Debunking Religion? Discussion on Boundaries for S&D Forum

[Loren Booda]

The fact that many objectively consider science, philosophy or other natural pursuits to be forever incomplete poses the possibility that they are continually approaching an infinite, ordered whole. As there are many functions of the brain beyond rational argument, so there are many justifications for religion. The choice is ours: we are god, or we are with God. (Either for you is fine by me.)

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by FZ+
No. Here is a claim that following on from a series of axioms, is defined as false. But no objective way exists to talk of the validity of the axioms themselves, unless we give the statement tangibility by stating that 1+1 =2 etc and all the statements that build up to it are representative of some element of reality. Otherwise, my concept of alephfoo may be different from yours, and so the debate collapses.

defined as false. well, then, as everything depends on certain assumtions, axioms, then there is no way to ever say that any statement is objectively false. if you don't believe that aleph0 = aleph1 is an objectively false statement (even though this can't be proven except by first arbitrarily defining "false"), i don't know if we can have a meaningful discussion. i believe the statement is objectively false. can you prove that the statement "aleph0 = aleph1" is NOT objectively false?

No. In fact, what you have done is to confuse the scientific idea of falsification. Falsification does not mean the declaration of falsehood, but the proof by means of reference to reality.

the scientific idea of falsification is just another arbitrary definition of falsehood similar to the one that you pointed out in math. it's no longer science vs religion; it has become science vs math! when we can't even agree on what false means, you can't talk at all about statements being false. of course, by the scientific definition of falsehood, many, many "false" mathematical statements (like aleph0=aleph1) are not "false" (according to scientists) because there is no possible reference to reality. YET, science USES the statements that can't be shown to not be false by their definition of false in their arguments!

however, math is a part of reality. just a non-physical reality. thus, the two ideas of false can be combined.

a romantic sketch. when God said, "let there be light," that was the beginning of the universe. the whole of objective truth (physical and non-physical) corresponds to an infinitely bright light. in the physical universe, the lights are stars. in the non-physical reality, the initial light are the axioms. the non-physical stars are theorems, those are the lights. so the astronomer's search for other stars is like the mathematician's search for more theorems. black holes correspond to theorems which can't be proven using the axioms. i like to call such things thought holes. when i approach a thought hole, i feel like it will suck me (rather, my mind) into it. but that astronomers can find evidence that a black hole is a star leads me to believe that one day it will somehow be possible to realize that thought holes are true theorems as well. i know it's a strech...

True! Look up for a very interesting article on "Why does science work?", somewhere. Indeed, perhaps the biggest miracle in the universe is that maths and science are actually effective.

But there are degrees of indeterminancy. We can never declare absolutely something as true. (Including this post, paradoxically as it seems) We can however make the statement that somethings are more indeterminate than others, and we do that by trying to minimise our assumptions/axioms, and placing reference to tangible events. The nature of knowledge denies us pure determinancy, but there is a word of difference between something that is not determinable by the limitations of the universe, and not determinable by neccessity of the argument.

i don't think it's a miracle at all. to me, it suggests that all the stuff is OBJECTIVELY TRUE despite the fact that it all rests on assumptions and arbitrary defnitions meant to correspond to our intuition. to that end, perhaps INTUTION is the true vehicle for accessing OBJECTIVE truth. this is what i hint at in my article "on removing little self taint from messages received from the source," which is somewhere on this site.

well, either way, i think the statement "we can never declare absolutely something as true" is absolutely false. and I'm not just being cute and saying, "we can DECLARE it." you know, like, i can DECLARE that 1+1=0 (which it is in the smallest field containing just 1 and 0). seriously, though, i think there are things that can be declared as absolutely true. however, any attempt to prove it using any axiomatic system will absolutely fail. it's not a paradox. two examples: "1+1=2" and "God exists." belief in such declarations is what i call FAITH. in the next millenium, perhaps faith will be the new accepted version of what constitutes proof, but i doubt it.

The sleep of reason does nightmares make.


No, reason is not to be abandoned - as this brings the question, abandoned in favour of what? Deductive reasoning, by definition, cannot bring new knowledge. But a test is useful, as it shows up flaws.

you may not be fully aware of how much of a nightmare it can be when reason sleeps. (to give just the tip of the iceburg, look at dr. nash.) i hope you're not, in fact. it's not something anyone should fully be aware of. to use your words, you're quite right: reason is put to sleep. not abandoned, as i said. when it is appropriate, it wakes up. nightmares. remember that nightmares are not real. don't you think it is irrational to be afraid of nightmares? on the other hand, in addition to nightmares, there are also very beautiful dreams; dreams i wish everyone could share in. these dreams are precisely what gives us objective truth. certainly, nightmares don't.

so, to answer your question, it is to be abandonded AND nightmares avoided (at all costs). another thing is this. the answer to your question is what i think will actually make us able to declare things as being absolutely true. in a metaphorical way, these are the dreams i mentioned.

But on the basis of maths we can build things. We can show the apparent inconsistency that would arise if maths were not true, and hence we are persuaded into assuming maths in correct. Maths in general is a vulnerable axiom - it is an axiom that leads to implications, that should be reflected in the real word. God, can give either tangible implications or intangible ones - tangible = vulnerable, and useful, intangible = invulnerable, and opinionated. There is a sharp divide now between platonic mathematics and formalistic mathematics.

i think you're wrong when you used the word "should." why do math axioms have to always lead to things in the real world? i assume you're talking about something like the banach-tarski "paradox." you say, "maths in general is a vulnerable axiom," and, "intangible = invulnerable." don't you think the axioms are intangible? how can math be both invulnerable and vulnerable? perhaps this is the platonic/formalistic split you're talking about. you're right about the opinionated part. people have different opinions about the axiom of choice. people have their opinions about euclid's axioms. probably riemann's OPINION was most important to you.

