Science and religion do mix

Sep 21, 2011 By David Ruth and Amy Hodges

Throughout history, science and religion have appeared as being in perpetual conflict, but a new study by Rice University suggests that only a minority of scientists at major research universities see religion and science as requiring distinct boundaries.

"When it comes to questions about the meaning of life, ways of understanding reality, origins of Earth and how life developed on it, many have seen and science as being at odds and even in irreconcilable ," said Rice Elaine Howard Ecklund. But a majority of scientists interviewed by Ecklund and colleagues viewed both religion and science as "valid avenues of knowledge" that can bring broader understanding to important questions, she said.

Ecklund summarized her findings in "Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science," which appears in the September issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Her co-authors were sociologists Jerry Park of Baylor University and Katherine Sorrell, a former postbaccalaureate fellow at Rice and current Ph.D. student at the University of Notre Dame.

They interviewed a scientifically selected sample of 275 participants, pulled from a survey of 2,198 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the natural and social sciences at 21 elite U.S. research universities. Only 15 percent of those surveyed view religion and science as always in conflict. Another 15 percent say the two are never in conflict, and 70 percent believe religion and science are only sometimes in conflict. Approximately half of the original survey population expressed some form of , whereas the other half did not.

"Much of the public believes that as science becomes more prominent, secularization increases and religion decreases," Ecklund said. "Findings like these among elite scientists, who many individuals believe are most likely to be secular in their beliefs, definitely call into question ideas about the relationship between secularization and science."

Many of those surveyed cited issues in the public realm (teaching of creationism versus evolution, stem cell research) as reasons for believing there is conflict between the two. The study showed that these individuals generally have a particular kind of religion in mind (and religious people and institutions) when they say that religion and science are in conflict. 

The study identified three strategies of action used by these scientists to manage the religion-science boundaries and the circumstances that the two could overlap.

Redefining categories – Scientists manage the science-religion relationship by changing the definition of religion, broadening it to include noninstitutionalized forms of spirituality.

Integration models – Scientists deliberately use the views of influential scientists who they believe have successfully integrated their religious and scientific beliefs.

Intentional talk – Scientists actively engage in discussions about the boundaries between science and religion.

"The kind of narrow research available on religion and science seems to ask if they are in conflict or not, when it should really ask the conditions under which they are in conflict," Ecklund said. "Our research has found that even within the same person, there can be differing views. It's very important to dispel the myth that people believe that religion and science either do or don't conflict. Our study found that many people have much more nuanced views."

These nuanced views often find their way into the classroom, according to those interviewed. One biologist, an atheist not part of any religious tradition, admitted that she makes a sincere effort to present science such that "religious students do not need to compromise their own selves." Although she is not reconsidering her personal views on religion, she seeks out resources to keep her religious students engaged with science.

Other findings:

• Scientists as a whole are substantially different from the American public in how they view teaching "intelligent design" in public schools. Nearly all of the scientists – religious and nonreligious alike – have a negative impression of the theory of intelligent design.

• Sixty-eight percent of scientists surveyed consider themselves spiritual to some degree.

• Scientists who view themselves as spiritual/religious are less likely to see religion and science in conflict.

• Overall, under some circumstances even the most religious of scientists were described in very positive terms by their nonreligious peers; this suggests that the integration of religion and science is not so distasteful to all scientists.

Ecklund said the study's findings will go far in improving the public's perception of science. "I think it would be helpful for the public to see what scientists are actually saying about these topics, rather than just believe stereotypes," she said. "It would definitely benefit public dialogue about the relationship between and religion."

Ecklund is the author of "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think," published by Oxford University Press last year.

Explore further: A two generation lens: Current state policies fail to support families with young children

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Poll: Big Bang a big question for most Americans

Apr 21, 2014

Few Americans question that smoking causes cancer. But they have more skepticism than confidence in global warming, the age of the Earth and evolution and have the most trouble believing a Big Bang created the universe 13.8 ...

Misconceptions of science and religion found in new study

Feb 16, 2014

The public's view that science and religion can't work in collaboration is a misconception that stunts progress, according to a new survey of more than 10,000 Americans, scientists and evangelical Protestants. ...

Does religion turn weak groups violent?

Jan 17, 2014

(Phys.org) —Although David was famously successful at slaying Goliath, most people wisely avoid picking fights with more-powerful opponents.

Recommended for you

User comments : 430

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

El_Nose
2.4 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2011
this is exactly what i experienced in college -- all of my math professor were active in churches -- every biology prof was a member of a church ---
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 21, 2011
El_Nose I would like to see this broken down further, from my experience, hard scientists (MD, math, chem, physics, etc) have more respect for religion than do social science.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (26) Sep 21, 2011
Nice to see an article which tells the truth. Many scientists are religious and many who profess religion respect science.

Conflicts are generally expressions of political agenda.

There is no fundamental conflict between religion and science.
braindead
4.8 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2011
I would be interesting too to investigate attitudes in Europe - where formal religion, at least among indigenous Europeans, would appear to be of a lot less interest than in many parts of the US. I found it interesting that El Nose even knew which of his teachers were religious - as someone who was in school and university in the '60s and '70s in the UK I didn't have a clue about the religious orientation of any of my teachers,with the exception of the religious instruction teacher at school, of course.
djr
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2011
"There is no fundamental conflict between religion and science" I disagree with you on this one. Perhaps it depends on your definition of science. To me - science is an evidence based system of exploration. There is no evidence to support the existence of a god figure - hence a fundamental conflict between an evidence based system of thinking, and a faith based system of thinking. The biggest problem for me is that the faith based groups do not understand this fundamental distinction - and want to claim equilevancy between a rational, evidence based system, and superstition. Tell me there is no conflict between science - and what the Taliban does on a daily basis! I long for the day we grow past our need for superstition as a species - but sadly I don't think I will see the day.

David.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (35) Sep 21, 2011
djr,
To me - science is an evidence based system of exploration. There is no evidence to support the existence of a god figure - hence a fundamental conflict between an evidence based system of thinking, and a faith based system of thinking.


Yet this whole article and all its comments are about a supposed scientific claim to something for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever -- dark matter.

There is no evidence for dark matter but many scientists will argue all day that dark matter exists.

Science is a methodology, nothing more. Some people make it a religion, but it is basically just a methodology.

Religious belief is also based on evidence. But what counts as evidence to one person is no evidence to another person. Much of what people believe is predicated on what they want to believe as the belief in dark matter demonstrates.
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (23) Sep 21, 2011
I was involved in a discussion about dark matter and thought I was commenting on that issue. The above comment is an error.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (79) Sep 21, 2011
There is no evidence to support the existence of a god figure - hence a fundamental conflict between an evidence based system of thinking, and a faith based system of thinking.


Your above statement is illogical. By definition, a faith based system does not purport to be founded on empirical evidence, hence the reliance on 'faith' and the lack of a conflict.

By saying there is no conflict, what is meant is that theoretically, a scientist could also be religious. Science does not purport to answer metaphysical questions, and religions are not empirically verifiable but are based on faith/belief.
Magus
5 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2011
Dark Matter is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiation
OverweightAmerican
3.4 / 5 (18) Sep 21, 2011
This study is silly - religion is based on faith whereas science is based on evidence and actually inspecting the detail.

How can anyone say that soemthing based only on faith is a valid world view if it has no proof that it's correct. Silly.
Deesky
4.2 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2011
Ecklund and colleagues viewed both religion and science as "valid avenues of knowledge

Idiot!
powerup1
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2011
I find it interesting that someone that believes in a Judeo-Christian/Muslim god would find no problem denying the existence of a god like Zeus, yet they are not able to understand why some people think the same way about the deity that they worship.

In my opinion all gods have the same level of credibility whether it be Christian, Muslim, etc, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
ShotmanMaslo
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2011
Moderate religious people are not necessarily at odds with science, and there is little conflict, if any. Extremists and creationists indeed ARE incomplatible with scientific worldview. So this question does not have a yes or no answer.
Deesky
4.3 / 5 (18) Sep 22, 2011
Moderate religious people are not necessarily at odds with science, and there is little conflict, if any. Extremists and creationists indeed ARE incomplatible with scientific worldview. So this question does not have a yes or no answer.

The conflict is in rationalism and evidence based thinking vs thinking mired in delusion and suggestion. The conflict of (poor) ideas and ideologies based upon them can be far more dangerous than actual physical conflict.
RobertKarlStonjek
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2011
This study only applies to American Scientists who are far more religious than first world scientists.
kevinrtrs
1.1 / 5 (31) Sep 22, 2011
Interesting that most of those who criticize religion would be unpleasantly surprised to discover that their belief in evolution [molecules to man] is itself not distinguishable from a religion.

It certainly has all the characteristics of one and really does not conform to any definition of a scientific theory in any manner or form. Evolutionary theory in general talks about: Origins, developmental history, current events and future events. Since the origins are based on mostly faith and virtually zero facts, the rest is open to question.
Remember that just because people are using scientific instruments and processes does not necessarily make the whole endeavour to uncover happenings in the past a scientific one. It's more a search for a metaphysical reality - trying to answer the same questions - why are we here? where are we ultimately going to end up - how should we conduct ourselves? etc. In effect evolution is a stumbling block to science since it will lead to wrong decisions.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (25) Sep 22, 2011
ShotmanMaslo,
Moderate religious people are not necessarily at odds with science, and there is little conflict, if any. Extremists and creationists indeed ARE incomplatible with scientific worldview. So this question does not have a yes or no answer.


Your first sentence starts out well, then you misuse the word creationist. By a narrow definition which applies to a few extremists, that is, young earth creation, does indeed conflict with science. But that applies to only a few fringe individuals. In the same manner, you might say that flat earthers conflict with science, but you haven't said anything important because flat earthers are an insignificant fringe group.

The belief in a creation does not conflict with science in any way.

Extremists, whether they worship Allah or Gaia generally miss the boat.

Deesky
4.2 / 5 (17) Sep 22, 2011
By a narrow definition which applies to a few extremists, that is, young earth creation, does indeed conflict with science. But that applies to only a few fringe individuals. In the same manner, you might say that flat earthers conflict with science, but you haven't said anything important because flat earthers are an insignificant fringe group.

The belief in a creation does not conflict with science in any way.

You seek to sweep religious belief under the rug by reframing it into to some kind of vague belief in 'creation'. That is not what most (all) religions are about, not by a longshot. The vague notion your try to make the conversation about is more akin to personal mysticism. But either way, belief in the undocumented opens the individual up to all kinds of nonsense and woolly thinking and certainly can and does lead to extremism.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (27) Sep 22, 2011
There is no fundamental conflict between religion and science.


Faith is directly in conflict with everything the scientific method stands for.
CHollman82
2.7 / 5 (24) Sep 22, 2011
Redefining categories Scientists manage the science-religion relationship by changing the definition of religion, broadening it to include noninstitutionalized forms of spirituality.

They aren't even talking about religion in this article... they are saying that scientists can be "spiritual"... which is COMPLETELY different.
bluehigh
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2011
the only reason the search for gravitational waves continues is because of an act of faith. the entire search for the higgs boson is an act of faith. add dark this and that with little or no evidence at all, just models and hypothesis often no more than guesswork.

to the layman, advanced areas of science are no different to religion because people are asked to accept on faith what is asserted due to an inability to comprehend.

object all you want but to most people a scientist that baffles with ideas and words they do not understand is no different from a preacher on a pulpit. except that religion through the church gives comfort to the dying, provides a moral compass and is the basis for societal ethics.
FrankHerbert
3.2 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2011
Kevin once again demonstrates one of the most insidiously hypocritical arguments I've seen the religious here trot out time and time.

Religion is so important, so correct, such a no brainer to Kevin that he literally spends all day on these sites waiting for relevant articles to pop up so he can shit and run on the first post of a topic with a bunch of creationist nonsense.

So then how does he criticize evolution? He calls it a religion.

Well at least we agree that religions are fucking stupid. Evolution has evidence though. Fossil record, DNA, etc. God doesn't. God doesn't exist. You're a moron. Fuck off forever.
CHollman82
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 22, 2011
the only reason the search for gravitational waves continues is because of an act of faith. the entire search for the higgs boson is an act of faith. add dark this and that with little or no evidence at all, just models and hypothesis often no more than guesswork.


You don't know what faith means, or you don't know what constitutes evidence, or you don't know anything about the Higgs Boson or Dark Matter/Energy... I'm not sure which, but certainly at least one of the three is true.
dogbert
1 / 5 (23) Sep 22, 2011
CHollman82,
Faith is directly in conflict with everything the scientific method stands for.


The scientific method is simply a method. It cannot stand for anything. Unless, of course, you make science your god. Then you may make assignment of cognizance to it.
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2011
CHollman82,
Faith is directly in conflict with everything the scientific method stands for.


The scientific method is simply a method. It cannot stand for anything. Unless, of course, you make science your god. Then you may assignment of cognizance to it.


Is English your first language? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just want to know if it will be a waste of my time to explain your error.
Deesky
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2011
You don't know what faith means, or you don't know what constitutes evidence, or you don't know anything about the Higgs Boson or Dark Matter/Energy... I'm not sure which

All of the above.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
what a laugh. neither of you are sure about anything other than your own superiority. dragging your knuckles on the floor again deesky you sad little throwback? any evidence of gravitational waves, um No. any evidence of a higgs boson, um no.

you are both so narrow minded that you cannot accept that theres room for both science and religion in the world, except for perhaps extremists like you, that need exterminating.

odd it seems that religion for the most part has accommodated scientific endeavor but science seems to want to eliminate religion.
Jeddy_Mctedder
2.2 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
the verbal trick some people are pointing out above--is that we have 'faith' in objectivity of science.

when science uses tools to confirm experiments in a REPEATABLE fashion, we have faith that these empirical observations are factual and form the basis of what we call 'objective' empirical reality. the faith part comes in because most people don't do EVERY experiment, most people do NONE, they READ about the experiments and the laws of science. and the science fetishists who resemble religious nutjobs are the ones that go running around talking about the singularity , the higgs boson and other predictions as facts or near facts. they are nothing of the sort. if something hasn't been confirmed experimentally , it is NOT fact. thoery in science is not fact. MATH is NOT science. it is a tool , a language, to describe the empirical world and then to talk about what it could or SHOULD look like, in order to compare it with what is DOES look like through tools that observe.

Moebius
4 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2011
study by Rice University suggests that only a minority of scientists at major research universities see religion and science as requiring distinct boundaries


It isn't scientists that have a conflict between religion and science, it's religious wacko's who are too stupid to understand science and too stupid to question their idiotic belief system, sheep that listen to televangelists and actually believe their crap. They are the most listened to and the least deserving of being listened to, let alone believed. Every single televangelist is nothing more than a snake oil salesman.
ACW
5 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2011
@Keven who said that Evolutionary theory has zero facts.

What rock have you been hiding under?
El_Nose
1.7 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
i got voted a one -- so this is a rant (fair warning)

Since all i did was agree with the article and got voted down, I will go ahead and state what i held back - because i didn't want yet another religious discussion in the forum. But, Since Frank is so anti religion...

I do not argue for creationism - as a pure world view i feel it is flawed, and since most people who claim to be religious do not even understand the creationist arguments, you are only exposed to how deep they are in a formal education such as attending college, once i took a philosophy course and was made to understand the creationist argument i realized that as a formal argument i just disagreed with it -- its not my philosophy.

I see no problem with taking the book of Genesis as mostly symbolic in nature. The Bible as guideline on how to live life and love God. I do not see the Bible as a way figure out if the universe is revolving around the Earth or if we are in a random spot.
El_Nose
1 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2011
(rant cont..)

kevin does believe that the Bible is literal and freely accepts and self labels himself as a Creationist -- big whoop -- is having that view point so ugly that we as educated people resort to what we see here everyday -- mud slinging is cleaner -- and no i do not support kevin when he slings poo as he often does

But as i stated and got a 1 for -- when i was in college my professors were active in churches - they were also science professors and they understood or at least felt that the Bible tells them how to love God and Science tells them what is observable by man.

PERSONALLY - We used to teach faith right along with science in schools -- the Constitution explicitly protects religion from government, Law school teaches that protection one way implicitly implies protection the other way - but that is not written anywhere, its congressional law that each session be opened by prayer - our forefathers were deeply religious men that were protestant and wanted (cont..)
FrankHerbert
2.6 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2011
our forefathers were deeply religious men that were protestant and wanted


LOL you almost had me until that.

http://www.youtub...Ate3Itjs
El_Nose
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
(cont..)

protection from religious discrimination by the other churches should not be also involve governmental jurisdiction for enforcement of that prejudice.

I personally feel that anyone who discounts religion as a whole
loses out on a paradigm that teaches that material things do not make you happy, that satisfaction comes from inside, and that virtue is not always an easy thing to be true to. Religions teach you how to learn to forgive yourself -- and it is often abused by people who treat others like poo and think going to a church absolves them of asking for forgivness from those they pooed upon.

