An open community 
of Macintosh users,
for Macintosh users.

FineTunedMac Dashboard widget now available! Download Here

Page 10 of 14 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Topic Options
#4866 - 10/10/09 02:04 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
crarko Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Minnesota USA
It doesn't take 11 dimensions to predict that outcome.
_________________________
---

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr

Top
#4867 - 10/10/09 04:11 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
alternaut Offline

Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09
I agree that the topics discussed by the various scientific schools are interesting enough to pursue, but that's not likely to happen in the contentious tone this thread has developed. I doubt that merely adapting post titles will fix this. That's hardly surprising after this discussion was distracted from its core issues by (to mention just a few ways) ignoring or belittling relevant remarks, by confusing individual practitioners with their art, and by pointing to essentially meaningless side issues. shocked

Now it seems it's the different schools existing within science. Such schools don't matter at all in that greater scheme of things, as they are only exponents of the theses they propose, which await verification or falsification and nothing more. Choosing sides here is quite irrelevant to the eventual outcome (which is what it is), unless perhaps (and rather unscientifically) one happens to have invested in one theory over another and would feel a loss when one's favorite doesn't come out the 'winner'.

The bottom line is that 'science' doesn't have an agenda beyond doing what it purports to do: explaining the physical world. It can be argued that religion does, to the extent that it (imprudently) chose to appropriate the exegesis of reality to further its influence. Sure, the current state of affairs in science would allow one to question many religious positions regarding the physical world, but that is not the purpose of the endeavor. Still, the inevitability of this process increasingly causes dogmatic religion grief in maintaining its stance on the topic, a situation it cannot help but perceive as threatening.

I consider it largely a waste of breath to throw specific scientific findings against religion, because both use different frames of mind and reference. This is manifested by the claim of 'science denying the basis of religion' with its systematic deconstruction of religious dogma, which is countered by 'religion denying the basis of reality' with the selective wishful thinking it likes to equate to the rigorous scientific approach. This is the home turf of that slippery eel I referred to above and I suspect the main reason for the silence of the lambs. So be it. Unless, of course, you want to pick up those topics in a more agreeable dimension. tongue
_________________________
alternaut moderator

Top
#4868 - 10/10/09 05:29 PM Re: Unexplained Scientific Principles [Re: Gregg]
Gregg Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
The civilization of modern Europe has been able to survive largely because Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science.
-Winston Churchill

Just ran across this today, and forgot to interject it here earlier. Just posting it because it "fits", not to rouse more debate. I'm quite sure many participants do not see this the way Sir Winston did. This is not an accurate, word for word quote. Newsweek broke it up into two pieces, and I've incorporated their "fill" line to make it make sense.


Edited by cyn (10/13/09 06:34 AM)
Edit Reason: Typo corrected per Gregg's request.

Top
#4870 - 10/10/09 10:02 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: alternaut]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: alternaut
Now it seems it's the different schools existing within science. Such schools don't matter at all in that greater scheme of things, as they are only exponents of the theses they propose, which await verification or falsification and nothing more.

That's one opinion. I realize that 'the greater scheme of things' for some people (who only want to wait around for science to tell them what to believe) might be all that matters. But we could all be dead before those answers come. Look at that many-worlds interpretation for example. That -- and many other theories like it -- have sat around since the late 1950s. (That's over 50 years folks).

Pluswhich, I contend that: without some sort of faith (in something), some sense of adventure and/or an actual *interest* in what these theories (seem to) imply about "reality" -- there would be no further progress (or theories even). People would just sit around and wait for research data, rather than stepping out on a limb with scientific speculation. It is *ideas* (theories, guesses, interpretations, conjecture, etc.) which provide impetus and direction (i.e., what intelligent questions to ask next). Also, these theories give other scientists ideas... stuff to ponder, expand, and/or debate [i.e., what does it mean?].


Originally Posted By: alternaut
Choosing sides here is quite irrelevant to the eventual outcome (which is what it is), unless perhaps (and rather unscientifically) one happens to have invested in one theory over another and would feel a loss when one's favorite doesn't come out the 'winner'.

