Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 9 · Next
Author Message
Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1315223 - Posted: 14 Dec 2012, 19:37:17 UTC

no you didn't thanks for the argument.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1315228 - Posted: 14 Dec 2012, 19:44:25 UTC
Last modified: 14 Dec 2012, 19:44:40 UTC

YOU're very welcome!

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1431
Credit: 687,186
RAC: 0
Message 1319164 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 4:22:03 UTC
Last modified: 23 Dec 2012, 5:14:25 UTC

I came across a YouTube video a couple of days ago which was dealing about the subject of Quantum Theory (which includes Quantum Mechanics).

Honestly, I hardly do not know anything about this subject. I know a little more about Einstein's Theory of Relativity which is dealing about the subject of time among other things, including gravity. I shall start looking in order to find out more about this stuff.

The YouTube video was a little interesting, because it was mentioning something which was called "M", but was not related to a particle this time.

I have lost the link for this video for now and will have to find it once again. In the meantime, are there anyone here who perhaps may add something to what "M" may be all about?

Here is the second question which came back to me right now.

New research may indicate that the Universe, according to Dr. Stephen Hawking, may not have been created by a God, but more likely as a result of chance, randomness or coincidence.

The question becomes then: Are there any mathematical "rules or laws" behind what we regard as these three above-mentioned terms - chance, randomness and coincidences? If so, the question about a divine creator behind the existence of the Universe (or possibly Universes - meaning Multiverses or Multi-Universes) may still be an open question which has yet to be solved.

Second question: I have started watching some videos - what is the difference (wording) between "difference" and "uncertainty (Werner von Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)? My best guess is that it is all about numbers, not logic.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319174 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 5:27:49 UTC - in response to Message 1319164.
Last modified: 23 Dec 2012, 5:30:52 UTC

I came across a YouTube video a couple of days ago which was dealing about the subject of Quantum Theory (which includes Quantum Mechanics).

Honestly, I hardly do not know anything about this subject. I know a little more about Einstein's Theory of Relativity which is dealing about the subject of time among other things, including gravity. I shall start looking in order to find out more about this stuff.

The YouTube video was a little interesting, because it was mentioning something which was called "M", but was not related to a particle this time.

I have lost the link for this video for now and will have to find it once again. In the meantime, are there anyone here who perhaps may add something to what "M" may be all about?

Here is the second question which came back to me right now.

New research may indicate that the Universe, according to Dr. Stephen Hawking, may not have been created by a God, but more likely as a result of chance, randomness or coincidence.

The question becomes then: Are there any mathematical "rules or laws" behind what we regard as these three above-mentioned terms - chance, randomness and coincidences? If so, the question about a divine creator behind the existence of the Universe (or possibly Universes - meaning Multiverses or Multi-Universes) may still be an open question which has yet to be solved.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yEu-b_YD0 Your link.

M theory was thought up by 5 people on a train in about an hour, most likly high or drunk. Math can tell a story just like any other story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPKj73pSBdw

What cannot be denied at this point in time is Design. The Hard Evidence of what we see, taste, and feel cannot be denied. This is by Design. We can debate till the cows come home the event of Creation, by the how it was done but we cannot deny it was done. What also cannot be denied is that we are Designed to explore. We explore by thought, and by going and looking bodily. This is also by Design. If all we do is by our own Design how can we not expect what we see, feel, and taste is also by Design. It can be denied that we Created the universe, we cannot create something before we were here.

Do you deny Algorithms in nature? Do you deny Fractals, Similarities, or Patterns in nature?

If you do you have accepted that a Theory Trumps Hard Evidence. You have denied the very 5 senses that are indeed designed for you. This is NOT good science, nor can it be called science at all.

Math does indeed tell a story, but is the story true? If you can touch, taste or see with your own eyes why would you deny it? Why would you deny that for nothing more then thought process? If the thought process leads to something that can be touched, tasted, or seen that would be confirmation. If not we have nothing but unproven theory.

We apply what we see in nature. We do nothing more then apply Design that has already been handed to us. We create NOTHING. The only thing we do is use what has been given.

Chance cannot be a factor. Nothing points to the so called fact of chance. Our own math tells us that nothing comes from nothing. Even in Quantum, the disappearing of a particle only means it will appear someplace else, NOT that is never was in the first place. This only means that we don't understand, not that we cannot understand. And this also depends on the story of this math being correct. It may be, perhaps not? The conclusion might be tailored for the question?

