|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted June 10, 2008 03:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I cant find the power to see any of my imaginations makeups to be more probable than some form of God or greater being.
Ah, I see. Wait, what is the probability of god again? I've always seen people talk about this or that being less probable or more probable than god, and I've wanted to know how people calculate that, so if you could enlighten me... Expressing it as a fraction would be fine, or a percentage. Your choice.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 03:14 AM |
|
|
Probability is 1/0 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 12:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Probability is 1/0
Ah, mathematics, cool
Hey wait, I just noticed something, you forgot to show your work. Could you show your calculations? I'd like to see how you derived this.
____________
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 12:31 PM |
|
|
(l'=l*sqr(1-v²/eo²)12+(gammav)2+gamma2cscxdx-ln|CSCx+cotG|+C+W^e^i^pi + 1/v(t)=V_\mathrm{peak}\cdot\sin(\omega t x sqrt\frac{\Rleft( x-h \right)^2}{a^2} - \frac{\left( y-k \right)^2}{b^2}) x 0 + 1/0
= 1/0
where gamma= 1/sqrt(1 - v^2)
and G = universal gravitation constant, 6.6726 x 10^(-11) N-m2/kg2
and W = the molar mass of Tungsten, 183.85 gmol-1
and eo = permittivity of air, 8.85 x 10-12 F/m
and R is a subset of C.
QED.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 12:38 PM |
|
|
WOW, I'm impressed. You're my new hero.
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 12:41 PM |
|
|
I know that math isn't one of my strong points, but isn't 1/0=infinity ... Or is it incalculable? Something only Chuck Norris can do?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 12:44 PM |
|
|
God can divide by zero, God can do anything........except beat Chuck Norris in a fight.
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 01:17 PM |
|
|
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Quote:
AGE OF THE EARTH
So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age.
The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.
Click on the image to see a graphical representation of geologic time
[344K]
Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). [See Editor's Note.] These ancient rocks have been dated by a number of radiometric dating methods and the consistency of the results give scientists confidence that the ages are correct to within a few percent. An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation. The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia. The Moon is a more primitive planet than Earth because it has not been disturbed by plate tectonics; thus, some of its more ancient rocks are more plentiful. Only a small number of rocks were returned to Earth by the six Apollo and three Luna missions. These rocks vary greatly in age, a reflection of their different ages of formation and their subsequent histories. The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor. Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago. The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System. The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).
For additional information on this subject, see G. Brent Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth, published by the Stanford University Press (Stanford, Calif.) in 1991 (492 p.).
Now it would take Corribus to explain if this is accurate or not, but here is my issue with this as a way to debunk the bible. It takes a lot of assumptions. Also it relies on our understanding (which maybe flawed) of the radiometric dating. I will get to the assumptions in a bit.
Let us take our knowledge first, and understanding. Right now, we have 1 piece of a puzzle that might be very very large, and we don't even know how many pieces of the puzzle there are. Lets not assume we know the picture from the piece of the puzzle we see.
Note : We have to go on the information that we have, and the piece of the puzzle we have. I am also not saying we should stop trying to gather more pieces of the puzzle. Just that we should not rule out the fact that current information and understanding might not be infallible.
Now, lets do something a bit odd. Let us compair two theories, and discuss not why they are different, but why they are similar.
Creation theory, and Big bang theory. (Yeah, I know the reaction this will get daring to compair the two with similarities).
Neither go on what has actually been observed. True Big Bang Theory (or whatever it is currently called..) has some tests that suggest things, but that goes back to the information and understanding bit.
Since no person alive was around at the beginning, we can speculate and assume but currently we can not recreate or know.
Science is about what can be observed and recreated. Neither of these are true with current theories about how the universe is formed. Until they are..further examination is not only recommended, but in my oppinon a MUST.
Neither can be backed. Both sides can conjecture, assume, etc..neither can prove their case.
Both take a lot on faith. One for divine reasons, the other because of assumptions and tests that may or may not in the end prove true.
However, here is the thing. People are getting mixed up with science, and a particular theory. (Including myself). Like evolution. Science is about what we can observe. It leaves the paranormal out of it. Which is good.
Personally I think there are flaws in both the current theories on the start of the universe and the theory that we evolved from the same ancestores as apes.
Similarities imo does not automatically mean common ancestory. So far I have not been smart enough to PROVE it yet tho.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 01:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
WOW, I'm impressed. You're my new hero.
