Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   can science accept assertive law?
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 1 of 78 (444763)
12-30-2007 7:20 PM


not sure how to debate existence, which the word is like all words, they describe something.
existing isn't an idea..its an asserted fact that science has not produced an answer to.
i cant debate it in science that's based on something tentative.
I'm deeply concerned that science is given too much freedom with tentative theories in regard to what i call : the LAW of existence.
is this then debatable? or forever to be overlooked by science?
(its viable in the ID debate since existence is what religion was spawned from by the question that only man can ask: where did we come from, and how can we exist? which ironically was also the basis of scientific enquiry) -IMO

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNWR, posted 12-30-2007 7:28 PM tesla has not replied
 Message 4 by AdminNWR, posted 12-30-2007 7:49 PM tesla has replied
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 12-30-2007 9:04 PM tesla has replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 78 (444767)
12-30-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
12-30-2007 7:20 PM


Moving to PNT
The topic is not appropriate for the Coffee House.

To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 7:20 PM tesla has not replied

      
    AdminNWR
    Inactive Member


    Message 3 of 78 (444769)
    12-30-2007 7:29 PM


    Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

      
    AdminNWR
    Inactive Member


    Message 4 of 78 (444773)
    12-30-2007 7:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
    12-30-2007 7:20 PM


    Where to discuss this?
    I think you are trying to debate the question that is often stated as "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"
    I'm not sure what to do with this topic. It does not fit well in any of our forums. Your previous attempt to discuss this failed, because you wanted it to be a Great Debate, but it takes the agreement of two people before we can have a GD.
    Most scientists will tell you that this is not a scientific question. If your interest is in discussing why scientists do not consider this to be a scientific question, I guess we could move the topic to Is It Science?. If you are wanting to discuss the question itself, then it doesn't really fit anywhere, but we could possibly squeeze it into one of the religious forums. If you want to discuss it from the perspective of the biblical creation accounts, then Bible Study might be best. Otherwise, I suppose we could try Theological Creationism and ID, though it doesn't fit well with the announced scope of that forum.
    Where would you like to see it go?
    (other admins also invited to add their two cents)

    To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 7:20 PM tesla has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 7:54 PM AdminNWR has seen this message but not replied

      
    tesla
    Member (Idle past 1592 days)
    Posts: 1199
    Joined: 12-22-2007


    Message 5 of 78 (444775)
    12-30-2007 7:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNWR
    12-30-2007 7:49 PM


    Re: Where to discuss this?
    personally, is it science seems best fitted for me.
    i want to know if an asserted fact of logic has any place in science at all.

    keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
    ~parmenides

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by AdminNWR, posted 12-30-2007 7:49 PM AdminNWR has seen this message but not replied

      
    AdminNWR
    Inactive Member


    Message 6 of 78 (444777)
    12-30-2007 8:04 PM


    Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 7 of 78 (444785)
    12-30-2007 9:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by tesla
    12-30-2007 7:20 PM


    I'm deeply concerned that science is given too much freedom with tentative theories in regard to what i call : the LAW of existence.
    Can you explain this concern. I am not seeing a problem.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 7:20 PM tesla has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 9:55 PM nwr has replied

      
    tesla
    Member (Idle past 1592 days)
    Posts: 1199
    Joined: 12-22-2007


    Message 8 of 78 (444793)
    12-30-2007 9:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
    12-30-2007 9:04 PM


    subatomic particles
    is there not a theory that sub-atomic particles are chaotic?
    if yes, would this theory be found impossible by an acceptance of existence as being an established intelligent entity?
    in this way: i would assert that chaos is only apparent by intelligent design, and that no order can exist (accept for a microsecond) if based on chaos.
    if you refute these assertions, then let me just say that: if existence itself is proof of God under the law: energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the lack of observance is an ignorance of science. and that by acknowledging this would also create a new law concerning religion and science:
    that no law of science can contradict God, therefore, being science established truths, that science is in harmony of God and God in harmony of science, because one begets the other.
    therefore also: neither can any religion or law in religion contradict science which would be a contradiction of God, from whom science was established by.
    Edited by tesla, : removed "not"

    keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
    ~parmenides

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by nwr, posted 12-30-2007 9:04 PM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by nwr, posted 12-30-2007 10:38 PM tesla has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 9 of 78 (444799)
    12-30-2007 10:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by tesla
    12-30-2007 9:55 PM


    Re: subatomic particles
    I'll first note that I am not a quantum physicist, so I may have some of this wrong.
    is there not a theory that sub-atomic particles are chaotic?
    As far as I know, there is no such theory.
    It is observed that behavior of such particles appears to have a random component. Note that this is observation, not theory. Note also, that "random" and "chaotic" mean quite different things.
    Most physicists will agree that they cannot rule out the possibility of hidden variables, such that the behaviour of sub-atomic particles could be completely determined by those hidden variables. However, observation shows that if there are such hidden variables, they could not be local variables.
    if yes, would this theory be found impossible by an acceptance of existence as being an established intelligent entity?
    I don't see the relation. You seem to have an entire thread on that topic, namely if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed?.
    in this way: i would assert that chaos is only apparent by intelligent design, and that no order can exist (accept for a microsecond) if based on chaos.
    I think you are confused by "chaos". Technically, behavior can be completely describable by equations, yet still be chaotic. So being chaotic does not rule out the possibility of order, though there might be an appearance of disorder.
    if you refute these assertions, then let me just say that: if existence itself is proof of God under the law: energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the lack of observance is an ignorance of science. and that by acknowledging this would also create a new law concerning religion and science:
    Sorry, but that seems incoherent.
    that no law of science can contradict God, therefore, being science established truths, that science is in harmony of God and God in harmony of science, because one begets the other.
    therefore also: neither can any religion or law in religion contradict science which would be a contradiction of God, from whom science was established by.
    I'm wondering if you are confused about what are scientific laws. They are quite different from laws in our legal system. They are part of an attempt to describe the world.
    Some scientific laws are false, and known to be false - Boyle's law would be a good example here. It is true only for ideal gases, but false for any real gases. It is, however, a very good and useful approximation when used with real gases.
    Edited by nwr, : spelling, spacing.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 9:55 PM tesla has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 10:57 PM nwr has replied