By Formalistic mathematics, true. Maths is immune to scientific study, and is a network of tautologies only, and so as a whole has no truth value. By Platonic mathematics, false, because the whole of maths represents something tangible and experiencible in the real word. In this case, maths is neccessarily a science, and can be shown to be true or untrue.

the whole of mathematics is not representable by something tangible or experiencible in the (what you call) real world. try representing the category of all categories or the class of all sets in the "real" world. try verifying the banach-tarski theorem experimentally.

Yes. But its belief is not the reason why 1+1=2 can not generally be dealt with. It is in the nature of the statement. Unless we make it a statement regarding the real world.

let's suppose we make it a statement about the real world. it says that when you add one quantity of ANYTHING to another equal quantity of that same thing, you then have two such quantities. in order to prove this experimentally, you'd have to try it will all things for to do anything less is to not prove it for ANYTHING.

part 2 to follow.

 

[phoenixthoth]

It's a fun sport people try out now and then. Theists call atheists sinners, evil, etc etc, and atheists call them back. Ok, to make the real point... The major bad point of all religions (from the perspective of an atheist/agnostic) is the emphasis on faith. Faith involves the striving for invulnerability of an argument. It is not the belief itself, but the fanatical aspect and lack of skepticism which accompanies it. Maths is sufferable because it is useful, it provides a rigid set of implications with which we can deal with. Religions on the other hand most insist on intangibility, and lack of usefulness. And there is a practical alternative to religion, whilst insisting 1+1!= 2 is rather non-useful.

really? in group theory, one can say 1+1=0 when dealing with the group {0,1}. are you saying group theory is non-useful? hmm... RATHER non-useful, even!

how can you possibly say that religions lack of usefulness? just because it isn't useful to YOU doesn't mean it's not useful to billions of people. likewise, science is not useful to many people. you say math is useful. how is the banach-tarski theorem useful? you say that emphasis on faith is a "major bad point" in religion. how else does one go about realizing the objective truths that can't be proven in axiomatic systems? i think you have too much faith in reason*. you have this faith because it's "useful" to you. likewise, faith in God is held on to tightly because it is "useful" to them. it's just that faith alone will never convince someone else of the objective truth. any attempt to do so through such means is a waste of time.

*for example, what if i didn't accept modus ponens? what if you talked until you were blue in the face that modus ponens is true but i just didn't share your faith in it? yes, you have faith in modus ponens just as i would have faith that it isn't true. you're probably wondering how someone could doubt modus ponens. that reminds me of religious people wondering how someone could doubt that God exists.

But in general, it is more a case of religious people attempting to patronise non-religious people. (Count the percentage population gap!)

well, i don't have the data you have, evidently. I've always seen it as the science people attempting to patronize the religious people. you even called faith a major bad point of religion. hmm...

cheers,
phoenix

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theEVIL1
MY faiths are: that the sun will rise tomorrow (I know the sun really does not "rise") and that the Earth will go on spining at 924 mph. Thes faiths are NOT based on some ancient archaic writings, nor on what I HOPE to be true..but on rational and reasonable experiences and can be shown to have been 100% true PRIOR to now..thus highly predictable for the future. THIS is where mystical faith and rational faith depart. As my friend Carl used to say "true science prefers it's coldest facts to it's fondest delussions." AND that is pretty much it...in, as SH might say.."IN a nutshell.."

There is no such thing as "rational faith." That's an oxymoron. Faith by definition REQUIRES a lack of evidence or explanation. Your expectation of the sun rising tomorrow is a high probability prediction based on scientific theory.

Originally posted by radagast
OK, I really like this paragraph. Hope you don't mind but I'm clipping it and saving this one to disk.

Not at all - in fact, I'm honored.

However, I'll need you to send me $1 every time you reuse it.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
The fact that many objectively consider science, philosophy or other natural pursuits to be forever incomplete poses the possibility that they are continually approaching an infinite, ordered whole. As there are many functions of the brain beyond rational argument, so there are many justifications for religion. The choice is ours: we are god, or we are with God. (Either for you is fine by me.)

just because they approach an infinite, ordered whole doesn't mean they'll ever get there.

my choice is #2.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by russ_watters
There is no such thing as "rational faith." That's an oxymoron. Faith by definition REQUIRES a lack of evidence or explanation. Your expectation of the sun rising tomorrow is a high probability prediction based on scientific theory. Not at all - in fact, I'm honored.

However, I'll need you to send me $1 every time you reuse it.

i agree. all faith is irrational. that's why letting reason sleep at times is helpful. we let it sleep when we expect the sun to rise tomorrow for we can't really be absolutely sure that it will. but doubts never cross our minds even though we can't be absolutely sure that it will.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by russ_watters
...Not at all - in fact, I'm honored.

However, I'll need you to send me $1 every time you reuse it.

Ahh, the concept of faith again.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid, Q to phoenixthoth: This tangible/intangible, and "physical evidence" (as you define it) approach has got so much packed into it that to even begin picking it apart would probably need its own forum. Just to list, in shorthand, a few things that would have to be sorted out:
- inference (e.g. extra-solar planets, dark matter)
- abstraction (e.g. dimension, time)
- theory/hypothesis/principles (e.g. the dependence of the 'assistance of something that enhances our awareness beyond human limitations (such as a gamma ray detector) on theory')
- role of mathematics

phoenixthoth (yep, it's an extract) said: yes, but that higher dimensions might exist as a result of any observation based in neutrinos would fall into the category of "inference." i don't think inference statements provide anything more than cirumstantial evidence for what are intangible claims.

