Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,095 Year: 5,352/9,624 Month: 377/323 Week: 17/204 Day: 17/21 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 460 of 485 (572352)
08-05-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by Percy
08-05-2010 8:04 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Becausae I initially posted this so far back in the thread I will repost the quote that I used to start with. It is from Brian Greene's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos"
quote:
In practice, the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics rears its head in a very specific way. If you use the combined equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, they almost always yield one answer: infinity. And that's a problem. It's nonsense. Experimenters never measure an infinite amount of anything. Dials never spin around to infinity. Meters never reach infinity. Calculators never register infinity. Almost always, an infinite answer is meaningless. All it tells us is that the equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when merged go haywire.
As Greene says we don't encounter inifinity in the natural world. In the natural world an answer of inifinty is meaningless. Greene obviously believes that there must be a physical or natural answer in the end as he calls the answer of the calculations as they stand nonsense. A non-physical or natural answer is meaningless according to Greene. Maybe he's right but it can't be proven, however as things stand the calculations point to something outside the natural.
Percy writes:
So putting this in the context of the specific example of the math we use to model the origin of the universe, what happened at T=0 is a perplexing and baffling phenomena that seems almost magical. Every prior perplexing and baffling phenomena that initially seemed almost magical was eventually found to have natural explanations. Yet you think that in this case it points to something beyond the natural. Can you give some clue, some hint, some tiny shred of rational explanation, for why you think this?
All I am saying is that as thigs stand right now the answer in either the Greene quote, or if you like in the case of what happened at T=0, points to an answer of infinity. Inifinity isn't something that we encounter in our 4 dimensional world or natural world.
That is not to say that it won't be found that the calculations won't be found to be wrong and that a natural answer won't be found to be correct in the end. Just to say that a natural answer has always been found doesn't mean anything as those are the only answers that science, as we know it now, can find.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by Percy, posted 08-05-2010 8:04 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 11:02 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 462 by Taq, posted 08-05-2010 12:20 PM GDR has replied
 Message 465 by Percy, posted 08-05-2010 8:36 PM GDR has replied
 Message 467 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2010 11:32 PM GDR has replied
 Message 474 by onifre, posted 08-07-2010 3:27 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 463 of 485 (572435)
08-05-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by Stile
08-05-2010 10:44 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Stile writes:
In fact, there's only one way to look at it that fits the pattern of these situations. When these situations occur, the pattern shows us that the application is likely incorrect and we require a re-thinking of our physical world surrounding these observations (I showed the pattern with my previous examples). Your way has no pattern to show that it should be considered (unless you have something more to show here?). There has never, ever been a scenario where "something other than a purely natural solution" has been determined. Likewise, using only our imagination has no pattern to fall back on to produce a valid conclusion. Neither does looking at the situation using ideas we know are false.
If there is a natural solution to be found then science will presumably sort it out eventually, as it has done with many things in the past. If however there is no natural solution, then science which is only equipped to find natural solutions will never be able to come to a conclusive conclusion.
To say that science has always found natural solutions in the past is a given because they can't discover anything but natural solutions whether or not there is anything beyond the natural.
It does occur to me though that there are a number of scientific theories out there such as string theory which are open to additional dimensions or universes. Would that be considered something beyond our normal 4 dimensional world?
Stile writes:
Perhaps you don't understand what "evidence" is.
In order for "the evidence to point" in any direction there needs to be a pattern to follow. That's what evidence is: factual information that is the same for everyone. The history of these patterns are the same for everyone. All those examples I explained in my previous message are the same for everyone, they are facts. This pattern that is known to exist in what we know so far of reality is what evidence is. The fact that you understand "Stile sees it this way" and "GDR sees it this way" is an indication that one (or possibly both) of us are not looking at the facts which are the same for everyone... not looking at the previous patterns that are the same for everyone who cares to research them... not looking at the evidence.
I don't pretend to be anything but the rankest amateur in anything scientific so I am reliant on what I read by those who know what they are talking about. You state that evidence needs a pattern. Greene says that the calculations involved when combining GR and QM nearly always come to infinity. Doesn't that constitute a pattern?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by Stile, posted 08-05-2010 10:44 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Stile, posted 08-06-2010 4:00 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 464 of 485 (572436)
08-05-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Taq
08-05-2010 12:20 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Taq writes:
How can calculations point to something outside of the natural? How does that work? 1/0=infinity, therefore leprechauns? Is that your argument?