Another dull perspective. I never said choosing a side was in any way relevant to the eventual outcome. Quantum theory isn't about some horse race. It's some deeply, deeply fascinating (and strange) stuff about this world's appearance. Just read some of those interpretations (the summaries and/or explanations in "English" i mean, which discuss philosophical and other more comprehensible facets... the math is strictly for geniuses). While no doubt the eventual outcome is important... the theories -- as they exist now -- are still highly worthy in their own right (inasmuch as they indicate where we need to go and what sorts of stuff to look for). And no matter which one "wins" -- our current choices are chock full of rich, weird conversational substance.

Need i restate this thread's title again? [if you want to start a thread called "Explained Scientific Principles" for discussing the "greater scheme"... then enjoy.  wink  ]


Originally Posted By: alternaut
The bottom line is that 'science' doesn't have an agenda beyond doing what it purports to do: explaining the physical world. It can be argued that religion does, to the extent that it (imprudently) chose to appropriate the exegesis of reality to further its influence. Sure, the current state of affairs in science would allow one to question many religious positions regarding the physical world, but that is not the purpose of the endeavor. Still, the inevitability of this process increasingly causes dogmatic religion grief in maintaining its stance on the topic, a situation it cannot help but perceive as threatening.

Yeah... but those aspects were never really disputed here (not by me). That anti-religion angle has been repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated ... but i never took any position ["believe what you want" isn't a single position]. There have been a lot of posts here, seemingly aimed at some invisible foe. I would suggest if folks want to attack religion with any effectiveness, go register at some religious website and party down. [or perhaps the mods here wish to start a special 'Religion' forum?]


Originally Posted By: alternaut
I consider it largely a waste of breath to throw specific scientific findings against religion, because both use different frames of mind and reference.

That hasn't been my goal... so i guess we agree. In fact, if i were to have some goal along those lines... it would actually be more attuned to the thinking of Capra, et. al., who see the two eventually merging. Not a specific "religion" mind you... just that: if there is a Creator... and if science is so &*$#ing smart... the two may yet meet someday.

I personally don't think it will happen... since science will get closer and closer to the fact [realization] that the forces we are trying to obtain full knowledge of will get harder and harder for our [collective human] consciousness to capture.

And... isn't that almost what every theory in those quantum schools seems to be saying? I may be wrong. What do you think they prophesy?


[if you just want to wait around for the right answer to come along... i understand.]


Edited by Hal Itosis (10/11/09 09:21 AM)

Top
#4871 - 10/11/09 02:24 AM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
[quote=alternaut][i] That's one opinion. I realize that 'the greater scheme of things' for some people (who only want to wait around for science to tell them what to believe) might be all that matters. But we could all be dead before those answers come. Look at that many-worlds interpretation for example. That -- and many other theories like it -- have sat around since the late 50s. (That's over 50 years folks).

Pluswhich, I contend that: without some sort of faith (in something), some sense of adventure and/or an actual *interest* in what these theories (seem to) imply about "reality" -- there would be no further progress (or theories even). People would just sit around and wait for research data, rather than stepping out on a limb with scientific speculation. It is *ideas* (theories, guesses, interpretations, conjecture, etc.) which provide impetus and direction (i.e., what intelligent questions to ask next). Also, these theories give other scientists ideas... stuff to ponder, expand, and/or debate [i.e., what does it mean?].


From here I need to examine the language.

.
know v
1. vti to have information firmly in the mind or committed to memory
2. vti to believe firmly in the truth or certainty of something
3. vti to be or become aware of something
4. vt to have a thorough understanding of something through experience or study
5. vt to be acquainted, associated, or familiar with somebody or something
6. vt to be able to perceive the differences or distinctions between things or people
7. vt to recognize somebody or something by a distinguishing characteristic or attribute
8. vt to engage in sexual intercourse with somebody (archaic)

.
be·lief n
1. acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
2. confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective
3. a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true
4. an opinion, especially a firm and considered one
5. religious faith

.
sus·pect v
1. vt to believe that somebody may have committed a crime or wrongdoing without having any proof
2. vt to doubt the truth or validity of something
3. vt to think that something is probable or likely
4. vti to be suspicious about something

n
somebody who is thought to be possibly guilty of wrongdoing or doing something illegal

adj
1. thought or likely to be false or untrustworthy
2. looking likely to contain something dangerous or illegal

