|
4 registered members (M_D, AndrewAMD, Quad, Ayumi),
806
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: fastlane69]
#66715
03/16/06 01:05
03/16/06 01:05
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
Consider the limit to this statement... relativity doesn't apply to an object at REST with it's environment yet Newtonian Physics does. An object at rest with it's environment would experience neither time dialation nor length contraction, the hallmarks of relativity.
Oh come on, now you are nitpicking. What if the object moves at speed epsilon? Does Newtonian physics only apply to resting objects then ?
Quote:
Let's take a minimialist approach: God is a being more powerful than any human that cannot be seen by conventional means (ie EM radiation) and has a lifetime on the order of the lifetime of the universe.
Sounds good, but the more minimalist the definition the harder it will be to make any inferences.
@AndersA:
Quote:
As I have already said, if you add other axioms, you may show that there are several gods or no god at all. You talk about proofs, but you don't like me to talk about logic which is the mother of proof theory.
Nothing wrong with proofs, but you can only come to a valid conclusion if you start with valid axioms. Borrowing your notations, fastlane made the following statements:
1) R(x) := x is a god and
2) x
The question then is what is required to show that either
(x).(y).R(x) ^ R(y) -> x==y or
(x).(y).R(x) ^ R(y) -> x!=y
It comes down to figuring out what the existence of one or many gods entails, i.e. what other predicates can we deduce from x ^ R(x) ? The answer to this lies outside of predicate logic.
Last edited by Marco_Grubert; 03/16/06 01:23.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: Marco_Grubert]
#66716
03/16/06 02:57
03/16/06 02:57
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Quote:
Oh come on, now you are nitpicking. What if the object moves at speed epsilon? Does Newtonian physics only apply to resting objects then ?
Fine, if you want to nitpick, gamma = 1.0000000000000555555555555601852 if you are traveling at 100 m/s and thus yes, if you need HIGH precision measurements (up to 14 decimal places)you would need to use relativity (such as GPS and Nerd Conventions). But under every other common day application, we would be well served by using the Newtonian approximation.
How about a better example: the physics inside an atoms nucleus and the physics outside. Inside is domincated by SU(3) gluons, outside it's an SU(2) x U(1) world; each "omnicient" in their own realm but invalid in the other.
Quote:
Sounds good, but the more minimalist the definition the harder it will be to make any inferences.
But I encourage people to add to the minimal definition and work from there. After all, this is not a competative exercise, it's not about "my god" versus "your god" but rather to see if you can come up with a proof or disproof of the One vs. Many by any means possible
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: Marco_Grubert]
#66717
03/16/06 07:13
03/16/06 07:13
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
AndersA
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
@AndersA:
Quote:
As I have already said, if you add other axioms, you may show that there are several gods or no god at all. You talk about proofs, but you don't like me to talk about logic which is the mother of proof theory.
Nothing wrong with proofs, but you can only come to a valid conclusion if you start with valid axioms.
My point exactly. And the axiom "god exists" is neither more nor less valid than any of mine.
Quote:
Borrowing your notations, fastlane made the following statements:
1) R(x) := x is a god and
2) x
The question then is what is required to show that either
(x).(y).R(x) ^ R(y) -> x==y or
(x).(y).R(x) ^ R(y) -> x!=y
Also true, but my point is that this is logically impossible without a definition for the property god. In other words, you have to add more axioms which I did. I probably didn't add the same axioms that fastlane would have, but I added some at least 
Quote:
It comes down to figuring out what the existence of one or many gods entails, i.e. what other predicates can we deduce from x ^ R(x) ? The answer to this lies outside of predicate logic.
And again you are right and the consequence is that there is no proof.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: fastlane69]
#66718
03/16/06 07:28
03/16/06 07:28
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
AndersA
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is no such thing as a scientific proof. Science doesn't do proofs; logic and math do proofs
ROFL. You're a mathematician, aren't you? 
We have a "different" way of proving things than philosophers and mathematicians: it's called the scientific method. And it has successfully "proven" many things.
No I'm a physicist and that's why I know that the scientific method is the contrary to proving things, rather.
To be correct, the scientific method has been unsuccessful in disproving many things. These things, not yet disproved, are what we call knowledge.
Logic do proofs, science doesn't.
Science might give you an indication of whether there seems to be no, one or several gods, but then you have to give us something to fail to disprove.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: AndersA]
#66719
03/16/06 14:47
03/16/06 14:47
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Quote:
No I'm a physicist
What field, degree, and school?
What was your dissertation on?
What do you do now?
I'll address your perspective of the Scientific Method after these answers... I need a little background to understand where you are coming from.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: fastlane69]
#66720
03/16/06 17:11
03/16/06 17:11
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
AndersA
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
What field, degree, and school?
What was your dissertation on?
What do you do now?
I'll address your perspective of the Scientific Method after these answers... I need a little background to understand where you are coming from.
I've just got a masters degree, but you don't even need that in order to know that what I wrote is true. Maybe you will try to turn this into a competition about who went to the finest schools, but that will never happen. The argument is what counts, not who is giving them.
So if you actually have an example where knowledge has been found in science by means of a proof, I'd be interested in seeing it.
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: AndersA]
#66721
03/16/06 17:39
03/16/06 17:39
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
I know this is way OT, but this issue must be addressed. I'm just confused since by your definition... Quote:
I know that the scientific method is the contrary to proving things, rather.
To be correct, the scientific method has been unsuccessful in disproving many things. These things, not yet disproved, are what we call knowledge.
...the scientific method has been unsuccessful at disproving the existence of god. Therefore, since god has not been disproved we call god knowledge
Doesn't make much sense to me. 
Quote:
So if you actually have an example where knowledge has been found in science by means of a proof, I'd be interested in seeing it.
The problem I see is that you limiting your definition of "proof" to the mathematical/logical sense (hence my original assertion that you were a mathematician). There are many other ways to prove things which is why I bring up the Scientific Method. Proof is merely the steps taken to affirm that your original hypothesis is true. Hence, experiements are the way that scientist find proof and it is these kinds of proof, experiments, that I'm after in this thread (since, as I explained in the beginning, people claim that science can be used in this theological manner)
Example: neutrinos.
In order to explain the misssing energy in beta decay, Pauli postulated the existance of neutrinos. This was pure theory based on the principle of Energy Conseration. In order to prove that his assertion was right, experiments were later performed that fit what Pauli described exactly... in short, experiments PROVED theory.
What was your dissertaion on? Still curious...
|
|
|
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many
[Re: fastlane69]
#66724
03/16/06 20:38
03/16/06 20:38
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
This arguement is futile. It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, no matter what axioms you begin with or what logic you use. If I postulate that there is an invisible, massless clown in the sky, how you can prove or disprove it?
However, modern science has shown that there while there is much evidence of natural processes, directed by physical laws and forces, there is no evidence at all for an intelligent guiding power. This is of course not proof, but for a rational person, it is good enough.
|
|
|
|
