The Greater Miracle

I'd like to try and clear up what you consider subjective.There are competing theories within the study of QM. Brian Greene is a string theorist. As I understand it there is no empirical evidence for ST. Greene even wrote "The Elegant Universe" espousing that particular theory.Greene cannot prove that his view is correct and there are many, and likely the majority of scientists who disagree with him. Does he hold his view on ST subjectively?Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Like most words, subjective has more than one definition. When you ask about Greene's (or anyone's) opinion about string theory (or anything) and whether or not it's subjective, that's not the same sense in which I'm using the word.What I'm calling subjectivity is merely the absence of objectivity, and objectivity is measured by the degree to which an observation can be shared, meaning that it can be replicated by others. Another way of saying it might be to define objectivity as a measure of our confidence in an observation, which in turn is dependent upon the degree of replication, the degree to which it is shared.In other words, if only you can see it, our degree of confidence in the observation is low and our assessment of the probability that what you see is something true about the real world is also low, so this measures low on the objectivity scale. If you want to call that subjective, fine.But if you see it, I see it, and a lot of other people see it, then our degree of confidence is much higher. The possibility that what we all see is something true of the real world is pretty good, and we've achieved some measure of objectivity. That's close. More accurately, while there's plenty of empirical evidence for string theory, there's none that distiguishes it from the standard model, which is a much simpler theory. String theory is not an accepted scientific theory because it hasn't yet told us anything true about the real world that we don't already know through the standard model.But the formulation of string theory has a very strong objective component because much of it represents a shared effort by many scientists who all view the math and its implications pretty much the same way. That's extremely important, because as the evidence starts rolling in from the Large Hadron Collider and the recently launched space telescopes and from other sources of observations, this shared perspective means scientists will be able to agree on whether it confirms or denies string theory.This shared perspective also means that if you read a book about string theory by Brian Greene it will tell you much the same thing as one by George Musser or Barton Swiebach. This contrasts strongly with books about creationism or ID. For example, Dembski's formulation of information theory is not the same as Gitt's is not the same as Spetner's, but if you read science books about information theory they'll all tell you pretty much the same thing. A shared perspective is our best assurance that what someone is telling us is something actually true about reality.For a genre where practically every book makes everything up out of whole cloth, see mysticism. There is almost no objectivity in mysticism.--Percy

Actually this is not true. In fact Greene writes in "The Elegant Universe", which I'll quote from the actual page when I get home Monday I don't have the book with me, that String Theory would have predicted gravity even if Newton or Einstein hadn't given us there theories.On it's own, String predicts gravity, gravity is empiracally confirmed, so String does in fact have some empical qualities to it.Now, whether or not Greene is right, I don't know. String theory is just limited by technology, however it does have confirmed predictions, it just has no experimental data. This is not subjective anymore than Black Hole equations are subjective.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I have never believed that memeology is actual science, but I'm inclined to think that at the time that Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene", that he actually did believe in memes in something more than in a philosophical sense. The fact that he hasn't really talked about memes very much since then makes me believe that he no longer holds that view. I think that most of the confusion has been related to our understanding of the meaning of subjectivity.I understand a subjective belief is one that is a belief that can't or hasn't been proven, and is held because of a bias. For example I believe that miracles happen because of my Christian faith. Some one who is an atheist would presumably not believe in miracles because of their atheism. Both beliefs would be subjective.Let me try with another example of science that might be considered subjective. Eistein at some point in time presumbly had an intuition of the connectedness of motion and time. His bias might be considered his suspicion of Newton's views on absolute time and space. At that point it would have been a subjective insight into reality. Obviously he then went on and proved it objectively. I have no problem with that at all.Conversationally I'd add this though. I'm not a deist, but if I was and believed that God created the world and designed it in such a way that He was able to just go away and let it run on it its own, could I then still say that God was required for everything?If however Rrhain is talking about as a god that intervenes specifically in every bit of quantum activity in the universe then it becomes an entirely different question. I believe that God exists. That is my subjective view. In this life it will never be proven objectively. Still it is either true or it is untrue. Objectively we can't know.

Your post makes sense as does Percy's when he points out that the math behind the theory is objective.