So, a partial list of areas of science beyond the pale, in your view (this is a question):
- all of cosmology
- a large part (most?) of astronomy
- most of high energy particle physics
- heavy elements, beyond ~Lr
- much of genomics
- most of sub-crust geology and geophysics
- all of evolutionary biology
- ...

 

[phoenixthoth]

i'm not really sure the true extent to which scientific claims are actually intangible. i would guess that the vast majority of them are tangible.

i guess i have to be clear on what i mean by tangible. for example, from the typical point of view that tangible means you can touch it, a photon is intangible. that's not what i mean, exactly. tangible means something you can perceive with any of the five senses with the assitance of some device used to expand awareness (such as a telescope or particle accelerator).

even by that definition, i think a statement like "the universe is 11 dimensional" is an intangible claim.

this topic said that no intangible claims are allowed to be discussed. just wondered how stephen hawking would feel about such a restriction.

regarding intangible claims, here's what FZ+ said:

"The tangibility marker is a method of determining where the debate belongs. Intangibility does not doom the idea, nor elevate it. It does make it unscientific and inherently indeterminate, however."

so, then, the claim "the universe is 11 dimensional" is unscientific and inherently indeterminate. i wish stephen hawking and his cabal luck in determining the inteterminate. (one may note that i argued that intangible claims are not indeterminate.) you may want to check out this paper
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.pdf
where it is argued that mathematical existence is physical existence. pythagoras's secret society called the semicircle believed that reality, at its deepest level, is mathematical in nature. if this paper is "correct," that would appear to lend evidence to the pythagorean belief...

cheers,
phoenix

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
so, then, the claim "the universe is 11 dimensional" is unscientific and inherently indeterminate. i wish stephen hawking and his cabal luck in determining the inteterminate.

This is extremely misleading, and incorrect. Eleven dimensions are not grabbed out of the air, they are part of a cogent model of observed behaviour. If something that can explain the behavior better, without extra dimensions, is found, then I would see no reasons to keep them, but to say it is unscientific is highly inaccurate.

 

[Nereid]

physical evidence and inference

phoenixthoth (yep, it's an extract) said: yes, but that higher dimensions might exist as a result of any observation based in neutrinos would fall into the category of "inference." i don't think inference statements provide anything more than cirumstantial evidence for what are intangible claims.

It's not the tangible/intangible per se in your approach to science that I'm interested to get to the bottom of, it's the 'inference' part.

GR is a theory about mass and spacetime (and more). Observations of a neutron star binary show a certain pattern. The observations can be matched very closely using GR. In particular, you can infer from the observations and theory that significant energy is being lost from the orbital system in the form of gravitational radiation. Is gravitational radiation verboten in your view of science?

even by that definition, i think a statement like "the universe is 11 dimensional" is an intangible claim.

How about this then: "There are theories which posit that the universe has 11 dimensions. At least some of these theories make predictions which are wholly consistent with observations and experimental results. As a shorthand, we write 'the universe is 11 dimensional'".

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by radagast
This is extremely misleading, and incorrect. Eleven dimensions are not grabbed out of the air, they are part of a cogent model of observed behaviour. If something that can explain the behavior better, without extra dimensions, is found, then I would see no reasons to keep them, but to say it is unscientific is highly inaccurate.

i agree with you radagast, but this is the conclusion drawn from the FZ+ quote.

to say that 11 dimensions explains observations doesn't prove that there are 11 dimensions. that, to me, seems like a non sequitor. that is, unless occam's razor is an absolutely true statement which can be objectively verified.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Nereid
It's not the tangible/intangible per se in your approach to science that I'm interested to get to the bottom of, it's the 'inference' part.

GR is a theory about mass and spacetime (and more). Observations of a neutron star binary show a certain pattern. The observations can be matched very closely using GR. In particular, you can infer from the observations and theory that significant energy is being lost from the orbital system in the form of gravitational radiation. Is gravitational radiation verboten in your view of science?
How about this then: "There are theories which posit that the universe has 11 dimensions. At least some of these theories make predictions which are wholly consistent with observations and experimental results. As a shorthand, we write 'the universe is 11 dimensional'".

nothing is verboten; just classifying claims and pointing out that sometimes the evidence is direct and sometimes it's from inference. not making a personal judgement on the superiority of various forms of evidence. to me, intangible claims shouldn't be verboten in science.

i'd have to look at the data and see how the observations justify the statement, "the universe is 11 dimensional." whatever the data is, i have the suspician that it's not going to be actually "seeing" it, but seeing physical consequences of non-physical realities.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[FZ+]

if you don't believe that aleph0 = aleph1 is an objectively false statement (even though this can't be proven except by first arbitrarily defining "false"), i don't know if we can have a meaningful discussion.

But it cannot be objectively true, as you have declared there that this does not represent anything in reality. The meaningful conversation relies on a shared set of definitions (called language) - and speaks nothing of whether the language has a true basis.

can you prove that the statement "aleph0 = aleph1" is NOT objectively false?

