|
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 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: can science accept assertive law? | |||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
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.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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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 chaosquote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
existence is assertive because it is a definite statement.
I am not seeing that definite statement. To me, "existence" is just a word, and thus not a statement. Worse still, it a vague word, so not at all definite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
i think i took for granted that science defines existence as an idea.
Perhaps "idea" is a basic concept in philosophy. It isn't studied by science. Maybe psychologists would be interested in studying the idea of "idea", if they could only work out how to study it.
that existence is a thing, and able to be studied.
"Existence" is a vague term, used with multiple meanings. That's why none of us has a clue as to what you are really trying to talk about. Science studies what can be measured, what can be tested in the laboratory. You are taking the vague term "existence", and asserting that it is a thing. You have provided no basis nor justification for that assertion. From Wikipedia: "Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
existence as an abstraction is absurd.
To the contrary, existence as a real thing is absurd. Maybe what you mean by "existence" is a real thing. If so, then it is different from what most other people mean by "existence." You have failed to be clear on what it is that you are actually talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
if something that exists to be abstract, then how can you have any faith that anything is at all?
Just about any mathematician will tell you that the number 3 exists, and that the number 3 (like all numbers) is abstract.
car exists in garage-garage exists in house-house exists in earth-earth exists in solar system-solar system exists in galaxy-galaxy exists in existence.
It's that last part, the "exists in existence", which makes the whole sentence incoherent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
What's to elaborate. "Exists in existence" makes no sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
the "existence of philosophy" only says that philosophy exists.
I'm pretty sure that Percy was commenting on existence as it is studied within philosophy. I really doubt that his reference was to the question of whether philosophy exists. I'll make a general comment, related to the forum "Is it science." It is an important aspect of science, that clarity is required. A scientific investigation might start without clear conclusions, and without a clear methodology. But it at least has to be clear about what is being investigated. I hope you are beginning to understand that what you wanted to discuss is not science, at least as you have presented it, because it lacks that clarity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means, therefore it should not exist.
God cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means. Therefore God cannot exist. Your form of reasoning is quite silly, and completely unscientific. I am just pointing to an obvious logical conclusion, if we were to allow that kind of silly reasoning. Clearly, the kind or reasoning that you are using is not science. I suggest you take it to Conclusion vs Presupposition, where you can explain all of the presuppositions that go into your reasoning.It seems that I replied too hastily. Thanks to Percy for correcting me. I have hidden the original content of my inappropriate reply - use "peek" if you really want to see it. Edited by nwr, : original post withdrawn
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I'm confused. Did you think you were replying to Tesla?
It should have been obvious that I was replying to imageinvisible (Message 45).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But that wasn't what you quoted in your response, so I'm confused.
Thank's for gently pointing out that I was confused.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024