.
de·duce vt
1. to come to a conclusion, often without all the necessary or relevant information, but using what is known in a logical way
2. to come to a conclusion by inference from a general principle

.
faith n
1. belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
2. a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it
3. belief in and devotion to God
4. a strongly held set of beliefs or principles
5. allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something

.
con·fi·dence n
1. a belief or self-assurance in your ability to succeed
2. belief or assurance in somebody or something or the ability of somebody or something to act in a proper, trustworthy, or reliable manner
3. something told to somebody that is to be kept private
4. a relationship based on trust and intimacy

.
ac·cep·tance n
1. a written or verbal indication that somebody agrees to an invitation
2. the willing receipt of a gift or payment
3. willingness to believe that something is true
4. the realization of a fact or truth resulting in somebody’s coming to terms with it
5. the tolerating of something without protesting
6. willingness to treat somebody as a member of a group or social circle
7. an offer to allow somebody to join an organization or attend an institution
8. formal agreement, in writing or verbally, showing that somebody assents to the terms and conditions in a contract
9. a formal agreement by a debtor to pay a draft or bill of exchange when it becomes payable

.
rec·og·nize vt
1. to identify a thing or person because of having perceived him, her, or it before
2. to show appreciation of or give credit to another’s achievement
3. to allow a person to speak to a meeting
4. to accept formally the independent and legal status of a country or regime
5. to give or award something to a person as a token of acknowledgment of or gratitude
6. to show in some way that somebody is personally known
7. to accept the validity or truth of something
8. to bind another molecule that has a complementary structure

.
ac·knowl·edge v
1. vti to admit or accept that something exists, is true, or is real
2. vti to respond to something such as a greeting or message to show it has been noticed or received
3. vti to show appreciation or express thanks for something such as a letter or gift
4. vt to recognize or admit the existence, rights, or authority of somebody or something, especially in a legal context
5. vt to give official or public recognition of the help somebody has given or the work somebody has done

Encarta® World English Dictionary

Belief, is an acceptance

Faith, is a simple word that has meaning beyond simple "confidence".

Confidence in ones self, environment, associates, process, study, direction, scope…and so on. Confidence comes with a trust element and trust can be earned. There is an element of risk in Confidence so there needs to be a value assessment.

Top
#4875 - 10/11/09 09:08 AM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: sandbox]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Is the ["known"] maximum speed of light the absolute highest rate at which matter (photons) or energy (information) can be transmitted?

Top
#4878 - 10/11/09 10:59 AM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
...JER Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
Is the ["known"] maximum speed of light the absolute highest rate at which matter (photons) or energy (information) can be transmitted?

Heck no, the Enterprise travelled at Warp nine if I remember correctly!
_________________________
...JER (-: >

Top
#4880 - 10/11/09 12:27 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
Is the ["known"] maximum speed of light the absolute highest rate at which matter (photons) or energy (information) can be transmitted?


What is [known] is that light travels.
An axiom is used in mathematics as a starting point, in this case the speed of light in a defined medium, say…a vacuum. There is no argument that I'm aware of that light does not travel, not even from my dog. My garden responds to the movement of light, leaning to or away from the light when shadows effect the flora's position.




Edited by sandbox (10/11/09 12:27 PM)

Top
#4882 - 10/11/09 01:58 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: alternaut]
tacit Offline


Registered: 08/03/09
Loc: Portland, Oregon, USA
Originally Posted By: alternaut
I consider it largely a waste of breath to throw specific scientific findings against religion, because both use different frames of mind and reference.


Ideally, that's true. It is often claimed that science and religion are entirely separate from one another, in that science tries to answer the 'how' of things and religion tries to answer the 'why.' Religion, some people tell us, isn't about the physical world at all, but only about the supernatural or the divine.

However, I don't believe that this is actually true in practice. Every religious tradition I am aware of without exception, from Hinduism to Islam to Shintoism to Christianity, makes empirical claims about the physical world.