Quote:
I will get to the assumptions in a bit.
I might have missed it.
What assumptions?
Quote:
Neither go on what has actually been observed.
Actually, the Big Bang Theory was founded on observation.
But the difference is that if the Big Bang Theory were proved incorrect I wouldn't care.
That's the whole point of science, and why it's not really faith to believe in it.
I don't hope that it is correct, just at the current time it is the most logical (yeah subjective I know), based on the observable evidence we have.
Quote:
Similarities imo does not automatically mean common ancestory.
Even 98% similarity?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 02:16 PM |
|
|
@Corribus:Quote:
Ah, I see. Wait, what is the probability of god again? I've always seen people talk about this or that being less probable or more probable than god, and I've wanted to know how people calculate that, so if you could enlighten me... Expressing it as a fraction would be fine, or a percentage. Your choice.
But probabilities are completely subjective, either regarding God or not, since otherwise (if they were objective) you could have supplied a computer with an algorithm. But you can't or don't know (the algorithm I mean).
Based on the laws of physics and the energy of the Big Bang, maybe chances are greater than with God (subjective so I don't KNOW). However, do you consider how the laws of physics affect everything? What probability is there for these laws & matter & initial energy & everything else to be completely suitable? I am talking about the laws of the Universe themselves, not about what is contained within, but about the very fabric of this world (i.e what defines it). In my opinion, probability is around infinitesmall.
Not that I am very fond of creationist theories though, so I won't comment on this very well.
@TA:Quote:
But the difference is that if the Big Bang Theory were proved incorrect I wouldn't care.
Quote:
That's the whole point of science, and why it's not really faith to believe in it.
I don't think so.. remember what I said. If scientific laws really were 'dependable' and could provide arguments against faith/God/whatever, then those laws (like Newton’s) would not crumble, ever. Whether or not science believes something now does not mean it will ever believe it in the future. How can science possibly be trusted?
If today you think that the Big Bang is true, how can you possibly call others 'delusional' as if you KNOW that the theory is true. What about tomorrow? (supposing it's proved false). You CANNOT change your affirmation. You can't call someone delusional and tomorrow that they are right. There are no multiple truths (at least what atheists think like). You can't be right, one of the times you have to be wrong.
Of course it's entirely different to say "I will not call you delusional because you might be right, but I have no idea since I have not observed it" and "You're delusional, every evidence supports the Big Bang, nothing has been observed otherwise".
The former indicates a "I don't know" kind of statement, which would be true since later you would 'change your beliefs' so to speak, and admit that you WERE WRONG (yes science can't be right all the time, logically there can't be more than one truth, so the probability that it being right is close to 0).
The latter however indicates an arrogant statement that implies truth -- hence you are calling him delusional BECAUSE YOU KNOW HE IS. You can't call someone in a way without knowing that he is, can you? Or at least, not have everybody else follow what you say (because that's what people do: they have faith in scientists and the scientists' words are like God's words, so if you call him delusional, other people will too, hence you must be implying the truth, or are you?). It's completely different. You imply truth and do not take the consequences when you're proven wrong. Why should people trust you thereafter? You can say "it was the best I could do based on observations", but actually it wasn't. You could have used a different statement without implying truth.
Science is so often too much used as 'truth' at a given situation. If you (as a normal person) are arguing against it's theories/facts you will usually be called delusional or crazy (out-of-society person). Unless you perform the experiment (in which case they'll do the best they can to make it look 'fake') but that's hardly something you'd ever do in a day-to-day just to prove others wrong (that you are right) or have the condition to do so. Science is used in media as a form of 'truth'. People trust something that can't be possibly trusted if tomorrow it will CHANGE it's beliefs. All too often it happens however that people use it as truth, not as a form of 'current observations'. It's not their fault, scientists do it too. When you hear the statement "I saw an alien" what goes in your mind at first? Does it go the 'let's analyze it' or 'you could be right, given the conditions'? I don't think so. You immediately reject it. It's because you have been indoctrinated with current scientific views and hold on them. When it changes, the indoctrination changes. Is this good? Yes it is, but it also means it can't be trusted (and it's nothing wrong with that, but people however don't behave so).