The very way you have posed your questions means that you are pointing to, not asking with all honesty. This is not science. You point to conclusion as if the science was settled, not open. This in a nutshell is what would be wrong with academia. This is done mostly for funding, text book funding, and in part out of arrogance.

Logic clearly dictates that I believe in Natures God, because we mimic nature in EVERYTHING we do. We are manipulators, we do not create. It is just that simple.

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1431
Credit: 687,186
RAC: 0
Message 1319179 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 6:23:29 UTC - in response to Message 1319174.
Last modified: 23 Dec 2012, 6:28:46 UTC

Hi, Intelligent Design (or I.D.).

Thank you for your prompt response to my questions.

My best guess is that you are a believer of a God (meaning that the Universe is having a divine creator and therefore should be assumed to be the result of a divine creation).

But Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (or is it in fact Quantum Theory?) states that atomic particles can not be measured with absolute precision because the measurement affects the state or condition of these particles themselves.

If Quantum Theory only is able to tell that certain things can not be precisely measured, their exact condition or behavior can only be theoretically explained, not verified by means of practical or experimental physics.

These two things appears to me not to go readily hand by hand. If God is the creator of the Universe, or some other divine factor is behind all of it, in which way is it then possible not to be able to explain the exact behavior of atomic particles. Also, the so-called string theory may well be included into Quantum Theory. Your thoughts about such a possiblity, if you don't mind.

Thanks for your insight!

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9253
Credit: 1,440,432
RAC: 1,891
United States
Message 1319189 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 6:54:14 UTC - in response to Message 1319174.

Chance cannot be a factor.

Clairvoyance cannot be a factor.

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1431
Credit: 687,186
RAC: 0
Message 1319211 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 9:23:49 UTC - in response to Message 1319189.
Last modified: 23 Dec 2012, 9:29:24 UTC

Clairvoyance...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance

You know, science is not only Seti@home and PrimeGrid (numbers all the way). Remember that we are dreaming while we are sleeping. It is soon forgotten.

The task which are up to scientists is to understand and explain is about everything we know (and do not know) in this Universe.

UFO's is one such subject. Seti@home is not looking for these things or trying to explain them either, it is looking for signals from space which may indicate that humans or humankind is not the only intelligent civilization in existence.

So are UFO's perhaps rather angels - and not someone visiting us from other star systems? Extraterrestrial visitors most likely are much more advanced than we are.

On the Kardashev scale, we rank some 0.84. Other civilizations may be Type 1, Type 2, or maybe even Type 3, the latter type may indicate that they may not be detected at all - they are too advanced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Also I could have written "measurement itself" in the previous post for better clearance or clarification.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8408
Credit: 4,126,212
RAC: 1,357
United Kingdom
Message 1319214 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 9:42:38 UTC - in response to Message 1319174.

... The Hard Evidence of what we see, taste, and feel cannot be denied. ...

A good YouTube link to blow your mind for you:

Reality is a Computed Simulation[?]


That's a modern respin of some of the ideas of Socrates and Plato from many years ago: Metaphysics philosophy


Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1431
Credit: 687,186
RAC: 0
Message 1319220 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 10:21:31 UTC
Last modified: 23 Dec 2012, 10:36:12 UTC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn_Xarm6Rj8

Link as previously given by Intelligent Design.

Watch the first 20 seconds of this video.

Apparently we are creators of things because nature has given us the intelligence in order for us to be able to do just the same.

This is an example of intelligent design, but by humans this time.

Have a look at the outer hard shell of a snail (its living house or home).

Notice the curves. Just coincidence - or is it design by nature?

Quantum Mechanics is assuming that everything we see is based on the opposite of laws, still we are able to see and recognize both symmetry as well as the opposite, namely chaos and randomness at the same time.

Nature is trying by means of evolution (or is it just randomness?) among other things to create something out of what is fundamentally not having explainable rules and laws. Please give me an example of such rules and laws when it comes to Quantum Physics.

In the same way, mathematics tells us that 2+1=3 and that some numbers are prime (particularly odd numbers except that 1 is not prime but 2 is prime despite being an even number).

And it should read possiblilty a little earlier on as well.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31606
Credit: 12,598,084
RAC: 31,815
United Kingdom
Message 1319235 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 12:30:46 UTC

Have a look at the outer hard shell of a snail (its living house or home).

Notice the curves. Just coincidence - or is it design by nature?

Fibonacci curves, also seen in ammonites from 200 million years ago.