All empirical claims about the physical world are matters best evaluated by evidence, not faith. If a seer or a prophet or a guru or a shaman makes claims about the age of the world, or the size of the world, or the nature of physical law, or states that thus-and-such an activity will persuade a supernatural deity to cure a disease (as long as it's not a missing limb or a lost eye, anyway--god has always had severe limits when it comes to miracle cures) or strike one's adversaries dead with lightning, those are empirical claims that can be tested.

The faithful often play a game in which they make empirical claims about the physical world, then retreat into "you can't test religion with the tools of science, empiricism isn't appropriate for matters of faith" when those claims are put to the test.

And like I said before, every time a religious faith has made an empirical claim about the physical world which has disagreed with science, the science has been right and the faith has been wrong. If we can not trust faith to give us the right answers on issues where we can check the answers, how can we trust faith to get the right answers on issues where we can't check the answers?

Originally Posted By: "Hal Itosis"
Is the ["known"] maximum speed of light the absolute highest rate at which matter (photons) or energy (information) can be transmitted?


Photons aren't matter. They have no mass. smile
_________________________
Photo gallery, all about me, and more: www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Top
#4885 - 10/11/09 02:37 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: tacit]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: tacit
Photons aren't matter. They have no mass. smile

Is that "no mass" (whatsoever, period)... no rest mass... or no relativistic mass?
[i've never measured either of those... which one(s) have you recorded? wink ]

Some theories may construct the model differently: What is the mass of a photon?

Anyway, we're getting into wave/particle duality now (as well as mass/energy equivalence), and so, okay... perhaps 'matter' wasn't the most perfect word [which is why i generally favor the less technical term "stuff".] But thank goodness we got you back on a science track here.

So that still leaves my original question completely unanswered however
(except for the Star Trek sci-fi "warp 9" response by ...JER. Good one!).


Top
#4887 - 10/11/09 03:10 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
crarko Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Minnesota USA
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
Is the ["known"] maximum speed of light the absolute highest rate at which matter (photons) or energy (information) can be transmitted?

The Faster Than Light FAQ

Tachyons

The jury is still out, but it's not looking very favorable at the moment. Note that a similar situation existed while trying to understand blackbody radiation at the end of the 19th century. This eventually led to quantum mechanics and the current Standard Model. So not looking favorable could be considered a positive sign. laugh

Black Body

_________________________
---

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr

Top
#4891 - 10/11/09 09:35 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
Originally Posted By: tacit
Photons aren't matter. They have no mass. smile

Is that "no mass" (whatsoever, period)... no rest mass... or no relativistic mass?
[i've never measured either of those... which one(s) have you recorded? wink ]

Some theories may construct the model differently: What is the mass of a photon?

Anyway, we're getting into wave/particle duality now (as well as mass/energy equivalence), and so, okay... perhaps 'matter' wasn't the most perfect word [which is why i generally favor the less technical term "stuff".] But thank goodness we got you back on a science track here.

So that still leaves my original question completely unanswered however
(except for the Star Trek sci-fi "warp 9" response by ...JER. Good one!).



Language getting in the way?

Known speed of light was a math product. A bit less than 300,000kps
Faster than the speed of light challenges relativity.
Imagination is at work:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw43.html

Stuff can travel at the maximum speed of light [if> stuff doesn't get in its way

Hard science will not answer the question that some want it to.
They cannot use science to justify their faith.

Much work has been done to find "stuff" that can be associated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Speed of light in different mediums.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencelight/ligh-flash.html

Quote:
But thank goodness we got you back on a science track here.


I recognized that the objective to the question asked, was to make a connection between hard science and faith. Some thought using mysticism was an answer; others use the soft sciences to make their point. I did not notice that Tacit had not applied soft science in any of his analysis. His Linguistics tried to explain how the issues was being confused. Using the science of Cultural Anthropology he demonstrated how and why the connection couldn't be made. Others also made the same distinctions, examples of how Giants in the field of both disciplines were trying to find a Consilience to move the argument forward were posted, all within the bounds of science. The only time that the argument left the realm of science is when mysticism was introduced and attempts were made to validate it.



Top
#4892 - 10/11/09 10:53 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: sandbox]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: sandbox
Hard science will not answer the question that some want it to.
They cannot use science to justify their faith.

