Posted on 04/05/2009 8:10:35 PM PDT by betty boop
NOPE... thats a calculated guess..
Faith is something else..
Faith is the evidence of what is hoped for..
The substance of what might or might not be..
Faith is irrational.. not fair.. even illogical..
Thats why faith is required by God (the real one)..
Know what I mean?... What do you know for sure?..
True enough. :)
So what's the point of the thought experiment?
Pedagogy. Just like with the exercises you find in physics textbooks.
As it stands, it has no "stationary object," no anchor or criterion according to which its phenomena can be compared and judged. JMHO FWIW
When we speak of a "stationary object" it is understood that this is not because the object meets some universal standard for being "stationary" (there is none) but because the object is stationary WRT to some inertial frame. The Sun is stationary WRT an inertial frame to a close enough approximation for the purpose of emphasizing the empirical difference between a real orbit as viewed from an inertial frame and an apparent orbit due to viewing a stationary object from a rotating frame. In the context of the merry-go-round experiment, the same could be said of the "stationary" target standing still on the Earth. Does this clarify things?
Sure. Lets take global warming for example.
CO2 is a green house gas. Doubling it will raise the temperature of the Earth apx. .8 to 1.2 degrees. Then the forcing's come into play. Water vapor is a positive forcing in the 1 to 5 times range, but lower level clouds are a negative forcing in the 2 to 5 times range and thunderstorms are also an unknown negative forcing as are most weather patterns like hurricanes. Then there are other variables like cosmic rays, solar radiation, UHI effects, Satellite measuring errors, etc. etc.
Each one of those items listed is known to a reasonable degree of accuracy. And if you think that the uncertainties diminish by the inverse ratio of the number of repetitions then I am sure that you can definitively forecast the exact temperature for Butte Montana June 18th, 2009 at 7 PM.
Heck I will be generous and give you a .10 degree error range : )
Yes it does, and thank you Zero Sum.
I can recognize the "pedagogical value" of such exercises. My initial reaction was motivated by concern that thought experiments be as "realistic" as possible. Yet there are all kinds of "thought experiments" going on wasting a whole lot of time and energy IMHO proposing things that have not got the least chance of being tested (e.g., panspermia theory and a raft of parallel universe cosmologies). It seems to me at the end of the day the insights of science must map to Reality. But some of these "thought experiments" seem to be constructing "second realities." They might be fun to think about, but: How on earth could they possibly be "tested?"
Meanwhile, there are plenty of "interesting" unanswered questions a bit closer to home. Such as: What is Life? Actually, it seems it's been the mathematicians and physicists who have been taking the lead on this question, from the 1930s forward (e.g., Ervin Bauer, Nicholas Rashevsky, Robert Rosen). They worked independently of each other, but their common object was to develop a mathematically-based theoretical biology. I'm just beginning to discover their work and am finding it fascinating. Suffice it to say that so far, their entire approach and findings have been mostly ignored by both the physics and biology communities.
Anyone interested in taking a look at these ideas, I highly recommend Robert Rosen's Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life.
I guess you and I weren't really speaking about the same thing from the get-go.... Sorry!
Thank you kindly for your reply!
Great example, LeGrande! Thank you!!!
Truly, the mathematicians and physicists have been much more illuminating on the question of what life v. non-life/death in nature "is." And strangely so, since biology is supposed to be the study of life. LOL!
Great example, LeGrande! Thank you!!!
Yes, excellent example...of imprecision which I already agreed can be “added” up. If that’s what you mean by “uncertainty” it’s a meaning I’ve never heard of.
Since you all seem to be more interested in proving you can know nothing certainly, I’ll leave you with that. You should all feel very comfortable with the post-modernists who together with the cultural Marxists have destroyed education at all levels in this country. They all agree with you that there is no truth (that anyone can know with certainty) and that everything is relative to one’s own “inner” convictions (read “feelings” or “revelation”).
The reason I think your views are very dangerous is because they are the basis of all the inclusivist multi-culturalism (the PC nonsense) that dominates our society today. “If nothing is certain and nothing can be proven, well than, anyone’s views, any culture, any society is as good as any other.”
I think you are all making a great mistake. I know it is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible, but I would, like Voltaire, defend to the death your right to believe and promote and practice what you believe as you choose.
I would be at fault if I did not point out the following considering Paul’s method in preaching:
“And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” (Acts 17:2) “Reasoned with them?”
“And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and Greeks.” (Acts 18:19) (Now why would he “reason” with them, if reason is not a means to certain knowledge?)