      
    tesla
    Member (Idle past 1592 days)
    Posts: 1199
    Joined: 12-22-2007


    Message 10 of 78 (444803)
    12-30-2007 10:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by nwr
    12-30-2007 10:38 PM


    Re: subatomic particles
    there is a chaos theory for sub atomic particles. i just don't know if it has been written off.
    ill show you my definition of chaos:
    chaos: total disorder: chaotic (Websters)
    chaos means no order at all.
    but that's getting off topic, i just wanted to answer my motives.
    to answer the incoherent text: if existence is not defined, it is an ignorance of science. and science suffers an unnecessary ignorance.
    but the reason for the topic, with existence as an example; how can an asserted statement be explored by science if science will only explore the tentative?
    is it even possible for scientific inquiry?

    keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
    ~parmenides

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by nwr, posted 12-30-2007 10:38 PM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 12-30-2007 11:11 PM tesla has replied
     Message 15 by nwr, posted 12-31-2007 12:16 AM tesla has replied

      
    AdminNosy
    Administrator
    Posts: 4754
    From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Joined: 11-11-2003


    Message 11 of 78 (444805)
    12-30-2007 11:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by tesla
    12-30-2007 10:57 PM


    Early warning for Tesla
    If you continue to clutter up all the threads with the same rather incoherent nonsense you will have to start getting time outs.
    You don't know the meaning of many of the words you use. (Hint, chaotic in reference to physical systems has a very specific meaning different from the dictionary's more colloquial meaning e.g.)
    In any case, contain yourself or be contained.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 10:57 PM tesla has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 11:26 PM AdminNosy has replied

      
    tesla
    Member (Idle past 1592 days)
    Posts: 1199
    Joined: 12-22-2007


    Message 12 of 78 (444808)
    12-30-2007 11:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by AdminNosy
    12-30-2007 11:11 PM


    Re: Early warning for Tesla
    so...i should stop posting on these threads?

    keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
    ~parmenides

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 12-30-2007 11:11 PM AdminNosy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by AdminNosy, posted 12-30-2007 11:34 PM tesla has replied

      
    AdminNosy
    Administrator
    Posts: 4754
    From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Joined: 11-11-2003


    Message 13 of 78 (444811)
    12-30-2007 11:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by tesla
    12-30-2007 11:26 PM


    Sorry on early warning
    You should confine it to this thread. It is dumb that I picked this one to warn you in.
    Just keep the existence chatter in this one only.
    Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 11:26 PM tesla has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 11:49 PM AdminNosy has not replied

      
    tesla
    Member (Idle past 1592 days)
    Posts: 1199
    Joined: 12-22-2007


    Message 14 of 78 (444815)
    12-30-2007 11:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by AdminNosy
    12-30-2007 11:34 PM


    Re: Sorry on early warning
    kk warning noted. but i must also note i cannot post in any ID or science forums concerning ID without acknowledging what I cannot dispute, is the reason for the debate at all.
    ill refrain from posting any of my ideas concerning the issue.
    the purpose of this thread is to see if science can accept assertive law for scientific inquery.
    Edited by tesla, : changed content of the post.

    keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
    ~parmenides

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by AdminNosy, posted 12-30-2007 11:34 PM AdminNosy has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by ringo, posted 12-31-2007 12:23 AM tesla has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 15 of 78 (444819)
    12-31-2007 12:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 10 by tesla
    12-30-2007 10:57 PM


    Re: subatomic particles
    chaos: total disorder: chaotic (Websters)
    Well, okay. But this is a science discussion, so we should be using the scientific meaning of chaos, not the common dictionary meaning.
    From the Wikipedia entry on chaos
    quote:
    In lay terms, chaotic systems are systems that look random but aren't. They are actually deterministic systems (predictable if you have enough information) governed by physical laws, that are very difficult to predict accurately (a commonly used example is weather forecasting).
    to answer the incoherent text: if existence is not defined, it is an ignorance of science. and science suffers an unnecessary ignorance.
    Science only defines what it studies. Philosophers and theologians might study (or claim to study) existence. Science studies what it can observe in the world, and defines only what is needed for its accounts of what it studies.
    but the reason for the topic, with existence as an example; how can an asserted statement be explored by science if science will only explore the tentative?
    Science studies what it can observe. Asserted statements are not part of what science studies - except, perhaps, psychology might use asserted statements as providing information on the psychology of the asserter.
    I'm not sure where you got the idea that science will only explore the tentative. Scientific theories may be tentative, but there are also scientific facts.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 10:57 PM tesla has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 12:23 AM nwr has seen this message but 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