Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design on a Dime
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 113 (416920)
08-18-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Percy
08-18-2007 1:57 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
NJ might be thinking of the inferences we make about physical laws, namely that they are consistent and comprehensible. An example of such an inference is that the speed of light is the same everywhere, even though we only have data from a tiny proportion of the actual universe.
Sure, but even those things, we believe them because there's evidence for them. We discover physical laws (to the extent that laws exist, etc.) because of the evidence of their existence.
On the other hand, in mathematics, axioms are things that you assume are true. You just invent axioms, they're not derived from anything - you pick the axioms you want to support the derivations you want to derive.
Rrhain had a post on this on another thread, relating to Euclid's fifth postulate. If you accept it as axiomatic the way Euclid formed it, then you're operating in Euclidian geometry. If you accept instead an axiom that says "given a line L and a point p outside L, there exists no line parallel to L passing through p," you're operating in elliptic geometry.
You can pick and choose whatever axioms you want, because you don't have to prove them. They're
quote:
a sentence or proposition that is not proved or demonstrated and is considered as self-evident or as an initial necessary consensus for a theory building or acceptation. Therefore, it is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other (theory dependent) truths.
Axiom - Wikipedia
That's what I mean when I say there's no axioms in science. We don't simply accept things without proof or demonstration in science. There aren't "sacred cows" that we never stop to inspect or that are immune from a requirement of justification.
We don't take things for granted in the sciences. Things are demonstrated with evidence - not simply accepted as true because it's convenient to believe them. Or am I wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 08-18-2007 1:57 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 08-18-2007 3:43 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 107 of 113 (416925)
08-18-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
08-18-2007 2:43 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
Crash writes:
That's what I mean when I say there's no axioms in science.
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure NJ does. I think that when he asks why science relies on axioms, he's actually thinking of science's tendency to assign universality to that which we've only established locally or incompletely.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2007 2:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2007 4:19 PM Percy has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 108 of 113 (416931)
08-18-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
08-18-2007 3:43 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure NJ does. I think that when he asks why science relies on axioms, he's actually thinking of science's tendency to assign universality to that which we've only established locally or incompletely.
Maybe, but if you follow my messages back to what I was replying to, it's pretty obvious that NJ was using "axiom" to mean "assertions I can make without having to support them." When asked to support an assertion, he replied that it was an "axiom of science." (I didn't see where he asked why science relies on axioms, but maybe I wasn't paying very close attention.)
But there are no axioms in science. That's why it's a pretty ridiculous dodge.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 08-18-2007 3:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 08-18-2007 5:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 109 of 113 (416934)
08-18-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
08-18-2007 4:19 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
Well, remember, this is NJ. He doesn't appear to consider familiarity with a topic a prerequisite for discussing it, so consequently he has a very high error rate, and the errors are often of a fundamental nature. Perhaps he posts just because he disagrees. His messages are often just an opportunity to respond with correct information.
So I don't think you can use NJ as a measure of whether your point has been clearly communicated. I'm not saying that you should cease pressing him on this point, just that you should take into account who you're debating with.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2007 4:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2007 1:53 AM Percy has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 113 (417001)
08-19-2007 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by ringo
08-18-2007 3:28 AM