No. The point was the prediction of gravity independently of general relativity and newtons laws, from string theory, give it objectivity.That is seperate from the math that you're talking about that is involved with string theory (ie.extra dimentions, membranes, etc.)Gravity is a fact. String predicts it. Close enough to objectivity?- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I didn't disagree with you. I simply said that your post, "as does" Percy's makes sense. I wasn't suggesting that they weren't separate ideas. It is just that I agreed with both statements.

Personally I've never heard it described like this. ALL beliefs are subjective, any of them. Believing that there is something under my bed is subjective. Whether there is or not depends on the actual facts, also, my "belief" that there is something under there could have a pre-existing condition, like I left my shoes under there earlier but just kinda forgot. But this is a far cry from "bias". Bias, in my opinion doesn't make sense. Since all beliefs are subjective it goes without saying that atheist subjectively believe that miracles don't exist, BUT, the issue is, which of the 2 subjective beliefs is grounded in objective evidence.Now, the onus is on the one claiming that miracles in fact do exist due to his subjective interpretation of "whatever he used" - (you choose the Christian religion to be your determining factor).Let's try these 2 examples:SCENE 1ONI: I believe there is something under my bed.GDR: I don't believe you.Oni walks over to the side of the bed, reaches down and produces a pair of shoes.ONI: See, I told you there was something under there.GDR: Oh, ok, I see, you were right.SCENE 2:GDR: I believe in miracles.ONI: I don't believe in miracles. Can you show me something as evidence of a miracle?GDR: No. I just believe they exist because I follow a specific religion that claims they do.ONI: Have you ever been witness to one?GDR: No.ONI: Sorry, not convincing enough for me, but I'd be willing to change my mind if you can produce better evidence.GDR: Cool.END SCENE-----------------------So, Initialy both beliefs seem subjective, yet one can produce hard evidence, while the other is left wanting. By these measures one can guage what is ONLY subjective and what is subjectively derived from objective reality.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Sorry I just re-read the post again and put it in proper context.I thought you meant that it was only the math behind string that is being used as evidence. That's why I restated the point about the gravity prediction.- Oni

It's not that you're wrong, it's just that this isn't relevant. We're talking about establishing which observations are actually true about the real world. The underlying assumption is that human beings are a teeming mass of subjective beliefs and biases, and so science employs a method that despite this allows us to establish things objectively. The scientific approach assumes that things established as true for everyone (despite their wide variety of beliefs and biases) are true of reality.I can't rephrase my definition to take into account what you're saying about subjectivity because, again, it isn't relevant. And I can't rework my definition because it isn't open to negotiation. Whether you or I like or not, that's how science works, and it's the only approach we know that can reliably establish things that are true about reality. Teasing out the facts of reality is a tricky business, and it's why there's a long apprenticeship at universities before one can join the ranks of scientists.This is why I kept telling you that there is no similarity between your type of evidence and scientific evidence, which is what you originally claimed. Science applies a process that establishes objectivity so that the things we think we know are things that are actually true of reality. You share the goal of seeking objectivity, but you embrace subjectivity as a tool, and this dooms your method.--Percy

You'd be more correct in this if you'd have said it the other way round, but even then not wholly. Why is it not valid to not believe in miracles because there is no evidence of such things?A car zipping down the road a 40 mph hits a little girl who bounces off the front bumper and skids into the curb. She then gets up with little more then scrapes and bruises to hop, skip and jump another day. This is not a miracle. It is an unexpected result. One that can easily be attributed to our ignorance of all the interactions involved. If, however, the car tunnels through the car girl at the quantum level leaving her standing unscathed you now have something you can objectively investigate as a miracle. There is an even larger component of ignorance, but the scale of the unlikeliness is off the charts.But while the former is not unheard of, the latter never happens. The likelihood of our ignorance always exceeds the unlikelihood of the event. To adjudge an event a miracle it is necessary to first determine how daft we're not.