It seems to me that most cosmological discoveries have been made because mathematical calculations pointed toward a specific solution. Aren't they currently looking for the Higgs boson, or gravitons because the current calculations point in that direction.
Right now according to Greene the calculations point to an answer of infinity. We don't experience infinity in this world except as a mathematical concept. I am also not saying that this proves the existence of any deity including leprechauns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Taq, posted 08-05-2010 12:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Taq, posted 08-09-2010 3:17 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 468 of 485 (572462)
08-06-2010 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Percy
08-05-2010 8:36 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Percy writes:
Look at it this way. Say I'm having lunch with my buddies and the conversation turns to my discussion board, and I mention that there's a guy who believes that some things we don't know point to non-natural explanations. They ask me why this guy thinks so. What am I supposed to answer? I don't know, because you haven't told me anything that makes sense.
Tell me where we encounter an infinite dimension to anything in the natural world? If it ever was proven, (and I can't begin to imagine how it could be), that the final answer to the problem was infinity it seems to me that it we would have to consider it as something outside of what we consider natural.
Percy writes:
Then I just have to ask about the obvious implication: Have any of the non-scientific processes of inquiry ever established anything to have a non-natural explanation?
No, and I doubt they ever well.
Percy writes:
Then I just have to ask about the obvious implication: Have any of the non-scientific processes of inquiry ever established anything to have a non-natural explanation?
And of course the answer is that nothing, including science, has ever reliably established a non-natural cause for anything. If the history of our expanding knowledge has taught us anything it's that the superstitious mumbo-jumbo nonsense that most people have accepted throughout history and still accept today has never, ever, panned out. So the question remains: Why do you think it's going to pan out this time?
I have never said that I thought it would "pan out this time". I have no idea how or if it will pan out. I just found the statement interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Percy, posted 08-05-2010 8:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Percy, posted 08-06-2010 5:29 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 469 of 485 (572463)
08-06-2010 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by Dr Adequate
08-05-2010 11:32 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Dr Adequate writes:
No, they point to something that isn't true.
Where is the proof of that? Isn't that just your opinion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2010 11:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2010 4:46 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 473 of 485 (572607)
08-06-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by Stile
08-06-2010 4:00 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Hi Stile
I think that we have actually come together on this. There is no part of your post that I don't agree with.
I know Percy keeps looking for me to support my argument but frankly the concept of infinity being something that doesn't exist in our natural world is all I got, at least from a scientific point of view and I don't see us going into a philosophical or theological discussion on the issue. (Been down that road on this forum just a few times before. )
Thanks for the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Stile, posted 08-06-2010 4:00 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 477 of 485 (573054)
08-09-2010 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by Taq
08-09-2010 3:17 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
When Newton was around the evidence indicated that this was a deterministic world. Later new evidence came to light which showed that Newton's views were wrong. The point is though that at the time of Newton the evidence pointed towards a deterministic existence.
It is very possible that in the future there will be advances in science that will find naturalistic answers. I'm just saying that the current science seems to indicate an answer that lies outside our 4 dimensional world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Taq, posted 08-09-2010 3:17 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Taq, posted 08-09-2010 3:41 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 479 of 485 (573067)
08-09-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Taq
08-09-2010 3:41 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Taq writes:
Or rather, that our world is made up of more than the 4 dimensions that we are familiar with right now. The extra dimensions hinted at in String Theory do not lie outside of our world but are a part of it. A good analogy is Reimman's bookworm. In this analogy the 3D curvature of the crumpled page is detected as a force by the bookworm.
I agree although it seems to me that our world is made up of what we can pereceive and all we can perceive are 4 dimensions. I don't imagine that string theory advocates dimensions that we can perceive so wouldn't that make them metaphysical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Taq, posted 08-09-2010 3:41 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Taq, posted 08-09-2010 4:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 482 of 485 (573119)
08-09-2010 10:30 PM


There you go Taq. Bikerman beat me to it. That's exactly what I was going to say.

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Percy, posted 08-10-2010 4:52 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 484 of 485 (573185)
08-10-2010 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by Percy
08-10-2010 4:52 AM


In that message I asked the question this way:
quote:
I don't imagine that string theory advocates dimensions that we can perceive so wouldn't that make them metaphysical?
Bikerman effectively answered my question, the answer being that no it doesn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Percy, posted 08-10-2010 4:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by Percy, posted 08-10-2010 11:27 AM GDR 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