is if you can't even prove you're not in a matrix in which the rules are subject to change at the whim of the robots who control it?
Physically speaking, reality is what we measure. What we can't measure, see etc is not real to us.
Ok, reject physics definition for now. If what we see is not real, then what is? That is what you have captured in your statement. If our existence is a lie, all other things are lies too, for we have no reference to make them real. In fact, we cannot even talk about reality, without experiencing it. Cypher is right - the matrix is more real than the real world.
Ok, suppose you reject both. Then change the phrasing to observation if you really have to.
that is not an acceptable definition of truth.
That's a definition you're going to have to live with, and have to use if you want to understand what I say, and many people say. Because the alternative is that nothing is true.
You can still change to relatively true, I guess, but to follow such a definition is to make truth itself pretty irelevant.
by your definition of tangible, God is tangible for it interacts with the whole universe.
Reality check. We are talking theories here. God, if one exists, may well be tangible. But beliefs in god as a theory may or may not give tangible implications. What I am saying is that ones that do give tangible predictions are debunkable, and ones that can't aren't. Warping of space gives tangible predictions. If we reject that, then no theory is tangible.
What we touch when we hold an apple is not solid. It is the ghostly prescence of an EM field, which influences various atoms and so on.
don't patronize me. it's not that i don't understand you. it's that i disagree. I'm not chalking up your disagreeance of me as a lack of understanding...
I'm not patronising you but it is clear you don't understand me. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing over the
definitions. The definitions are a translation guide so you can see my earlier statement in the light I meant them to say. It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not, but that you don't continue to misunderstand me. If you reject them, at least the use of them, it is as though you reject the alphabet. Nothing I said before will make sense, and you will quite reasonably persist in disagreeing with what I didn't mean. My position is much closer to yours than you think.
The semantics are choking this conversation. See this example.
Falsifiable = Can be tested for contradiction by reality.
but you also said this:
Falsification has nothing to do with falsehood!
Is it not clear what I meant here?
Falsifiable refers to the testibility of a theory. It doesn't say anything about the results of the test. Falsification is the act of the test. It does not say if the test is successful or not. Falsification is nothing to do with falsehood, because the falsifiability of a theory says nothing about whether it is false or not.
The flat Earth theory is a falsifiable one. So is relativity.
Another example.
since we have different view on what "tangible" means, we cannot agree on whether "11 dimensions" are tangible.
It does not matter whether you agree or not. This is an example of an application of the definitions, to show how it comes up with useful conclusions.
but when you say that about religion, you say that, "faced with this indeterminancy (where by that i mean an inability to prove it in an absolute way), it is simply impossible to have a meaningful conversation." if that is the case, it shoudl apply to science as well.
I would invite you to look through the archives of the religion forum to see what I meant. Science incorporates evidence - that is essential. If you say a religion makes a tangible claim, then viola, that religion is science. Not neccessarily true science, but science. And that is that.
In that case, I use abolute when I meant objective.
it is my deep suspician that removing such limitations is exactly what will lead us to be able to prove a theory absolutely.
And that will be the biggest disaster ever to befall mankind.
Perhaps a better pair of criteria might be
-> 'ability to make testable predictions', and
-> 'success of idea/theory in tests'.
The first is essential what I said. The second is irrelevant, as we are talking about debunkibility, not actual truthfulness.