90% of people actively try to be nice to each other - and if we had to all walk into a room together to comment on an article i think we would all be more civil.

and I did not mean to imply Kevin is uneducated(FYI .. personal conversations with him prove he is ... his scientific statements are flawed but i believe that is because they go though his persoanl wrold view filter)
El_Nose
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
-- that did not come out right -- personal conversations with him prove he is EDUCATED ... his scientific statements i believe are flawed but i believe that is because they go though his personal world view filter)
ShotmanMaslo
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
By a narrow definition which applies to a few extremists, that is, young earth creation, does indeed conflict with science. But that applies to only a few fringe individuals.


Young earth creationists and those not accepting evolution. I dont think it is just a few individuals, I believe they make up a considerable part (around half?) of christians in the world, even more in the US. But I would be glad to be proven wrong.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2011
Twenty-Five percent of Americans are YEC's. The number is from the 25 percent of Americans that believe the Bible is the literal word of Jehovah. ALL of them have religions that are incompatible with science. Which is not the fault of science.

Religion is not inherently incompatible with science BUT science is not compatible with ALL religions.

What the heck college did El-Nose go to anyway. Math teachers do seem to be more likely to be religious but PHYSICISTS? And how does he know? I don't remember a single college teacher OR high school teacher that discussed whether they went to church or not.

It doesn't matter how educated Kevin is he is still an ass. Anytime he stops the hit and run crap I will reconsider that.

Ethelred
goliah
1 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
There seems to be a new mix of science and religion going on at the moment, not one than might have been anticipated and a most potent and explosive mix it could very well turn out to be.

The first wholly new interpretation of the moral teachings of Christ for two thousand years is spreading on the web, titled: The Final Freedoms. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new 'claim' is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience, a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Like it of no, a new religious claim testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment, evidential, cause and effect criteria now exists. The future could get just a little more exciting that anyone expected!
djr
5 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
the verbal trick some people are pointing out above--is that we have 'faith' in objectivity of science.

Jeddy - your post makes no sense to me. Faith to me is the belief in things for which there is no evidence. Just because I did not do the experiment - does not mean there is no evidence. The whole point of rigorous scientific methodology - is so that I CAN do the experiment if I want. Believing in black holes - even though I have not studied black holes myself - is totally different than believing in a old guy who lives up in the sky - has lived for ever - will live forever - and can create universes by waving his magic wand. That is faith - it is not compatible with the scientific process (you can't show me god) - and I believe we will make a giant step forward as a species when we leave our need for faith in the rear view mirror.

David.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (80) Sep 22, 2011
Since all i did was agree with the article and got voted down


I got three ones for pointing out that faith deals in metaphysics while science does not, thus no conflict, and that it's possible for a scientist to be religious. Idiot trolls like FrankHubris (whom i've proven to be a liar on two separate occasions) render the ratings meaningless.
yoatmon
5 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2011
Religions have much more in common with politics than with science. Many actions taken from politicians are not based on sound measures (horse sense) rather meaningless and wishful fancies akin to faith and hope as practiced in many religions. The faith to perpetrate a certain measure and hoping to have done the right thing to reach a desired result.
Neither politics nor religion have anything to do with science. Science at least tends to be objective even though some scientific conclusions may be revised for the better. Politics and religion have always been, for the greates part, nonsensical and will undoubtably remain so.
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2011
Science is the empirical way to understand everything, spirituality is the inferential way.

Science tells you what it is, "religion" or spirituality raises the question 'Why is it that way?'.

Both are valid and whats more important is finding more ways to learn and grow, why are we always limited to a few choices. Society needs to be more accepting of the many different modus operandi; take south american religions for example, they use philosophical and religious and naturalistic behavior to interact chemically with their environment by taking hallucinogenic compounds and encoding their experience in myth or folk or shamanistic practices.
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (18) Sep 22, 2011
I got three ones for pointing out that faith deals in metaphysics while science does not


"Metaphysics" is anti-scientific...
CHollman82
2 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2011
Science is the empirical way to understand everything, spirituality is the inferential way.


Inference is a precursor to and is overridden by empiricism.

Science tells you what it is, "religion" or spirituality raises the question 'Why is it that way?'.


Nope, science should be used to answer both questions as accurately as possible.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (77) Sep 22, 2011
I got three ones for pointing out that faith deals in metaphysics while science does not


"Metaphysics" is anti-scientific...


"Anti-science" is the wrong word. Metaphysics attempts to answer questions that are outside the scope and applicability of science. My point above was that since this is the case,... that religion and science deal with supposed different realms, they can't possibly come into conflict.

Newton and Leibniz wrote more on metaphysics than on science,.. Obviously they were not anti-science.

Such ideas as multi-universe theories, and an underlying reality to qm, and in general any such theories involving in principal unobservable hypothesis, are metaphysical. Any statement about the natural of reality beyond what is observationally verifiable is metaphysical.

I myself am agnostic and entirely unreligious,.., but not so immature (as FrankHubris) to be anti-religious.
Cave_Man
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
Inference is a precursor to and is overridden by empiricism.
Nope, science should be used to answer both questions as accurately as possible.


Science can only answer things that are empirical, not everything can be empirically known.

All science says is that this is the way the universe looks to us and the only way something becomes empirical is when another person observes the same thing. We can't see outside of time or space and yet we can't disprove an outside of time or space.

There are plenty of hints in the universe that we only see things from one small perspective, like black holes or the big bang or the enormous scale of the universe from strings to galactic clusters.

Trying to 'solve' the universe with empirical science is a recipe for frustration, to do so you would have to know the entire universe, and documenting that would take exactly as much space as the universe itself. Why not try to use you mind to explore your own interaction in order to derive knowledge
djr
4 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2011
"not everything can be empirically known."

How do you know that not everything can be empirically known? Your words make no sense to me Cave Man. What is your definition of 'Known'. To me - known means to be verifiable through the use of evidence. No evidence - then it does not exist. Perhaps it really does exist - but if I have no evidence - then I have no way of knowing that it exists - therefore - I most certainly will not claim that I somehow 'know' it exists - despite the fact there is no evidence. If you tell me that you can cure cancer - but I must trust you - because you do not have evidence - therefore I must take your word for it that you have some other way of knowing that does not depend on evidence - I will not accept your claim to be able to cure cancer. Science needs evidence and repeatability. Without it - we cannot know - and therefore it effectively does not exist. Science and religion are not compatible.

David
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2011
Ethelred,
Twenty-Five percent of Americans are YEC's.


That is simply not true.

The number is from the 25 percent of Americans that believe the Bible is the literal word of Jehovah. ALL of them have religions that are incompatible with science.


That is also untrue.

Young Earth Creationists are a small, insignificant fringe.

Believing in the bible does not make someone a young earth creationist.

I believe in creation and I believe in the bible, but I do not believe in a young earth.

Your assertions are simply not valid.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2011
"Anti-science" is the wrong word. Metaphysics attempts to answer questions that are outside the scope and applicability of science.


Hence "metaphysics" does not exist.
CHollman82
2.5 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2011
Science can only answer things that are empirical, not everything can be empirically known.


Assuming something can exist that cannot be empirically known it should be considered non-existent... what other choice do you have? Faith is worthless for determining reality.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2011
All of you mystics, astrologers, snake worshipers, and voodoo practitioners sicken me.

If something exists it interacts with some other part of reality, if it interacts with reality it can be known. If you propose something that does not interact with anything else, and therefore cannot be known, it is equivalent to non-existence.

What existence does something have that doesn't interact with anything but itself? How can something that interacts with something other than itself "unknowable"?
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (23) Sep 22, 2011
Ethelred,
Twenty-Five percent of Americans are YEC's.


That is simply not true.
Your assertions are simply not valid.


Sorry, you're wrong... as usual

"As of 2008 a Gallup poll indicated that 36% of US adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.", 14% believed that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." and 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

44% of American adults agreed that "God created human beings in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"

Again, I am so sorry you're always wrong.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (22) Sep 22, 2011
Bunch of retards commenting in here. Sometimes I hate being an American... too many morons in this country. You have to be utterly clueless to think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, you have to have put no thought into it whatsoever and know nothing about the natural sciences... yet 44% of adults in this damn country think this way.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (23) Sep 22, 2011
CHollman82,
Nothing you quoted has anything to do with young earth creationism. Nothing you quoted even mentions the age of the earth.

Your comment is not just wrong, it is irrelevant to the point you purport to have made.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (75) Sep 22, 2011
"Anti-science" is the wrong word. Metaphysics attempts to answer questions that are outside the scope and applicability of science.


Hence "metaphysics" does not exist.


CHollman, your are plainly ignorant of philosophy. The flavor of atheism, that would claim positively that god does not exist, are as irrational as those those who claim that he does.

Neither positive nor negative assertions about metaphysics can be a source of knowledge.

Science can not answer all questions that can be posed.
CHollman82
2.5 / 5 (21) Sep 22, 2011
CHollman82,
Nothing you quoted has anything to do with young earth creationism. Nothing you quoted even mentions the age of the earth.

Your comment is not just wrong, it is irrelevant to the point you purport to have made.


So dumb... why do I bother. If you believe god made humans in their present form at most 10,000 years ago what do you think you are... besides an idiot?
CHollman82
2.4 / 5 (21) Sep 22, 2011
CHollman, your are plainly ignorant of philosophy. The flavor of atheism, that would claim positively that god does not exist, are as irrational as those those who claim that he does.


I never made that claim.

Science can not answer all questions that can be posed.


Sure, because not all questions that can be posed are meaningful. Ask a MEANINGFUL question about something that exists and it can be answered through the scientific method... maybe not today or tomorrow, I am talking about possible as opposed to plausible.
CHollman82
2.4 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2011
Like I said, if something exists then it must, by definition, interact with something other than itself... otherwise the state of existence is equivalent to the state of non-existence. If something interacts with something other than itself then it is subject to empirical discovery and investigation.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 22, 2011
CHollman82,
So dumb... why do I bother. If you believe god made humans in their present form at most 10,000 years ago what do you think you are... besides an idiot?


Not dumb. Most people have no real idea how long homo sapiens have existed. 10,000 or 100,000 years are virtually identical given the age of the earth. If you ask a stupid question, you generally get a stupid answer. The question was stupid.

To repeat, your quotations and statements have nothing to do with the age of the earth or with anyone's belief about the age of the earth. That question was not one of the foolish questions the survey you quoted asked.
CHollman82
2.7 / 5 (21) Sep 22, 2011
So you think there is a significant distinction between biblical literalists who believe that god made humans in their present form (implying they do not believe in evolution) and biblical literalists who believe in a young Earth?

That's a first, I've never heard that claim before. In my experience they go hand in hand.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (14) Sep 22, 2011
The argument goes like this:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
(with thanks to Douglas Adams.)
bluehigh
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2011
In my experience they go hand in hand.


CHollman - its quite clear what you're holding in your hand.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2011
CHollman,
So you think there is a significant distinction between biblical literalists who believe that god made humans in their present form (implying they do not believe in evolution) and biblical literalists who believe in a young Earth?


Believing that God made man says nothing about how or when he made man. You ask questions about people's opinions on how/when God did something when God does not say, you get answers which have nothing to do with God and little to do with people's beliefs.

Choose A,B or C requires an answer. The answer probably does not match anything the respondent believes, it reflects a best effort to answer what is essentially unanswerable.
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (20) Sep 22, 2011
No one bother to comment on the fact that if something exists it must interact with something, and if it interacts with something it is detectable and observable and subject to empirical study... leaving no room for the existence of things that are not empirical...
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (81) Sep 22, 2011
CHollman, your are plainly ignorant of philosophy. The flavor of atheism, that would claim positively that god does not exist, are as irrational as those those who claim that he does.


I never made that claim.


Yes you did, you said "metaphysics does not exist".

Science can not answer all questions that can be posed.


Sure, because not all questions that can be posed are meaningful. Ask a MEANINGFUL question about something that exists and it can be answered through the scientific method....


Why does the universe exist? What is energy? When we claim an understanding of reality, we have subjected it to artificial conceptualizations. We invoke models that link observables together in a way that allows for predictions. But, the models and conceptualizations are not the reality itself. Therefore Reality as it is in itself, is unknowable. The realm of science is the more limited, phenomenal reality, which contains a subjective component.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (83) Sep 22, 2011
No one bother to comment on the fact that if something exists it must interact with something, and if it interacts with something it is detectable and observable and subject to empirical study... leaving no room for the existence of things that are not empirical...


I attempted to answer this above. The difference between noumenal reality and phenomenal reality is that in the latter reality is made to conform to conceptualizations. We never come to know reality as it is in itself. We can only developed models that link one observable to another, and can never know what or how reality "is" in between!
djr
5 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2011
"We can only developed models that link one observable to another, and can never know what or how reality "is" in between" Soooo - if we cannot know reality - what is the point in this conversation? The whole point of science - is the exploration of our universe (reality). Perhaps it is all a computer simulation... Perhaps our solar system is an atom in the toe nail of a giant - perhaps perhaps perhaps. Science is about the exploration of our universe - the empirical exploration of reality - religion is something different - and they are not compatible. Again - our species will make a giant leap forward when we leave religion in our rear view mirror - sadly just not in my life time.

David.
Deesky
4.7 / 5 (16) Sep 22, 2011
Science tells you what it is, "religion" or spirituality raises the question 'Why is it that way?'.

Whaaaaat?? You've got that totally backwards!

Metaphysics attempts to answer questions that are outside the scope and applicability of science

Which means, it cannot answer anything at all.

religion and science deal with supposed different realms

One deals with the real world, the other deals with make-believe worlds. It is only science that can determine whether a theoretical world exists through evidentiary support and not through navel gazing or decree.

Science can only answer things that are empirical, not everything can be empirically known.

And that is a (readily acknowledged) limitation of science. But that's where the buck stops, anything else is whatever you want it to be, which makes it worthless.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (77) Sep 22, 2011
@Deesky, I mention above that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge, which means YOU cannot make negative claims about it either. Obviously, it is faith based, and so while incompatible with science, it is not in conflict with science.

Soooo - if we cannot know reality - what is the point in this conversation? The whole point of science - is the exploration of our universe (reality).


I drew a distinction between phenomenal reality (in which science operates and IS knowable, obviously) to nominal reality, which is unknowable,... in order to respond to this statement by CHollman,...

....leaving no room for the existence of things that are not empirical...
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (72) Sep 22, 2011
"nominal" should read noumenal above.
Deesky
4.3 / 5 (17) Sep 22, 2011
@Deesky, I mention above that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge, which means YOU cannot make negative claims about it either.

Yes I can, and I have already explained why they are negative. djr makes a similar claim.

It's negative because that style of thinking opens up the individual to all kinds of nonsense, superstition and suggestion by others who would control them for whatever purpose (monetary, political, radicalization, anti-scientific).

Of course there are degrees of this influence but it certainly can drive gullible people to ultimately act against the interests of science and reason and even themselves.

A critical thinker would not fall prey to the same kind of suggestibility and manipulation.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2011
"to nominal reality, which is unknowable,..." Boy - we just keep going around and around. If it is unknowable - then it is unknowable - then we cannot talk about it - as we know nothing about it - and this whole thing is circular. It is unknowable (which to me means it does not exist) - and even if it does exist - we know nothing about it - so can't talk about it in any meaningful way. And around we go if we try talk about it. That is why I read Physorg - so I can learn about things we can explore with science.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (73) Sep 23, 2011
It is unknowable [noumenonl reality] (which to me means it does not exist),...


Your above statement is simply illogical. You are invoking faith and belief that if something is unknowable as it is in itself, it does not exist. The phrase "as it is in itself" means 'apart from being conceptualized by mind'. This distinction is made because the act of obtaining scientific knowledge conforms reality to subjective concepts and models which are NOT the Reality itself,... our knowledge of Reality, phenomenal reality (as opposed to Noumenal reality) is based on a conceptual structure supplied by mind.

It is valid to suppose that there must be an underlying reality,... thus use of belief and faith. As mentioned metaphysics cannot be a source of (scientific) knowledge, however it can be a source of belief or faith that is not groundless although not to the standards of scientific knowledge.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (72) Sep 23, 2011
,... In fact the scientific revolution which quantum theory brought forth, as a break from "classical physics" were due to a-priori intuitive concepts getting in the way of scientific progress! As Feynman Inc said, 'no one understands quantum theory',... that is to say, no one has an intuitive understanding of the underlying reality in the quantum realm.

Your arrogance is the result of naiveté. I love science to and zero religious faith myself, but I must acknowledge that science cannot answer all valid questions. Even though we cannot know for certain wrt metaphysical questions, it is still valid to form such beliefs based on what IS known.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
That is simply not true.
Yes it is.