So is theoretical physics something you have a 'hard' time rationalizing?
Or have you got a cute little cult-like slogan to explain that away too? grin
P.S. - who is this "they" you refer to, and why not try brainwashing them?


Originally Posted By: sandbox
Known speed of light was a math product. A bit less than 300,000kps

Term: "math product"? -- meaning multiply what?
Also: "kps" -- not familiar with those units.

Tricky language did you say? tongue


Edited by Hal Itosis (10/11/09 11:01 PM)

Top
#4893 - 10/11/09 11:56 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: tacit]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles

Originally Posted By: tacit
Ideally, that's true. It is often claimed that science and religion are entirely separate from one another, in that science tries to answer the 'how' of things and religion tries to answer the 'why.' Religion, some people tell us, isn't about the physical world at all, but only about the supernatural or the divine.

However, I don't believe that this is actually true in practice. Every religious tradition I am aware of without exception, from Hinduism to Islam to Shintoism to Christianity, makes empirical claims about the physical world.

All empirical claims about the physical world are matters best evaluated by evidence, not faith. If a seer or a prophet or a guru or a shaman makes claims about the age of the world, or the size of the world, or the nature of physical law, or states that thus-and-such an activity will persuade a supernatural deity to cure a disease (as long as it's not a missing limb or a lost eye, anyway--god has always had severe limits when it comes to miracle cures) or strike one's adversaries dead with lightning, those are empirical claims that can be tested.

The faithful often play a game in which they make empirical claims about the physical world, then retreat into "you can't test religion with the tools of science, empiricism isn't appropriate for matters of faith" when those claims are put to the test.

And like I said before, every time a religious faith has made an empirical claim about the physical world which has disagreed with science, the science has been right and the faith has been wrong. If we can not trust faith to give us the right answers on issues where we can check the answers, how can we trust faith to get the right answers on issues where we can't check the answers?

tacit I just have to ask: if you truly believe science is superior, why do you feel so compelled to repeat the same stuff over and over? It smacks of insecurity. Who exactly are you preaching to? We are on page 10 now... and since page 2 it seems you've been battling an invisible God or something. We are Mac users here... not retards. Give it a rest. No one here really needs these repetitious sermons. Do you need them, for some reason? [i would enjoy hearing something *new* from you.]

Originally Posted By: sandbox
I recognized that the objective to the question asked, was to make a connection between hard science and faith. Some thought using mysticism was an answer; others use the soft sciences to make their point. I did not notice that Tacit had not applied soft science in any of his analysis. His Linguistics tried to explain how the issues was being confused. Using the science of Cultural Anthropology he demonstrated how and why the connection couldn't be made. Others also made the same distinctions, examples of how Giants in the field of both disciplines were trying to find a Consilience to move the argument forward were posted, all within the bounds of science. The only time that the argument left the realm of science is when mysticism was introduced and attempts were made to validate it.

I have no clue what you're babbling about either. Are you feeling like someone is forcing faith down your throat? Someone here? You have a problem with people living their own lives the way they choose? You want to dictate what they should do? Or just reaffirm that your way is superior to some imaginary poster here?

There's something unnatural artificial about all this.

Top
#4897 - 10/12/09 03:48 AM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
artie505 Online


Registered: 08/04/09
> Also: "kps" -- not familiar with those units.

kilometers/second
_________________________
The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

Top
#4909 - 10/12/09 09:33 AM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: artie505]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: artie505
kilometers/second

smile No... really? wink
Please show me a page that uses "kps".

Top
#4916 - 10/12/09 04:00 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
tacit Offline


Registered: 08/03/09
Loc: Portland, Oregon, USA
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
tacit I just have to ask: if you truly believe science is superior, why do you feel so compelled to repeat the same stuff over and over? It smacks of insecurity. Who exactly are you preaching to? We are on page 10 now... and since page 2 it seems you've been battling an invisible God or something. We are Mac users here... not retards. Give it a rest. No one here really needs these repetitious sermons. Do you need them, for some reason? [i would enjoy hearing something *new* from you.]