You may say it's the best you can do, but then again like I said, it's not. You could simply try not to imply truth anymore. There's a different between being so sure of yourself and proud that you reject other views immediately, and being not sure of yourself because science, ultimately, can't be trusted since it changes all too often. Scientists, however, are too sure of themselves. They have certain beliefs, etc.
Quote:
Even 98% similarity?
You bet, if you were to design a computer program, would you rebuild it from scratch rather than copy the other program's critical functions? This does not mean it 'evolved' from the other one either because it hasn't, you designed them all
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 02:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If today you think that the Big Bang is true, how can you possibly call others 'delusional' as if you KNOW that the theory is true.
I don't know that it is true.
The reason I call religious people delusional (not that delusional would be the word I would use) is for reasons entirely unrelated to the Big Bang Theory, and they're scattered throughout this thread quite regularly 
And sorry my comments above on science/faith were a bit ambiguous and if I were more eloquent I'd be able to express what I really meant Unfortunately I can't but suffice to say that your points above are vaild, however are responding to something I didn't mean.
I meant nothing to do with whether or not scientific facts are true/untrue. I meant more to do with the workings of faith and other connotations ... yet I'm sure I wouldn't be able to express my point further without it degenerating into an argument over semantics.
But more or less along the lines of.... trusting that a proven scientific theory will not fall apart tomorrow is different to faith in god, and that faith is more... "stubborn" for lack of a better word
I'll have to sleep on it and come back to this topic, though. Again, sorry.
Quote:
You bet, if you were to design a computer program, would you rebuild it from scratch rather than copy the other program's critical functions? This does not mean it 'evolved' from the other one either because it hasn't, you designed them all
Man, god is lazy
*Ctrl+V*
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 02:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The reason I call religious people delusional (not that delusional would be the word I would use) is for reasons entirely unrelated to the Big Bang Theory, and they're scattered throughout this thread quite regularly
Oh, I was talking in general, I must have that kind of plague, people always seem to think I'm talking directly to them. 
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 02:57 PM |
|
|
No it was just you said @TA, quoted me and then referred to "you"
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 03:05 PM |
|
|
|
oh, usually when i use the '@' I mean that the quote belongs to the respective user
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 04:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If scientific laws really were 'dependable' and could provide arguments against faith/God/whatever, then those laws (like Newton’s) would not crumble, ever.
Scientific laws are founded upon observations. When there are observations that contradict existing laws, the laws must change. It would be foolish not to.
Quote:
In my opinion, probability is around infinitesmall.
The probability is 100%. The history of the universe could not have developed in any other way.
Quote:
You CANNOT change your affirmation.
Why not?
Quote:
There are no multiple truths
There are no multiple objective truths. Subjectively, however, it can vary. There is only one objective truth. But there can be as many subjective truths as there are people. For example, 25-degree weather may feel hot to some, cold to others, and normal to the rest. Objectively, it is not hot nor cold nor normal - it is 25 degrees, which is hotter than 24 degrees and cooler than 26 degrees. Subjectively, it may be either hot or cold or normal, depending on the observer. However, most people would agree that 25-degree weather is normal. (Degrees in Celcius).
The existence of God is a similar thing. Objectively, God either exists or doesn't exist. But subjectively, he does for some people and doesn't for others. Some people can't imagine that everything could've developed the way it is without a creator. Others don't think that anything that can't be observed exists. Both are opinions. But opinions are not facts.
Here's the critical difference, though, between temperature and God: there is no objective definition of "hot" and "cold", but there is no such ambiguity with existence. So you can measure the temperature as many times as you want, and the thermometer may tell you that the temperature is 25 degrees, but it won't tell you whether it's hot or cold; that part is up to you.
However, subjective truths vary in how close they are to the objective truth. Subjective truths based on observations and testing are closer to the objective truth than those based on assuming the existence of things that are unobservable. For example, if you are trying to prove that the temperature is 25 degrees, you can measure the temperature 100 times, and if the thermometer says "25 degrees" every time, the temperature is 25 degrees, unless the thermometer is flawed, in which case you take more thermometers and test with them. If they agree that the temperature is 25 degrees, then you can say, "The temperature is 25 degrees." Theists, on the other hand, would say something like "The temperature is actually 30 degrees, but invisible fairies are making all of the thermometers lie."
Quote:
Science is so often too much used as 'truth' at a given situation.
You're talking about science being misunderstood and misused, rather than about some fundamental flaw. Science should be used as the "truth as we best understand it at the moment".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 04:52 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:57, 10 Jun 2008.
|
@theDeath
Quote:
But probabilities are completely subjective, either regarding God or not, since otherwise (if they were objective) you could have supplied a computer with an algorithm. But you can't or don't know (the algorithm I mean).
The point beneath the sarcasm was that while probabilities are useful when dealing with quantitative phenomena and predictions, they mean nothing when dealing with nonquantitative things like god. What does it mean to say, "I find god more probable than..."? It means nothing. You can't calculate a probability relating to god at all. Face it, you don't believe in god because you find it to be a more probable explanation. There is no logical reason behind belief. It just is.
@Mytical
Alright, that's it. When I get time, I am going to start a new thread when an exact detailed description of how a theory is formulated. I was going to anyway after theDeath's post about tunnelling, because it's got similar problems, but this one sealed the deal.
Quote:
Now it would take Corribus to explain if this is accurate or not, but here is my issue with this as a way to debunk the bible.
Why do you think scientists are trying to debunk the bible? If anything, scientists realize that there's no point in even TRYING to debunk the bible because the bible is unscientific. And in any case, most scientists, I hate to break it to you, don't really care.
Quote:
Now, lets do something a bit odd. Let us compair two theories, and discuss not why they are different, but why they are similar.
Creation theory, and Big bang theory. (Yeah, I know the reaction this will get daring to compair the two with similarities).
*sigh* Well the first point of comparison is that one is a theory and one isn't. That's going to be another part of my signature. The value of comparison ends about right there.
Quote:
Neither go on what has actually been observed. True Big Bang Theory (or whatever it is currently called..) has some tests that suggest things, but that goes back to the information and understanding bit.
Since no person alive was around at the beginning, we can speculate and assume but currently we can not recreate or know.
Science is about what can be observed and recreated. Neither of these are true with current theories about how the universe is formed.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not how it works at all.
Here's how it works.
(1) You make an observation. (This is a fact.)
(2) You make a model to describe the observation. (This is a theory).
(3) The model makes predictions.
(4) You test the predictions. (More facts)
(5a) If the test works, the model holds. Go to step 6.
(5b) If the test fails, you make a new model to account for new observations. Repeat step 3.
(6) Find more predictions. Go back to step 4.
Science is process of repetitive iterations that assymptotically approaches an overall mechanistic empirical explanation of everything. It doesn't stop. Since it is assymptotic, it will never reach its destination.
Example.
You are an FBI agent called to a giant crime scene. At the crime scene, you observe that there are lots of trees uprooted, cars overturned, and debris scattered about in a circular pattern. These are the facts.
From these facts, you make a theory, based on logic, that the damage was caused by an explosion that occured at the center of the circular pattern. You theorize that the explosion, which was chemical, caused hot air to expand rapidly, causing a shockwave of force in a radially symmetric fashion to exert force on nearby objects. This is your theory.
From this theory, you can make certain predictions. For example, given the distance a certain car moved during the (theorized) explosion, you can calculate the force of the explosion. From this you should be able to predict what the trajectories of other objects might have been. Then you can go and test this prediction by looking at the other objects. If this pans out, you know what kind of explosive force there was, so maybe you can also theorize what kind of bomb it was. This will make MORE predictions. If it was a specific bomb, you might predict that you will find certain types of shrapnel lying about. You might find chemical residues. Certain types of injuries. These are all predictions.
By continuing these iterations, you narrow down the possibilities until you arrive at a theory which you feel is a good mechanistic model of what happened during the incident, and you have facts, resulting from predictions of the model, as evidence to support your claim. That doesn't mean you have excluded every possibility, but of course in law there is a degree of reasonable doubt that must be taken into account (detectives can't spend hundreds of years checking out every little fact that doesn't jive, even though, in principle, they can be used to slightly tweak the theory to perfection; scientists can, and do, do this).
You don't have to have observed the explosion itself to come to a reasonable conclusion that there WAS an explosion. You also don't have to build an exact replication of every detail. That's not practical and in most cases is impossible. Thankfully, science doesn't require it.
Big Bang.
