RAZD responds to me:
quote:
quote:
What is this {A} you keep talking about? I'd like to have a definition, please.
Before we can have proof of anything about {A}, either for or against, we need to have a solid definition of what this {A} is.
Not so. The validity of the logical construct does not depend on what {A} is, it rests on the logical structure alone.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
What do you think a "definition" is if not a description of the logical structure? Until you define "god," how on earth do you expect anybody to be able to come up with any sort of justification for its existence? And if it cannot be described in any way, what on earth makes you think there is a justification to believe in its existence?
You have to believe
IN something.
quote:
quote:
None of the above.
Until you can tell me what {A} is, why should I consider the possibility of its existence?
Looks like you missed the point entirely. The point is not about the existence of {A} but about the valid logical conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence or lack of evidence.
And thus, you completely missed the point entirely.
Until we can even determine that there is a lack of evidence, you need to tell us what evidence would look like. You need to define it. No analysis can ever be made until we have something we can apply the analysis
TO.
We need an object. All you've given us is a name for an object without any indication as to what the object is.
quote:
quote:
The problem is that the definition you provided doesn't apply to the vast majority of those who profess atheism.
The problem for you is that the definition I used is the standard definition from the dictionary, not one I made up on my own.
And this makes it more legitimate how, precisely?
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, in general, yes? That is, they record actual usage by people, not coming up with definitions that they think the words ought to mean (though they often have a "usage" section where they try to tell people how they ought to use the words).
Now, when you come across the average person using the word "atheist," how likely is it that said person is actually an atheist? Don't you think that that might have a teensy weensy effect on the meaning of the word when they use it? Do you seriously think that the average theist understands what it means to be an atheist? Do you really think that what they mean when they say "atheist" is the same thing atheists mean when they say it?
We already have this problem regarding evolution: The creationists claim "evolution is only a theory!" as if that were somehow a bad thing. That's because creationists don't mean the same thing by the word "theory" that scientists mean.
Now, who do you think is a better source to determine what "atheism" means? Theists or atheists?
quote:
I suggest you take the issue up with the dictionary companies. Until that happens however, I will continue to use a dictionary definition as the best information available on what people mean by the words they use.
Ah, so we should agree with creationists when they claim that evolution is just an educated guess because it's "only a theory" and "theory" means "an educated guess," according to the dictionary.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. Just because a bunch of people think they understand something doesn't mean they actually do.
quote:
How many people know what an atheist is without having run into the concept of god?
That's my point. Why do you defer to the theist's concept of atheism and not the atheist's?
quote:
Sorry your pink unicorn, though darling with the long curly haired mane, just doesn't make it as a {metaphor\example}, and ends up being a strawman(horse\unicorn).
What's the difference between your "god" you fail to define and the IPU?
quote:
quote:
No, math is the actual result. Our physical theories are a model of the actual result.
Key word model.
Precisely. Mathematics is reality. Physics is a model. The study of mathematics is the study of relationships between objects. Objects exist and by their existence, the relationships between them exist. Thus, mathematics exists.
quote:
It is fine to be a mathematician, but that doesn't make the world orbit the sun.
Yes, it does. The orbit of the sun is a relationship between the sun and the earth. Relationships are inherently mathematical in nature. Therefore, mathematics is real.
quote:
You may be able to calculate the orbit with a fair degree of precision, but you will never reach absolute accuracy.
Don't confuse a person's individual capability to carry out the calculation with a universal lack. That's the entire point behind chaos theory: Small details make a big difference. The fact that you are incapable of measuring the conditions to the appropriate precision does not mean that the appropriate precision does not exist. It simply means you don't know what it is. The object in question, however, has the appropriate precision by nature of its very existence.
quote:
Nor can you change the math and have a different reality.
What does that have to do with anything? Like I said, physics is
applied mathematics. The fact that the entire realm of mathematics is much larger than the physical space in which we happen to find ourselves does not mean that the physical space in which we happen to find ourselves isn't mathematical.
The fact that not all rectangles are squares does not change the fact that all squares are rectangles. All physics is math, but not all math is physics. Thus, the other old joke:
Biologists think they're biochemists.
Biochemsists think they're chemists.
Chemists think they're physical chemists.
Physical chemists think they're physicists.
Physicists think they're god.
And god thinks he's a mathematician.
quote:
{Mathematics\Models} can only cover the things that are included in the {mathmatics\models}, and fail to {predict\account for} anything not included. The result is a necessarily limited view.
That's only because your model isn't sufficient. That isn't a failure of the mathematics. It is a failure of the model.
Do you watch
NUMB3RS? It's a new series on CBS, Fridays. I know some of the mathematicians that they use as consultants for the show (we've had a very intersting conversation regarding balls and urns...if and when the episode airs, I'll let you know.) In the pilot, there was a serial killer that the FBI was trying to find. They had found the bodies in various places around town. The mathematician brother pointed out that, like a sprinkler, you couldn't predict the landing of any individual droplet from the source because there are too many variables involved, however you could work backwards. That is, given the droplet pattern afterward, you could determine where the sprinkler head is. Now, a human being is pretty much incapable of generating a truly random pattern (they tend to even space everything out while true randomness has clumps) so that makes the problem even easier. Crunch, crunch, crunch, and he developed a probability zone for where the killer must live.
Problem: They tested all the men who lived in the area and none of them matched the killer's DNA. The math failed.
