Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
spiritual stuff
#11
[Image: anim_59.gif]
Reply
#12
Di says: "A point of miscommunication here Sparky."

I don't see it.

But have it your way: I've said all I'm going to on this rather lame ass subject. But enjoy yourselves!

Carry on. Smile
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#13
Thanks and it's all okay, I live in a state of constant confusion lately, Stanky hardly leaves a ripple.

... now I'll have to go hunt him up again, he's wandered off. siiiiigh.
Reply
#14
(07-12-2017, 02:14 PM)The Atheist Wrote:  
(07-12-2017, 03:34 AM)Shiner Wrote:  The religion is Mammonism. Science is just it's bitch.

That is so fucking wrong mate!

Where the hell do you get these ideas??

How many fucking times do I have to tell you??















The apostrophe is not used for the possessive third person*, it's the contraction where the apostrophe is required.

Sheesh.

Oops.  I blame auto-correct.




















(I don't use auto-correct)

And I covet this mug. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0110RCLQ2/ref=ox_sc_sfl_image_3?ie=UTF8&smid=A3OEPE7314GES6&th=1
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#15
... and they should hand them out in Primary school! ... gawwwwd, the hours spent listening to all that guff about apostrophe positioning when we could have just checked it on our mugs.

There's some great mugs there, shame it's Amazon. Bloody burglars.
Reply
#16
Is Sparky gone yet?

I really wanted to express a point i didn't quite manage to get to; it's fairly sophisticated:

There is a fair chance that the 'method" and it's need for evidence; as perfectly as that works for this sector, may be specifically useless for a much larger slice of the pie in front of us.

what if the method simply doesn't work on strings?

(It barely works on the bigger sub-atomic bits (vibrations) in the quantum mechanical realm.)

The 'evidence' at that level, is that a single electron can exhibit opposing 'spin' states at the same time.
Then, add in entanglement and tunneling...it defies old logic.

Still, we've come close to a consensus of the evidence in the quantum field...and it works, mostly.
We can somewhat predict the outcomes...even if they are bizarre.

Down at the hypothetical "string theory" level, if it "exists", in any normal sense of existing, it is much less bound by the stodgy rules of the quantum realm. By its very nature, it may defy evidence.

That's what I'm saying.

The biggest slice of the pie does (and will, forever, imho) remain outside of the realm of science; the scientific method; the limts of observation; the funding issues; etc; etc.

Such a thought doesn't rush me to the comfort of Deep-pak of crap.

I'm more in the camp of the string people and the multi-verse models and the 11 dimensions and all that stuff.
It's going to remain out of reach.
As is consciousness itself.

Let's redefine "spritual':

I'll call it "that which remains beyond the reach of the method".

Should your reaction be Sparky-esque, you'll say that there is nothing beyond the reach of the scientific method.

To which i respond,

"What if there is?"

and of course, i think there is.

(not god-stuff or eternal bliss; not that stuff. That ain't me. I ain't a card-carrying member of anything, other that the one that says I can drive.)
Reply
#17
I stumbled through Hawkings book A Brief History of Time way back.  I got all the way through and retained sanity and a glimmer of understanding until it got to quantum theory.  I know my limitations and conceded defeat.

But later I read an article that was about how the laws of physics are 'altered' at the extreme ends of the spectrum.  In black holes and sub atomic levels the rules seem not to apply, or not apply as expected.

Being an amateur the admission that the rules don't apply at singularity and quantum level led me to believe that something wrong there is with the notion that everything fits into the picture that 'science' paints for us. 
 Everything we know does.  But the reason we ... sorry have to do this ... the reason we don't know what we don't know is that something important is missing from our science picture.
 
We're trying to make pieces fit into the construction of an  Ikea flat pack when they don't appear on the enclosed instruction sheet.  
We can build a perfectly functional object from the bits that fit according to the manual.

But the left over pieces belong in it somewhere, just not to that object in the form it takes when we've put it together.

They undoubtedly fit it when it's built in a different form though.  They exist, therefore they do fit in somewhere.
 
We haven't yet found what that object that incorporates all the pieces is supposed to look like yet.  
We can settle for accepting the Ikea Science Cabinet as it is, and hide the spare parts away and ignore them.  
Or we can play around with imagining what something they do fit may look like.

I don't understand why people refuse to consider that their shiny cabinet might be multi-functional if constructed a little differently.  What is scary about that to them??

I don't pretend to understand string theory, but I do 'see' it as being a lot more flexible than the particle theory which bogged science down to a rather static mind set.  

 Little bits of energy attaching and detaching  to form a kaleidoscopic range of atomic structures at unimaginable speed seems closer to what is happening at quantum levels than current laws of physics explains.  .. but hey, I'm a science pixie, I can think that kind of thing without upsetting anyone .. hopefully.  

I  don't believe it, you can't believe something you don't know about, I just wonder about it. 
Like others, I'll file it as proven when it is.  
Meanwhile it remains in my Rumsfeld file.
I'm just imagining what ifs.
Reply
#18
Stanky: If and when you come up with a method that works where science doesn't, we'll all be anxious to hear about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that it's possible that some pieces of the Cosmos aren't available for investigation by science....yes?

