Is every physical theory non physical

[jk22]

I noticed that famous theories have a non physical part in them :

Newtonian instantaneous forces
Quantum particles going faster than the speed of light in schroedinger mechanics.

This contradicts the maybe only physical theory that exists : general relativity.

I thought the following reasoning proves that there cannot be a creator : suppose it creates matter then the space-time would change globally instantaneously which is not physical. Hence there cannot be an act of creation. Except if spacetime is created at one point together with all the matter.

 

[phinds]

I thought the following reasoning proves that there cannot be a creator

There will never be any "proof" that there was not a creator. You cannot prove a negative. Science rejects the idea of a creator because it cannot be tested, is based on faith rather than evidence, and is unnecessary to explain the universe (and in my personal opinion is just ridiculous anyway).

 

[wabbit]

You cannot even prove that the universe exists. If you want proofs, say with maths : )

 

[jk22]

That would be contrary to evidence there exists some things

 

[ZapperZ]

That would be contrary to evidence there exists some things

But all you've done here is to show that certain things are falsifiable! You haven't proven anything! Read Popper's definition of what "science" should be.

If you really want to do this carefully and intellectually, you need to be aware what the word "proof" means, especially in logic. Otherwise, you are going to use the pedestrian definition of it, which will turn this into a vague, pointless discussion.

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I've seen some bad philosophy here before - which is why we banned it - but this takes the cake. The argument is "If I take a 300 year theory and an 80 year theory as examples, they are incomplete. Therefore there is no God." I'm sorry, but this is in all seriousness the worst argument I have ever heard. It is formally neither valid nor sound.

 

[jk22]

A proof is always falsifiable just axioms are not but they can be not admitted. Why because every step in a proof is based on faith in the axioms.

 

[ZapperZ]

A proof is always falsifiable just axioms are not but they can be not admitted. Why because every step in a proof is based on faith in the axioms.

But just because you can falsify something, it doesn't mean that what you had just falsified was a proof! That's my point, that what you offered was not a proof! There is no proof in science the same way there are proofs in mathematics! Or are you disputing that?

As I expected, this is going around and around in circles and nowhere fast. There's very little science content here, and it is mainly philosophy. So I don't expect this thread to survive for very long. Enjoy it while you can.

Zz.

 

[AlephNumbers]

I thought the following reasoning proves that there cannot be a creator

No, it proves that our perceived universe is just a simulation being run in a big quantum computer! Muahahahaha!

 

[jtbell]

Sorry, we don't argue about religion of philosophy here. This thread is closed.