Can we just look back over our concept of indeterminancy please? By indeterminancy, this means that I can't prove objectively it to be false - and neither can you prove it to be true. Whether it is true or false is a matter of subjective feeling and opinion.
In fact, you have perfectly captured the failure of most discussions about religion. Faced with this indeterminancy, it is simply impossible to have a meaningful conversation.

the scientific idea of falsification is just another arbitrary definition of falsehood similar to the one that you pointed out in math.

I don't see why you are consistently failing to get this point. Falsification has nothing to do with falsehood! Science has nothing to do with the unfalsifiable. What we get here is that mathematical axioms are non-scientific entities. What we do not get is a contest between science and mathematics, because neither can deal with the other. That is why there are no debunking maths posts, and that is why there should be no misguided debunking religion posts.

really? in group theory, one can say 1+1=0 when dealing with the group {0,1}. are you saying group theory is non-useful? hmm... RATHER non-useful, even!

I think you are failing to understand my point, as this is precisely what I meant. The idea of truth in this context is one of tautology - that in the formulation of the definition, we have forced the 1+1=0 statement to be true. In fact, it is probably more sensible to refer to this not as truth, but as consistency - like saying that 2 = 1+1 is consistent with 1+1=2. But what matters is the formulation of the rules itself. Does 1+1 = 0 represent something in nature. To that, if you follow a formalism based philosophy, you can only say that it is indeterminate, and that in exploring maths we dynamically change it to suit our needs.

The situation is wholly different in a platonic view of course. As far as the platonic view is concerned, this whole argument is moot because maths really is something that has tangible effects in the real world. 1+1=0 in some cases is a scientific discovery. Do you understand?


Because it seems you don't.

Let's start off from basics.

False = Is contradicted by reality.
True = Is supported by reality so far.
Indeterminate = Unable to test for support/contradiction by reality. Neither false nor true.
Falsifiable = Can be tested for contradiction by reality.
Consistent = provides a logical framework with other claims.
Tangible = Interacts with what is observable. Can be detected or implicates behaviour that can be measured.

When we talk of true mathematics, we really mean consistent mathematics. A mathematical "proof" consistutes a search for that consistency. In this way, we can make the whole of mathematics one body. We cannot however, unless we adopt the platonic idea of mathematics being tangible in itself.

String(or M) theory is a theory that is consistent as far as we know with past true theories, tangible in what it claims will happen, and is increasingly falsifiable. String (or M) theory is incomplete.

In terms of science, because of the element of falsifiablility, it is impossible to "prove" a theory in an absolute way.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
nothing is verboten; just classifying claims and pointing out that sometimes the evidence is direct and sometimes it's from inference. not making a personal judgement on the superiority of various forms of evidence. to me, intangible claims shouldn't be verboten in science.

i'd have to look at the data and see how the observations justify the statement, "the universe is 11 dimensional." whatever the data is, i have the suspician that it's not going to be actually "seeing" it, but seeing physical consequences of non-physical realities.

cheers,
phoenix

Is there something special about '11 dimensions'? (or 'gravitational radiation'?) If you're OK with one, why not the other?

If you get infected with an antibiotic-resistance strain of [pick you favourite nasty], aren't you seeing physical consequences of non-physical realities, evolution in this case?

 

[FZ+]

Precisely Neried. It only makes sense to use the idea of tangibility in this way. In the context of claims, there is no way we can observe them directly, rather we observe what is predicted, implicated or influenced by them.

I don't sense you. I detect the photons emitted by you.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Nereid
Is there something special about '11 dimensions'? (or 'gravitational radiation'?) If you're OK with one, why not the other?

If you get infected with an antibiotic-resistance strain of [pick you favourite nasty], aren't you seeing physical consequences of non-physical realities, evolution in this case?

when did i ever say i was OK or not OK with either "11 dimensions" or "gravitational radiation?" I'm just saying "11 dimensions" is intangible. by what FZ+ said earlier, this makes it unscientific and indeterminate. while it may be difficult to objectively determine it, i think that one day the axioms of science and mathematics may determine it, but that's not what FZ+ means by "determine," for he says that a statement like, "aleph0 = aleph1," another intangible claim, is indeterminate though it is clearly "determinable" (in fact, false) by axioms.

i don't see how evolution is a non-physical reality. maybe I'm just not up on evolution theory. is it that there is some non-physical influence on dna? since to me, non-physical means intangible, this would provide more evidence that intangible claims are not unscientic but they are still indeterminate (in an absolute sense). but if axioms are accepted, they become determinate (not in an absolute sense).

cheers,
phoenix

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by FZ+
Precisely Neried. It only makes sense to use the idea of tangibility in this way. In the context of claims, there is no way we can observe them directly, rather we observe what is predicted, implicated or influenced by them.

I don't sense you. I detect the photons emitted by you.

it is the sense of sight that allows you to detect photons. you're using the sense to establish detection. therefore, you are sensing the photons which gives indirect evidence (although by no means conclusive) that she exists.

btw, i don't think she emits photons unless she's wearing a shirt with glow in the dark stars on it (or what not). she's probably reflecting photons that are emitted from other sources. if we're going to split hairs over "sense" vs "detect", we might as well split hairs over "emit." the goal of splitting hairs in either case escapes me.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by FZ+
But it cannot be objectively true, as you have declared there that this does not represent anything in reality. The meaningful conversation relies on a shared set of definitions (called language) - and speaks nothing of whether the language has a true basis.

i never said it is objectively true. but you can't prove it's objectively false, either, it seems. i think "aleph0 = aleph1" may represent, in some sense, something in reality. aleph0 is the mathematical measurement of the infinity consisting of discrete elements (such as the set of natural numbers) while aleph1 is the mathematical measurement of the infinity consisting of a continuum (such as the set of real numbers). i don't know: is anything in reality continuous? i know time is no longer considered continuous...