Were we around to observe the Big Bang? No. But we CAN observe its effects. The universe is expanding. This is a fact. It's expanding in a radially symmetric fashion. This is a fact. Just like the demolitions expert, we can thus THEORIZE that these facts suggest that at one point there was an EXPLOSION. This is the Big Bang THEORY. This theory makes certain predictions. These predictions are TESTED. If the predictions pan out, we test other predictions. If the predictions do not pan out, we refine the theory. This doesn't mean we get RID of the theory altogether, although we could and would if enough predictions didn't agree with observation and we could devise a good replacement with new predictions that do. Most of the time we correct portions of the theory in hand through successive iterations of predict-test-predict-test.
Also, just FYI, we *can* directly observe events that happened billions of years ago. Light from stars billions of light years away are just getting to us now. So, that's another little twist of the act of observation for which you are also not account.
Creation theory? Not a theory. Why? Among other things, it makes no predictions. It is unscientific because the scientific method cannot be applied. It cannot be tested. It cannot be falsified. It cannot be improved through successive iterations. There are NO COMPARISONS to be made. One is science. The other is not. Period.
Quote:
Neither can be backed. Both sides can conjecture, assume, etc..neither can prove their case.
Science is not about PROVING. Science is about formulating the best possible empirical mechanistic model to explain observed facts. No science says, "Well guys, I think we're done here. Evolution is proved." A jury can say, "Well it's proven that the guy committed a murder," but even that's not "PROVEN". It's proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Quote:
Both take a lot on faith. One for divine reasons, the other because of assumptions and tests that may or may not in the end prove true.
The difference is that scientists are always making new tests and acquiring new information.
Quote:
Personally I think there are flaws in both the current theories on the start of the universe and the theory that we evolved from the same ancestores as apes.
Of COURSE there are flaws. The very nature of THEORY implies that there are flaws. But flaws do not render the theory USELESS. Creationism is USELESS, and it has nothing to do with flaws or not flaws. It has to do with the fact that it is unscientific. "Useless" has a very specific scientific meaning, so don't get all offended by that, either.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 04:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Scientific laws are founded upon observations. When there are observations that contradict existing laws, the laws must change. It would be foolish not to.
Please state from whom's observations. Because you see, the 'delusional' has all his observations on his side
Quote:
The probability is 100%. The history of the universe could not have developed in any other way.
Are you listening to what I say? What probability is there for this Universe and it's laws of physics to exist?
Let me put this simpler for you: Why does gravity exist? What's the probability that it does exist, in the way we know it?
Quote:
Quote:
You CANNOT change your affirmation.
Why not?
Sorry man but you can't just tell someone he's delusional, tomorrow that he's right, and in the end still claim that YOU ARE NEVER WRONG.
it's quite logical if you follow me.
Quote:
Objectively, it is not hot nor cold nor normal - it is 25 degrees, which is hotter than 24 degrees and cooler than 26 degrees.
So then, how do you compare complex numbers?
Quote:
Subjectively, it may be either hot or cold or normal, depending on the observer. However, most people would agree that 25-degree weather is normal. (Degrees in Celcius).
Exactly, observations are subjective...
Quote:
For example, if you are trying to prove that the temperature is 25 degrees, you can measure the temperature 100 times, and if the thermometer says "25 degrees" every time, the temperature is 25 degrees, unless the thermometer is flawed, in which case you take more thermometers and test with them.
Not necessarily flawed, but then how do you know it works properly (i mean all thermometers).
Quote:
You're talking about science being misunderstood and misused, rather than about some fundamental flaw. Science should be used as the "truth as we best understand it at the moment".
Please define 'we'. The delusional people, however, do not think that's the best you can do, but that's the best you can ignore.
And the critical point is 'at the moment'. How can we trust it if it's only at the moment. Let's take a silly example. If science says today that killing people is OK, and tomorrow that it's not, you get the idea.. that day we could've killed a lot of people because 'at the moment' it was ok, but in the end it turned out we had made a terrible mistake. Irreversible that is.
ok it was a bad example but you get the point with 'delusional'. Besides like I said, you have to define who's observations. Because from the delusional's observations, it's completely different.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 05:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Please state from whom's observations.
"Whom's"? Ad hominem attacks aside, they are the observations of those who rigorously test whatever they're testing.
Quote:
What probability is there for this Universe and it's laws of physics to exist?
As I said, 100%, because it exists, so it couldn't have been any other way.
Quote:
Why does gravity exist?
Could you clarify? Because this question is extremely vague.