“But Saul increased the more in strength and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.” (Acts 9:22) Apparently Luke did not have the advantage of all your wisdom on the subject because he though something as important as the Messiahship of Christ could be PROVED. Too bad you weren’t around to show him that nothing can be proved.
Wish you all well.
Hank
Science is based on falsification Hank, not proof. If we can't falsify it we generally accept it, that is why they are called theories, not proofs.
Is what? Did the Legislature in Texas have the right idea when they declared pi to be 3? Why can't pi be 3?
I think the Texas Legislature story might be apocryphal, but I think it conveys the idea.
On the point of pi being officially declared as 3 - I do not know the background but I hasten to point out that a stumbling block both to mathematics and science is the precision of the measure.
If you and I set out to measure a coastline but used rulers of different length, the shorter ruler would yield a larger result than the longer ruler. But both would be accurate according to the measure used.
That is the common example used to explain fractals. A fractal is an object or quantity that displays self-similarity on all scales.
Lurkers interested in seeing what a fractal looks like, click here for the Mandelbrot set. And then continue to click on a point of the graphic to zoom in, etc.
Yes, and for sufficiently large values of 1, 1+1 can equal 3 or any number really : ) Math is just a tool that we use to try and describe reality, it doesn't create reality, although some mathematicians may think otherwise.
I am a mathematical Platonist like Penrose, Tegmark, Godel, et al. For instance, the mathematician doesn't invent the geometry, he discovers it.
Indeed, I aver that all mathematicians are to some extent Platonist because the variable in each formula testifies to the universality of the expression.
“Indeed, I aver that all mathematicians are to some extent Platonist because the variable in each formula testifies to the universality of the expression.”
http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=333
I guess I fall on Bohr’s side : )
Here's a link for Lurkers interested in Gödel
While that may be a dandy summary of Marx's position, Hank, I don't know in what way it even remotely applies to my own. Analyze it, and you'd see that his view and mine are polar opposites.
Bottom line, when it comes to human souls, Marx is adament: There is no there there. Thus there's really nothing for "inner convictions" to inhere in; there's no such thing as "inner." The very idea is adamantly forbidden, abolished. This allows us to say that man is born a tabula rasa — a "blank slate" on which just anything can (and will) be written.
I believe that by virtue of being ensouled, man is not born a tabular rasa. My own childhood experiences discussed earlier convince me that my view is correct. There seems to be a lot that children "know," even before they become fully "rational." Call it intuition maybe. Whatever it is, it appears to be something in-built in the consciousness, not something that is learned by experience. The issue has been discussed for centuries under the rubric of "innate ideas" with no consensus whatever yet achieved.
However I dislike that term as a descriptor of the phenomenon. I like the suggestion of "innate"; but the word "idea" connotes the rational mind is preeminently involved. Yet my own feeling is that the phenomenon does not arise in the mind, but in the heart, in connection with soul itself. That is, in essential feeling, not in mind.
Essential feeling, of course, is a prime example of a "qualium." Qualia cannot be communicated person-to-person, nor can they be "falsified" in any way. They are utterly intangible. And yet these intangible things stand as causes for human action, and even (as in my case) form the core around which a life can be organized and lived in truth.
My view is based on primary faith. The Roman Church sometimes speaks of the fides quaerens intellectum, of "faith in search of its reason." When you think about it, this not only denotes a spiritual quest, but merely confirms the way human minds normally operate: one must start with faith (some faith), and then see whether or not it "maps" to Reality. My childhood insights continue to map to Reality. Go figure!
So as you see, I do not regard myself as standing in the same camp with cultural Marxists or the other po-mo, multi-culti fashionable. To me, they are "spawn from Hell!!!" And may they return there as quickly as possible!!! LOLOL!
They certainly are hell-bent on destroying Western civilization — and human souls to boot.
You cite Acts 9:22:
“But Saul increased the more in strength and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.”Some observations. The Jews at Damascus were the very type of people who would demand "proof" to believe: arguably, they worshipped the Law, not God Himself. If anyone could prove anything to them, it would have been Saul: For he had been of the very same culture prior to his shattering epiphany on the Road to Damascus. [Talk about a "qualium"!!!] If Saul could have directly and vividly communicated that, perhaps more proof-needing Jews would have converted to Christianity. But we know that didn't happen.
It is the nature of qualia that they cannot be directly shared. Nor falsified. They are altogether beyond the reach of the scientific method.
Thank you so very much for reminding of this, LeGrande!
And yet it certainly seems it's not always true that "if we can't falsify it we generally accept it." Jeepers, one can't falsify God or soul, but some people reject them anyway. (It really is irrational when you think about it.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.