That is also untrue.
Also yes it is.

Young Earth Creationists are a small, insignificant fringe.
Try and find a Southern Baptist that ISN'T a YEC. I did not pull those numbers out of my ass.

Believing in the bible does not make someone a young earth creationist.
Believing in the Bible as the literal and perfect word of Jehovah most certainly does.

I believe in creation and I believe in the bible, but I do not believe in a young earth.
Then you are not one of the 25 percent that believe the Bible is the perfect, non-contradictory, literal and exact word of Jehovah. Which is what a Fundamentalist Christian does.

Your assertions are simply not valid.
You really don't have a clue.>>
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
Nothing you quoted has anything to do with young earth creationism. Nothing you quoted even mentions the age of the earth.
Now that isn't even close to being honest with yourself. It was EXACTLY a young Earth without evolution which is YEC. Lying to yourself like that. Why do you do it?

Most people have no real idea how long homo sapiens have existed.
Most people are ignorant as that pole showed.

10,000 or 100,000 years are virtually identical given the age of the earth.
Bullshit. It is a full order magnitude and it is VERY significant within any discussion about YECs. And wrong in any case as Homo Sapiens are closer to 150,000 years old.

To repeat, your quotations and statements have nothing to do with the age of the earth or
Bullshit vs.>>
dogbert
1.1 / 5 (18) Sep 23, 2011
Young Earth Creationists are a small, insignificant fringe.

Try and find a Southern Baptist that ISN'T a YEC. I did not pull those numbers out of my ass.


You did pull those numbers out of your ass as you usually do. Your statements are simply made up. I know many Southern Baptists and I do not know any who believe in a young earth.

Then you are not one of the 25 percent that believe the Bible is the perfect, non-contradictory, literal and exact word of Jehovah. Which is what a Fundamentalist Christian does.


How would you know about fundamentalism or Christianity? I believe in God and I believe in the fundamental principles set forth in the Bible. But I am not a young earth creationist. I live in the bible belt, grew up in a fundamental Christian church -- none of which, by the way, believed in a young earth -- and I have never met a young earth creationist.

You just make up stuff which has no basis in reality.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2011
44% of American adults agreed that "God created human beings in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"
Which is Young Earth Creationism and if you really must bury your head in the sands of ignorance like this I will add in more farther down.

Believing that God made man says nothing about how or when he made man.
But within 10,000 years and as we presently are does. Do try to deal with what was actually said.

you get answers which have nothing to do with God and little to do with people's beliefs.
Only they didn't do that. Please reread the question that was asked.

Choose A,B or C requires an answer.
Actually is doesn't. I am a complete pain for people that make poles with silly options as I only give accurate answers and refuse to choose any particular option if nones fit the correct answer.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2011
best effort to answer what is essentially unanswerable.
Horse manure. That question was answerable for YEC's and indeed a very large percentage of Americans are such.

Now for a little more reality than Dogbert is comfortable with.

http://pewforum.o...als.aspx

33 percent of American surveyed said they believed the the Bible is the literal word of God. And there is no way to do that without being a YEC as there is that 7 days bit. Which means YOU are not a literalist though you have consistently refused to make what your position clear you have now said you don't think the Earth is young. Can't think that a be a literalist.>>
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2011
I get the feeling you think you have to be literalist and have to believe that Jehovah is responsible for every step of the development of all life but you can't actually accept it fully. The way you evade questions suggests that you are deeply conflicted and don't want to admit to yourself that you have problems with the actual wording in Genesis.

Any time you want to clear this up you are free to do so. You have evaded every opportunity by either scarpering off or making specious excuses. I am beginning to suspect that you are not being disingenuous with US but are doing so with yourself.

How would you know about fundamentalism or Christianity?
By being an American that actually reads things and met people. I was raised Catholic and I do NOT need to be a Fundamentalist to have a clue as to how they think. I have been debating with them for a decade.

I believe in God and I believe in the fundamental principles set forth in the Bible.
Not if you think the world is old.>>
dogbert
1 / 5 (19) Sep 23, 2011
But within 10,000 years and as we presently are does.


Such a question is basically not answerable. It combines gestimates of the number of years homo sapiens has existed along with a contradiction of the biblical record.

People who answered "yes" doubtless had a notion that homo sapiens have existed for a short time geologically and doubtless elided over the biblical inaccuracy in the question in order to provide an answer.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2011
I live in the bible belt, grew up in a fundamental Christian church -- none of which, by the way, believed in a young earth
Then they aren't literalists.

and I have never met a young earth creationist.
Nonsense, Kevin is a YEC, breadhead is, Yellowdart is and 25% of Americans are. Southern Baptists are YECs in the vast majority of cases. And the poles support me on this. So does their organization.

You just make up stuff which has no basis in reality.
Reality what a concept. Here is a bit in this Southern Baptist resolution from 1982

http://www.sbc.ne...p?ID=967

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention in session in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1982, express our support for the teaching of Scientific Creationism in our public schools.
Which is NOTHING BUT YEC. So the Southern Baptists don't agree with what you claim they believe. Sorry but reality is not in your favor on this. As usual.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (20) Sep 23, 2011
Ethered,

You continue to conflate fundamentalism with young earth creationism despite clear differences which have been repeatedly expressed to you. You just want there to be many young earth creationists so you invent them as needed.

Reality does not conform to your desires nor does your dislike of Christianity cause Christians to believe the conflated ideas you attribute to them.

Young earth creationism is a small fringe group. Fundamental belief in the God of Abraham is composed of a very large group of people.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
Such a question is basically not answerable.
A refusal to deal with reality on your part does not make the question unanswerable.

It combines gestimates of the number of years homo sapiens has existed
Not guesstimates. Actual measurements of a variety of radioactive elements and other unfortunately less reliable techniques BUT they all dovetail into a fairly solid idea of when. It could be earlier but not much later. Way more the 100,000 years.

along with a contradiction of the biblical record.
Which disproves the Bible. Lots of things do. Heck the Bible contradicts itself on far more than it should if it is to be called the inerrant of a perfect god.

People who answered "yes" doubtless had a notion that homo sapiens have existed for a short time geologically
You really do have a desperate need to evade the truth on this. Why is that?>>
dogbert
1 / 5 (17) Sep 23, 2011
Ethered,
It combines gestimates of the number of years homo sapiens has existed along with a contradiction of the biblical record.

Which disproves the Bible.


How does asking a question which conflicts with the Bible disprove the Bible? Have you abandoned all pretense of rationality?
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
doubtless elided over the biblical inaccuracy in the question in order to provide an answer.
No. They gave the answer they believed. Of course you could actually look into this instead of make up shit and call it shinola as you are doing. I have checked. Many times including just this morning.

Now I do need some sleep so I recommend that you actually look into this. You could start with the Dover Trial or perhaps a few more poles with different wordings. Or you could just look at those sites I linked to. Or you could look at the vast efforts being made by large numbers of people to force Creationism into public schools in one form or another. Texas and Kansas aren't the only trying to do that.

You continue to conflate fundamentalism with young earth creationism despite clear differences which have been repeatedly expressed to you.
Which is an opinion limited to you. Not most of the Fundamentalists. They aren't going to change to fit your desires.

Ethelred
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (18) Sep 23, 2011
CHollman, your are plainly ignorant of philosophy. The flavor of atheism, that would claim positively that god does not exist, are as irrational as those those who claim that he does.


I never made that claim.


Yes you did, you said "metaphysics does not exist".


So you think that the statement that everything is physical and metaphysical doesn't describe anything is equivalent to the assertion that god does not exist?

You're confused. I said that if something exists it is physical, because if something exists it interacts with reality and can be empirically discovered and examined. I never said god does not exist. You are making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. If god exists it is a physical entity that interacts with reality and therefore is empirical.

Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
How does asking a question which conflicts with the Bible disprove the Bible?
THE ANSWER does. Humans evolved. Still do. That is against Fundamentalist principles.

And no you are not the expert on REAL Fundamentalists. You seem to insist on changing them into something you find more accepting of reality then is the actual case.

It is not my fault that YOU are NOT a Fundamentalist. Calling yourself one is like calling a person that thinks Jesus is his personal savior a Buddhist. The world does not agree with you on this. REAL Fundamentalists don't agree with you. The Southern Baptists don't agree.

All of them agree with me on this. You could ask Kevin. He will agree with me. You are not a Fundamentalist and are either without a clue or being disingenuous.

Ethelred
CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (18) Sep 23, 2011
Science can not answer all questions that can be posed.


Sure, because not all questions that can be posed are meaningful.


Why does the universe exist?


That very well may be a meaningless question.

What is energy?


Energy is fully defined by its properties. I'm interested in what kind of an answer you're looking for, probably a nonsensical one.

As for the rest of what you said in that post, if something exists it interacts with reality, if it interacts with reality it is discoverable and therefore knowable. If it is both discoverable and knowable it is subject to empirical investigation. Nothing that you would call "metaphysical" exists... metaphysics deals with concepts, not things that exist in physical reality. A concept is an emergent phenomenon of consciousness, which is itself an emergent phenomenon of biology/chemistry/physics.
CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (18) Sep 23, 2011
And no you are not the expert on REAL Fundamentalists. You seem to insist on changing them into something you find more accepting of reality then is the actual case.

The world does not agree with you on this. REAL Fundamentalists don't agree with you. The Southern Baptists don't agree.

All of them agree with me on this. You could ask Kevin. He will agree with me. You are not a Fundamentalist and are either without a clue or being disingenuous.

Ethelred


Agreed, I have family in Alabama, I have spent a lot of time in the "bible belt"... almost everyone down there that I know is a YEC.
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (17) Sep 23, 2011
Someone tell me what the difference is between the existence of something that does not interact with anything but itself and the non-existence of that same thing.

Then, someone tell me how an object that interacts with something other then itself can be fundamentally "unknowable", "undetectable", or not subject to empirical analysis.

If anyone can answer both of these questions sufficiently I will submit that metaphysical things may exist. Otherwise, anything described as "metaphysical" simply does not exist.
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (16) Sep 23, 2011
Someone tell me what the difference is between the existence of something that does not interact with anything but itself and the non-existence of that same thing.

None.

someone tell me how an object that interacts with something other then itself can be fundamentally "unknowable", "undetectable", or not subject to empirical analysis.

That can be possible if any signals the object generates become undetectable at some point in time (like other galaxies/clusters and CMB will become in many billions of years time due to the expansion of the universe).

Otherwise, anything described as "metaphysical" simply does not exist.

By definition, metaphysics is beyond normal physics, for which there is no evidence. You could call string theory metaphysics, but there are still good reasons to pursue it and one day it may prove to be physics (or not).
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (77) Sep 23, 2011
Someone tell me what the difference is between the existence of something that does not interact with anything but itself and the non-existence of that same thing.

Then, someone tell me how an object that interacts with something other then itself can be fundamentally "unknowable", "undetectable", or not subject to empirical analysis.

If anyone can answer both of these questions sufficiently I will submit that metaphysical things may exist. Otherwise, anything described as "metaphysical" simply does not exist.


I attempted to above, but you ignore or fail to understand basic epistemology. All that has to be shown to answer both questions simultaneously, is to show that you can't reproduce Reality as it is in itself, without causing It to be conformed to subjective constructs. Wiki epistemology for a start, at least put in an effort.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (76) Sep 23, 2011
By definition, metaphysics is beyond normal physics, for which there is no evidence. You could call string theory metaphysics, but there are still good reasons to pursue it and one day it may prove to be physics (or not).


Since you brought up string theory I will use it as an example. Let's say superstring theory pans out and allows for some predictions and observations. The LHC produces a bunch of new particles that can be explained well using string theory. Wonderful. This won't mean there are actually little vibrating strings!!! Strings in this sense are merely mathematical constructs, the right number of variables to allow observations to be linked consistently. That is all.

Likewise in the standard model, an electron is modeled as a zero volume point particle or a wave. It is neither in Reality,... it is merely modeled as such!! Don't confuse the models with the actual reality.
CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (19) Sep 23, 2011
Someone tell me what the difference is between the existence of something that does not interact with anything but itself and the non-existence of that same thing.


None.


Glad we agree with this at least.

That can be possible if any signals the object generates become undetectable at some point in time (like other galaxies/clusters and CMB will become in many billions of years time due to the expansion of the universe).


Okay, and if something is fundamentally unknowable then the difference between its existence and its non-existence is zero.

By definition, metaphysics is beyond normal physics, for which there is no evidence.


Belief in something without evidence is called faith, and faith is not a virtue.
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (18) Sep 23, 2011
Since you brought up string theory I will use it as an example. Let's say superstring theory pans out and allows for some predictions and observations. The LHC produces a bunch of new particles that can be explained well using string theory. Wonderful. This won't mean there are actually little vibrating strings!!! Strings in this sense are merely mathematical constructs, the right number of variables to allow observations to be linked consistently. That is all.

Likewise in the standard model, an electron is modeled as a zero volume point particle or a wave. It is neither in Reality,... it is merely modeled as such!! Don't confuse the models with the actual reality.


Sure, what does that have to do with what we are talking about? Are you conflating metaphysics with conceptualization?
Deesky
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2011
Belief in something without evidence is called faith, and faith is not a virtue.

Sure, but there is a difference between baseless beliefs and scientific hypotheses.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (76) Sep 23, 2011
Since you brought up string theory I will use it as an example. Let's say superstring theory pans out and allows for some predictions and observations. The LHC produces a bunch of new particles that can be explained well using string theory. Wonderful. This won't mean there are actually little vibrating strings!!! Strings in this sense are merely mathematical constructs, the right number of variables to allow observations to be linked consistently. That is all.

Likewise in the standard model, an electron is modeled as a zero volume point particle or a wave. It is neither in Reality,... it is merely modeled as such!! Don't confuse the models with the actual reality.


Sure, what does that have to do with what we are talking about? Are you conflating metaphysics with conceptualization?

I'm trying to get it across to you that there is 'something' existent beyond what we can know,... in vain it appears.
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 23, 2011
I'm trying to get it across to you that there is 'something' existent beyond what we can know,... in vain it appears.


Can know currently? Can know given the limitation of our biology? Or can know on a fundamental level?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2011
metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge, which means YOU cannot make negative claims about it either. Obviously, it is faith based
Because as it does not in fact exist, you novelists can claim it to be anything you want.

Christ Nou I thought you were cleansed of this bullshit. There IS no metaphysics only physics. Philos were selling Authority to people who assumed that the smartest people in the world should have all the answers, and the Enlightenment taught them that this knowledge did not come from god.

No metaphysical theory ever proved anything, never explained anything, and never lasted much beyond the gen of pedants who concocted it. It was - and IS - propaganda for specific social classes not accessible by other forms.

Science is more confident, more mature now. It knows that only IT has the tools to explain anything and everything. Even the sociopolitical expediency of religion and its equally evil dwarf twin, Philosophy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2011
I'm trying to get it across to you that there is 'something' existent beyond what we can know,... in vain it appears.
NO there is NOT. Not even your imagination.
FrankHerbert
3.4 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2011
I'm trying to get it across to you that there is 'something' existent beyond what we can know,... in vain it appears.


Then you are on the wrong website.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (77) Sep 23, 2011
Christ Nou I thought you were cleansed of this bullshit. There IS no metaphysics only physics. Philos were selling Authority to people who assumed that the smartest people in the world should have all the answers, and the Enlightenment taught them that this knowledge did not come from god.


As I stated at least twice above, metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. It was philosophy, in particular Kant's epistemology (relevant to science (wiki it)) who demonstrated this resoundingly IMO. In doing so, he made distinction between Phenomenal reality and Noumenal reality, which I believe is purely logical conclusion (if understood), and even relevant to interpretations of qm. To think that TOU could posses all of reality in your mind is naviete in the extreme.

It doesn't appear that I'm going to be understood here.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2011
You are understood. You are just wrong.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2011
As I stated at least twice above, metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. It was philosophy, in particular Kant's epistemology (relevant to science (wiki it)) who demonstrated this resoundingly IMO. In doing so, he made distinction between Phenomenal reality and Noumenal reality, which I believe is purely logical conclusion (if understood), and even relevant to interpretations of qm. To think that TOU could posses all of reality in your mind is naviete in the extreme.
Nice spaghetti-speak. Ok, name one thing metaphysical which cannot be explained scientifically. Don't say love or spirituality as they can both be explained scientifically as wholly physiological responses. And don't say morality or altruism because these can be explained completely in terms of tribal dynamics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2011
For instance
It is neither in Reality,... it is merely modeled as such!! Don't confuse the models with the actual reality.
Strings and particles ARE real things as they interact with other things we consider real. They make up for instance the big rock which lands on your toe, which emphatically demands you accept it's realness.