Quote:
What's the probability that it does exist, in the way we know it?
"In the way we know it"? What do you mean by that?
Quote:
Sorry man but you can't just tell someone he's delusional, tomorrow that he's right, and in the end still claim that YOU ARE NEVER WRONG.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about being objectively right. But when you have all of the known facts on your side one day, and the person is arguing against them without bringing new testable observations to the table, then that person is delusional. Then, the next day, when you have new observations, that person may be right, but you were not delusional. It is delusional to deny existing observations.
Quote:
So then, how do you compare complex numbers?
Who measures temperature with complex numbers?
Quote:
The delusional people, however, do not think that's the best you can do, but that's the best you can ignore.
Do they have observable observations? Do they have experiments? Do they reason rigorously from known evidence? If the answer to any of this is "yes", then I'm being delusional. If the answer is "no", regardless of whether they're objectively right or not, they're delusional.
Quote:
How can we trust it if it's only at the moment.
Because it's based on all known observations. When you go beyond what is known, you are entering very murky grounds, and can claim anything. It's hardly reliable.
Quote:
If science says today that killing people is OK, and tomorrow that it's not
That's a bad example, because that is a moral judgement. Science doesn't make moral judgements.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 06:03 PM |
bonus applied by pandora on 28 Aug 2008. |
Edited by TheDeath at 18:06, 10 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
"Whom's"? Ad hominem attacks aside, they are the observations of those who rigorously test whatever they're testing.
so are those people 'we' when you say "we know that blahblah" 
Quote:
As I said, 100%, because it exists, so it couldn't have been any other way.
By that logic, there's a 100% probability that life exists, no matter of any evolution theory or whatever, since it does exist? Then what does that probability tell us about evolution or creation? Nothing, since life exists, and it's a 100% probability (since it does).
However just because you won at the lottery doesn't mean that the probability of success was 100% because it happened 
Quote:
Could you clarify? Because this question is extremely vague.
Quote:
"In the way we know it"? What do you mean by that?
Ok, why is gravity pulling objects instead of pushing them, for starters (anti-gravity). That's 'in the way we know it', objects fall, not rise up.
What's the probability that gravity works like we know it does? Why doesn't it work like anti-gravity, or why not COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?
because you must admit, not all possible laws of physics (if they were 'designed' different) would allow such life
Quote:
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about being objectively right. But when you have all of the known facts on your side one day, and the person is arguing against them without bringing new testable observations to the table, then that person is delusional.
That's the problem. When you speak and imply the truth, you must be positive that you are right. If I come to you and tell you that I saw the boogeyman, what will you think?
1) say I am delusional
2) say that you have no evidence, but I could be right
The difference, of course, is that the former implies truth, as if you KNOW that the boogeyman does not exist. However, lack of evidence does not mean that you know it does not exist. When someone says he exists to you, you must not respond as if you know what you are talking about. You haven't been there. Your assumptions that he is delusional is the big problem I'm talking about.
In (2) you simply do NOT imply that you know the truth. You say "I don't know whether boogeyman exists, I have no evidence however". This does mean that your statements are not to be trusted, because you have a lack of truth, which is true, since tomorrow the boogeyman might have been proven. This also means people won't follow you blindly because you implied the truth. Truth can't change.
Science implies truth at any of it's stages. Big Bang wasn't observable yet, so the Universe had no beginning -- that was the TRUTH among scientists back then. Then, Big Bang was observed, so the truth was that the Universe had a beginning.
However, there is only one truth, but science implies at any stage that truth lies in it's words. That's the problem. If they said "I don't know whether the Universe has a beginning or not, you probably know what you are talking about, but I have not observed it yet" is much better and implies a non-confident (not sure of yourself) statement, which is the correct one, rather than the absolute truth "what?? a beginning? nice fairy tale man" which people follow because they think it's the truth.
You can't use 'I don't know' arguments because they're unreliable. Therefore you can't use scientific arguments for something serious (i.e what one should do) since it's unreliable (it changes tomorrow).
Quote:
Then, the next day, when you have new observations, that person may be right, but you were not delusional. It is delusional to deny existing observations.
I never said that YOU were delusional. I only said that what you implied at any given moment, was as if you were speaking the truth, i.e you were so sure of yourself that you called him delusional. That's pretty bad, for example, when you imply something as a truth, you must do so as you KNOW what you are talking about. Did you? I doubt.. what made you think he was delusional? The fact that he didn't bring evidence for your beliefs (see my previous posts for that)?