I repeat them for the same reason that if we were in a discussion about Santa Claus, I would repeat that reindeer do not fly, there is no toy factory at the North Pole, and a reindeer-driven sleigh can not visit every house in the world in the space of 24 hours--because they are relevant facts and becuse so far nobody has offered any convincing counter to them (or indeed any counter at all).

So what about it? If you think faith is superior, why have you not yet offered up an example of a revelation based on faith that has been demonstrated to accurately describe the physical world in a way that observation can not? If you think that faith has some other function than to describe the physical world, then how would you answer questions like what its function is and why when it does describe the physical world it gets the facts wrong, and why the faithful nevertheless use that faith as a basis for describing the world?

I keep putting the questions out there and you keep dodging them.

I do not recall, so far, any particularly compelling statements from you (or from anyone else) about what exactly the value of faith is, or why it's a good idea to believe something on faith without any supporting evidence.
_________________________
Photo gallery, all about me, and more: www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Top
#4917 - 10/12/09 04:12 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Hal_itosis, you claim you're unable to understand my babbling and yet you've responded to my posted for many pages. As far as Science being superior to religion, they're not even in the same universe, though you're trying to marry them with ignorance and insult. A theory is just that, and in a logical framework the theory is questioned and the evidence inspected.

Whereas:

In the fabricated world of the gods, there is no question as to gods validity, nor is there any evidence to present. If you have a theory of a prime mover and have evidence to substantiate the assertion present it for examination and the science community will do its due diligence in examining your claim. Until you can come forward with a reasonable concept it will remain outside of the scientific community and classified as myth, magic, and make believe. Cartoon Characters with addictive qualities to pacify the desperate or lazy among us. The tools are available to draw a logical conclusion; all you have to do is use them. If you want to be a scientist when you grow up, these tools will help you get there. If you want to believe in Santa Clause, fine, but don't try to sell us Santa the Scientist and expect that we will just "Believe" it.

Speed of light =kilometres per second 299,792,458 (exact) which can be found and understood by a 4th grader. Usually 300 thousand kilometres per second is used, rounded off the closest common denominator. In America 186 thousand miles per second (mps) is used. There could be variations, short cuts or new ways to express the mathematical outcome, but I haven't been in the 4th grade in 45 years so I'm using the means of expressing the fundamentals that I was taught, in the language that I was taught. If it's wrong it's gods fault, his priest taught it to me in grammar school. Shall we continue on with the primary school tit for tat so you can get your jollies or would you like to move on to something else that you found on the internet(s) on a scientific comic book site where a rocket-ship finds heaven? wink

Top
#4918 - 10/12/09 04:20 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: tacit]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Originally Posted By: tacit
I repeat them for the same reason that if we were in a discussion about Santa Claus, I would repeat that reindeer do not fly, there is no toy factory at the North Pole, and a reindeer-driven sleigh can not visit every house in the world in the space of 24 hours--because they are relevant facts and becuse so far nobody has offered any convincing counter to them (or indeed any counter at all).

So what about it? If you think faith is superior,

crazy Who?, what?, when? Check the transcript: "Parts i agree with and parts don't seem to pertain to me.", etc. [i.e., in reference to your attacks on faith.]


Originally Posted By: tacit
why have you not yet offered up an example of a revelation based on faith that has been demonstrated to accurately describe the physical world in a way that observation can not? If you think that faith has some other function than to describe the physical world, then how would you answer questions like what its function is and why when it does describe the physical world it gets the facts wrong, and why the faithful nevertheless use that faith as a basis for describing the world?

I keep putting the questions out there and you keep dodging them.

I do not recall, so far, any particularly compelling statements from you (or from anyone else) about what exactly the value of faith is, or why it's a good idea to believe something on faith without any supporting evidence.

Hmm, i guess you missed this reply (which i repeated twice): "i never claimed to know any of those answers (or cared one way or the other in providing them, if i did)."

Basically, you've been trying to put others into some mold where we need to account for all kinds of stuff that we don't have anything to do with... let alone agree with. Seems to be some sort of perception problem on your end, IMHO.