Answering the critics
Infinity + 1 = Infinity.
You don't understand. There is no infinity plus one, because infinity encompasses all integers, all mass, all space, all time.
quote:
If Ringo were infinite, she would not move on the same timeline as the rest of us. Past, present and future are meaningless because she would exist in all dimensions simultaneously.
You're mangling together infinity, time and "dimensions" with no trace of logic that I can see.
Then let me ask you if you think infinite things travel on a time line like we do. Would something infinite be confined to amble through incrementally as we finite beings do? If yes, explain your rationale.
quote:
For us in real time, the past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present. Every moment that is now past was once future, but was added to the past by the passing of time.
That seems circular to me.
That's probably because we think in linear terms. And that is probably due to our current disposition as we are bound by time. I think the point of God is that He is actually supposed to be circular, both the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. There is no point of beginning and no point of ending.
Man, unfortunately, is limited by the material world. God, at least theoretically, is the spiritual and the infinite. Though He creates the beginning and the end, He is not subject to it. Although there is no dimension of space, time, or matter devoid of Him, He is not composed of it or contained by it.
Therefore, the space-time continuum does not encapsulate or incorporate Him within the universe. For this reason, it is theologically and philosophically understood why God is given the greatest appellation.
If our timeline is infinite, the past and future are both infinite. We're just somewhere on the line. Adding to the past and subtracting from the future would have no effect on the size of the past or the future.
But I don't believe that our timeline is infinite. I'm saying that it cannot be. I'm saying infinite things are not bound by time. We are, which is a sure way of knowing that we can't be infinite, nor can anything tangible be so. We are ephemeral, and He is the eternal.
I already said that the atoms and/or subatomic particles making up the molecules and cells could be eternal.
And Mickey Mouse could live on Saturn for all we know, but without any good reason in believing so, we'll just have to draw conclusions based on our current understanding of things.
quote:
Is it possible that you were once a street sign, at least on a molecular level?
Of course.
Well, certainly the energy within your body is nothing more than reconstituted energy that you got by breaking down carbohydrates and proteins. The very proteins that came from a cow or chicken. But I think this is somehow different than molecules being that it is not the actual same molecule.
To say that a molecule in your body is the same as a molecule found in Plato is like saying that your great-great-great grandfathers uncle is actually you.
I don't see where you've demonstrated that "all matter will die".
What? Ringo, come on. Everything born eventually dies. That's about as axiomatic as it gets. Do you really need a demonstration for that?
If it's so "transparently obvious", why not give a simple reference instead of expecting me to find it in a giant pdf? The least you could do is give a quote. Are you deliberately being evasive?
Excuse me??? You asked for a link. I provided one for you. Your laziness doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
Or can I take a stab in the dark here and assume that no matter what I post, you will argue for the sake of arguing? I've already known for a long time now that you are a polemicist, but I find it incredible, and slightly disturbing, that you'd actually argue the point that living things die.
quote:
:Finite things need a cause, whereas infinite things do not. Nothing is self perpetuated or uncaused. If it is caused by something else, then it is not eternal-- which a rock surely was. Science has undeniably proven this fact, so I'm not really sure what your objection is.
Kindly direct us to where your reference gives that proof.
I already did. But for the record, are you in disagreement that a singularity is known to the scientific world?
Scientifically, the universe "began" with the Big Bang but philosophically, I see no reason why we can't extend "whatever the singularity was made of" back to infinity. Matter as we know it may have "begun" at the Big Bang, but what about whatever matter is "made of"? If we can talk about an "uncaused cause", why not "unmatter matter"?
There is only one other scenario that I can surmise that can momentarily suspend the need of any infinites. And that is the multiverse theory. We say, yes, all matter began at the singularity, but does that really mean the beginning, or the beginning as we know it?
Is it possible that the beginning of this universe, and all the physical laws that come with it, merely the death throes of another universe with different physical laws?
That's a lot of speculation, but I suppose it is possible-- definintely more so than this universe being infinite.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ringo, posted 08-18-2007 3:28 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 08-19-2007 1:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 111 of 113 (417022)
08-19-2007 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2007 12:30 AM


Re: Answering the critics
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Would something infinite be confined to amble through incrementally as we finite beings do?
What "infinite things"? The only infinite "thing" I've been talking about is the timeline.
We say, yes, all matter began at the singularity, but does that really mean the beginning, or the beginning as we know it?
That's what I've been saying.
I find it incredible, and slightly disturbing, that you'd actually argue the point that living things die.
I argued that matter doesn't die.
Is it possible that the beginning of this universe, and all the physical laws that come with it, merely the death throes of another universe with different physical laws?
That's a lot of speculation, but I suppose it is possible-- definintely more so than this universe being infinite.
I didn't say anything about the universe being infinite. I said eternal - i.e. infinite timeline.
But I don't believe that our timeline is infinite.
Who cares what you believe? I'm only trying to make the point that an everlasting universe is (about) as plausible as an uncaused cause.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2007 12:30 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 113 (417025)
08-19-2007 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
08-18-2007 5:09 PM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
Well, remember, this is NJ.
Ah, right... Can't forget that.
You did, however, forget to mention that I'm so stoopid

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 08-18-2007 5:09 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2007 1:57 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 113 of 113 (417026)
08-19-2007 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2007 1:53 AM


Re: I've Heard It Before, But It Still Makes Me Laugh
Ignorance =/= stupidity.
What I can't figure out is why, after being so regularly embarrassed as you are, you don't ever bother to do the homework.
Do you get it? That we're not saying you're wrong because we disagree with you; we're saying you're wrong because the things you say are facts simply aren't?
Isn't it easier to be right the first time than to engage in the ridiculous levels of obfuscation, redaction, and backpedalling you employ to cover up your huge gaffes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2007 1:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024