String and particle are however words and as such are only gross and inexact representations of real things, the natures of which can only be ascertained experimentally and mathematically.

Philosophy possesses neither experiment nor mathematics in it's toolbox. Instead it substitutes word calculations to define things, and inaccessible realms for them to exist in. The allure of words is a philos fatal weakness. This leads me to believe that the irrational preference for words over mathematics in describing the world, indicates a developmental or endemic imbalance within the human brain itself.

If so, this too will eventually yield to scientific inquiry.
dogbert
1 / 5 (17) Sep 23, 2011
Ethelred,
How does asking a question which conflicts with the Bible disprove the Bible?


THE ANSWER does. Humans evolved. Still do. That is against Fundamentalist principles.


So if someone asks a question that conflicts with evolution, that question invalidates evolution?

OK. Do you think humans evolved from kangaroos? That question conflicts with evolution theory, therefore, according to your illogic, it must invalidate evolution.

To return to the question which you say invalidates the bible because it conflicts with the bible, the third question in your quoted poll was "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

Since God did not create man in his present form, the question conflicts with the bible and cannot be properly answered. Asking a loaded question in a poll does not invalidate the bible.
Ortzmet
5 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2011
"Philosophy possesses neither experiment nor mathematics in it's toolbox. Instead it substitutes word calculations to define things, and inaccessible realms for them to exist in. The allure of words is a philos fatal weakness. This leads me to believe that the irrational preference for words over mathematics in describing the world, indicates a developmental or endemic imbalance within the human brain itself."

The mathematician is not as reliable as the tools he employs. That the frequent use of mathematics does not sharpen one's ability to discern reality is evident in the large number of mathematicians as members of contending faiths. You will not often find philosophers compartmentalizing their skills in the presence of dogma. Mathematics bestows only the very narrow skill of its own type of reasoning, and not very much in the way of critical reasoning.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2011
Since God did not create man in his present form, the question conflicts with the bible and cannot be properly answered. Asking a loaded question in a poll does not invalidate the bible.
I'm sorry, let me just briefly jump in here... In what form did he create man in then, DB? was he more kangaroo-like perhaps?

I know - you're referring to Adam before the fall. But Satan never did anything without gods knowledge and tacit approval - how could he? God made Adam and then field-tested him. His creation failed the stress test, proving he was flawed from the beginning.

Your god only chose to punish Adam and eve for HIS own mistakes, a theme which continues throughout the goodbook.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2011
Mathematics bestows only the very narrow skill of its own type of reasoning, and not very much in the way of critical reasoning.
Well THATS not true. Numbers are the best tool we have with which to describe physical phenomena. Math is spectacularly successful at this, irrespective of the people who are wielding it.

Philos only use the fuzzy nature of words to obscure their uselessness in describing things with them. This could be called at the very most 'entertainment'.

And because their word calcs are so worthless in describing the world, they need to have a fuzzy meta-world where their words, in their minds anyway, can make some sense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2011
I'm trying to get it across to you that there is 'something' existent beyond what we can know,... in vain it appears.


Then you are on the wrong website.
I don't know frank, philos can be as much a threat to science as their religionist brethren. They give the impression that things can be understood without doing the necessary work that science requires.

They can discourage legitimate inquiry into things which they claim are beyond the reach of science. I think it's good to do battle with them.
dogbert
1 / 5 (16) Sep 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto 1923,
I'm sorry, let me just briefly jump in here... In what form did he create man in then, DB? was he more kangaroo-like perhaps?


Why are you answering for Ethelred?

Ethelred made a very illogical statement -- that asking a question about something when that question contains fallacies about the subject of the question, disproves the subject of the question.

I just pointed out his flawed reasoning.

Are you agreeing with Ethelred? Do you think asking a loaded question about something disproves that something?
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (17) Sep 23, 2011
Ethelred made a very illogical statement -- that asking a question about something when that question contains fallacies about the subject of the question, disproves the subject of the question.

I just pointed out his flawed reasoning.

I believe he said that the ANSWER invalidates the subject.

I just pointed out your flawed reading comprehension.
dogbert
1 / 5 (17) Sep 23, 2011
Deesky,
I believe he said that the ANSWER invalidates the subject.


You construct a poll where answering the poll proves that there is no God?

As I said, it is flawed reasoning.

If you think you can prove that God does not exist by asking a loaded question, you lack reasoning skills.
Deesky
4.7 / 5 (15) Sep 23, 2011
I've never seen so much Olympic grade back-paddling. You can try to reframe the original exchange as much as you like, but that exchange is recorded here for all to see:

dogbert: How does asking a question which conflicts with the Bible disprove the Bible?


Ethelred: THE ANSWER does. Humans evolved. Still do. That is against Fundamentalist principles.


paddle away...
dogbert
1 / 5 (16) Sep 23, 2011
Deesky,
I've never seen so much Olympic grade back-paddling. You can try to reframe the original exchange as much as you like, but that exchange is recorded here for all to see:


No back peddling here. It was Elbert's assertion. I merely pointed out that you can't prove something by asking a flawed question. You can't.

Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2011
So if someone asks a question that conflicts with evolution, that question invalidates evolution?
I did not say that. Why are so many on this site afflicted with change what was actually said disease?

I pointed out that is the ANSWER to that particular question that disproves Fundamentalist ideas of how the world actually is. ANSWER does not in any way look even remotely like QUESTION so why did you ask TWICE?

So if someone asks a question that conflicts with evolution, that question invalidates evolution?
That is an idiotic question as you already no the neither I nor anyone else has such a belief.

That question conflicts with evolution theory, therefore, according to your illogic, it must invalidate evolution.
You REALLY can't read. THE ANSWER to the question not the question.

Really this is even idiotic than your claim that most most Fundamentalists aren't YEC's when they most definitely are.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2011
I am beginning to wonder if maybe you are about 13 years old. The way you stubbornly try to change what I said to something else is at the rubber and glue level. I don't like bringing age into it but is getting hard to think of you as even remotely mature.

To return to the question which you say invalidates the bible
I said NO SUCH THING. YOU even managed to quote it correctly and then changed it when you used your idiotic words. Idiotic is the only thing I call that sort incompetent behavior.

My jaw is dropping in amazement at the level of incompetence you are showing. This is not a matter of opinion as I did NOT SAY THE QUESTION disproved Fundamentalism. And I pointed that out in the previous post.

the third question in your quoted poll was "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."
Yes and that is wrong but many believe it AND it is a YEC belief. >>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2011
You seem to be trying to support yourself with that utterly bogus claim that there was little difference between 10,000 and 100,000.

Since God did not create man in his present form,
Most likely no god was involved at all but the evidence is clear that humans did not start out as we presently are.

the question conflicts with the bible and cannot be properly answered
No. The question does not conflict with the Bible nor does the YEC beliefs conflict with it so the YEC's answered said they believed that was the case. However the evidence is clear. They and the Bible are wrong.

Asking a loaded question in a poll does not invalidate the bible.
There was no loaded question and the question itself does not invalidate the Bible and I never made that claim AND I pointed that out. You even quoted it.

The WORLD invalidates the belief and the Bible on this. The question and the answers given to the pole only shows that 33 percent of American are YECs.>>
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2011
Bloody hell that was STUPID post you made.

Learn how to read. Learn the difference between QUESTION and ANSWER and EVIDENCE. A logic class or two might go a long way in fixing your inability to reason. Or it might get you an F.

No wonder you believe the Bible is the word of Jehovah. You and the mythical Jehovah are both incapable of reason. You can learn. Myths can't but that is something you will discover if you ever learn the art of critical thinking.

All this utter rubbish because you don't want accept the fact that so many Americans have chosen to believe in nonsense like a Young Earth.

Ethelred
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (75) Sep 24, 2011
Nice spaghetti-speak

Yes, I don't doubt that everything I've written above appears to be incomprehensible to one ignorant enough to have written the following;

Philos only use the fuzzy nature of words to obscure their uselessness in describing things with them. This could be called at the very most 'entertainment'.


philos can be as much a threat to science as their religionist brethren. They give the impression that things can be understood without doing the necessary work that science requires.


There are several branches of philosophy that are incontestably related to and are vital to science,.. logic, epistemology, linguistics,.. to name a few obvious ones. There is even a 'philosophy of physics' with many books/papers written on the subject. Every major physicist has pursued philosophical questions. For you to disparage "philos" so flippantly shows you are more motivated to argue than understand what my point is above,...
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (74) Sep 24, 2011
I'm not advocating metaphysics,... I'm not trying to get you to believe in anything metaphysical. In fact I've stated four times that it cannot be a source of knowledge. Further I'm not saying that knowledge acquired through science is not real; phenomenal reality is real.

In fact the exact OPPOSITE of trying to get you to accept the metaphysical world, is to caution you not to fall victim to false metaphysical interpretations of what scientific theories state. In fact far from being "religious like" in my thought, I'm am more rigorous wrt standards of ascertaining what is true knowledge about Reality, than some flippant science fan-boy.

One must understand what is Real vrs what is a useful concept for acquiring relations between observations. People on this site actually think that a concept like time is a real physical entity despite never observing it apart from it's application in relating things. Strings are just a means of representing degrees of freedom required,...
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2011
People on this site actually think that a concept like time is a real physical entity despite never observing it apart from it's application in relating things.
Time is as real as a punch in the nose.

Physically it is an integral part of Space-Time and since those equations work, that is they produce numbers that fit reality, it is reasonable to assume that the theory is a very close analogue of reality at worst.

What many people seem to have a problem with is Time as a property of the Universe. They tend to want something of vast mystical import. Then there was that idiot that was trying to call time an ordered series of events. I say idiot because he was unable to comprehend that he was producing the exact same results and that it was indistinguishable results wise from the concept of time as a property of the Universe.

There is no reason for the way Universe works EXCEPT that is has to all work together or it would break. Unless you have a god handy.

Ethelred
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (74) Sep 24, 2011
,... to construct a consistent theory relating observables. To think that there are actual Real strings existent independently from such a conceptualization of reality, IS itself a faith, albeit perhaps a useful one. The multi-verse theory (wrt qm) IS metaphysical philosophy because it's unobservable in principal, and explains away the "wave-function collapse".

It is a fallacy to presume that if reality cannot pass through and be rationalized by mind, it does not exist. This is idealism and radical philosophy.

The branch of Philosophy, Logic, is deductive, and as such is more certain in it's derivations than science, as science is inductive and relies on a degree of certainty.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (74) Sep 24, 2011
Ethelred, I don't disagree with your above post, instead what I do is to qualify it. Time is a real element of the phenomenal world. Mind is an active element of the phenomenal world as well, by definition; reality as experienced. Therefore since Time is not a thing discovered, but rather only every used in relating things, it's existence must come from mind, in ordering experience.

The element of phenomenal reality that is epistemological delimits Phenomenal reality from Noumenal reality (reality as it "IS", unconceptualized). IMO, this is just logic, and justifies my statement that we can't know everything of Reality. You may disagree, fine.

Purely logically one would have to believe that a one-to-one correspondence between reality and some intellectual conceptual structure could be made consistently. This is not certain as there is a gulf between GR and QM,.. and QM had to abandon intuitive understanding to make progress.
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2011
Therefore since Time is not a thing discovered,
It is a thing just as much as left to right, back and forth, up and down are. And yes we did discover space. Of course that was a long ago ancestor that first managed independent movement.

but rather only every used in relating things
No. The THINGS themselves are related to each by within time. Time is not dependent relating things, its the other way around as it is a property of the Universe.

it's existence must come from mind, in ordering experience.
Boy is that one wrong. The mind, which is nothing but an emergent property of the chemistry of the brain, experiences time. Indeed the chemistry is dependent on time thus time does come from mind as mind MUST come from SPACE-TIME and the other properties of the Universe.

The element of phenomenal reality that is epistemological delimits
Word Wuze.

IMO, this is just logic,
Based on your faulty assumptions above.>>
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2011
justifies my statement that we can't know everything of Reality.
Not realated to anything that proceeded. Black Holes show that we can't know everything of reality.

You may disagree, fine.
As long as you use faulty premises and word wuze that is intended to obscure your point I will continue to do so.

Purely logically one would have to believe that a one-to-one correspondence
Would you like to make a one to one correspondence between the Real Numbers and the Irrational numbers and you might remember that you had a problem with that the last time.

This is not certain as there is a gulf between GR and QM
Which again does not follow from anything else you said. It follows from the math and the evidence. And frankly I suspect that it is QM where the greatest problems arise.

and QM had to abandon intuitive understanding to make progress.
Intuition evolved from mostly macroscopic events. And GR isn't intuitive either.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2011
Ethelred,
Since God did not create man in his present form, the question conflicts with the bible and cannot be properly answered. Asking a loaded question in a poll does not invalidate the bible.

No. The question does not conflict with the Bible nor does the YEC beliefs conflict with it so the YEC's answered said they believed that was the case. However the evidence is clear. They and the Bible are wrong.


The question does conflict with the bible record. God did not make man in his present form. The question is loaded designed so that any response is wrong. The whole poll is loaded.

the question conflicts with the bible and cannot be properly answered

No. The question does not conflict with the Bible


Why do you even argue about the bible if you are so ignorant of its contents? Or do you really know what you are saying is contrary to the bible but you don't care that your argument is false?

cont..
dogbert
1 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2011
Adam and his immediate descendents lived close to 1000 years. The bible does not indicate the limits of man's life at that time, but it was much longer than it is now. Then God set a limit of 120 years on our life. That is a substantial change from the form of man initially. Therefore the question "Did God create man in his present form ..." is a loaded question and cannot be answered from a multiple choice list.

The whole poll you quoted is similarly designed to elicit useless responses from which you present your incorrect assertion that fundamental belief in the bible means that the believer must be a young earth creationist.

The bible does not say how old the universe and the earth is -- only that God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning.

I was raised in a fundamental church, the Church of Christ. I attended a college run by a fundamental church, the Church of Christ.

cont...
dogbert
1 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2011
The Church of Christ is about as fundamental as it gets. And I have never met a young earth creationist. I have attended many other churches. I work daily with many people who attend many other churches. I still have met no one anywhere who is a young earth creationist. That is because young earth creationism is a fringe group which has nothing to do with fundamental belief in God and the bible.

I have never met a member of the flat earth society either, because they are a fringe group of few individuals.

You are simply wrong when you equate fundamental belief with young earth creationism. I have pointed this out to you many times and you continue to conflate fundamental belief with young earth creationism.

You obviously have an agenda and do not mind inconsistencies and illogic in order to advance your agenda. I will continue to point out that your assertions are false.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2011
branches of philosophy that are incontestably related to and are vital to science,.. logic, epistemology, linguistics,.. to name a few obvious ones.
These 'obvious ones'... Logic is word math, a crude approximation of the real thing because it uses fuzzy WORDS and not numbers. Epistemology is a big fat word for a worthless intellectual gymnastic, as any working scientist will tell you. Linguistics is a soft SCIENCE, legitimately pursued only by those who do experiment.
There is even a 'philosophy of physics' with many books/papers written on the subject.
Which is routinely deemed WORTHLESS by scientists. Re hawking, feinman, Dawkins et al.

Philos through the ages have had to grab bits and pieces of science and other disciplines in order to falsely add some substance to their field. When they were actually contributing to science they were scientists, not philos. When they were inventing dasein and immanence and similar crap they were wasting our time ie doing philosophy.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (75) Sep 24, 2011
Therefore since Time is not a thing discovered,

It is a thing just as much as left to right, back and forth, up and down are. And yes we did discover space. {...} independent movement.

Are you paying attention? Time and space are things experienced, yes,... NOT discovered as independent entities themselves. By definition 'experience' involves a mind so since a Time particle or field has never been discovered independently of it's application in relating things, time must be considered a subjective component of phenomenal reality. It can be defined as anything,.. x number of cycles of a cesium atom, and compared to other events, but it is a relation between events. Naturely relations between observations give conceptual insight into reality.

String theory invokes 10 spacial dimensions,... the question wether there are actual spacial dimensions as intuitively understood beyond what we observe is metaphysical. They are degrees of freedom, extra variables.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (75) Sep 24, 2011
No. The THINGS themselves are related to each by within time. Time is not dependent relating things, its the other way around as it is a property of the Universe.


Show me where a time particle or field or physical entity has been discovered that is responsible for time. If Time is a property of the universe rather than a conceptual relation of events, you should be able to. Of course all you can do is give examples of it's use. And proclaim dogmatically and religiously that its a real entity.

This is why I entered this thread, because I don't care for science fan-boys desparaging others beliefs systems, when their world view is replete with them.

The higgs field is proposed to have caused mass,... are you saying one should propose some field to account for time? Maybe space too, and causality?,.. won't work for qm.
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2011
Show me where a time particle or field or physical entity has been discovered that is responsible for time. If Time is a property of the universe rather than a conceptual relation of events, you should be able to. Of course all you can do is give examples of it's use. And proclaim dogmatically and religiously that its a real entity.


