Newton + Einstein were wrong!

This is a discussion on Newton + Einstein were wrong! within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Oh, I completely understand the idea of time being relative from an Einstein point of view, just don't see how ...

  1. #16
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    Oh, I completely understand the idea of time being relative from an Einstein point of view, just don't see how it relates to the creation of the earth. If you find it, let me know! Be careful though, your twin example and your Mars example are two very different things. One is a physics concept and the other is just a definition game. True humans have defined the word "day" to mean one earth rotation, but time passes at the same speed on both Earth, Mars, or anywhere else irregardless of what we call it.

    Anyways, off to bed

  2. #17
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    To me the POAMS approach seems so much more natural and complete that I have trouble taking the standard view seriously any more.
    Ok i have some questions regarding this POAMS stuff:

    If they are doing away with photons in favour of a constant that determines how fast the frames of reality flick past, then how do they explain the slit experiments that show photons diffracting? Whats more if they are doing away with photons, what becomes of elecrons of any other subatomic particle - they behave in a very similar manner to photons.

    If their case is purely semantic ie. its quantitatively the same as the previous mechanics then do they not fall prey to postivistic arguments themselves? If it's not quantitatively the same then there must be some divergence from current theory if that is the case then there should be a way of testing their views experimentally. In either case there should be a lot of mathematics that is conspicuously absent from their webpage demonstrating their ideas, perhaps its in some of their references, (which if you restrict yourself to looking only at articles published in journals you see is pretty spartan)

    Quantum field theory lead to the standard model the most accurate theory of particle physics that exists, it seems very odd to turn around say there is no such thing as fields when the most accurate theory capable of specifying obervables to a stupid degree of precision was based on the idea of fields. What's more i was under the impression that aside from the graviton the other 'particles' had been detected, now it may well be that what they are saying is simply alteration in vocabulary (ie as stated above is semantic) rather than in substance in which case well there is no problem, but then neither can their approach be a solution to a problem.

    Appealing to "common sense" seems to me somewhat misguided since there is nothing that is ever going to make quantum mechanics common sense, so if quantum theory is "allowed" to violate common sense, whats more if common sense was a barrier to the development of quantum theory, then surely that means physics can never return to a "common sense" view point and all attemps to do so are invariably doomed to fail.

    It may well be that all my queries (and i have a few more) have very good answers perhaps you know some? Otherwise i will attempt to read through some of their literature but at this point i must confess a fair degree of skepticism.
    Last edited by Clyde; 12-08-2004 at 07:18 AM.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  3. #18
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    >>how about you back that statement up with some examples?

    >In addition, we all know that the Bible can not necessarily be taken literally. You have to read parts as poetry, symbology, parables, etc.

    You make the point for me. The Bible, the infallible word of God has many different translations and many different interpretations of similar passages. Beside, we don't "all know" that the Bible's a collection of parables and the like. There are millions of literalists out there. If you don't believe me, go to a Baptist Church and start talking about evolution. Wait and see how long it is until you hear either "Carbon dating is only accurate to X years (which is deliberately misinterpreting science)" or "the fossils were put there by Satan to test our faith".

    > Why the human race exists cannot be explained by science.

    What are you talking about?

  4. #19
    Hamster without a wheel iain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,385
    >>Oh wait its UWE not Bristol, hrrmm.

    yey, thats my university!
    Monday - what a way to spend a seventh of your life

  5. #20
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Right so i decided a while ago that i wouldn't get sucked into arguing about religious nonsense, but i can talk about science:

    People who say

    Why the human race exists cannot be explained by science
    Either do not understand science or do not understand the relevence of the question "why?".

    There is an obvious answer to the question "Why does the human race exist": Physics, chemistry, evolution. Voila an answer.

    But there is another way of taking the question, that is to see it as saying "What purpose does the human race serve?". In fact science can answer that too, "Replication" would be the answer. But no no that's no good enough either, "What _higher_ purpose does the human race serve?" And then what pray does _higher_ mean? Intelligence? Right so then actually this question is "For what reason did an intelligence create the human race?".

    At the moment one might be able to claim science cannot answer this question of higher purpose, but then the only reason that science cannot answer it is because at the moment there is nothing indicating the human race has a 'higher purpose'. Science effectively has a default negative position unless evidence or theory suggest otherwise.

    IF the human race really did have a higher purpose, for example say we were created by a bunch of aliens to do something specific, then the only way of discovering what our purpose was (or indeed discovering we had a purpose) would be through rational investigation. Perhaps there would be clues in our DNA, if when we sequenced the genome we discovered a long message encoded there explaining exactly how this alien race created us, what techniques they used, and why they did it, then science would have discovered our purpose, ergo science can in principle discover higher purpose.

