What is a Theory?

quote:

---

You seem to be equating "unproven" with "false".

---

You did not read the thread. Why would I repeat the same things over and over again, because someone joins the debate at the end of the thread without reading its first part?

quote:

---

You probably remember other attempts to argue against science based on weird use of language

---

Who argues against science? I come to exactly the same conclusions as Gdel, using another way.By the way, Gdel's theorem may also constitute some "weird use of language".But then again, it is not because you think it is weird, that there is something wrong with it. It just means that you are unfit to read that kind of theorems.

quote:

---

You just shot down any basis for religion as well here..

---

Religion does not attempt to phrase infinitely forward looking future statements that need to assimilate every possible fact, that may occur at any point in the future.Science is simply too ambitious as a method to work as advertised.Notwithstanding the spectacular success of science as a practical instrument, we simply have to realize that there are fundamental limitations built into its core. The Theory of Everything is unattainable.In contrast to science, religion is not a complex instrument meant to help predicting future facts. Religion uses its core initial axiom concerning the beginning of the universe, in order to phrase rules about what is right and wrong.To that extent, religion is seriously less ambitious than science, and it certainly does not need to build a Theory of Everything at all.

quote:

---

So give me one "infinitely falsifiable" theory?

---

"Water boils at 100C" is a theory falsifiable by an infinite number of facts. It is an infinitely forward-looking statement, which needs to assimilate an infinite number of future events in order to be true. That is the reason why it is presumably false.

quote:

---

If your "infinitely falsifiable" is a theory, then by your own definition the infinitely falsifiable idea is false

---

My theory covers theories. And indeed, it is not allowed to be "infinitely falsifiable" either. There is only one way to solve that problem: The number of possible theories is finite and not infinite.And indeed, that is why I claim that scientific theories can only be replaced by more complex scientific theories (which cover more facts) for so long, after which the process will stop. In other words, science cannot progress forever.Edited by erikp, : typo

quote:

---

Except that it is not false. At 1 atmosphere water boils at 100oC. Therefore at one point the idea is not false.

---

It is a question of definition. When is a theory "true" and when is it "false"?True: the theory is true, if it is not contradicted by any past, present, or future fact (observation).False: The theory is false, if at least one past, present, or future fact contradicts it.According to these definition the theory "Water boils at 100C" is false.Feel free to propose other definitions for "true" and "false", if you feel that these definitions are not appropriate. But then again, be careful about the surprising results such alternative definitions may yield.Even the definitions proposed above, produce counter-intuitive results in their extremities. But then again, strange/counter-intuitive results is exactly what we can expect in the extremities/borderline cases of any theory.For example: What if there are simply no observations (facts) possible for a theory? Then the theory as well as its anti-thesis are both true. Can a thesis and an anti-thesis be true at the same time? Only in the extremities of things. Outside the extremities, this is impossible.Edited by erikp, : typo

quote:

---

Can you prove that there exist an infinite number of facts that exist in the real world that would falsify this theory?

---

You can boil water today, tomorrow, the day after, and so on, ad infinitum. Any of these unbounded/infinite number of facts could conceivably contradict this theory.But then again, adding a 1 to a finite number, can never produce an infinite number, regardless whether it is a day, an hour, a minute, a second or any other time period. Therefore, there will never be an infinite future point in time.In this context, "infinite" should probably be understood as "unbounded".

quote:

---

Are you sure that there aren't an infinite number of numbers one could theorize that water boils at?

---

I guess there is no infinite number of temperatures.The problem is that "infinite" does not really exist outside the realm of mathematical formulas. Projected in to the physical world, we may have to replace the term "infinite" by "unbounded".What's more, there is already a large body of literature containing theories about "infinite", and I don't want to start making too many blanket statements about "infinite" that could be contradicted by people who happened to have written entire books about it.I concede the point that the term "infinite" is problematic and should be treated with the necessary care.Edited by erikp, : typo

quote:

---

I don't find Gdel's language weird at all. He knows the difference between "incomplete" and "false".

---

According to the definitions of "true" and "false", incomplete theories are indeed false.As soon as water has been observed to boil at any other temperature than 100 C, the theory that says "Water boils at 100 C", has been proven to false. It cannot be rescued just by saying that it is "incomplete". The definition simply says that it is false.

quote:

---

Tell me, can you think of any tools that science uses that are not used in maths and logic, and if so, can you think of ways in which those tools might make a difference to the ways that Gdel's theorems might apply to science as compared to maths and logic?

---

The best comparison in this matter, is the difference between math and physics. Both disciplines insist that you reduce theories to underlying theories (axiomatic reduction). The difference, however, is that physics freely accepts new unreduced/unreducable theories, on the condition that they look plausible, that is, not contradicted by existing observations. Mathematics, however, seldom accepts new axioms."Water boils at 100C" is a theory that physics would accept (axiomatically), if nobody is able to make water boil at other temperatures. From there on, other theories can be reduced to this accepted (axiomatic) theory and effectively build on it.Mathematics is way more fussy about these things. You would have to reduce the theory that "water boils at 100 C" somehow with accepted axioms such as "In a point outside a line, you can only draw one line parallel to it."The difference between physics and mathematics is the easy with which they accept new axioms (physics: postulates). Math, almost never. Physics, very easily, if there is no straightforward reason to reject it, and the new theory seems to be useful.Every scientific discipline that is readily able to test its theories against observations -- simply because they are massively available -- will operate more along the lines of physics than of mathematics, and massively accept new unreduced, free-standing theories, on the grounds that they seem to be correct based on past observations, and are useful somehow.But then again, these disciplines will not hesitate to reduce (axiomatically) new theories to existing ones, whenever possible. In the end, it is still preferable to cut down on the number of unreduced, free-standing theories, whenever possible, as it simplifies the discipline, and increases its consistency.So, the mathematical method of rigorously and systematically rejecting unreduced theories, is more of an ideal to strive to -- unfortunately unattainable -- for the other scientific disciplines.Edited by erikp, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is impossible for the Bible to be both true and complete.