I agree with you, I consider time to be a human invented concept. The referent in physical reality is change. Change occurs, we perceive this change in sequence, we label this "time".
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2011
Are you paying attention? Time and space are things experienced, yes,... NOT discovered as independent entities themselves.
Wow have you got this backwards.
the question wether there are actual spacial dimensions as intuitively understood beyond what we observe is metaphysical.
'Intuitively' is not a scientific word. Intuition has no place in the pursuit of knowledge. String theory need not be 'intuitively' understood to be real. If it is valid then it is real whether we can understand it or not.

No nether realm is needed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2011
I agree with you, I consider time to be a human invented concept. The referent in physical reality is change. Change occurs, we perceive this change in sequence, we label this "time".
Whether you agree with the wizard or not, time in science can be represented objectively. It can be assigned values and used to explain and predict phenomena independent of our experience of it. It exists whether we exist to experience it or not. It existed before we did and will continue to exist after we are gone. It's existence has nothing to do with US.
kaasinees
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2011
Sigh ... an article payed by scientology or the watch tower?
Science and religion simply dont mix, they are contradictions...
No scientology has nothing to do with science -.-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2011
Nou exposes his religious roots:
Show me where a time particle or field or physical entity has been discovered that is responsible for time. If Time is a property of the universe rather than a conceptual relation of events, you should be able to.
So since we don't have a handful of particles to show you, or since scientists are still struggling to define the fundamental nature of this or that, this means that the metaphysical must exist? God is not required but his house must still be there?

Time is what it is. The more science learns about it the more they know about it. THEY are the only ones who can explore what time is. No need to jump to any silly conclusions or poetic extrapolations.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2011
This is why I entered this thread, because I don't care for science fan-boys desparaging others beliefs systems, when their world view is replete with them.
Your belief system offers nothing of value. Nothing testable. Nothing repeatable. Nothing useful. Only unwarranted coonclusions.
The higgs field is proposed to have caused mass,... are you saying one should propose some field to account for time? Maybe space too, and causality?,.. won't work for
Maybe. Would you be disappointed if it did? Perhaps because it was counterintuitive??
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (19) Sep 24, 2011
I agree with you, I consider time to be a human invented concept. The referent in physical reality is change. Change occurs, we perceive this change in sequence, we label this "time".
Whether you agree with the wizard or not, time in science can be represented objectively. It can be assigned values and used to explain and predict phenomena independent of our experience of it. It exists whether we exist to experience it or not. It existed before we did and will continue to exist after we are gone. It's existence has nothing to do with US.


Yes, change existed before we existed to experience change... we call change in sequence "time"... it's just a name we assigned to the physical reality of change.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2011
Yes, change existed before we existed to experience change... we call change in sequence "time"... it's just a name we assigned to the physical reality of change.
And so what makes time itself a Human invented concept? Time continues whether anything changes or not.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (74) Sep 24, 2011
Otto, logic is a branch of philosophy. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge. Obviously both are vital to science. Brushing aside anything other than science as meaningless flim-flam shows you are ignorant of the basic foundations of science itself.

Those who make the same mistake of dogmatically proclaiming knowledge, whether positive existence or non-existence,.. of things beyond what is empirically demonstrable, rely on faith and metaphysical belief.

It {time} exists whether we exist to experience it or not. It existed before we did and will continue to exist after we are gone.


Amen, now let's all bow and give sacrament and praise the watch gods. Spoken like a true evangelists....
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (19) Sep 24, 2011
Yes, change existed before we existed to experience change... we call change in sequence "time"... it's just a name we assigned to the physical reality of change.
And so what makes time itself a Human invented concept? Time continues whether anything changes or not.


Time is just a word, a word that points to a concept. The concept involves ordered change in physical reality. What is real, what exists, is the physical reality, the matter/energy, the constituents of existence. Time does not exist as anything but a concept used to refer to ordered change in things that do exist... that is why you can't show me time directly, you can only demonstrate the concept by pointing to things that do exist, a cesium atom for example, and stating that from one configuration of reality to the next "time" has passed... when what really happened is simply that a component of reality changed, and that component of reality is real.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (74) Sep 24, 2011
It can be assigned values and used to explain and predict phenomena independent of our experience of it

How are numbers assigned as time in practice? By comparing the number of cyclical events contiguous to the number of another event. A relation between those events. Nature doesn't care, about comparing things. No comparisons are bothered to be made without humans around.
CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2011
Time continues whether anything changes or not.


How would you know? Change always occurs... as far as we know we cannot stop it, even at absolute zero.

Without change, there is no concept time because it cannot be determined (in fact without change there is nothing, existence becomes equivalent to non-existence)
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (75) Sep 24, 2011
Nou exposes his religious roots:
Show me where a time particle or field or physical entity has been discovered that is responsible for time. If Time is a property of the universe rather than a conceptual relation of events, you should be able to.
So since we don't have a handful of particles to show you, or since scientists are still struggling to define the fundamental nature of this or that, this means that the metaphysical must exist? God is not required but his house must still be there?

Time is what it is. The more science learns about it the more they know about it. THEY are the only ones who can explore what time is. No need to jump to any silly conclusions or poetic extrapolations.


So, the answer is don't know,...you have faith in it's physical existence, and are merely awaiting the Scientific second coming? You say "Time is what it is",... hmm, sounds like the ontological argument for the existence of god!
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (73) Sep 24, 2011
This is why I entered this thread, because I don't care for science fan-boys desparaging others beliefs systems, when their world view is replete with them.

Your belief system offers nothing of value. Nothing testable. Nothing repeatable. Nothing useful. Only unwarranted coonclusions.

I am entirely anti-religious, and my belief system is a rigorous analysis of knowledge inorder to interprete physical theories wrt to the nature of reality.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (73) Sep 24, 2011
Purely logically one would have to believe that a one-to-one correspondence between reality and some intellectual conceptual structure could be made consistently. This is not certain as there is a gulf between GR and QM,.. and QM had to abandon intuitive understanding to make progress.

Which again does not follow from anything else you said. It follows from the math and the evidence..

The point was that there is no proof that such a one-to-one correspondence can be made consistently, no evidence... there is only faith that this can be done. A rational faith, yes, but a faith in which science relies on.

It is remarkable that with all that is known about reality, we can't even begin to say what Consciousness IS. It's hard to disparage ones belief system when we can't even begin to understand our own consciousness, ...how it could come about from matter or even what IS it. Arrogance and the naiveté seem to have all the answers though.
CHollman82
2.5 / 5 (19) Sep 24, 2011
It is remarkable that with all that is known about reality, we cannot even begin to say what Consciousness IS.


Yes we can, consciousness is an emergent property of complex biology/chemistry/physics. The problem is not that we don't know what it is, it's that people want there to be more to it than there is.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2011
Consciousness can best be defined as the ability to collect (through sensation) and recall (through memory) information about reality. That's all it is, and it is the result of complex physical arrangements and interactions, which are all determined by physical law. Consciousness is a byproduct of physical law in a given manifestation, as is EVERYTHING.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2011
How would you know? Change always occurs... as far as we know we cannot stop it, even at absolute zero.
Right... And so you get sucked into one of those countless eddies where philos love to dwell where endless arguments can proceed about 'what is the meaning of...' and somesuch; using of course WORDS which can never inform adequately about physical phenomena. Although after a few dozen posts or hours of discussing or books by KANT or Schopenhauer, you're exhausted and willing to mistake confusion for progress.
Without change, there is no concept time because it cannot be determined (in fact without change there is nothing, existence becomes equivalent to non-existence)
Words words words. The CONCEPT is immaterial. Ask a scientist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2011
Consciousness can best be defined as the ability to collect (through sensation) and recall (through memory) information about reality.
'Best' sir? I would ask someone else with an appropriate degree who would quote an unimpeachable authority, who has already come up with the 'Best'. Except further down the bookshelf we find an equally erudite (but long dead) authority whose 'best' is something quite different.

Science will study 'consciousness' using all the relevant tools, and come up with some answers. Most likely they will recommend you discard the word entirely as it is misleading and devoid of useful content.

They might tell you that the WORD is useless in describing anything meaningful about the human condition. They might even snicker.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (75) Sep 24, 2011
Consciousness can best be defined as the ability to collect (through sensation) and recall (through memory) information about reality.


No, those processes are physiological in nature. They occur even in dreams,... sometimes we're even conscious that we're dreaming. I'm speaking of awareness, consciousness. It is different altogether than this causes that,..

That's all it is, and it is the result of complex physical arrangements and interactions, which are all determined by physical law. Consciousness is a byproduct of physical law in a given manifestation, as is EVERYTHING.

...though I'm not saying it's metaphysical,.. but consciousness (being "aware") has a different character to it, and since science can't even begin to say what it IS much less how it works, ...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2011
I am entirely anti-religious, and my belief system is a rigorous analysis of knowledge inorder to interprete physical theories wrt to the nature of reality.
Which, unfortunately, has always failed miserably and embarrassingly in the face of scientific inquiry. You guys talk and talk and talk and then some scientist comes along and makes you look like idiots. Philo interpretations have demonstrated their impotence. They are invariably the product of the imagination.

Philos, like Religionists, are constantly going back and reinterpreting what their prophets and their holy books said, in light of scientific discoveries. Or they simply deny them, like any fundamentalist. You do this yourself Nou. You cite something Kant said and try to twist and stretch it to fit some new scientific theory.

But as Kant had no knowledge of that theory his relevance to it could at most be purely coincidental, no matter how much you pull and tug. With compelling mental imagery to guide you of course.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (76) Sep 24, 2011
It is remarkable that with all that is known about reality, we cannot even begin to say what Consciousness IS.


Yes we can, consciousness is an emergent property of complex biology/chemistry/physics. The problem is not that we don't know what it is, it's that people want there to be more to it than there is.


No Sir, we have absolutely NO idea what or how it comes about, absolutely none. Some idea of how memory is stored and other physiological processes are understood to some level, but consciousness is entirely different.

Penrose thinks it has something to do with quantum level events, others just proclaim consciousness would spontaneously arise if software is programmed the right way. No one knows.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2011
Penrose thinks it has something to do with quantum level events, others just proclaim consciousness would spontaneously arise if software is programmed the right way. No one knows.
-YET. You've already assigned it to some astral plane.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (74) Sep 24, 2011
Consciousness can best be defined as the ability to collect (through sensation) and recall (through memory) information about reality.
'Best' sir? I would ask someone else with an appropriate degree who would quote an unimpeachable authority, who has already come up with the 'Best'. Except further down the bookshelf we find an equally erudite (but long dead) authority whose 'best' is something quite different.

Science will study 'consciousness' using all the relevant tools, and come up with some answers. Most likely they will recommend you discard the word entirely as it is misleading and devoid of useful content.

They might tell you that the WORD is useless in describing anything meaningful about the human condition. They might even snicker.


Everything you just said hasn't happened yet,.. it is more science faith. As a fan-boy you have a religious faith that everything will be explained. Consciousness is different because it is what is used to understand.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (74) Sep 24, 2011
Penrose thinks it has something to do with quantum level events, others just proclaim consciousness would spontaneously arise if software is programmed the right way. No one knows.
-YET. You've already assigned it to some astral plane.


I have, where?

Your ridiculous attitude about philosophy is non-sensical and pointless. You know nothing about Kant. If you did you would realize He was the one who finally put the final nail in the coffin of metaphysical knowledge. He did this through an analysis of knowledge,.. what is knowledge,.. how do we obtain it, .. what is valid knowledge. I invoke such ideas to point out that science should not over reach in it's claim of knowledge. Now, go find something shiny to play with.
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (19) Sep 24, 2011
Again, people wanting it to be more than it is. It is an emergent phenomenon of physical law... I don't know what more you're looking for, because that is what it is.
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (18) Sep 24, 2011
Consciousness is what happens when the ability to perceive reality is combined with the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences. Perception of reality is an entirely physical process, the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences is an entirely physical process... there is no magic here, there is only physical law bringing forth complexity with unique properties, as it often does.

If an AI were sufficiently advanced in terms of what outlined above it would become conscious... consciousness is an emergent phenomenon... it happens when the right conditions are met.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (74) Sep 24, 2011
Again, people wanting it to be more than it is. It is an emergent phenomenon of physical law... I don't know what more you're looking for, because that is what it is.


I agree, ...er or at least I have faith that it can be so explained by physical law. That's the point, you and I have faith of this, (not knowledge of it as it may not be possible),... even though science hasn't a clue where or how to even begin. Yet, you and Otto disparage others (including scientists) for their faith of a reality beyond what is possible to become aware of. You think they're easy targets only because you think you can prove metaphysical reality does not exist. As I stated far above you can't for the same logical reasons they can't prove it exists. The correct logical attitude is polite and humble agnosticism.
CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2011
Just as life happens when the right conditions are met, just as fusion and fission happen when the right conditions are met... there is nothing special about consciousness, we just think there is because we are and other things aren't.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (76) Sep 24, 2011
Consciousness is what happens when the ability to perceive reality is combined with the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences. Perception of reality is an entirely physical process, the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences is an entirely physical process... there is no magic here


It's that simple is it? Two physiological process cause consciousness to just happen? You're right it's not magic, ... magic isn't that vague.
CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2011
Consciousness is what happens when the ability to perceive reality is combined with the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences. Perception of reality is an entirely physical process, the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences is an entirely physical process... there is no magic here


It's that simple is it? Two physiological process cause consciousness to just happen? You're right it's not magic, ... magic isn't that vague.


Yes... look at things with consciousness, they posses these abilities. Look at this without consciousness, they do not posses one or more of these abilities... simple. Of course I did not comment on the degree to which relations must be formed between memories, I don't know that... if you're asking the details no of course I don't know the details, but the generalities are simple, and are sufficient to understand what consciousness is and why it exists.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (74) Sep 24, 2011
@CHollman, You still haven't told me anything that is not already obvious. The physiological process you mentioned can and are being studied in great detail, yet even with full knowledge of each,.. consciousness is still several orders of magnitude more mysterious. You're not appreciating the significance of the thing.

Some things become out dated ideas because it becomes realized they were the result of better understood phenomenon,... this isn't the case with consciousness as we are "aware" of it. It makes USE of those physiological processes you mentioned but is not equated with there combination.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 24, 2011
Consciousness is what happens when the ability to perceive reality is combined with the ability to store, recall, and relate experiences.


Do you content that people suffering from amneisa must be unconsciousness? The ability to recall has been blocked, yet consciousness remains.

Noumenon is correct. We plainly do not understand consciousness.
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (19) Sep 24, 2011
Do you content that people suffering from amneisa must be unconsciousness? The ability to recall has been blocked, yet consciousness remains.


Only select memories are lost, not even close to a majority either. You may forget someones name or details of your past but you still remember what a person is and what the word "past" means. This ridiculous example serves only to illustrate that you are not fit to discuss this.

Noumenon is correct. We plainly do not understand consciousness.


You don't, and we in the general sense are only lacking an understanding of the details, which are not necessary to understand what consciousness is.
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (18) Sep 24, 2011
consciousness is still several orders of magnitude more mysterious. You're not appreciating the significance of the thing.


I would say you want it to be more than it is and you are confusing the generalities with the details.

S It makes USE of those physiological processes you mentioned but is not equated with there combination.


Without any of them consciousness is not possible. With all of them and to significant enough degrees it is. It's that simple.

Without the ability to gain knowledge of reality through perception consciousness is not possible. Without the ability to store and recall those perceptions and to form relations between them consciousness is not possible. With them consciousness is possible. That is the generality of consciousness, it is an emergent byproduct of these properties... the details are irrelevant to understand what it is.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 24, 2011
CHollman 82,
You don't [understand consciousness]


I don't. And you don't either.

When you don't know the details, you don't know the subject.
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2011
CHollman 82,
You don't [understand consciousness]


I don't. And you don't either.

When you don't know the details, you don't know the subject.


So if I were to tell you that I know that at some point between the first week of pregnancy and the birth of the child consciousness develops in the fetus and so abortions are benign prior to the first week at least since the blastocyst is not conscious it would be an illogical conclusion since I don't know the details, since I don't know exactly when consciousness arises?

You don't need to know all of the details to understand something and make correct statements about it. I don't need to understand exactly what degree one must be able to form relations between saved information about reality to be conscious in order to tell you what consciousness is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2011
Everything you just said hasn't happened yet,.. it is more science faith.
Let me try to explain, with words, the difference between faith and confidence. I have confidence in science because it has consistently demonstrated the ability to explain how the world works.