    In effect they say: We know this is, I think god does not exist, therefore a plausible explanation of why it is based on my worldview is this.
    One could equally say: We know this is, i think that invisable unicorns on Mars do not exist, therefore a plausible explanation of why it is based on my worldview is this.

    Science simply does not consider invisable unicorns, because there is no evidence or derived theory pointing to their existence, if evidence for invisable unicorns turned up, if for example quantum gravity predicted invisable unicorns on Mars and subsequent experiments provided some confirmation then the above statement would become:

    "We suspect this (there is no certainty in science), we also suspect that there are invisable unicorns on Mars, therefore a plausible explanation for why (assuming that it is that the invisable unicorns are relevent to this particular explanation) it is based on my 'world view' is this"
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  6. #21
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    yey, thats my university!
    Sorry, i'm a Bristol student, well was a Bristol student, you know how Bristol and UWE get along .
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  7. #22
    monotonously living Dissata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    341
    There is an obvious answer to the question "Why does the human race exist": Physics, chemistry, evolution. Voila an answer.
    Sorry Clyde...that is merely a answer of how the human race exists. This is not an anser of why, and as you so elequently put it why is a purpose question. Your idea of replication as a purpose of humanity is more than science. Instead it is a interpretation of scientific data to fit a worldview (seemingly atheistic).

    Essentially what I'm saying is this, and as you presumptiously already argued on your second part of your response, Science can be as irrefutable and perfect as we like; We can know all branches of it, Physics, chemestry, Biology, etc. The application of what we do with this data is completely tangent on what we believe. All I was saying is that I see the same ignorance of this in many qualified scientists/atheists as I do fanatical religous goons. Insteed of presenting information in an observational form.
    I am in no way trying to take away from science. Furthur more I have learned to try not to argue science with you... but this is not a matter of science, but rather an application of what we find in science; Philosophy.
    if a contradiction was contradicted would that contradition contradict the origional crontradiction?

  8. #23
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Sorry Clyde...that is merely a answer of how the human race exists. This is not an anser of why, and as you so elequently put it why is a purpose question.
    Right but it depends on how one interprets the question, if you asked "Why is it the stars are only seen as night" you wouldn't mean purpose, sometimes why and how mean the same thing.

    Your idea of replication as a purpose of humanity is more than science. Instead it is a interpretation of scientific data to fit a worldview (seemingly atheistic).
    I don't really think it's more than science, evolution is just science, and it relates the form of all life to its fitness function, so one can ask "Why does this life have this form" and one can answer "because this form makes life fitter", and how "fit" life is, is measured by how good it is at passing on its genes ie. replicating.

    Science can be as irrefutable and perfect as we like; We can know all branches of it, Physics, chemestry, Biology, etc. The application of what we do with this data is completely tangent on what we believe
    Scientific knowledge is never irrefutable that's the whole point, every theory is falsifiable, there is not gospel truth there is simply the current best bet.

    But physics biology and chemistry can determine what we 'believe', my 'beliefs' regarding the microscopic makeup of the wooden desk i'm typing on is based on biology.

    Furthur more I have learned to try not to argue science with you... but this is not a matter of science, but rather an application of what we find in science; Philosophy.
    I don't think one needs to appeal to philosophy in fact generally i think you shouldn't appeal to philosophy unless you absolutely have to.

    Science is simply a mechanism of examining the world around us, if we were created by some intelligent process the scientific method is in principle capable of revealing that along with information regarding the process itself (encapsulating the 'purpose' of humanity)
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  9. #24
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Why do you feel there needs to be a why? I've never seen a scientist striving to find empirical evidence that states humanity has some sort of higher purpose. We just are.

  10. #25
    monotonously living Dissata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde
    I don't think one needs to appeal to philosophy in fact generally i think you shouldn't appeal to philosophy unless you absolutely have to.
    I kindly disagree!

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde
    Science is simply a mechanism of examining the world around us, if we were created by some intelligent process the scientific method is in principle capable of revealing that along with information regarding the process itself (encapsulating the 'purpose' of humanity)
    Untrue. It could only observe what came about as a result of the outside process (One would have to assume that if one created something that the creation would not be the creator as that defies logic). For example, we can describe a painting because of its properties, we cannot know who the artist is based solely on the picture itself. But rather to know the painter we would have to know more than what the painting is. This is a weak summerization of the first book of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (The first book in no way promotes any form of religion but rather takes a direct approach of how we can know things.)