---

Religion does not massively use axiomatic reduction nor does it use falsifiable statements, that can be contradicted by future facts. Therefore, it is not incomplete; nor will any future fact be able to point out incompleteness (falsehood).This also means, indeed, that religion cannot be used to predict the future.By sticking to past facts (proven, true) and unfalsifiable statements (unproven, true), according to the definition, religion can never be false. Religious statements are necessarily unproven (but scientific statements are too).

quote:

---

Nevertheless, Franzén adds,Gdel’s theorem tells us only that there is an incompleteness in the arithmetical component of the theory.

---

The entire edifice of physics rests on that arithmetic component ...I think that exploring the limits of religion, or the limits of any discipline for that matter, is one of the most important exercises in that discipline.

quote:

---

The reason why I am interested in the limitations of religion, is because religion is often used to attack science.

---

Religion cannot readily be used to predict a stream of future events. Therefore, it does not even have the same purpose as science.Religion phrases rules about right and wrong, and invites the believers to obey those rules. What are the limitations here? Well, since the rules are unfalsifiable, we can't readily validate them against a stream of future events. But then again, by staying clear of infinite falsifiability, religion stays clear of being necessarily false.

quote:

---

What are the practical implications of your views in terms of existing scientific theories? Which of them do you see in a different light as a result of your POV?

---

Science is just an instrument, replete with limitations, massively abused to justify questionable political decisions, and benefiting from an aura of infallibility. It is about time that people realize that science is absolutely not an infallible instrument, and that it cannot be used as a final argument in political decision making. Then, science simply becomes a dictatorial ideology. Scientific/unscientific does not equate with right and wrong.

quote:

---

Are you stating that a grand unified theory is not possible?

---

Does unifying the basic forces amount to phrasing a theory of everything? I don't know. Could be.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that other existing scientific theories are way off the mark, or that they may continually need minor modification and tweaking as from Newtonian mechanics to general relativity?

---

Science should, of course, continue its tweaking and keep refining the instruments in order to predict future events better. Nobody questions the usefulness of science.

quote:

---

But that's not a theory. That's simply a statement. Do you even know what a theory is?

---

We've been through that problem before, quoting the various alternative definitions for the term "theory" and establishing that "Water boils at 100C" is a theory. I am not going to go through all of that again, just because you did not read that part of the thread.

quote:

---

Do you even know what "unbounded" means?...Since it is clear you don't understand what the word means, I would agree that you shouldn't use it...

---

If that is your pov, quote the definition, and then demonstrate that I used the word inappropriately.You've already argued that Stephen Hawking is some kind of an idiot who doesn't understand anything about mathematics and that you are the one who should receive the Nobel prize in his stead.How unfortunate for you that nobody seems to agree with you. If you are so much smarter than Stephen Hawking, how comes nobody is aware of that?Everybody is obviously unjustly underestimating your amazing intelligence! Why would that be !?

quote:

---

You don't know what a "postulate" is, do you?

---

Wiki:

quote:

---

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

---

Now you are probably going to argue that Wikipedia is beneath you, since they seem argue incorrectly that Stephen Hawking and not you deserves the nomination for the next Nobel prize.Instead of asking this kind of stupid questions, why don't you try to be useful for once, just quote the definition, and demonstrate that I used the term inappropriately."You don't know what XYZ means, do you?" Is that why they kicked you out of the last Stephen Hawking conference, after making abnoxious remarks to the emeritus professor?

quote:

---

Huh? We don't have theories right now? What on earth are all those scientists doing?

---

You defined the "other theory" as the overall theory that has not been contradicted by existing facts. The "perfect theory" has not been contradicted by existing facts nor will it be contradicted by future facts.I argued that it will not be possible to continue phrasing the "other theory", because it would eventually reach a level of complexity which will prevent anybody from phrasing that theory correctly.Anyway, science has not phrased the "other theory", since there enough observations that contradict existing theory. Just one example, the problem of dark matter.What's more, science has not taken into account all possible observations that could contradict its theories. More contradictions could already have occurred, without anybody noticing.

quote:

---

I don't know if he is "smarter" than Strephen Hawking, I do know you didn't understand what he said.

---

I was quoting. Maybe the person saying it, did not understand what he said.

quote:

---

P.s.: All hail Rrhain! Champion of reason and logic!

---

You're a phantastic chearleader!

quote:

---

Would you mind arguing against what he actually said, instead of resortying back to this trather poor ad hominem?

---

Why don't you tell him to quote definitions by himself, if he believes someone did not apply the definition correctly, instead of waiting until someone else has to put in the effort?