Again survival of the fittest, spiral shells are stronger in their construction.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8644
Credit: 24,027,394
RAC: 21,049
United Kingdom
Message 1319246 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 13:23:00 UTC

Conturary to I.D. and his thoughts that everything is designed, if you follow Chris's Fibonacci numbers and design. You will find that as nature evolves the Fibonacci series offers the best solution to thousands of natures problems whether it is strong stucture, population numbers, packing density or whatever. Just google Fibonacci and nature, even if you don't want to be bothered with the maths there are plenty of images that show the Fibonacci series in nature.

Here's one page Fibonacci Numbers and Nature

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31606
Credit: 12,598,084
RAC: 31,815
United Kingdom
Message 1319280 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 14:45:43 UTC

Lyall Watson wrote a very good book called Supernature in 1973. Sadly he died a few years ago. A good read I can reccommend.


Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319287 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 15:10:07 UTC
Last modified: 23 Dec 2012, 15:10:30 UTC

Chris,

Darwin was right except for chance/random being a factor. thanks for the book I'll look it up.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319290 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 15:15:16 UTC

M.P.....

YES, chaos and order live side by side. Quantum, looking at the atom is reason for the atom to wiggle and not want to be quantified, in my thoughts is the Designer telling us that we are not ready for this discovery.

The Designers--sense of Humor.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319291 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 15:17:30 UTC - in response to Message 1319235.

Have a look at the outer hard shell of a snail (its living house or home).

Notice the curves. Just coincidence - or is it design by nature?

Fibonacci curves, also seen in ammonites from 200 million years ago.



Again survival of the fittest, spiral shells are stronger in their construction.



In a way--a form of Paley's watch.

Most here are OVER thinking the problem.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319298 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 15:44:49 UTC
Last modified: 23 Dec 2012, 15:45:29 UTC

The result is Design, not chaos. The result is all that matters. The result cannot be by chance.

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9253
Credit: 1,440,432
RAC: 1,891
United States
Message 1319392 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 19:31:14 UTC - in response to Message 1319211.

Clairvoyance...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance

You know, science is not only Seti@home and PrimeGrid (numbers all the way). Remember that we are dreaming while we are sleeping. It is soon forgotten.

The task which are up to scientists is to understand and explain is about everything we know (and do not know) in this Universe.

UFO's is one such subject. Seti@home is not looking for these things or trying to explain them either, it is looking for signals from space which may indicate that humans or humankind is not the only intelligent civilization in existence.

So are UFO's perhaps rather angels - and not someone visiting us from other star systems? Extraterrestrial visitors most likely are much more advanced than we are.

On the Kardashev scale, we rank some 0.84. Other civilizations may be Type 1, Type 2, or maybe even Type 3, the latter type may indicate that they may not be detected at all - they are too advanced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Also I could have written "measurement itself" in the previous post for better clearance or clarification.


You are not addressing the topic.
We can see that ID frequently state chance cannot be a factor, or even that chance does not exist.
To say one believes in chance is to say we believe there are "random events", events that we cannot predict the outcome of, from trial to trial, but often we can see patterns in the long run.
To reject chance is to say that we can, with enough information, predict each outcome, each time. In other words, become clairvoyant.
Yet ID has also rejected clairvoyance.

musicplayer
Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 1431
Credit: 687,186
RAC: 0
Message 1319434 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 21:41:52 UTC - in response to Message 1319392.
Last modified: 23 Dec 2012, 21:42:58 UTC

I will make it short because I have been up too long.

Suppose you are a dealer of cards in a poker game.

Always the best cards, the best numbers. Leave the rest alone. It is of no interest at all.

In the end it is always the results (meaning particular or specific results) that matters - nothing else.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319447 - Posted: 23 Dec 2012, 22:28:37 UTC - in response to Message 1319434.

I will make it short because I have been up too long.

Suppose you are a dealer of cards in a poker game.

Always the best cards, the best numbers. Leave the rest alone. It is of no interest at all.

In the end it is always the results (meaning particular or specific results) that matters - nothing else.


Indeed.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1319623 - Posted: 24 Dec 2012, 14:46:53 UTC

You would consider the roll of the dice a game of chance. It is not in nature. The outcome of the roll is already known.

When a man and woman intend to have a child what is the outcome?

In the spring, following the same patter as above, what happens with the birds?

The outcome is known before it happens, and is by Design. What seems like chaos to you is not really chaos.

The act of looking at the atom, in particular, looking for the electron, makes the effort worthless for us. Math was made to explain that act. The conclusion might be tailored for the question? Indeed it is done exactly in that manner. So, what is the Design? We still don't know. But, we know that chaos and order do live side by side and the result is order, not chaos. We see this in nature.



Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence

Copyright © 2014 University of California