|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: gravity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
That part of the OP was poorly worded. My intent was to ask is the cause of the phenomenon natural or metaphysical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes: Not real impressed with Oser or Shanks in re specific errors in Schroeder's science. Of course it appears that Oser feels that since only 20% of physicists are theists then Schroeder must be wrong.
Well, there you go. Enjoy.Or the fact he agrees Dyson is an authority but, one can always find another authority who disagrees with him. I was a trial lawyer in med mal and products liability and we always had experts with opinions basically opposite of each other. The jury decided who was right or wrong. Kind of a I disagree with his philosophy so he is wrong type review.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: I mean it's origin.
You keep using this word "metaphysical". What would it even mean for gravity to be "metaphysical"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4411 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
shadow71 writes: I mean it's origin. Do you mean that gravity is caused by invisible fairies pushing us down on the earth?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes: Whatever floats your boat.
Do you mean that gravity is caused by invisible fairies pushing us down on the earth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Schroeder's religious treatment strikes a comfortable note with your own religious views. But you did ask for competing views which would necessitate non-religious ones thus not as comfortable for you.
You can reject the sources I presented citing a bias that is not comfortable for you. This is OK. But you need to be aware that the sources I gave pointed out Schroeder's errors of logic as well as his errors in physics facts. There are only two reasons I can fathom why an MIT physicist would make these errors. He is an incompetent physicist despite the MIT affiliation or he is misusing physics, in essence lying, to justify his predetermined conclusions. You can, of course, ignore these errors and their implications on the efficacy of Schroeder's hypothesis. You are then not searching for intellectual answers but for emotional confirmation. The knowledgeable folks on this forum will not be able to help you with this. You may want to ask your questions in a less science-oriented forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You should be alert for some bias in his review. I've read the criticisms of Schroeder's work in the review. I am still trying to decide whether I want to pay the money needed to buy and read his book. I suspect that you don't agree with the criticisms, which is fine. My question for you is whether the review minus the rebuttal fairly describes any of Schroeder's arguments. Is Schroeder's position more nuanced than Oser allows for. I will say this. Oser's dissection of Schoeder's "proof" that the universe has a non-natural origin is not new material. I've seen each of his arguments before in these forums. I've made some of them myself. I'll have to admit that I am personally highly skeptical that it is possible identify God or his authorship through scientific means. That's why I believe ID is ultimately a dead end. I fear that I am going to find Schroeder's book both silly and unnecessary. I'm looking for a good book review that says otherwise.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I was a trial lawyer in med mal and products liability and we always had experts with opinions basically opposite of each other. The jury decided who was right or wrong. I understand why this method of investigation is appealing to you. You are completely familiar with this method of investigation. But quite frankly, who cares what a jury of lay people decide about which of these two scientists to believe? What really matters is what people who know the topic at hand think. A real jury would likely exclude all physicists. Yet who would be better positioned to appreciate the correctness of a physicists argument.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
shadow71 writes:
You seem to be using "metaphysical" as a synonym for "supernatural", which I don't think is correct.
My intent was to ask is the cause of the phenomenon natural or metaphysical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
metaphysical adjective \-ˈfi-zi-kəl\
Definition of METAPHYSICAL 1: of or relating to metaphysics 2a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : supernatural ringo writes:
In the discpline of Philosphy you are correct, however I think it is being used in Schroeders book as per the definition, ie supernatural. You seem to be using "metaphysical" as a synonym for "supernatural", which I don't think is correct. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
So there should be some explanation as to how gravity came into existence. Or at least some theories. One of the front runners for a theory is Supersymmetry: Supersymmetry - Wikipedia The idea (which I may be getting wrong since this is not my area of expertise) is that high energy of the singularity at the beginning of our universe allowed all the fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravity) to be a single force. As the energy spread out the symmetry between these forces broke down into what we see today. What is interesting is that scientists have had luck in uniting some of these forces, such as the electroweak force: Inquiring Minds It is thought that at very, very high energies that you can unite all of the forces as they would have been united at the beginning of the BB. At least that's the rough outline as I understand it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
shadow71 writes:
Of course the problem with "supernatural" explanations is that they're so often made redundant by natural explanations - e.g. lightning. I think we should regard "supernatural" as something like "ultraviolet" - i.e. "beyond visible light, "more" than visible light in the sense that it's more energetic, but not fundamentally different from visible light.
In the discpline of Philosphy you are correct, however I think it is being used in Schroeders book as per the definition, ie supernatural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes: But don't lay people have the responsibility to read what qualifed experts opinions are and then make a rationale decision as to who is correct? Many important decisions are made by people other than scientists and hopefully the decisions are well thought out. I as a person who believes in the God of the Roman Catholic church take umbage when a scientists writes in a review that only 20% of physicists are theists. What revelance does that have to a scientific issue?
What really matters is what people who know the topic at hand think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
But you need to be aware that the sources I gave pointed out Schroeder's errors of logic as well as his errors in physics facts.You can, of course, ignore these errors and their implications on the efficacy of Schroeder's hypothesis. You are then not searching for intellectual answers but for emotional confirmation. You assume that Oser is correct in his assertions as to some of Schroeders logic and "errors in physics facts." That is not necessarily the case. Most of the physics facts asserts as errors are not black or white or accepted by all physicists. In re his criticisms of logic he asserts that Schroeder's logic is flawed. An example is the "predate time" issue. Oser argues that if time starts with the BB how can you speak of anything predating it.Well is you belive in a God who is supernatural and omnipotent, than that God exists prior to any natural event such as time. So Oser, in my opinion does not make a good case in his criticisms as he assumes anyone who does not believe as he does in wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: To predate a thing it is necessary to exist at an earlier point in time. There can be no point in time earlier than the earliest point in time by definition. Time exists at the earliest point in time by definition. Oser's point seems entirely reasonable. Can you come up with a real objection rather than just assuming that it is wrong ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024