If so, I (respectfully) do not agree with you at this time.

ETA: If a thing is observable, it's available to science for investigation. If it's not observable, and I mean not at all, then, yes--it is not available for investigation by science. But then again, it it's not observable in any way at all, then it doesn't exist. Except, perhaps, in someones mind as an idea. It's the same with the notion of the existence of Gawd(s). If there is an all powerful being who does not wish to be observed, then it exists beyond the ability of science to investigate. But it's really much more likely to be true to simply say that it doesn't exist.

Here's a little linky you might enjoy regarding science and religion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8gMq-RYaL8

Bonus linky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t7Uvqrh8kU
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#19
(07-13-2017, 05:46 PM)sparks Wrote:  Stanky:  If and when you come up with a method that works where science doesn't, we'll all be anxious to hear about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that it's possible that some pieces of the Cosmos aren't available for investigation by science....yes?

If so, I (respectfully) do not agree with you at this time.

ETA:  If a thing is observable, it's available to science for investigation.  If it's not observable, and I mean not at all, then, yes--it is not available for investigation by science.

Ummm.  Dark matter, or whatever it's called this week springs to mind.  They 'know' it's there but can't observe it.   It's only 'observable' by the effect it has on other matter/ gravity.   If they could test it they would  be able to give it more than a 'theory' name wouldn't they Sparks?   There seems to be a scientific tool that's missing from the box on that one.                    



But then again, it it's not observable in any way at all, then it doesn't exist.  Except, perhaps, in someones mind as an idea.  It's the same with the notion of the existence of Gawd(s).  If there is an all powerful being who does not wish to be observed, then it exists beyond the ability of science to investigate.  But it's really much more likely to be true to simply say that it doesn't exist.

 
The first bit, about existing as an idea is in alignment with scientific thinking. ' Science' isn't saying something doesn't exist because we haven't detected it.   Only 'skeptics' seem to be saying that. 

I see a big difference between scientists acknowledging that  something may exist and filing it under Unknown, and religiously inclined people believing implicitly that something unkown unquestionably exists. And even being so convinced of it that they give it a personality and enslave themselves to it without any proof at all.  

You've drawn a long bow on comparing wondering and experimenting mentally with the what ifs of physics, to belief in woo.  Just sayin'.  


Here's a little linky you might enjoy regarding science and religion:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8gMq-RYaL8

 .33 in .. seems to be saying pretty much what we're arguing over.  Science needs new ideas to test, science needs change. 
I already outlined why religion simply can't change, it's in hard copy and it's very 'word of god' foundation prevents it from changing because of the printing press.   God apparently can't change his mind. Scientists can.
Scientists trump gods.

Does it really matter that some bright idea doesn't work?   If it doesn't work then it won't happen will it?  It will just be filed under fantasy and won't affect the already proven science one iota. 
 
You say if it can't be observed then it doesn't exist.  You must also concede that if it doesn't pass scientific testing,  then it simply won't function will it?   Ergo if it doesn't exist then it can't do any harm can it?

We don't see any prototype perpetual motion machines, or cars running on banana juice or whatever, we don't see cities lit up by 'free' energy or people levitating their groceries home from the Mall.  
They're bullshit theories.  They don't work.  They therefore don't matter. 

I just fail to see why it's so important to skeptics to smother 'what ifs'.   They're pretty harmless musings if they're just flat out wrong.  Amusements.

But just once in a while  one oddball theory makes something go click in a truly scientific mind when it connects to something else that 'might' be an idea. It then becomes a serious what if with a clue of the direction to be taken to prove/disprove it.

Making connections is how we find what to study scientifically.  If no one voices any ideas, no matter how fantastic, or how mundane, then science will stagnate.




Bonus linky:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t7Uvqrh8kU

So what is he saying that contradicts anything this thread is about?

Sagan defines the difference as science being a tool to gain knowledge, and religion as tool to dictate behaviour and  smother dissent.   ... smother dissent sounds a bit like what happens on 'skeptic' forums. Angel

Science exists in our logic files, religion in the emotional files.  Allowing emotion to over ride logic never ends well.

Or am I taking Sagan wrong too??
Reply
#20
Glad to see Sparky's tone softened slightly.

Di, you've made decent sense...but imho, it's too soft.
I'd go a step further and claim that the vast majority of 'what is' falls into the unobservable realm.
"odd-ball" theories are entertained by the majority of physicists these days.

To suggest that if it isn't observable, it doesn't exist?
That is the epitome of the arrogance and short-comings of the method.

If I was trying to be provacative, or if i didn't love science and hate religion, I'd toss in this true statement:

The state of the biosphere and the likely hood of human survival would be much better without the contributions of science.
In fact, a single scientific breakthrough (fixing atmospheric nitrogen with electricity) has enabled our population to far exceed the carrying capacity of the bio-sphere.

Anyone care to argue the point?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)