You have faith in philosophy despite the fact that it has failed to explain how the world works. See the difference?
As a fan-boy you have a religious faith that everything will be explained.
I always tend to support the winning team.
Consciousness is different because it is what is used to understand.
Consciousness is an unscientific nonsense term which describes nothing, and is only used to obfuscate and inflammagate, and flusterize. I do wish you would stop using it.

Think I'll get my wish?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2011
Consciousness is different because it is what is used to understand.
'Consciousness' 'different' 'understand'. Define these terms scientifically please.

Let me start you out:
"Consciousness is a term that refers to a variety of aspects of the relationship between the mind and the world with which it interacts. It has been defined as: subjectivity; awareness; the ability to experience feelings; wakefulness; having a sense of selfhood; or the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty of definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is."

-And please, while youre at it, define scientifically all the 'important' words in the above paragraph, without referring to or using each other to do so.

Take your time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2011
Let me take a shot:
"'Consciousness' is a 'term' that 'refers' to a 'variety' of 'aspects' [ASPECTS?] of the 'relationship' 'between' the 'mind' [MIND??] and the 'world' with which it 'interacts'. It has been 'defined' as: blahblahblah..."

OK lets try 'mind':
"The concept of mind is understood in many different ways by many different traditions, ranging from panpsychism and animism to traditional and organized religious views, as well as secular and materialist philosophies."

Oh jeez. OK lets skip ahead:
"Jose M.R. Delgado writes, "Aristotelian thought has permeated most Occidental philosophical system until modern times, and the classification of man's function as vegetative, sensitive, and rational is still useful. In present popular usage, soul and mind are not clearly differentiated and some people, more or less consciously, still feel that the soul, and perhaps the mind, may enter or leave the body as independent entities."

-SURE IT CAN.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2011
Let me state another point. Spirituality is not the same as religious
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2011
Oh hey, theres a 'science of mind' section:
"Psychology is the scientific study of human behaviour, mental functioning, and experience; noology, the study of thought...Historically, psychology differed from biology and neuroscience in that it was primarily concerned with MIND rather than brain."

In this whole section the word 'mind' is only mentioned once, as an afterthought? But as we all know, psychoblah has now been replaced by EVOLUTIONARY psychology, as it considers the actual structure of the brain and relies wholly on the experimental analysis of it:

"(EP) is an approach within psychology that examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, or language from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective. It seeks to explain how many human psychological traits are evolved adaptations, that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection..."

-And NOWHERE in this whole section is the word 'mind' used.

CONTINUED
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2011
And SO

With no functional definition of the archaic and obsolete word 'mind' in the current scientific lexicon, we cannot define the similarly archaic and obsolete word 'consciousness'.

On to the trash heap of inventive and poetic nonsense words of history it goes. Right on top of the word 'soul'.
Let me state another point. Spirituality is not the same as religious
Excuse me. Right on top of the word 'spirituality'.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2011
Excuse me. Right on top of the word 'spirituality'.

Would you call shamans or bushmen religious? But definitely highly spiritual, and is evident the cause of that is intoxication of natural products. More arguments to support religion as a chemical imbalance in the brain?
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (75) Sep 24, 2011
Otto, your arrogance is measured by the depth of your ignorance. Only plain ignorance could possibly give one such confidence to proclaim they understand consciousness while so many great men have struggle to understand how it could be,... and to proclaim philosophy is meaningless and useless. What you have demonstrated is merely a profound disinterest.

I see FrankHubris rated me 25 ones in a row. Clearly some of my points deserved a two at least. Once again FrankHubris proves himself a drive-by troll. No matter.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2011
You say "Time is what it is",... hmm, sounds like the ontological argument for the existence of god!
Only to people who are tickled to use pretentious and pedantic words like 'ontological'. Onto the rubbish heap.

Re your astral plane
I have, where?
Wherever you spout stuff like this:
Neither positive nor negative assertions about metaphysics can be a source of knowledge.
Stating that metaphysics is real when it is not.
The difference between noumenal reality and phenomenal reality is that in the latter reality is made to conform to conceptualizations. We never come to know reality as it is in itself.
And the fiddling with this spaghetti NEVER explained ANYTHING.
We can only developed models that link one observable to another, and can never know what or how reality "is" in between!
-Which is why scientists chuckle when you guys show up. Like Feynman used to.
http://www.youtub...3eEA54DE
-Or this guy
http://www.youtub..._uwxMS9k

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2011
And of course dawkins and krauss
http://www.youtub...index=69
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2011
Otto, your arrogance is measured by the depth of your ignorance.
Ah the old 'You dont know what I know so you must be wrong' gambit. I have supplied quotes, reference, videos from respected scientists. You provide rhetoric and esoterica.

Let me rebut with Dr Hawking. "Philosophy is dead."
http://www.telegr...ead.html

-These gentlemen all know far more than you do about both philosophy and science. They arrogantly proclaim that philosophy is irrelevant. I agree with them, arrogantly.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2011
In as attempt to grasp CHollman82:

All that which is labeled metaphysical is an attempt at a description to describe all that which you allowed yourself to label and describe physically through whatever measure (mutual interaction?) you apply.

When you reach a point where whatever measure you apply can no longer distinguish between the two labels - the metaphysical and the physical - , the purpose, of all labeling - if you are ever incline to categorize labeling to include metaphysical labeling (math) - is served.

Otto's Achilles heel is his own self admission:
"I am mathless."
Otto's greatest strength is ironical:
Accusing his contrahents of sophistry.

Rating? I see no rating here. Ever. My broken browser is a blessing - considering all the words lost over something I never saw.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2011
Otto's Achilles heel is his own self admission:
"I am mathless."
Otto's greatest strength is ironical:
Accusing his contrahents of sophistry.
I do not have to know how to design a car in order to drive one little poet. Although I am pretty good at fixing them and have learned to appreciate the engineering involved by doing so.
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 24, 2011
I like Otto, smart guy... I tend to agree with you far more than disagree with you anyway. The fundamental problem is that of compressing incredible complexity into a single word... what the word "consciousness" refers to is not a real thing, it is a collection of thousands of things, some real and physical, some conceptual, some relational, and some fictional.
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2011
In as attempt to grasp CHollman82:

All that which is labeled metaphysical is an attempt at a description to describe all that which you allowed yourself to label and describe physically through whatever measure (mutual interaction?) you apply.

When you reach a point where whatever measure you apply can no longer distinguish between the two labels - the metaphysical and the physical - , the purpose, of all labeling - if you are ever incline to categorize labeling to include metaphysical labeling (math) - is served.


I understand the purpose of the word metaphysical in informal discourse to refer to that which is not physical, though it would seem a synonym for conceptual.

Rating? I see no rating here. Ever. My broken browser is a blessing - considering all the words lost over something I never saw.


The rating system should be done away with, not in my lifetime will the combination of anonymity and conflict produce non-biased evaluation.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2011
Without the ability to gain knowledge of reality through perception consciousness is not possible. Without the ability to store and recall those perceptions and to form relations between them consciousness is not possible. With them consciousness is possible. That is the generality of consciousness, it is an emergent byproduct of these properties... the details are irrelevant to understand what it is. - CH

Impressive. In one word called 'associations' None of the sciences have a good handle on this.
You don't need to know all of the details to understand something and make correct statements about it. I don't need to understand exactly what degree one must be able to form relations between saved information about reality to be conscious in order to tell you what consciousness is. CH

Not impressive - defending incompleteness while acknowledging the incomplete and being defensive about conclusions that lack sufficiency. 'A' for effort.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2011
You can translate Otto's linguistic expressions into expressions of math/logic. Equivalency arises/emerges through translation. Equivalency is a tweak, crutch, aid, patch and help for the original.
No one is "mathless". Otto is just flirting.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2011
No matter how much humans enjoy the metaphysical (or not), all humans have the need to label what all humans need/want to label and understand as a physical label. No human effort is too great or small to place 'physical' labels on Nature.

All of science wants metaphysical labeling. So sure are they of their maths. The underlying foundation of a new SI unit for Kelvin is Boltzmann's Constant.

Well, in talking to Nature yesterday, she told me:
"That's fine. Whatever turns your boats."
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2011
"Science and religion do mix" is equivalent to:
"Territory vs. Map"

The writers, authors, researchers and scientists are vague.
Perhaps as bait for thread commentary.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2011
You can translate Otto's linguistic expressions into expressions of math/logic.
can you translate dog barks into French/pig latin?
"Territory vs. Map"
Territory vs tralfamador.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2011
The Totality of Human Language has 5000 parts (languages). (incl.Math,music)
About 4 parts of those 5000 parts is where translation and equivalency is superseded and obsolete - in my case.
That pales in comparison to the totality of Nature's languages.
Humans have a lot of missing parts, language-wise.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2011
Time continues whether anything changes or not.

Prove it.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2011
Would you call shamans or bushmen religious? But definitely highly spiritual...

The difference between spirituality and religion is organization and numbers. They're both based on flawed superstitious thinking.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2011
Time continues whether anything changes or not.

Prove it.
Let me ask you a serious question. What do you mean by 'prove'? For that matter what do you mean by 'change'? And what do you think I meant by it?
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2011
Time continues whether anything changes or not.

Prove it.
Let me ask you a serious question. What do you mean by 'prove'? For that matter what do you mean by 'change'? And what do you think I meant by it?


Change means change... you cannot stop it, if you did it would be eternal and their would be no difference between existence and non-existence. Time is defined ONLY by change, it is a concept, not a physical entity.

What do you think change means?
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2011
Time continues whether anything changes or not.

Prove it.
Let me ask you a serious question. What do you mean by 'prove'? For that matter what do you mean by 'change'? And what do you think I meant by it?


Change means change... you cannot stop it, if you did there would be no difference between existence and non-existence. Time is defined ONLY by change, it is a concept, referring to how many increments of some arbitrary change occur until a different change occurs. The time it takes for the second hand on my clock to advance one position (a change) is defined as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a Cesium-133 atom (a different change). Time is not a physical entity, it is a concept used to relate changes to other changes.

What do you think change means?
CHollman82
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2011
Meant to edit, sorry.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 25, 2011
Let me ask you a serious question. What do you mean by 'prove'?

I mean, you made a comment with absolute certitude and so I asked you to prove that it's true. If you cannot, then at best it's an opinion (a metaphysical one at that).

For that matter what do you mean by 'change'?

I think it means what anyone would think it means - things/entities which aren't perpetually static.

And what do you think I meant by it?

You seem to be asking me a lot of questions, including for me to be clairvoyant WRT to your intended meaning. How about you answer your own questions and then attempt to prove your assertion, or at least justify it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2011
I mean, you made a comment with absolute certitude and so I asked you to prove that it's true. If you cannot, then at best it's an opinion (a metaphysical one at that).
The term 'proof' is only properly applied scientifically in mathematical theorms.
I think it means what anyone would think it means - things/entities which aren't perpetually static.
Are you saying locally or universally? At what scale might this change occur? A Bose-Einstein condensate changes very little - does this affect time locally?

Would a photon brought to an absolute stop be considered changing still? It is possible to do this you know. An electron on a fixed trajectory is only changing it's position relatively. Is time different for it?

Are there equations in physics which include time which do not include elements of 'change'? As I'm not versed I cannot answer this.

There - more questions for you to choke on.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2011
I meant 'chew on'.
Time is defined ONLY by change
Prove it.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2011
Time is defined ONLY by change
Prove it.


Time is defined by the difference between one configuration of the universe/reality and another. If change did not occur time would be a meaningless concept, it would have no referent in physical reality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2011
Ok let's address this 'methodically'.

"Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. It is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually described as a fundamental quantity. Time can be combined mathematically with other physical quantities to derive other concepts such as motion, kinetic energy and time-dependent fields."

Uh huh. So time is a 'fundamental unit.'

"A SET of fundamental units is a set of units for physical quantities from which every other unit can be generated."

But is time always dependent on other FUs?

"For instance, time and distance are related to each other by the speed of light, c, which is a fundamental constant."

-Hmmm. But wait-

"One could eliminate any two of the metre, kilogram and second by setting c and h to unity or to a fixed dimensionless number."

-So it looks like time can 'exist' independent of 'change' just by declaring c and h dimensionless.

That was easy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2011
Time is defined by the difference between one configuration of the universe/reality and another.
Sorry CH nowhere in the wiki scientific sections for 'time' or 'fundamental unit' is the term 'configuration' used. For that matter neither is 'universe/reality'.

This is funny though:
"Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers."

-Obviously added by feverish philos eager to retain some semblance of relevance. What - only 2? Does that include all the nuances and subsets of opinion from current and long-dead philos, most of whom were math- and science-illiterate mostly because they considered them irrelevant?

Ha. -is what hawking says as he stumbles over philo detritus in search of useful wiki info. Figuratively speaking.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2011
-So it looks like time can 'exist' independent of 'change' just by declaring c and h dimensionless.

That was easy.


None of this matters, without change time is meaningless. (period)

This is obvious. Time is a measurement of change... without it time is nothing, an empty concept referring to nothing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2011
Time is a measurement of change... without it time is nothing, an empty concept referring to nothing.
This is a pronouncement. A proclamation. Using non-specific WORDS which do not correspond to anything scientific, anything quantifiable, anything able to be represented by values in formulae.

What are we to make of this CH? Can we make a souffle out of it? Can we fold it up and make a little boat perhaps? Can we disregard it? Yes I think we can certainly do that.

And so my conclusion
-So it looks like time can 'exist' independent of 'change' just by declaring c and h dimensionless.
still stands.
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 25, 2011
The word you're looking for is axiom.

Time cannot exist independent of change because time is SOLELY concerned with change. Change gives time MEANING, without change time has no meaning. This is axiomatic, it is obvious... you're asking me to prove that 1 = 1.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2011
There - more questions for you to choke[sic] on.

No, not really. CHollman82 has expressed by position perfectly. A position you don't seem to grasp (or accept). Nothing further can be gained in this discussion with the current participants, so I'm bowing out.
Skultch
3 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2011
I kinda like the way CH used 'configuration' of the universe. Just because it makes no sense for us to attempt universal objectivity, doesn't mean that's not how it works (independent simultaneity). But, what do I know,? it just sounds neat. ;)

Very good discussion mostly; I'm glad I didn't have a chance to derail it mid-stream. Or did I?
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2011
Lool, I haven't even had time to read the comments yet, they are often better then the story.

Yes, science and religion mix......like an emulsion, pound them together hard enough and they will look like the same fluid.

But they are not, and eventually all emulsions break.

...mmm..for some strange reason, I'm hungry.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident ... assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted .."

-So in the deesky/CH subset universe, the fuzzy word 'time' requires a thing they call 'change' to operate, and to them this is self-evident. But they haven't attempted to define either of these fuzzy words or cite references from the greater universe which would indicate that this is axiomatic regarding anybody else.

Otto has supplied references which indicate that SCIENTiSTS outside the D/CH universe have equations which indicate that time can exist without change.

D/CH use a logic term (axiom). Logic is wordmath which relies on fuzzy variables which cannot be quantified. Otto prefers the equations he cites which use NUMBERS and which, afterall, are the only way to say anything meaningful about the greater universe where most of us dwell.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 26, 2011
Well, regardless of all this talk about the nature of time, I think most of us can agree that despite the articles claim science and religion mix about as well as oil and water and those who profess to each must maintain a cognitive dissonance to do so, whether they realize it or not.
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
Otto has supplied references which indicate that SCIENTiSTS outside the D/CH universe have equations which indicate that time can exist without change.

I'm afraid you've done no such thing (maybe you think you did in the Ottoverse).

Otto prefers the equations he cites which use NUMBERS

That's rich coming from someone who admits to having no math skills and therefore wouldn't know which numbers to believe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
I'm afraid you've done no such thing.
Guess you missed this:
"Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. It is a scalar quantity and, like length, mass, and charge, is usually described as a fundamental quantity. Time can be combined mathematically with other physical quantities to derive other concepts such as motion, kinetic energy and time-dependent fields."

Uh huh. So time is a 'fundamental unit.'

"A SET of fundamental units is a set of units for physical quantities from which every other unit can be generated."

But is time always dependent on other FUs?

"For instance, time and distance are related to each other by the speed of light, c, which is a fundamental constant."

-Hmmm. But wait-

"One could eliminate any two of the metre, kilogram and second by setting c and h to unity or to a fixed dimensionless number."

-So it looks like time can 'exist' independent of change.
I'll just keep repeating it instead of saying 'Did too'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
That's rich coming from someone who admits to having no math skills and therefore wouldn't know which numbers to believe.
I know when to defer to experts who know what they're talking about. Got any references to back up your nonsense claim that time needs change to exist? Someone besides either of you? Hint - try GOOGLE or WIKI.
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 26, 2011
"For instance, time and distance are related to each other by the speed of light, c, which is a fundamental constant."