Can we just look back over our concept of indeterminancy please? By indeterminancy, this means that I can't prove objectively it to be false - and neither can you prove it to be true. Whether it is true or false is a matter of subjective feeling and opinion.
In fact, you have perfectly captured the failure of most discussions about religion. Faced with this indeterminancy, it is simply impossible to have a meaningful conversation.

so the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and whatever else in science that involves the indeterminate, can not be conversed about in a meaningful way?

btw, lots of people have meaningful conversations about religion. to say it is impossible to have such a discussion flies in the face of emprical data.

I don't see why you are consistently failing to get this point. Falsification has nothing to do with falsehood! Science has nothing to do with the unfalsifiable. What we get here is that mathematical axioms are non-scientific entities. What we do not get is a contest between science and mathematics, because neither can deal with the other. That is why there are no debunking maths posts, and that is why there should be no misguided debunking religion posts.

that's odd. then the name "falsification" is utterly misleading if it has nothing to do with falsehood. it should be called, "supercalifragilisticalization," if has nothing to do with something being true or false.

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? therefore, it should be standard scientific practice to conduct an experiment without having a desire for the outcome. when you title this thread "debunking religion," you have set a desired outcome. or at least, that's how it comes off. a better title would be "investigating religion."

I think you are failing to understand my point, as this is precisely what I meant. The idea of truth in this context is one of tautology - that in the formulation of the definition, we have forced the 1+1=0 statement to be true. In fact, it is probably more sensible to refer to this not as truth, but as consistency - like saying that 2 = 1+1 is consistent with 1+1=2. But what matters is the formulation of the rules itself. Does 1+1 = 0 represent something in nature. To that, if you follow a formalism based philosophy, you can only say that it is indeterminate, and that in exploring maths we dynamically change it to suit our needs.

The situation is wholly different in a platonic view of course. As far as the platonic view is concerned, this whole argument is moot because maths really is something that has tangible effects in the real world. 1+1=0 in some cases is a scientific discovery. Do you understand?

well, if I'm not understanding the statement, "insisting 1+1!= 2 is rather non-useful," i don't see how.

we should probably throw the word "objectively" in front of true or false if that's what we mean. I'm falling into the "trap" of often referring to "true" statements (in math or otherwise) as true, when, in fact, they're not objectively true (or objectively false). well, group theory is based on statements like 1+1=0; don't you think group theory is important in quantum mechanics, string theory, and other fields? to give a concrete example, that is the kind of arithmetic used on clocks. clocks occur in nature.

much of mathematics is not platonic.

Because it seems you don't.

Let's start off from basics.

False = Is contradicted by reality.
True = Is supported by reality so far.
Indeterminate = Unable to test for support/contradiction by reality. Neither false nor true.
Falsifiable = Can be tested for contradiction by reality.
Consistent = provides a logical framework with other claims.
Tangible = Interacts with what is observable. Can be detected or implicates behaviour that can be measured.

When we talk of true mathematics, we really mean consistent mathematics. A mathematical "proof" consistutes a search for that consistency. In this way, we can make the whole of mathematics one body. We cannot however, unless we adopt the platonic idea of mathematics being tangible in itself.

when can anything be contradicted by reality? this would require that we have a way to be objectively SURE that we have any awareness of reality. neo, in the movie "the matrix," had no awareness of reality whatsoever until he took the red pill (or was it the blue pill?). 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?

so far. so things can be true today and not tomorrow? that is not an acceptable definition of truth. i claim that ALL people with pictures of homer's boss as their icon have your beliefs. then, by your definition, this claim is true for it is true so far. to me, one instance hardly proves it's true. i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what true means. furthermore, the word "supported." what does this mean? the predictions rarely EXACTLY match the observations, correct? there is some tolerance of DIFFERNECE to "reality" that is ACCEPTABLE. but, there is still a difference. technically, by your definition, this wouldn't make the claim true. very, very, very, very, very plausible, perhaps.

well, by your definition, i would argue that "aleph0 = aleph1" is not indeterminate for nothing in reality thus far, as far as we know, is different from itself. i too think it's not indeterminate. however, the claim that there is a cardinal number x such that aleph0 < x < aleph1 has been shown to be indeterminate in the mathematical sense.

by your definition of tangible, God is tangible for it interacts with the whole universe. i agree with the "detected" part but the "implicates behavior" part i don't. the warppage of space-time changes the behavior of light rays but that doesn't mean the warpage is tangible, to me, at least.

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 don't think mathematics is one network of tautolgies. it may consist of several collections of consitencies... but i guess you could call that whole collection one body if you would also call twin brothers one body.

you seem to have contradicted yourself. you said this:
False = Is contradicted by reality.
Falsifiable = Can be tested for contradiction by reality.
but you also said this:
Falsification has nothing to do with falsehood!

well, i see two words starting with contradict and two instances of reality. it seems that they have SOMETHING to do with each other. i retract my "supercalifragilisticalization" comment for they do have something to do with each other.

String(or M) theory is a theory that is consistent as far as we know with past true theories, tangible in what it claims will happen, and is increasingly falsifiable. String (or M) theory is incomplete.

In terms of science, because of the element of falsifiablility, it is impossible to "prove" a theory in an absolute way.

since we have different view on what "tangible" means, we cannot agree on whether "11 dimensions" are tangible. i simply don't see how you could say that they're tangible until we have a new kind of telescope to "see" into them. but i guess that's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

you say it's "increasingly falsifiable," but isn't it really the case that string theory has a long way to go before it will be accepted by the experimentalists (people like feynman, who i know is dead)? I've heard that we won't have the technology to test some major predictions for a LONG time...