---

It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men. Spock, Mirror Mirror

Of course if you only accept objective or empirical evidence as in something that can replicated we both know I have nothing. A miracle by definition is something that can't be replicated. However, we have an ancient document that says that they occurred in the Bible. (There is also Josephus for that matter.) I agree that it isn't proof and I would agree that there are many other ancient documents that I would reject. The fact still remains that it is evidence which can be accepted or rejected. I have various reasons that causes the me to accept the NT miracles as factual, but in the end it boils down to faith. I have faith that the stories reflect reality and an atheist has faith that the stories are false. As I said, all of our views are subjective. The atheistic view is grounded in objective evidence as miracles can't be replicated. The christian view is not. However, there is no one claiming, (other than charlatans like Benny Hinn), that they can produce a miracle on demand. A miracle by definition is not scientific therefore we are just led back to our subjective views. In my view there actually is good evidence for the truth of the Christian faith but it has been gone over countless times on this forum and I'm not up to going through it all again, as I have no anticipation of convincing you of anything and besides I've probably been off topic as much as on already. By the way, once again, all of the evidence I refer to is subjective, none of it scientific.The good news for me is that I can't lose. If I'm right I'll be able to say I told you so in the next life. If you're right - c'est la vie.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Using the your definition of objectivity, (which I don't object to. ) I have no problem with anything in this post except for a nuance in the last sentence. Again, using your definition, I have no expectation or goal of finding objective evidence for my faith. The problem, (objectively I think), is that we have been using different definitions for subjective and objective. (Or maybe I was just wrong. )Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Just as Harry Potter is evidence of the existence of Hogwarts and it can be accepted or rejected. No - an atheist LACKS faith that the stories are TRUE. You're assuming positive belief where there is none. Unless you're just playing word games - would you say that you have faith there is no invisible pink unicorn in a lake under the antarctic ice? Or you lack faith?The reason this distinction is important is that everyone lacks faith in millions of things that COULD be true - i.e. are undisprovable - and no one actively disbelieves in all of them, but rather passively rejects the plausibilty of most (=believer) or all (=atheist) fairy tales due to lack of evidence. There is no real evidence that is not scientific evidence. Unscientific evidence is what we call wishful thinking. Yes, you can lose. There are countless ways in which reality COULD be such that you won't be sitting on a cloud in your afterlife. Perhaps, when we die, we all go to a place called fun-land where the evil kangaroo-goblins pinch our ears for an eternity despite all the good things we've done. Who knows.Edited by lehtv, : grammar fix

GDR responds to me:

quote:

---

Why do you keep asking the same question that has already been answered?

---

Because you keep contradicting yourself. Since you cannot maintain a consistent answer, I have to go back to the original question in order to determine what it is you really think. You seem to want to have it both ways.

quote:

---

Presumably, as you won't even make clear what it is you actually do believe, you subjectively believe that all that has, is and will happen can, and so likely has, happened on its own.

---

And since I haven't said what I actually do believe, why would you presume to subjectively insist upon this? See, this is why I keep my personal feelings out of it: I don't want you to react to what you wish I would have said. I want you to react to what I actually did say. I don't want you responding with, "Well, of course you'd say that: You're an X."That said, you've clearly not been paying attention for I have stated quite directly what I think in this regard. Indeed, I do think that there are things that happen on their own. That hardly means everything happens on its own. I've given you a specific example of such:Suppose I take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground? Do they land in their final positions all on their own due to gravity and kinematics or does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously put them in their final position?Supposing they do happen on their own, suppose I then take an identical set of coins and place them in the same positions. If I showed you both, would you be able to tell the difference?Thus, my point: If we know that something can happen on its own (like the coins tossed from my hand with me abandoning them to their own devices), you're going to have to come up with some justification to claim that no, they were actually carried out by a consciousness. If it looks spontaneous and we can't find any evidence that it wasn't, why on earth would we insist that we are wrong?Oh, we certainly can be wrong. But until you can show it, you have no justification to claim otherwise.

quote:

---

Neither view can be proven

---

Incorrect. One can be proven. I can show you evolution happening right in front of your eyes. So unless you're going to say that it's really god coming down and personally, deliberately, and consciously making the genetic shifts, then your claim is trivially shown to be false.And thus, we're back to the question that never gets answered:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.