Originally posted by tabibito
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
energy physics and the Divine attributes
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View PostBefore I can highlight the physics I need to share with you a new piece of epistemology that advances physics;
Inductions solely derived from observations are called scientific facts.
So what we have is some set of observations, always to some degree incomplete and ambiguous. Then we have people collecting sets of observations and drawing tentative conclusions about their causes and relationships. Not everyone selects the same set of observations for many reasons. For example, some observations available to some may not be available to others. For example, WHICH facts are relevant and should be included depends on the tentative explanation of their relationshps and causes. For example, observations may have been taken differently - at different times, different places, using different instruments, etc. etc. Getting any two observations to "match up" so that everyone agrees these are observations of the same thing is quite difficult.
So your attempt to use Pure Reason to derive your foregone conclusion founders on the uncertainty, ambiguity, and limitations of your premises. When the Real World must be distorted beyond all recognition in order to force foregone conclusions, it makes me nervous.
Leave a comment:
-
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
Leave a comment:
-
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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostDoes any of this science prove that this eternal energy would be incapable in the course of eternity, of developing sentience?
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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Postthis 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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View PostThe 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
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.Last edited by klaus54; 08-07-2014, 06:50 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Does any of this science prove that this eternal energy would be incapable in the course of eternity, of developing sentience?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View PostThe Divine is natural.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Postthis 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
Leave a comment:
-
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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostYou are correct about the set of bones being a scientific fact. But that's NOT an "induction" by any definition of the word.
And what you're calling "theory" in your example is what scientists call an "hypothesis", i.e., a testable/falsifiable explanation.
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
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".
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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
P.S. Welcome to the loony bin that is the Natural Science Forum!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View PostThe scientific fact would be, that there is a set of bones for a small humanoid; whether they are dwarf or disease is called theory
Originally posted by S4allInductions solely derived from observations are called scientific facts.
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!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rwatts View PostOooo. 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.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
136 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Leave a comment: