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
See more
See less

energy physics and the Divine attributes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • selfreasoning4all
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Does any of this science prove that this eternal energy would be incapable in the course of eternity, of developing sentience?
    It is self-causal, which is self-deterministic, which means consciousness, i.e. self-awareness, and obviously self-reasoning; where cause is reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
    Before 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.
    Of course not. No scientist would call a proposed explanation of any set of observations a "fact". Indeed, in science there ARE no facts, since every observation is a model of some lower level of abstraction.

    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:


  • klaus54
    replied
    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
    Last edited by klaus54; 08-07-2014, 07:10 AM. Reason: auto-correct "transnational"

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    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:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
    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.
    Last edited by klaus54; 08-07-2014, 06:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
    The Divine is natural.
    In that case, some bright spark is bound to put it in shampoo.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • selfreasoning4all
    replied
    Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
    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.

    Last edited by Sparko; 08-07-2014, 10:40 AM. Reason: f bomb

    Leave a comment:


  • selfreasoning4all
    replied
    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:


  • selfreasoning4all
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by selfreasoning4all View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by S4all
    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!
    Last edited by klaus54; 08-06-2014, 11:09 PM. Reason: typos

    Leave a comment:


  • selfreasoning4all
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    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

    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 Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X