"it is impossible to "prove" a theory in an absolute way." that's mainly what I'm trying to argue. that's essentially what i think you think about religion. 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 think meaningful conversations are to be had in both fields even though no theory in either field will ever be proven "absolutely."

in his [nash's] autobiographical essay, written after he won the nobel, nash writes that “rational thought imposes a limit on a person’s concept of his relation to the cosmos.” he refers to remissions not as joyful returns to a healthy state but as “interludes, as it were, of enforced rationality.”

it is my deep suspician that removing such limitations is exactly what will lead us to be able to prove a theory absolutely.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[Nereid]

Yep, a can of worms

phoenixthoth: when did i ever say i was OK or not OK with either "11 dimensions" or "gravitational radiation?" I'm just saying "11 dimensions" is intangible. by what FZ+ said earlier, this makes it unscientific and indeterminate.

On Sept 30, in a post earlier in this thread: "there is not one shred of physical evidence that there are more than three dimensions."

Perhaps we should start a separate discussion - in Philiosphy? - where we can come to some agreement on the words we use and the way we use them? [?]

 

[Nereid]

perhaps some rephrasing?

FZ+, what seems a long time ago now: The only things that are debunkable are claims that enter the grounds of science - materialist claims, that can be tested by experiment and logic. Therefore, the religion related threads that post here can only be ones that refer to tangible claims of prophecy etc, and not intangible claims (such as the existence/goodness of god) or historic stories (eg. Noah's ark.)

Perhaps a better pair of criteria might be
-> 'ability to make testable predictions', and
-> 'success of idea/theory in tests'.

Also, since this is PF, some relevance to physics would be welcome.

 

[bettysfetish]

Betty here, I'm new.
I was raised Baptist, went Agnostic, and am currently creationalist. My ties with religion have bound with my scientific knowledge.
Would anyone here perhaps consider that mabey science and religion are seeking the same answers through different "equations", if you will. One may argue that 2+2+2=6 while the other insists that 3+3 is the "Only" correct way to reach the answer. I feel that religion has given me explanations for events from the viewpoint in time now, or as of the writting of the Bible, looking backwards with explanations for everything I now see.
Whereas science has taught me to look for the explanation at "The Beginning" and looking forward through time. Considering the quantum physics at work in "the beginning", I would think that events in the old testiment can be easily explained.
Would anyone consider "That as the universe was entering "false vacume" that the expansion rate exceeded "C?" If you subscribe to that ideology then you would agree that "time&space" were pacticly at a stand still. THIS, for instance, could explain the disagreement between science and religion on how much time elapsed between creation and man.
I hope someone is intriqued here. I'll go on if I'm not totally rejected with this concept. It's all theory anyway till we find a "Quark" or "talk with God."
L8R[8)

 

[Nereid]

Hi Betty, welcome.

Since this thread is entitled "Debunking Religion", I guess FZ+ (the originator) would be OK with me asking you to provide half a dozen, specific, concrete predictions in the realm of physics from your religion. I'm thinking of things like:
- the mass of the Higgs
- the rest mass of at least one of the neutrinos
- the > TeV photon spectrum of GRBs

Some other things that would be nice include:
- the nature of 'dark energy'
- the size/mass distribution of Oort cloud objects

You may, of course, have your own physics favourites.

 

[theEVIL1]

The return of douglas!~

Jeus Mary and Joseph. Enuff already! Is this a physics forum or a META physics forume? As the late CS once said "You cannot logically debate a believer. Their faith is not based on facts, but on a need to believe."

And there you have it... Douglas rides again.

Can I PLEASE get an "AMEN?"

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Nereid
On Sept 30, in a post earlier in this thread: "there is not one shred of physical evidence that there are more than three dimensions."

Perhaps we should start a separate discussion - in Philiosphy? - where we can come to some agreement on the words we use and the way we use them? [?]

just because there is no physical evidence doesn't make it false. I'm a mathematician, remember. to me, most things are "true" despite lack of physical evidence. i never said i wasn't "OK" with "11 dimensions." again, just trying to say that the claim is intangible. therefore, by FZ+'s argument, that makes it unscientific and inherently indeterminate.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[phoenixthoth]

"One may argue that 2+2+2=6 while the other insists that 3+3 is the "Only" correct way to reach the answer."

anyone who says "3+3=6" is a "correct" way to get 6 is mistaken. there is no "correct" way to get 6. certainly, one can't say it's the "only" "correct" way to get 6.

of course, there may be more "elegant" ways of getting 6 or more "brute force" ways of getting 6, but any way to get 6 is just as "correct" as any other way.

there are literally uncountably many ways to get 6. (for definitions of uncountable, aleph0, and aleph1, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UncountablyInfinite.html . as you can tell, I've been adopting the continuum hypothesis but not in a way central to my arguments.)

i like your choice of 6 because it's the first perfect number.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Nereid
Hi Betty, welcome.

Since this thread is entitled "Debunking Religion", I guess FZ+ (the originator) would be OK with me asking you to provide half a dozen, specific, concrete predictions in the realm of physics from your religion. I'm thinking of things like:
- the mass of the Higgs
- the rest mass of at least one of the neutrinos
- the > TeV photon spectrum of GRBs

Some other things that would be nice include:
- the nature of 'dark energy'
- the size/mass distribution of Oort cloud objects

You may, of course, have your own physics favourites.

i'm not bothering to actually check what FZ+ said, but i think he said to talk about RELIGIOUS tangible claims. i doubt any religion is making claims on the above topics.

what are your physics theories and equations regarding the existence or nonexistence of God, Nereid?

cheers,
phoenix

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by theEVIL1
Jeus Mary and Joseph. Enuff already! Is this a physics forum or a META physics forume? As the late CS once said "You cannot logically debate a believer. Their faith is not based on facts, but on a need to believe."

And there you have it... Douglas rides again.

Can I PLEASE get an "AMEN?"

sometimes for people faith is based on a need to believe. but NOT always. i doubt, for instance, that hawking has a special NEED to believe that there are 11 dimensions. personally, to me this seems like douglas is suggesting that faith is based on some form of psychological inadequacy. for some people, the evidence of God hits them in the face whether they want to believe or not. many of those still don't want to believe. but when confronted with more and more evidence, they see no choice to believe despite the fact that they don't want to believe. it, for them, it certainly not based on a need to believe.

one could just as well say to darwin, before he was done with his research, had a need to believe in evolution. but i doubt that is the case. to suggest it is patronizing.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[Nereid]

what are your physics theories and equations regarding the existence or nonexistence of God, Nereid?

Well, I asked Mum and Dad about that - Doris and Nereus to most people - and they said it's nothing to do with them. Mum went and asked Seshat, cause I bugged her to (she's a bit in awe of Thoth, tho' Dad gets on with him just fine), and she agreed, but suggested asking GoG. I'd forgotten about GoG (God of the Gaps), he's so hard to find these days. Me and my sisters call him InShGo - the Incredible Shrinking God - he really has got much smaller in the last couple of thousand years.


How about we start a separate thread, somewhere in Philosophy?

 

[bettysfetish]

PHEONIXTHOTH, Hi, BETTY HERE. Did you mean you want me to show how the Higg's field can be intertwined with religion?
First off, I am "not" devoutly religious. I am a firm beleiver in the inflationary scinerio as it explains how you get "something from nothing" so to speak. If "God" or whatever you may want to refer to the intity was responsible for "Creation" then exactly how he or it accomplished this feat is not explained to us. Besides, 2000 years ago, who would have been able to grasp the concepts required to understand how it occured.
What got me started here was the thought that perhaps "We all seek the answer to "Where Have I Come From?" and that it may not be necessary for science to debunk religion or viseversa if both could except the fact that each are right.
Beside, language in the bible is symbolic and open for interpretation in several ways. When it says the heavens and Earth were created in seven days; In real time, from the viewpoint of the observer, Jesus for example it did take seven days. However from a physics viewpoint the expanding universe was exceeding "C" in it's energy state until the energy converted to mass as the Higg's Field was shed. During this hyper-expansion, if exceeding "C", time and space would be slowed until the first four or five "DAYS" if you will (as you can,t have a "day" until your on a sphere that rotates), would, from the quantum physics viewpoint take about 14.5 to 15 billion years.
I think your way ahead of me in some of your terminologies as you totally lost me with a couple of questions.
You may have to deal with me in simpler terms until I can catch up with some of you.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Nereid

Well, I asked Mum and Dad about that - Doris and Nereus to most people - and they said it's nothing to do with them. Mum went and asked Seshat, cause I bugged her to (she's a bit in awe of Thoth, tho' Dad gets on with him just fine), and she agreed, but suggested asking GoG. I'd forgotten about GoG (God of the Gaps), he's so hard to find these days. Me and my sisters call him InShGo - the Incredible Shrinking God - he really has got much smaller in the last couple of thousand years.


How about we start a separate thread, somewhere in Philosophy?

when i asked, "what are your physics theories and equations regarding the existence or nonexistence of God, Nereid," it was mainly a rhetorical technique employed to examine your request earler, which was, "Since this thread is entitled "Debunking Religion", I guess FZ+ (the originator) would be OK with me asking you to provide half a dozen, specific, concrete predictions in the realm of physics from your religion. I'm thinking of things like:
- the mass of the Higgs
- the rest mass of at least one of the neutrinos
- the > TeV photon spectrum of GRBs

Some other things that would be nice include:
- the nature of 'dark energy'
- the size/mass distribution of Oort cloud objects"

what I'm mainly trying to get at is that using religion to answer physics questions is like using science to answer religion questions. they just have two totally different definitions of what constitutes evidence and what constitutes a "proof." this makes using one set of tools on the other difficult if not impossible. the applications of the two endeavours also appear mostly mutually exclusive with one notable exception, perhaps among others, when it comes to explaining the origins of the universe. on that note, i see great compatibility between scientific and certain religious theories on the origins of the universe. to me it seems like one could say that God started it all and science explains the physics, and what not, of the rest.

i don't know if people still think the origin was a singularity or not, but the question remains where did "it," whatever "it" looked like, come from? even if it were proven to come from "nowhere," that doesn't seem to determine the God issue. it's plausible that an omnipotent being is capable of creating something from nothing, but plausibility doesn't constitute scientific proof. the other possibility in my mind, however unlikely, is that "it" has always existed in some form or another; there was no "beginning," only a sequence of slow and subtle or rapid and obvious metamorphases (note, this or isn't xor). this would contradict the bible directly, but it wouldn't contradict, per se, God's eternality. in that sense, even if the universe used to contain nothing (not even time), that, at least to a mathematician, is not to be equated with nonexistence. the "empty set" comes to mind. (then again, within mathematical philosophy, people debate on whether the empty set exists. the odd thing to me is that people base the foundations of number theory on the empty set (it is a modern definition of the number zero) even if they're not sure if it exists.)