Well no, it didn't. The assumption is that there was a single point of origin. As the FBI brother pointed out, "If you were to follow me around, you wouldn't find out where I lived because I'm hardly ever there...I'm either at the office or here at Dad's." By changing the the assumption that the killer was working out of two places, the same mathematical process yielded two hot spots.
Now yes, I know that this is a TV show, but the mathematics behind it is solid. When I heard that they were scoping out the details about someone falling off a bridge and the use of a windbreaker the person was wearing as a sail, I immediately rolled my eyes. "Oh, no...they're going to make it be that this guy went flying, right? You can't get that from a windbreaker. Yeah, they have those flying suits that have webbing, but those things are massive and include material not only between your arms and torso but also between your legs." When the episode finally aired, the FBI guy asks his mathematician brother, "So where would this body have actually fallen were it not for the windbreaker he was wearing." "Oh, about 12 inches from where he was...maybe 18." Thank god, they got it right. It's a tiny, tiny difference.
But again, the point is that the mathematics is not the problem. It's the model. Notice how when we replace models in physics, we replace them with another mathematical model? Newtonian physics is mathematical...so is Einsteinian.
quote:
quote:
but do you know who I got that from? A physicist.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Know why? Clue: my complaint here is that physics relies too much on the math to the extent that they give the mathematical model more validity than the observations ...
(*chuckle*)
The same lecture upon which the physicist pointed out that physics is applied mathematics, he started deriving an equation that included a differential. You know, dx/dt. He then said, "I'm about to do something that is going to make all the mathematicians in the room wince" and with that, he canceled the d's. You can't do that! Those d's aren't variables or constants! They're operators! That'd be like having (4*3)/(5*6) and canceling the multiplication symbols to come up with 43/56 as opposed to 12/30.
But he was right. He could have gone through the whole rigamorale of the mathematics behind it but the result would have been the same: You started with dx/dt and you would up with x/t.
quote:
quote:
What do you think theories of dark matter and dark energy are? They're new theory.
You give them a lot of credit that they just don't have.
Oh? And you've made a survey of the literature to know this, have you? That must be why they don't actually have candidates for what dark matter is. That whole "MACHO" (MAssive Compact Halo Object) vs. "WIMP" (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle) debate never happened, eh?
Here's some information regarding the investigation into dark matter and the methods being utilized to detect WIMPs.
Introduction: Three Arguments for Non-baryonic Dark Matter
quote:
They are first and formost fudge factors to make the universe behave according to the mathematical model.
Incorrect. They are factors in the new model. They don't "fudge" anything.
quote:
Your supercollider is not built, to say nothing about reaching results based on experiments based on conjectures about what may or may not happen.
(*sigh*)
When was the last time you read any journal article on this subject? Are you seriously claiming that because I have only presented a couple of experiments, that means that's all the work that has been done on the subject? I am not going to do your homework for you.
quote:
The space probes are just more evidence of exactly the same behavior that the dark stuffs are invoked to explain,
Incorrect. We are not measuring them simply to detect the existence of the waves. We are measuring them in order to test the predictions of the new theory. It is not enough that we find gravity waves. They must be specific types of gravity waves.
For a while, neutrinos were thought to be part of dark matter, but experiments showed that while they were massive, they weren't massive enough.
quote:
so again you are using the observation as the evidence for the explanation of the observation.
Science is an observational process. Why are you suddenly upset that science is actually using observation in order to develop a model that matches observation? Isn't that the point? You create your model to match what you see and then see what it predicts regarding behaviour you
don't see and then develop experiments to see if the prediction matches the new observation.
quote:
There was no sudden shift in behavior of the space probes upon reaching some mysterious distance (beyond this line there be demons?),
Actually, there was. That's why we noticed it. They suddenly slowed down. There is pressure from the galactic cosmic rays that is pushed against by the solar wind. This creates a termination shock inside the heliopause. Before you get there, you are under the influence of the solar effects but when you cross it, you get the shock of the galactic effects.
The probes are now experiencing a pressure that is slowing them down on the order of 6 mph/century that they weren't before.
quote:
This means either (A) something {mysterious} is acting on the probes or (B) the mathematical model is wrong. Until you have solid proof of (A) you cannot eliminate (B).
(*sigh*)
Those two are the same thing. If there is something acting upon the probes, then the model is wrong because the model is not taking that into account. If the model is wrong, that means there is something else acting upon the probes.
quote:
I certainly support the supercollider and expect to {see\welcome} new information as a result of experiments conducted in it. But also I do not presuppose any result as given.
Nor do I.
But the point behind the supercollider is that we have an idea of what it is we're going to find. We have new theory to test. This is not some random act.
quote:
quote:
Um, the cosmological constant is dark energy. They've found that it is constant, too:
That's one interpretation. There are others.
Such as? Could you be more specific? I've been the one doing all the work here. It would be nice if you could come up with some sort of reference that supported your claims.
quote:
Problem is that QM predicts either zero constant or very large constant, while the reality is that the value obtained to date is rather small.
No, not at all. Einstein came to the conclusion of a cosmological constant because of his work in physics and calculated it to be small. But, he didn't like it so he abandoned it. Now, it turns out that he was right and it is, indeed, small.
quote:
quote:
My god, if you're going to be upset over dark matter and dark energy being used to describe the rotation of the galaxies coming out of QM, why aren't you jumping up and down, screaming your head off over branes being used to describe large cosmological structure (flatness, homogeneity, lumpiness, and monopoles).
LOL. You just don't get it.
So enlighten me.
Be specific.
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2