Quote:
Who measures temperature with complex numbers?
Who said anything about temperature? I mean, if the laws of physics were different, or simply things that can't get on the real line.. how do you measure those?
Quote:
Do they have observable observations? Do they have experiments? Do they reason rigorously from known evidence? If the answer to any of this is "yes", then I'm being delusional. If the answer is "no", regardless of whether they're objectively right or not, they're delusional.
Like I said, you are not delusional, but that doesn't mean you can call others delusional UNLESS you're omnipotent (or whatever it's called to know everything) and know what you are talking about.
Quote:
Because it's based on all known observations.
I have not observed most things. "Known" is a vague term. It's subjective. Some people have disputed but failed due to lack of 'evidence', which is based on the belief of induction. They do have evidence, but based on other beliefs.
Quote:
That's a bad example, because that is a moral judgement. Science doesn't make moral judgements.
Ok, let me put it differently (it's only an example again).
Suppose now science says DNA is 100% unique for every person and it works a certain way. We bring to jail 1000 people, who are 'proven' with this DNA stuff. Why did we do that? Because science says it's true, TODAY. Right?
Tomorrow, we find out DNA is not reliable, so we have put those people to jail wrongly. Is this what science calls 'truth'? Is this why we should trust science, because it changes? How can those people trust it? But further, how can those people (i.e the delusionals if you draw the parallel) forgive it so quickly as if didn't happen?
However if from the start you implied that DNA could not be reliable, maybe we wouldn't be so sure of it. (in this example)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2008 07:13 PM |
bonus applied by pandora on 28 Aug 2008. |
|
Quote:
so are those people 'we' when you say "we know that blahblah"
I mean those who made these observations, and those who agree with them.
Quote:
By that logic, there's a 100% probability that life exists, no matter of any evolution theory or whatever, since it does exist? Nothing, since life exists, and it's a 100% probability (since it does).
Yes, so probability can't tell us about the known past. It can't tell us about creation vs. evolution. It can only tell us that since it happened, it would happen.
Quote:
However just because you won at the lottery doesn't mean that the probability of success was 100% because it happened
Ah, the illusion of free will. You may be picking among various tickets, but you will only pick one ticket (that is, unless you buy several). So the ticket that you will buy is predetermined. Say you have 5 tickets. If you don't know how you're picking them, you have a 20% chance of picking any of them. But if you know how the process is happening in your brain, and how you pick out of equal tickets, then you would know that your chances of picking one of the tickets is 100%, and your chances of picking the others is 0%.
Quote:
Ok, why is gravity pulling objects instead of pushing them, for starters (anti-gravity). That's 'in the way we know it', objects fall, not rise up.
Because that's how gravity works. Science still doesn't know why gravity works the way it does (although there are several theories). But we know how gravity affects things.
Quote:
What's the probability that gravity works like we know it does?
Assuming that our observations of gravity are all that there is to gravity, 100%. Assuming that they aren't, 100%. Things are the way they are, and they couldn't be any other way, objectively.
Quote:
Truth can't change.
Objective truth can't change. Subjective truth can.
Quote:
I only said that what you implied at any given moment, was as if you were speaking the truth, i.e you were so sure of yourself that you called him delusional.
I would have been sure of my knowledge then and I would be sure now. The conclusions I draw may be different because I would have more knowledge now. But until I have more evidence, I have no basis for which to assume that he is right, especially if he is contradicting existing evidence.
Quote:
Who said anything about temperature?
I did.
Quote:
that doesn't mean you can call others delusional UNLESS you're omnipotent
I can if they don't bring conflicting evidence to the table.
Quote:
Some people have disputed but failed due to lack of 'evidence', which is based on the belief of induction.
Induction, when used correctly, has never been demonstrated to fail.
The difference between induction and religious belief can be demonstrated thus: let us say you have a cliff and a bunch of rocks.
Induction: you toss the rocks off of cliff and they fall on the ground. You then know not to step off the cliff.
Religious belief: "GOD WILL SAVE ME!!!" *splat*
As for your DNA example, if we used your reasoning, then we wouldn't be able to put anybody in jail, on the off chance that they could somehow be innocent, despite all evidence to the contrary.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