perhaps the universe started when the empty set became self aware. it put a box around itself, {0}, and then 1 became {0}. 1 eventually grew into real numbers (the line), which grew into the complex numbers (a plane) and dimensions expanded as awareness grew until there was a sudden leap into the aleph0 dimension. then, it kept going from there. just kidding!

my personal opinion about starting a new thread is that once the original poster helps perpetuate whatever the current topic is, then one is inclined to follow their lead.

cheers,
phoenix

 

[bettysfetish]

Hi, Phoenix.
Hey, You know, I guess your right. It may be like having to do a job with the wrong tools; Trying to answer science questions with religious phylocifies(i know i got that word wrong). But I do think that we can wnswer religious questions with science but these types just won't attribute anything to anything else but "The Hand Of God."
I commend them for their reverent dovotion nonetheless.
I'm not leaning toward religious stuff at this site. I'd like to keep things on a scientific level and if something comes along that may explain a certain event in the Bible then so be it.
I think events most likely did start with a "Singular Event." Probably a "Quantum Fluctuation." Are you of that belief as it seems?
I have to stop for now, but have much more as I've been taking notes; the old lady is back home and I promised I'd paint the bedroom.
L8R.

 

[phoenixthoth]

actually, I'm not sure about that belief (regarding the origins) at all. for one thing, i wasn't there (as far as i remember, but I've been known to have amnesia in the past). another thing is that scientific theories about it seem to hinge on the assumption/theory that current scientific theory is constant throughout time; ie, the "laws" of physics today (within the last, say, 500 years) are what they were, say, 12 billion years ago. for this seems a difficult assertion to prove to me. i guess what I'm wondering is that even if there is a "one-inch equation" that unifies the four forces, would that be the same equation as it might have been 12 billion years ago? is that provable? if they think the universe could suddenly cotacysmically bang for no apparent reason, then why not the equations suddenly "bang" and change for no apparent reason as well? I'm not making a hard and fast claim that the "laws" did change but I'm reserving to right to doubt that they remain constant. by "laws," I'm not just talking about how Newton's law of gravity "changed" into GR; by "laws," i mean whatever are the true descriptions of reality. my doubt of constancy is partly influenced by the eastern suspicion that what we think we see isn't necessarily what is really there (one might to go so far as to call what we see an illusion, but i have a slightly more refined version of that that unifies east/west doctrine that i may post in philosophy if i get around to it).

cheers,
phoenix

 

[bettysfetish]

Ahh, no one's been here since I left.
I think "Zero" does have/or "is" a value. Do you agree?
When using "theory" to make conclusions, one must "Exprapolate" ideas and results. See if this is analogious; You want to know how many phone books one bullet will penitrate. You fire at one book(all measurments and volicities recorded) and it passes thru. Thru two books as well. Then three. If the "exiting" volocity of each firing compared to one another a "decelleration rate" can be compiled, "BUT", your out of books. I think it would be simple to "Extrapolate" the results to detirmine how many more books we need, therefore we should be able to get results without completing the test "just because we can't forsee a roadblock to our experiment." Is "that" too far off the wall?
And many scientific experiments vier off course with exciting results.
I do agree with you that this certainly does not solve the "God" connection. If they don't hear it from him, it's not news.
If "Zero" does indeed have a value, then it seems the vacuum of "No Space&Time" was a "Functional System", albeit a negitive one, for lack of a better term. And being a System, and considering the fact that "All Systems "MUST" Evolve To A Lower State Of Energy" then this would imply that "-NOTHING-", in and of itself, is an unstable system; and an unstable system must evolve.
"WHAT" would you guess might happen here? Is this the point where we just wait for a year, or mabey a trillion years, or mabey a billion trillion years for something to happen? Who Knows?? Is this the "Uncertainty Principle?"
All jokes aside,
The "box" analogy you used might be concieved as the Higg's Field; as a form of containment. And the "Leap into Alepho Dimension" sounds to me like a description akin to the point where we "entered" false vacume, which would have preceeded the "Big Bang" by about 10 -45 seconds give or take a few .000000000000000ths..
someone else must read this too, any ideas?: that extrapolate on knowns results or excepted theories? There are several theories that begin and end with the results we see today.
False Vacume didn't just start on it's own, something lead to the imbalance of matter over anti-matter to "Get The Ball Rolling" so to speak. whos got an idea here? Does anyone understand more that I about The "K"(little L)Meson? I know it's decay is not "invairiant", meaning that it does not "Always" decay equally into particle/ anti-particle. It's one of only a couple/few that don't "always" follow C.P.T. predictions. This, it seems, MUST(i think) [?]be what determined whether we were to end up made of matter or anti-matter. Once we entered "false vacume"(if you agree with the theory)then the balance would have to be "set" at that point. After "leaving" false vacume, nothing could change the balance as the nuclei have come together and atoms are beginning to form.[b(]Man-- is that too deep, or do you think I'm off the deep end?
Well we'll talk later.

 

[bettysfetish]

Just saw your post. Sounds like we're still relating.
I certainly don't mean to make an attempt to change any of your ideas and theories any more than I would like it.
I need to go soon but i'd like to mention in ref to "the laws back then." I agree that Measurments(all considered) could be of different values back then. However the laws of nature must be the same universally. This does not mean that all observers may see the same results, only the same laws.
Gotta go, but throw some more thoughts out; later.