energy physics and the Divine attributes

[selfreasoning4all]

[rwatts]

Inductions solely derived from observations are called scientific facts.

Oooo. I'm not so sure.

Let us look at the hobit. Two groups of scientist are looking at essentially the same data but are drawing different conclusions. I don't think we have two different facts about the real nature of the hobit.

One group is right and the other group is wrong, or they might both be wrong. In fact, both could even be correct to a degree - that is, a dwarf species does really exist, but it's just that the bones they are looking at for the moment belong to diseased individuals.

[selfreasoning4all]

Oooo. I'm not so sure.

Let us look at the hobit. Two groups of scientist are looking at essentially the same data but are drawing different conclusions. I don't think we have two different facts about the real nature of the hobit.

One group is right and the other group is wrong, or they might both be wrong. In fact, both could even be correct to a degree - that is, a dwarf species does really exist, but it's just that the bones they are looking at for the moment belong to diseased individuals.

The scientific fact would be, that there is a set of bones for a small humanoid; whether they are dwarf or disease is called theory

[klaus54]

The scientific fact would be, that there is a set of bones for a small humanoid; whether they are dwarf or disease is called theory

You are correct about the set of bones being a scientific fact. But that's NOT an "induction" by any definition of the word.

Inductions solely derived from observations are called scientific facts.

And what you're calling "theory" in your example is what scientists call an "hypothesis", i.e., a testable/falsifiable explanation.

Induction is done by collecting more facts to either support, refute, or modify the hypothesis.

I don't have time to follow your "proof", but there's no way you can prove or disprove the existence of the "Divine" unless, again, you use a non-standard definition of Divine -- i.e., a being or beings or thing or things that are supernatural, i.e., "above nature".

All you can do with physics is deal with the natural.

Now, perhaps if other universes exist, their rules could be different. But the laws of physics dealing with energy are part of OUR universe.

Energy is NOT divine, even an unlimited (eternal, infinite, whatever you call it) amount.

That FACT (by standard definition) plus your flawed definition of facts as inductions, indicate to me that your conclusions are incorrect.

Bear in mind that correct maths are NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT for a physics conjecture to be true.

K54

P.S. Welcome to the loony bin that is the Natural Science Forum!

[selfreasoning4all]

You are correct about the set of bones being a scientific fact. But that's NOT an "induction" by any definition of the word.

The observation is "small bones", the induction is "these bones are humanoid"... i.e. comparison with other bones that we call "humanoid".

And what you're calling "theory" in your example is what scientists call an "hypothesis", i.e., a testable/falsifiable explanation.

Ok, and the explanation of the hypothesis would be the theory.

I don't have time to follow your "proof", but there's no way you can prove or disprove the existence of the "Divine" unless, again, you use a non-standard definition of Divine

I use the following definition; an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, conscious being.

Such a being is described (defined) at least in a few major religions.

-- i.e., a being or beings or thing or things that are supernatural, i.e., "above nature".

The word "supernatural" is not found in the Bible, Tao Te Ching, Vedas, nor Stoic poetry.

But if you mean the "nonphysical" when you say supernatural... refer to the nonphysical/spiritual section.

Now, perhaps if other universes exist, their rules could be different. But the laws of physics dealing with energy are part of OUR universe.

If there are other (relevant) universes than they have the ability to materially interact with this universe, in other words they together would make but one universe (because a universe is defined as all interactions), which is absurd (reductio ad absurdum) therefore there is only one universe. Q.E.D.

Energy is NOT divine, even an unlimited (eternal, infinite, whatever you call it) amount.

If energy is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and conscious, then it is Divine by virtue of the identity of indiscernables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

That FACT (by standard definition) plus your flawed definition of facts as inductions, indicate to me that your conclusions are incorrect.

It was an induction, so by your reasoning the conclusions are correct. However this is fallacious reasoning; wrong in one place does not mean wrong in another.

Bear in mind that correct maths are NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT for a physics conjecture to be true.

Are you refering to the problem of induction?

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

P.S. Welcome to the loony bin that is the Natural Science Forum!

thanks for your consideration

[selfreasoning4all]

this Divine might be the Tao, I am not sure if it is Jehovah because I don't think the original text of the bibles says he is omnipotent, and my voices say Jehovah is not all-aware nor omnipotent without killing everyone else

[selfreasoning4all]

this Divine might be the Tao, I am not sure if it is Jehovah because I don't think the original text of the bibles says he is omnipotent, and my voices say Jehovah is not all-aware nor omnipotent without killing everyone else

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Sparko

We don't allow such profanity here. You should have read the rules before agreeing to them

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[tabibito]

Or it's none of these stupid ------ beings

You might want to edit that before a moderator finds it. Such language is viewed with displeasure.

[firstfloor]

The Divine is natural.

In that case, some bright spark is bound to put it in shampoo.

[tabibito]

Does any of this science prove that this eternal energy would be incapable in the course of eternity, of developing sentience?

[klaus54]

The observation is "small bones", the induction is "these bones are humanoid"... i.e. comparison with other bones that we call "humanoid".




Ok, and the explanation of the hypothesis would be the theory.





I use the following definition; an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, conscious being.

Such a being is described (defined) at least in a few major religions.





The word "supernatural" is not found in the Bible, Tao Te Ching, Vedas, nor Stoic poetry.

But if you mean the "nonphysical" when you say supernatural... refer to the nonphysical/spiritual section.





If there are other (relevant) universes than they have the ability to materially interact with this universe, in other words they together would make but one universe (because a universe is defined as all interactions), which is absurd (reductio ad absurdum) therefore there is only one universe. Q.E.D.




If energy is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and conscious, then it is Divine by virtue of the identity of indiscernables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles




It was an induction, so by your reasoning the conclusions are correct. However this is fallacious reasoning; wrong in one place does not mean wrong in another.




Are you refering to the problem of induction?

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




thanks for your consideration

1) Observe an egg. Concluding that it's from a chicken is not induction but observation based on a previous observation.

2) There are MANY theological words that are not used in the Bible; including omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, Trinity...

Supernatural is a standard term.

3) In what sense is energy "conscious" -- this is a huge mistake in your "induction".

4) At BEST you are supporting a form of pantheism.

The fact that you assert that energy is "conscious" smacks of moonbatism.

K54

P.S. Theory and hypothesis are different animals. The theory in the case of Flores Man would be that he was a remnant descendant of H. erectus population from East Asia.

[klaus54]

this Divine might be the Tao, I am not sure if it is Jehovah because I don't think the original text of the bibles says he is omnipotent, and my voices say Jehovah is not all-aware nor omnipotent without killing everyone else

???

Oy gevalt!

BTW, "Jehovah" is an awful transliteration of the Tetragrammaton.

K54

[klaus54]

Does any of this science prove that this eternal energy would be incapable in the course of eternity, of developing sentience?

Absolutely not.

Unless, or course, Selfie uses his personal definition of sentience.

This combined with his broad definition of "Divine" proves at least that his syfy story is demonstrating theism.

K54

[klaus54]

Of course you're aware that the Planck Length is the limit in size for any process involving energy since G and h break down into "quantum foam" at that scale.

Ergo, Energy cannot be "infinite", again in any standard definition of the term. Do you want to redefine "infinite" as well?

K54

[klaus54]

Time-translational symmetry is equivalent to conservation of energy. In a closed system dS >= 0 so entropy gives a "arrow" to time, so time is not "reversible" -- unless you believe our universe is infinite.

Do you believe our universe is infinite and thus a thermodynamically open system?

K54