    Why do you feel there needs to be a why? I've never seen a scientist striving to find empirical evidence that states humanity has some sort of higher purpose. We just are.
    A why would be the basis for any ethics we hold to. Without purpose there is no identity or ethics.

    Evolution (as a reality) even has a why, why are we here...random chance... who are we then... nothing special, just a simple process of chance.... how should we act then... in any chosen manner.

    You contradict yourself with your own question: "Why does there need to be a why" to ask a question such as that. Why is it that -insert fact here- is and what does that entail.


    to Clyde: Science can open certain doors and close others as far as possibility of something (becasue it contradicts true science) but it cannot answer which possibility is correct.
    if a contradiction was contradicted would that contradition contradict the origional crontradiction?

  11. #26
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > A why would be the basis for any ethics we hold to. Without purpose there is no identity or ethics.

    Why should there be a reason for science to create a system of ethics? Science explains the world around us the best we can. That's all. It doesn't attempt to regulate the way people act.

  12. #27
    monotonously living Dissata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Govtcheez
    > A why would be the basis for any ethics we hold to. Without purpose there is no identity or ethics.

    Why should there be a reason for science to create a system of ethics? Science explains the world around us the best we can. That's all. It doesn't attempt to regulate the way people act.
    which is the entire point I have been trying to get across...
    if a contradiction was contradicted would that contradition contradict the origional crontradiction?

  13. #28
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Untrue. It could only observe what came about as a result of the outside process (One would have to assume that if one created something that the creation would not be the creator as that defies logic). For example, we can describe a painting because of its properties, we cannot know who the artist is based solely on the picture itself. But rather to know the painter we would have to know more than what the painting is. This is a weak summerization of the first book of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (The first book in no way promotes any form of religion but rather takes a direct approach of how we can know things.)
    We can look at a painting determine it was painted by a painter, and then go looking for the painter. Both processes need be nothing but rational investigations with measures taken to avoid error.

    Movements like ID try and demonstrate that life shows definable signs of intelligent design, the approach seems to be valid, it's just that it fails. _In principle_ it could have suceeded.

    Science could _in principle_ discover lots about the intelligence involved, whether it be an alien race, or a single/multiple Gods. Prior to a decent understanding of cosmoloy people literally thought the kingdom heaven resided in the sky, in fact the first ever astronauts first words were (paraphrased) "there ain't no God up here", so again _in principle_ there could have been, the astronaut could have found heaven repleat with pearly gates, want to know about God? Just ask the angels standing around strumming their harps. It's just that's not what we found, that's not what science has found or is finding.

    A why would be the basis for any ethics we hold to. Without purpose there is no identity or ethics.
    That's nonsense, atheists are as ethical as theists yet we do not buy into a cosmic "why". What's more that logic is horribly wrong: the validity of a "why" question in the manner you are referring to is dependent on the real nature of the universe around us (whether we do infact have a purpose is a factual question), that does not change just because we want to be able to use a system of ethics.

    Evolution (as a reality) even has a why, why are we here...random chance... who are we then... nothing special, just a simple process of chance.... how should we act then... in any chosen manner
    Again that's nonsense, do you see evolutionary biologists going around thieving, killing etc. etc. Dawkins is the most radical neo-Darwinist, evolutions greatest protagonist, the definition of atheism and yet a liberal.

    Evolution tells us nothing what so ever about morality, evolution tells us simply how the phenotype of a species changes over time.

    You contradict yourself with your own question: "Why does there need to be a why" to ask a question such as that. Why is it that -insert fact here- is and what does that entail.
    That's wrong as well, as i pointed out earlier the question "why" can be taken in many different contexts, if i asked "Why is it you can't see the stars at night?" That "why" is NOT a 'purpose' "why" at all indeed your original question "why does the human race exist" can be taken in different ways.

    The question "What reason is there for believeing that every phenomena has a purpose" is the same question Govt asked rephrased and is not contradictory at all.

    Science can open certain doors and close others as far as possibility of something (becasue it contradicts true science) but it cannot answer which possibility is correct
    In a sense that's true but i don't think its true for the reason your thinking of, science does not offer certainty as such one is only ever left with probable answers not definate ones, but there is no way of avoiding that and i don't see how that's relevent to our current discussion.