This is irrelevant, without change the speed of light is meaningless, without change there is no speed, and without change time is meaningless... don't you understand?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
I know when to defer to experts who know what they're talking about. Got any references to back up your nonsense claim that time needs change to exist? Someone besides either of you? Hint - try GOOGLE or WIKI.
Kind of a big question, not something you'd get a good answer for from google or wikipedia. Time is ill understood and as far as I am aware, the only definition we truly have for time is that it is the means by which to order the events within the universe. If there was no change, ie no events, then time would have no meaning.
Skultch
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2011
They don't mix, but they don't necessarily conflict, either. Nothing new there. Religion certainly has value for many individuals, whether it be the situation they find themselves or their combination of cognitive abilities.

It is somewhat interesting to me that so many scientists consider themselves 'spiritual.' I didn't know so many scientists were 19 year old girls, because that was the last time I heard someone describe themselves in such a useless way. "I am open to the idea that there might be things in the Universe that we don't understand." - Well, la di freakin DA! Why do we need two words for ignorance?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
Kind of a big question, not something you'd get a good answer for from google or wikipedia.
Wow look who's back. How was your trip to tralfamador?
Time is ill understood and as far as I am aware, the only definition we truly have for time is that it is the means by which to order the events within the universe
But as I showed in the exerpt above,
"One could eliminate any two of the metre, kilogram and second by setting c and h to unity or to a fixed dimensionless number."
Ergo, time can be expressed independent of change, in this case weight or displacement. As Feynman said the 'understanding' (another fuzzy philo word) of a phenomenon is in the application of it. In so many words.
Skultch
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2011
Noumenon - Otto isn't the only one; I don't see the point of your metaphysics, either. If no knowledge can be gained, no affect put on us, even in principle, what is the point of even contemplating it? Sure, philosophical approximations might have a similar value as religion for those with limited mental resources (external and internal), but that's not what you are arguing is it? You want to split the concept of reality, and don't see how that completely undermines the meaning of the word.

Reality-
5. Philosophy .
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.


You want the ideas in (a) to be 'reality.' Or am I missing something?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
Philos just want some place to go after they die, just like their religionist brethren. There must be some essence and a location where it can reside happily foreverafter. Of course they won't admit to this. They probably don't even realize it. How poignant.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2011
Philos just want some place to go after they die. There must be some essence and a location where it can reside happily foreverafter. Of course they won't admit to this. They probably don't even realize it. How poignant.

This is not what philosophy is about -.-
Clearly you do not know what it is and thus condemn it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
Philos just want some place to go after they die. There must be some essence and a location where it can reside happily foreverafter. Of course they won't admit to this. They probably don't even realize it. How poignant.

This is not what philosophy is about -.-
Clearly you do not know what it is and thus condemn it.
-And thus the intellect brings all the powers it can muster to bear in the vain attempt to immortalize itself. 'I am WORTH living forever! Look how CLEVER I am! I am DY-NO-MITE!' -cries Nietzsche. But god issued retribution in kind. They're both dead.

Even sadder, nietszches intellect died long before he did.
CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 26, 2011
Ergo, time can be expressed independent of change


You can express it in terms of zebras if you want, it doesn't make it meaningful.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2011
Ergo, time can be expressed independent of change, in this case weight or displacement.
Then according to your construct you should be able to identify exactly what time is independent of what it measures. So without change, let's hypothesize an entirely static universe, what is time?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
Ergo, time can be expressed independent of change, in this case weight or displacement.
Then according to your construct you should be able to identify exactly what time is independent of what it measures. So without change, let's hypothesize an entirely static universe, what is time?
Naw I probably cant do that. I was just addressing what the D/CH consortium claimed - that it was something dependent upon something called 'change', the nature of which neither was able to elaborate upon.

I assume they both looked for references and, having found none, jumped bail.

I suppose this guy could postulate about static universes though:

"Ilya Prigogine's reprise is "Time precedes existence". He contrasts the views of Newton, Einstein and quantum physics which offer a symmetric view of time (as discussed above) with his own views, which point out that statistical and thermodynamic physics can explain irreversible phenomena[41] as well as the arrow of time and the Big Bang."
CHollman82
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2011
Naw I probably cant do that. I was just addressing what the D/CH consortium claimed - that it was something dependent upon something called 'change', the nature of which neither was able to elaborate upon.

I assume they both looked for references and, having found none, jumped bail.


Pardon me?

I didn't feel the need to explain what change meant, I figured it was obvious. Would you like me to explain the meaning of every single word I use before we can discuss something?

In fact there was a physorg article recently referencing a publication in the journal Nature that says exactly the same thing I am saying, that time is not real, but a concept used to measure change... I'll see if I can dig it up.
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
Then according to your construct you should be able to identify exactly what time is independent of what it measures. So without change, let's hypothesize an entirely static universe, what is time?

Naw I probably cant do that. I was just addressing what the D/CH consortium claimed

Dude, that is exactly what I (we) claimed. Sheesh!
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2011
The universe does not know what change is. The universe is in a constant state of "as-is". Even if you can reverse the process of a particle it doesn't undo the "change" because every particle in the universe would have to be "reversed" for it to be in the exact state it was before. The universe doesn't remember anything so it cant have a sense of time. Time is something what happens in the human brain, or other organisms that have timing mechanisms based on how fast a particle does something. If that process is somehow interfered with, the organism can lose sense of time, and even die. That doesn't time somehow changed. Also what we remember can be associated with time. We remember something at one point and remember something at another point, and with our timing mechanisms we give it a sense of time. So what is time in physics? You can derive time from particles, but that will only work in our space area i think. So time really is a human construct not physical.
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
The universe doesn't remember anything so it cant have a sense of time

The universe isn't a meta-entity with consciousness, so it's irrelevant to argue what is can or cannot perceive or remember.

Time is something what happens in the human brain or other organisms that have timing mechanisms...

That's circular reasoning. This often happens when trying to explain time away. It's entrenched in our language and perception.

Also what we remember can be associated with time. We remember something at one point and remember something at another point

It's a sequential memory of events. Events are things that change, leading back to our previous discussion.

So what is time in physics?

What, indeed.

You can derive time from particles

You can? How?

Time may be synonymous with change, but it also manifests in reality through time dilation effects which certainly are very real.

Maybe Dr Who's description of time being timey-wimey is quite apt.
Pyle
3 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2011
@CH -
In fact there was a physorg article recently referencing a publication in the journal Nature that says exactly the same thing I am saying, that time is not real, but a concept used to measure change... I'll see if I can dig it up.

AHHHHH!!!! Another frozen chicken!!! See Gawad!!! It wasn't just me. Sorli's affliction was contagious.

This was in Physics Essays not Nature. Is it the same paper?
http://www.physor...ion.html
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2011
@CH -
In fact there was a physorg article recently referencing a publication in the journal Nature that says exactly the same thing I am saying, that time is not real, but a concept used to measure change... I'll see if I can dig it up.

AHHHHH!!!! Another frozen chicken!!! See Gawad!!! It wasn't just me. Sorli's affliction was contagious.

This was in Physics Essays not Nature. Is it the same paper?
http://www.physor...ion.html


That's the one, thanks for finding it I was having a hard time, probably because I forgot what journal it was published in!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
The universe doesn't remember anything
More poetic hot air. The universe 'remembers' everything. Hawkings dilemma with black holes had to do with losing information as material disappeared down it. This led him to understand that info is preserved in the particles which escape; hence black holes must evaporate.
I didn't feel the need to explain what change meant, I figured it was obvious.
A scientist would ask you the exact same thing. Change what? How? Where? I gave you a theorem in which change is represented by meters (length or movement) and kilos (weight). I also showed you how time can be independent of these 2 measurements. You nreed to give me a specific example of some sort of change that HAS to occur in order for time to exist. In SCIENTIFIC terms please as there is no other way to define time.
Would you like me to explain the meaning of every single word I use before we can discuss something?
If you are trying to do science with words, then absolutely.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2011
Yeah I read this article in April. Let's see what it says...

"They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable..." 

'Absolute...independent' -which is what the exerpts I posted say. As in 'not dependent on other variables'. Including any and all related to 'change'. Unless you can find a reference which is not just an article about theorizing, but about what scientists use in their daily work? Like the example I gave you?
Cont
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
The universe doesn't remember anything


More poetic hot air. The universe 'remembers' everything.

Otto is being metaphysical. This is not good for Otto. Otto must resist...

There's a big difference between information contained in the environment as a result of physical processes and the act of interpreting and 'remembering' it. For that you need a living entity.

Otto is basically saying that the universe as a whole has an intelligence. Either that, or Otto is not very good with simple word definitions, such as 'change', for example.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
Time is defined ONLY by change.


In the absence of any change/events within the lifetime of 'your' existence .. and if 'me' outside the sphere of influence that is 'you' experiences an 'event', that of which 'you' cannot be aware; then has time ceased to exist for 'you' and yet continues for 'me'?

One could argue, although time requires change to be measured that nevertheless time exists pending a change that allows measurement and perception.

Science or Religion? Are you with us or against us, only serves to polarize the communities and empower the zealots from both sides.
LivaN
5 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
wiki
"One could eliminate any two of the metre, kilogram and second by setting c and h to unity or to a fixed dimensionless number."


TheGhostofOtto1923
Ergo, time can be expressed independent of change, in this case weight or displacement.

I believe this to be a slippery slope argument.
Time can be expressed independently of weight and displacement.
Weight and displacement are units of measure
Units of measure are necessary to express change.
Time can be expressed independent of change.

While time can be expressed independent of weight or displacement, it cannot be expressed independent of change. For example time may still be expressed in relation to change in electric current (Ampere), change in temperature (Kelvin), change in luminous intensity (Candela), and change in amounts of a chemical substance (Mole), while weight and displacement have been eliminated.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
The boundary between belief and understanding is analogous to boundary between energy and matter, space and time. We can compare it to the experience of water surface, which is observed with its own waves. At the proximity it appears chaotic and foamy, because the surface waves mix with underwater ones. With increasing distance the role of surface ripples becomes gradually more and more significant and it correspond the recent epoch of rationalistic science, driven with formal approach. But with increasing distance all surface ripples disperse into underwater again and the strictly formal theories are becoming poorly conditioned and fuzzy. They gradually change into vague natural philosophy like the string theory with its landscape of 10^500 possible solutions. Under such a situation the role of religion increases (some physicists are believing in string theory for forty years without single experiment confirming its validity) - and the science is changing into religion again.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2011
In my view the roles of rational approach and belief remain symmetric, because the more we are extrapolating our knowledge, the less rational assumption we are forced to assume. For example, the rationalistic explanation of Universe requires to assume, whole this stuff appeared from nothing in one gigantic explosion. This is simply ridiculous idea, if you think about, comparable to medieval belief in infinite power of gods. We have some explanation of observations under ridiculous assumption violating all existing laws at a price.

Actually, dense aether theory is no better with it. This model is assuming existence of hypothetical eternal dense background, which cannot be formed spontaneously in any way. It explains the big bang in more rational way, but under assumption of even larger quantity of hidden reality. Apparently the progress is based on extrapolation of increasing volume of assumptions in more rational way, but the total ratio of postulates and theorems remains the same.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
lol
An example of an Absolute is location. This is as abstract or tangible as your will to do so.
For example:
Without 'location' the word collision and all associations associated with the word 'collision' lose meaning.

LHC is the ultimate human desire to give the word 'location' meaning. Shortly thereafter, another human desire appears:
All else is to follow once any label called location finds use.

And it is here, at the word 'location', that the word 'time' emerges.

'Spacetime' the heroic effort to unite.

So firm is the belief in location that you are willing to assign any number of locations (dimensions?) to describe objects.

With collision emerges what is label 'simultaneous'.
No effort is too great to avoid this. The Exclusion Principle, the Relativity of Frames of References, the Uncertainty Principle - all song and shoe dances - to avoid the Pandora of all Pandoras:
Time.
Of course there are expressions without time or change.
And without meaning:
Singularities.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 27, 2011
Time is defined ONLY by change.


In the absence of any change/events within the lifetime of 'your' existence .. and if 'me' outside the sphere of influence that is 'you' experiences an 'event', that of which 'you' cannot be aware; then has time ceased to exist for 'you' and yet continues for 'me'?


I don't know what you're talking about... events cannot occur without change... I said that time is meaningless absent of change, not that time is meaningless absent of change that I personally perceive...
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 27, 2011
although time requires change to be measured that nevertheless time exists pending a change that allows measurement and perception.


Of course, if change occurs then time is meaningful.

You either aren't understanding my words or you are reading into them.

When I say that time is dependent on change and that it is meaningless without change I am talking about change in totality, not change that someone perceives, not change that occurs during the lifetime of the human species (there would be no human species without change)...

If anything EVER changes then yes time has meaning, only BECAUSE change occurred. In that way the existence of time is the same as the existence of change, because one merely describes the other as a concept. A concept cannot exist absent of the existence of those physical entities to which it refers, for example love cannot exist absent of life, love is not a real thing, conscious organisms are the real thing that that concept refers to.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 27, 2011
A scientist would ask you the exact same thing. Change what? How? Where?


I said exactly what I meant to say, it's not my fault you're trying to read into it. I said change, period. If I wanted to further qualify that with what/where/when I would have. I am talking about change in totality.

I gave you a theorem in which change is represented by meters (length or movement) and kilos (weight). I also showed you how time can be independent of these 2 measurements.


All of which are meaningless without change...

You need to give me a specific example of some sort of change that HAS to occur in order for time to exist.


Again, if I wanted to qualify what "type" of change I was talking about I would have. I said only "change"... referring to all and any change.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 27, 2011
Yeah I read this article in April. Let's see what it says...

"They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable..."

'Absolute...independent' -which is what the exerpts [sic] I posted say.


uhhh...

You seem to be missing the words "BEGIN by explaining how we USUALLY ASSUME that..." which implies that that is NOT what they believe and is exactly what they are opposing in the article... try reading the article and/or brushing up on the English language.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2011
I said exactly what I meant to say, it's not my fault you're trying to read into it. I said change, period.
I understand. I showed you it's not specific enough to use or draw conclusions from.
Again, if I wanted to qualify what "type" of change I was talking about I would have. I said only "change"... referring to all and any change.
And I showed you that you were wrong.
You seem to be missing the words "BEGIN by explaining how we USUALLY ASSUME that..."
'Usually assume' in this case means 'taken for granted' which I demonstrated. See how words are no substitute for numbers in doing science?

When discussing science among themselves, scientists use words with the understanding that their colleagues are fully versed in the equations those words represent. When they say 'time' in a context it is a shortcut for writing out all the pertinent equations which define it.

As you are not schooled in those equations you cannot discuss science in a meaningful way. Neither can I.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2011
While time can be expressed independent of weight or displacement, it cannot be expressed independent of change. For example time may still be expressed in relation to change in electric current (Ampere), change in temperature (Kelvin), change in luminous intensity (Candela), and change in amounts of a chemical substance (Mole), while weight and displacement have been eliminated.
Absolutely. And don't forget particle states like spin and charge. I only needed to demonstrate that time was independent of specific variables to show that the word 'change' is inadequate to talk about time.

Are there equations similar to the one I posted which can describe time as independent of all these variables too? I bet there are.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 27, 2011
You're stubborn as a mule. Go ahead and define time in a completely static reality, I'll wait.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2011
There's a big difference between information contained in the environment as a result of physical processes and the act of interpreting and 'remembering' it. For that you need a living entity.
No there isn't. Our senses operate electromechanically. The environment causes specific changes within the particles which they are made of.
You're stubborn as a mule. Go ahead and define time in a completely static reality, I'll wait.
You sure you know what static means? Scientifically that is? I would have to look up the scientific def and go from there. Or let a scientist do it for me as that is what they're trained to do.

These changes are further processed and recorded in the brain by altering particle conditions there. This can all in theory be modelled and reproduced. No netherworldly nonsense needed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2011
That post got a little disordered. Sorry.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
You're stubborn as a mule.

You can lead a mule to water...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2011
You're stubborn as a mule.

You can lead a mule to water...
But it's very hard to teach them science as they have no FINGERS to COUNT on. I win.
LivaN
5 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2011
time [..] cannot be expressed independent of change

Absolutely.[..] I only needed [..] to show that the word 'change' is inadequate to talk about time.

Change is an intrinsic property of time. Without it time is undefined.

Are there equations similar to the one I posted which can describe time as independent of all these variables too? I bet there are.

Of course there are, though they too would define time in terms of change. If you can find one method of defining time independent of change please do post. I would be very interested to understand such a defining of time.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
I don't know what you're talking about...
-CHollman
Hardly surprising as your depth of cognition is that of a goldfish.

I said that time is meaningless absent of change, not that time is meaningless absent of change that I personally perceive...


so to repeat for the slow witted drop kick ..

If 'you' are not aware of or do not perceive a change then in your existence a change does not/will not occur. Its a bit like your BS argument for undetectable things being non-existent.