--

Oh well...apparently, any earnest discussion of 'unexplained scientific principles' will *not* be taking place after all. Unfortunately, you [and señor sandbag] have tanked an otherwise perfectly good thread (by means of peripheral preconceptions and assorted time-wasting platitudes). It's gone beyond boring now, and -- as indicated earlier -- that sectarian style of discourse provides a rather poor representation of the scientific viewpoint which you supposedly support. Unproductive, uninspiring prevarication. "Blinded by science" (or something) sounds more like it. Mondo fail.

Y'all may as well continue following thalo's lead, and establish a dedicated website... perhaps called "halo.net" (if that domain is available). Clearly there's little benefit in lounging around here any longer. Just let gravity put this thread out of its misery.

Vaya con Dios, dudes.


Edited by Hal Itosis (10/12/09 04:50 PM)

Top
#4919 - 10/12/09 05:04 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: Hal Itosis]
sandbox Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Water World
Quote:
Seems to be some sort of perception problem on your end, IMHO.

Sure you are trying to connect science and faith based religion without evidence, and your not finding any support, would be my take on the perception issue. Because I can't see the invisible link you claim.. then I'm what? A science snob?

Science isn't the end game, logic is, a reasonable use of our brains and senses through a structured, systematic process that assures a dependable outcome.

Vaya con Dios (go with god) and your not a salesman for the holy ghost? Right


Edited by sandbox (10/12/09 05:08 PM)

Top
#4922 - 10/12/09 07:41 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: sandbox]
Hal Itosis Offline


Registered: 09/03/09
Loc: 10.6.8 (build 10K549)
Oh well...apparently, any earnest discussion of 'unexplained scientific principles' will *not* be taking place after all.

>> Vaya con Dios (go with god) and your not a salesman for the holy ghost? Right


Actually, that bit of humor was added just to watch you jump. Good boy. grin

Top
#4923 - 10/12/09 07:52 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: sandbox]
crarko Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Minnesota USA
"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow (otherwise they would be classified as theorems).

Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be universally true (e.g., A and B implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in that sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.

Outside logic and mathematics, the term "axiom" is used loosely for any established principle of some field."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
_________________________
---

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr

Top
#4924 - 10/12/09 09:05 PM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: tacit]
ryck Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Okanagan Valley
Originally Posted By: tacit
I do not recall, so far, any particularly compelling statements from you (or from anyone else) about what exactly the value of faith is, or why it's a good idea to believe something on faith without any supporting evidence.


I don't understand why you require it or why you might think that anyone should have to provide it.

In an earlier post you said, in part, "...I argued then, and continue to argue now, that accepting things on faith, without evidence, is a mistake." That's what you believe and it's quite acceptable because, like the rest of us, you have a right to your beliefs. Further, neither you nor anyone else is obliged to explain why particular beliefs are held.

Perhaps it's time for everyone to agree to disagree.

ryck
_________________________
ryck

iMac (Retina 5K, 27", 2017), 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 2400 MHz DDR4
OS High Sierra 10.13.6
Canon MX712 Printer
Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner
Time Machine on 320GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro
Super Duper on 500GB OWC Mercury OTG Pro

Top
#4937 - 10/13/09 09:15 AM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: ryck]
alternaut Offline

Moderator

Registered: 08/04/09
Originally Posted By: ryck
I don't understand why you require it or why you might think that anyone should have to provide it.

It seems to me that the issue isn't so much that you have to provide anything, but that you won't or can't. shocked
Apart from that, I'm sure you can understand why such statements would be of interest. tongue
_________________________
alternaut moderator

Top
#4943 - 10/13/09 10:25 AM Re: Unexplained Lounge-Behavior Principles [Re: ryck]
Gregg Offline


Registered: 08/04/09
Loc: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Originally Posted By: ryck
Originally Posted By: tacit
I do not recall, so far, any particularly compelling statements from you (or from anyone else) about what exactly the value of faith is, or why it's a good idea to believe something on faith without any supporting evidence.


I don't understand why you require it or why you might think that anyone should have to provide it.
...

Perhaps it's time for everyone to agree to disagree.


IOW: What may be compelling to some is not necessarily so to others.

Top
Page 10 of 14 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

Moderator:  alternaut, cyn