    Govt writes

    Why should there be a reason for science to create a system of ethics? Science explains the world around us the best we can. That's all. It doesn't attempt to regulate the way people act
    You reply

    which is the entire point I have been trying to get across...
    But you said

    Evolution (as a reality) even has a why, why are we here...random chance... who are we then... nothing special, just a simple process of chance.... how should we act then... in any chosen manner.
    Evolutionary biology is simply science. What's more i agree that science does not say anything directly about ethics (though science says stuff of relevence to ethics), but thats because we make ethics up, ethics are not aspects of the universe 'out there' they are social rules that we maintain, we can understand ethics from a sociobiological point of view, and that understanding might in part help us form new systems of ethics but ultimately ethics is not about the 'truth' and so science isn't directly involved.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  14. #29
    monotonously living Dissata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    341
    That's nonsense, atheists are as ethical as theists yet we do not buy into a cosmic "why". What's more that logic is horribly wrong: the validity of a "why" question in the manner you are referring to is dependent on the real nature of the universe around us (whether we do infact have a purpose is a factual question), that does not change just because we want to be able to use a system of ethics.
    and..

    Again that's nonsense, do you see evolutionary biologists going around thieving, killing etc. etc. Dawkins is the most radical neo-Darwinist, evolutions greatest protagonist, the definition of atheism and yet a liberal.
    I did not mean to put across that there was not ethics in atheism and looking back it seemed that my analogy seemed rather week and confusing but merely that if someone took evolution as a worldview he would then have to adopt a purpose that is associated with that world view. In Atheism that would be that there is no grand spiritual purpose. This idea of no cosmic purpose would then have to controll his morals (not that he has none, but rather that they must fit into his worldview. I.E. one cannot adopt pantheistic ideas of justice for all... for where does this idea of justice come from.) An Atheistic worldview mandates true relatavism or an idea of "eveolved" ethics created by and independant of different societies.

    That's wrong as well, as i pointed out earlier the question "why" can be taken in many different contexts, if i asked "Why is it you can't see the stars at night?" That "why" is NOT a 'purpose' "why" at all indeed your original question "why does the human race exist" can be taken in different ways.
    I apologize for not being very clear. I simply mean purpose as it is derived by a contingency of a world view.

    The question "What reason is there for believeing that every phenomena has a purpose" is the same question Govt asked rephrased and is not contradictory at all.
    To begin to answer this question we say what do we believe. If it is Atheistics then there seems to be no purpose, if it is Marxist, then the purpose seems to be destroying all theistic point of views and then evolve punctually into a true communistic society. If it is theistic, then the purpose is to do as the god of your beliefs wants.

    In every way the question of purpose is relevant. It merely says "What does this mean I should do" or "how does this affect humanity" When I said evolution had a purpose I simply meant that the question still could be and did have to be answered.

    Evolutionary biology is simply science. What's more i agree that science does not say anything directly about ethics (though science says stuff of relevence to ethics), but thats because we make ethics up, ethics are not aspects of the universe 'out there' they are social rules that we maintain, we can understand ethics from a sociobiological point of view, and that understanding might in part help us form new systems of ethics but ultimately ethics is not about the 'truth' and so science isn't directly involved.
    And I would say that ethics is a very important part of our society, and should be. I think we do need an ethical system. But if science doesn;t touch ethics, how then are we to know how to act?

    Essentially in my inability to communicate properly I have raised your gaurds about starting another "religious" thread or such... my apologies. All I was trying ot get across is that even though science is very useful, there are contingencies on the way we live that exist outside the scope of science. That I have seen a very strong slant towards a certain worldview with that sciece, both from atheistic and theistic viewpoints and I was irritated that people would follow blindly in both scenarious.
    if a contradiction was contradicted would that contradition contradict the origional crontradiction?

  15. #30
    monotonously living Dissata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    341
    On a side note, I have a question and would like to hear an outside perspective before I formulate an opinion.

    This is about an American political idea...

    Modern Liberalism is based mainly on the idea of econimic justice. That we all have a right to certain things. I do not understand how this can stem from anything other than pantheistic or new age ideals (idea that all are gods or that we are all connected and thus equal in some spiritual manner). How then do most atheists claim to be liberals? I do not understand their thinking.
    if a contradiction was contradicted would that contradition contradict the origional crontradiction?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-15-2004, 03:30 PM
  2. Debugging-Looking in the wrong places
    By JaWiB in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-03-2003, 09:50 PM
  3. Confused: What is wrong with void??
    By Machewy in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-15-2003, 12:40 PM
  4. God
    By datainjector in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 746
    Last Post: 12-22-2002, 11:01 AM
  5. Whats wrong?
    By Unregistered in forum C Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-14-2002, 01:04 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21