In 'your' dull existence when no detectable change occurs, according to your faulty logic, time ceases to exist.

Yet for others that can detect the change (of which you cannot know because you are sensory impaired), time is happily flowing as it always does. The flow of time is independent of observable change and therefore for all intents and purposes time flows regardless of change.

Its too late tonight to help you understand because explaining the bleeding obvious to numbskulls is tedious.
Pyle
4 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2011
Let's see. Without change time doesn't exist. How about this, without change exist doesn't exist. Where are you if nothing changes, ever. No thought, no movement, no nothing. Without change space isn't, let alone time. You can't perceive without change. Without change there is no anything.

Stop the time is change nonsense. There are so many more interesting things I expect out of all you posers. Doh, I meant posters. Find another thread and entertain me!!!

Frozen chickens the lot of you!
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 27, 2011
Hardly surprising as your depth of cognition is that of a goldfish.

so to repeat for the slow witted drop kick ..

If 'you' are not aware of or do not perceive a change then in your existence a change does not/will not occur. Its a bit like your BS argument for undetectable things being non-existent.

In 'your' dull existence when no detectable change occurs, according to your faulty logic, time ceases to exist.

Yet for others that can detect the change (of which you cannot know because you are sensory impaired), time is happily flowing as it always does. The flow of time is independent of observable change and therefore for all intents and purposes time flows regardless of change.

Its too late tonight to help you understand because explaining the bleeding obvious to numbskulls is blah blah blah...


Hi, when I say change I am referring all change, if I was referring to a specific change I would have made that clear, thanks for trying though.
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 27, 2011
Let's see. Without change time doesn't exist. How about this, without change exist doesn't exist. Where are you if nothing changes, ever. No thought, no movement, no nothing. Without change space isn't, let alone time. You can't perceive without change. Without change there is no anything.

Stop the time is change nonsense. There are so many more interesting things I expect out of all you posers. Doh, I meant posters. Find another thread and entertain me!!!

Frozen chickens the lot of you!


Well holy shit someone gets it!
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 27, 2011
Do note however, that nothing you have said contradicts the argument I have been making. Time is meaningless without change... the fact that all things are meaningless without change is just extra.
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
the fact that all things are meaningless without change is just extra


Understatement of the day.

I don't want to eat shiny red sports cars. Well, I actually don't want to eat anything made out of steel, plastic, and glass, but let's just focus on the red sports cars I don't want to eat right now and argue about that.
No, catsup wouldn't make them taste better. Pepper? No. Mayo, hmm, I never tried it but no. (See what a wonderfully useless conversation we could have by skirting the real issue?)

All things are meaningless without change. Time isn't special in that regard. Because of our apparent path through time, time is different, but still meaningless without change. Better to have a real discussion about what you like to eat. I haven't had a decent steak for lunch in a while...
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 27, 2011
I don't want to eat shiny red sports cars. Well, I actually don't want to eat anything made out of steel, plastic, and glass, but let's just focus on the red sports cars I don't want to eat right now and argue about that.
No, catsup wouldn't make them taste better. Pepper? No. Mayo, hmm, I never tried it but no. (See what a wonderfully useless conversation we could have by skirting the real issue?)

All things are meaningless without change. Time isn't special in that regard. Because of our apparent path through time, time is different, but still meaningless without change. Better to have a real discussion about what you like to eat. I haven't had a decent steak for lunch in a while...


Time is unique in that regard because time is ONLY a concept referring to relative change, other things are actually real physical entities, even though they also wouldn't exist without change.
Pyle
4 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2011
Time is unique in that regard

What? I do declare that time is no tastier with catsup than without. Nor with or without ketsup! Same as that nasty red sports car you were trying to get me to eat.

How do you reconcile the compression of time as demonstrated by observations supporting General/Special Relativity with the idea that time only "refers to relative change"? The "fabric" of spacetime is distorted by gravity. Time is NOT a human derived concept.

Time is real. You can't touch it, but it is still real. Not well understood, but real. Not better with any condiments, nor even edible, but still real. Just because the yard stick we use to measure it is rate of change and not wood, doesn't mean it isn't real. Duration is a valid physical concept just as length, width and height are. You need a when as well as a where in order to locate something.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2011
Of course there are, though they too would define time in terms of change. If you can find one method of defining time independent of change please do post. I would be very interested to understand such a defining of time.
I already did. I posted refs to equations which say that time can be defined independent of movement, length, and weight. Take a little time, read the thread, and dispute what you find.

I only needed to demonstrate that time can operate independent of SOME variables in order to invalidate CHs claim, which I did.

Ok word spaghetti lovers, if spacetime is one thing, then is 'change' of any or all parameters necessary for space to exist? I say no because obviously, it's not.

And if space exists irrespective of 'change' in any and all forms, then time must exist similarly. Please support your musings with references?
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 27, 2011
[I only needed to demonstrate that time can operate independent of SOME variables in order to invalidate CHs claim, which I did.


No.

On a related note, it is quite disturbing that seemingly intelligent people do not understand the fundamental link between the concept of time and physical change...
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 27, 2011
How do you reconcile the compression of time as demonstrated by observations supporting General/Special Relativity with the idea that time only "refers to relative change"?


Easily... what is the difference between viewing this affect as a change in the flow of time versus a relative difference in changes between the two reference frames?

The "fabric" of spacetime is distorted by gravity.


Analogy.

Time is NOT a human derived concept.


Of course it is, time is a concept referring ONLY to relative change.

Time is real. You can't touch it, but it is still real. Not well understood, but real.


It's real in the sense that the concept is real, and the concept refers to a real thing... sure.
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 27, 2011
I would however agree that change is a fundamental component of reality, for if no change occurred there would be no difference between existence and non-existence.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 27, 2011
Time is ALWAYS expressed in terms of some change. No one has provided any examples to the contrary, despite the claims of some that they have (otto)... Stop beating around the bush and define time without referencing change, you cannot do it because one is necessary for the other.
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
The length of a stick is the measurement from where it starts and where it stops in one direction. The duration of something is the measurement from where it starts and where it stops in one direction as well. The measurement of length is a measurement of change, stick not there, stick there, stick not there, only count the distance where it is there. Same as the measurement of duration is measurement of change. Time is no different, with respect to change, than the other dimensions.

Hopefully you have some Ranch or Blue Cheese to throw on that word salad. (otto, not substantial enough to be called spaghetti!)
CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 27, 2011
The measurement of length is a measurement of change, stick not there, stick there, stick not there, only count the distance where it is there. Same as the measurement of duration is measurement of change. Time is no different, with respect to change, than the other dimensions.

Hopefully you have some Ranch or Blue Cheese to throw on that word salad. (otto, not substantial enough to be called spaghetti!)


Funny you accuse me of "word salad" or "word spaghetti" when you rant and rave about eating cars with ketchup or whatever the fuck you were talking about.

All I am saying is the painfully obvious, time depends on change to exist, because time is a concept that refers to the relation between two changes.

This is obvious, I don't know if I can keep finding new ways to explain it to you. Ask yourself what ALL measurements of time have in common, maybe that will help.
CHollman82
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 27, 2011
Also, are you and Otto British or something because you sound like queers, no offense, you just say really weird things like "word salad"... I can't imagine a heterosexual American coming up with that to refer to obfuscation.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
lol
Just suppose reincarnation. I refuse to return in the form of a word. Well, just one word: change. Too much for my plate.

Continuum is the word I want to return as - the perfect fit for my plate. There's room for change there. Philo cuisine.

Otto just barfed.
Pyle
3 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
Pyle barfed too. Sorry. That went too far.

CH, not queer. Just trying to drive home the point that all the dimensions depend on change to be defined. Time's dependence on change is different than length, width, and height (or whatever you want the 3-d to be), but dependence on change isn't time's lonesome burden to bear.

This has been a horrible semantic mess with little substance in science. Read the comments on the other article. Frozen chickens.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2011
Also, are you and Otto British or something because you sound like queers, no offense, you just say really weird things like "word salad"... I can't imagine a heterosexual American coming up with that to refer to obfuscation.

Are you serious? Apart from making a crass comment not worthy of an intelligent individual, if you've not heard the phrase 'word salad' before, then you haven't frequented too many science forums where cranks try to paddle their pet theories by using meaningless sciencey sounding words. The phraseology is quite common. And no, I am not a Brit. Tally-ho.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
lol
Frozen chickens with or without ketchup. Inedible.
Change bears the burden. Not everyone walks away doubtless.

Hmm. O.k. Where's the mop?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2011
Nothing, including Time or God, requires your particular awareness of change (or any other property) to exist. Its quite conceivable that events(change) can occur of which you are not/cannot be aware.

Time for you will stop when you experience no changes but for the universe Time is a real inherent indivisible property, whether you sense, acquire information or know of any changes, or not. To suggest that Time always requires change to exist is a personal perception and nothing more.

When nothing changes it will be you that ceases to exist and not Time.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2011
There is nothing subjective about cleaning up more barf.
LivaN
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2011
bluehigh
In 'your' dull existence [..] no detectable change occurs [..]

[..]others [..] can detect [..] change [..] time flows regardless of change.


So you can't detect change.
Others can detect change.
Time flows regardless of change.

Try explaining your point again without using the phrase "detect change".

bluehigh
Its a bit like your BS argument for undetectable things being non-existent.

How would you know if something exists without being able to detect it? Though it may exist, it is equivalent to it not existing; therefore we say it does not exist until such time as it becomes detectable.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
'You' may not know something exists, however that does not provide proof of its non-existence. It is only equivalent to not existing for 'you'. To say that something does not exist until 'you' are aware of it, is only a personal perception and does not imply that it does not exist for 'others'. This applies equally to groups of 'you' - the 'we' you speak of. The 'others' may be unknown or even unknowable to 'you'. Time doesn't require 'you' to know of its existence so as to be real. You require Time to know that you exist.

LivaN
5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
I posted refs to equations which say that time can be defined independent of movement, length, and weight. Take a little time, read the thread, and dispute what you find.

This is not disputed.

I only needed to demonstrate that time can operate independent of SOME variables in order to invalidate CHs claim, which I did.

Here is where the dispute comes in.
Defining time independent of SOME variables does not define time independent of change. I believe CHs claim was that time cannot be defined independent of change.

Ok word spaghetti lovers, if spacetime is one thing, then is 'change' of any or all parameters necessary for space to exist? I say no because obviously, it's not.

Space requires a change in location. If one point of space is in no way differentiated from another point, then we say it is the same point. If there is a difference between two points then a change has occurred from one location to the next.
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 28, 2011
'You' may not know something exists, however that does not provide proof of its non-existence. It is only equivalent to not existing for 'you'. To say that something does not exist until 'you' are aware of it, is only a personal perception and does not imply that it does not exist for 'others'. This applies equally to groups of 'you' - the 'we' you speak of. The 'others' may be unknown or even unknowable to 'you'. Time doesn't require 'you' to know of its existence so as to be real. You require Time to know that you exist.


You have no idea what we were talking about. The point is if something is FUNDAMENTALLY non-detectable to any life in the universe (and life on this planet is all that we know of) then their is no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of that thing. That is what I said, you need to read more carefully. When I say there is no difference I am not claiming that that thing exists or does not exist... I am equating those two possibilities.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (16) Sep 28, 2011
I only needed to demonstrate that time can operate independent of SOME variables in order to invalidate CHs claim, which I did.

Here is where the dispute comes in.
Defining time independent of SOME variables does not define time independent of change. I believe CHs claim was that time cannot be defined independent of change.


Exactly. I can't believe that had to be explained, but thanks for explaining it.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (16) Sep 28, 2011
Take this for example: If I tell you that there exists a particle very similar to a neutrino except that this particle does not interact with anything, ever, in any way, what would you think? First, you might wonder how I came to know about this particle since empirical detection would require it to interact with something. Next you might doubt my assertion and claim this particle does not exist, at least I would.

But, what is the difference between a universe where that particle does exist and a universe where it does not exist? There is none... the state of that particles existence is irrelevant, it doesn't make any difference whether it exists or not because nothing changes between the two cases.

That is what we are talking about, you have proved several times now to not be able to keep up with such concepts and ideas so do yourself a favor and read more and speak less until you have a basic understanding of things.
LivaN
5 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
bluehigh
'You' may not know something exists, however that does not provide proof of its non-existence. It is only equivalent to not existing for 'you'. To say that something does not exist until 'you' are aware of it, is only a personal perception and does not imply that it does not exist for 'others'. This applies equally to groups of 'you' - the 'we' you speak of.

Agreed

bluehigh
The 'others' may be unknown or even unknowable to 'you'.

The others MUST be unknown/unknowable. At such time as others become known/knowable, it becomes possible to know the previously unknown exists, through those others who know it. The unknown becomes detectable and therefore exists just as the others exist the moment they are known.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2011
God for example seems to be fundamentally undetectable and yet there are very practical differences in equating Gods existence or non-existence to - ah, lets say 3 billion people.
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 28, 2011
God for example seems to be fundamentally undetectable and yet there are very practical differences in equating Gods existence or non-existence to - ah, lets say 3 billion people.


If something interacts with something else it is not fundamentally undetectable, it may be practically undetectable though. If god does not interact with anything else there is no difference between his existence and non-existence.
LivaN
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2011
there are very practical differences in equating Gods existence or non-existence to - ah, lets say 3 billion people.


Do you mean; equating God's undetectable existence to his non-existence has an effect on a portion of the population? How is this relevant?

Imagine our universe.
Make an identical copy.
In one of the two universes god exists, but is completely undetectable. This means that God has no interaction at all, for all time, with the universe or any other thing that could interact with the universe.
In the second universe there is no god.
Those are the only two differences between the two universes.
Can you identify a difference between the two universes other than god?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2011
So you are saying that because God interacts with people that God is not fundamentally undetectable but may be practically undetectable and still therefore non-existent. You then suggest that God needs to interact with 'anything else' to differentiate Gods existence or not. That makes no sense. God interacts with billions of people. When did any force need to act on more than one thing to exist? I suspect what you believe is that God must interact with YOU to exist. Likewise the 'change' that you need to validate your reality of Time is about your existence and not that of Time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2011
Time is ALWAYS expressed in terms of some change. No one has provided any examples to the contrary, despite the claims of some that they have (otto)... Stop beating around the bush and define time without referencing change, you cannot do it because one is necessary for the other.
-Says the science-illiterate physmatist who never references any sources for his dogma because, well, he made it up. Him and his colleague deesky.

"For instance, time and distance are related to each other by the speed of light, c, which is a fundamental constant.

"One could eliminate any two of the metre, kilogram and second by setting c and h to unity or to a fixed dimensionless number."

-Says the physicist. The physmatist slinks back to his kitchen/laboratory.
http://en.wikiped...hysicist
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
Do you mean; equating God's undetectable existence to his non-existence has an effect on a portion of the population? How is this relevant?


Yes, because being undetectable to 'you' does not necessarily imply non-existence, except as personal perception. The example of God is that although undetectable within the constraints of scientific inquiry, the existence or otherwise of God has a demonstrable effect on a large group of people. So, we have a cause that for science is undetectable and (its proposed) therefore non-existent and yet has a clear effect on billions of people. I reconcile my cognitive dissonance by excluding the argument that because something is undetectable it does not exist. Just because 'you' or 'me' can not detect something does not mean it does not exist.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2011
So you are saying that because God interacts with people that God is not fundamentally undetectable but may be practically undetectable and still therefore non-existent. You then suggest that God needs to interact with 'anything else' to differentiate Gods existence or not. That makes no sense. God interacts with billions of people.
Yes he interacts with billions of people who desperately want to believe they can escape death to a land there they can live in eternal bliss in youthful bodies. They desperately want to believe there is a being who will grant their wishes, fix their mistakes, and punish their enemies.

Gee I wish I could believe in something like that, I would probably be a lot happier. Only I can't because I know there is no such thing. It's obviously a scam. A very good, irresistibly compelling, scam. A viral meme which permeated the human race. The original ponzi scheme.

Any discussions regarding god should include this dynamic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2011
existence or otherwise of God has a demonstrable effect on a large group of people. So, we have a cause that for science is undetectable and (its proposed) therefore non-existent and yet has a clear effect on billions of people
Mickey mouse has a demonstrable effect on billions of people but doesnt exist. Demonstrably. Mickey mouse = god. Fantasy does not = reality. This is your error.

The science behind this compulsion to believe in fantasy is indeed quantifiable, and if found to be the result of a pervasive defect, can in theory be cured.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2011
Don't forget my 40 (female) virgins and forgive my rather long list of sins and spite CHollman. Sounds like heaven.

bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2011
What!! No Mickey Mouse? Next you will be telling me Santa Claus doesn't exist. Hang on a minute they are both on TV so have been detected and therefore are real. Falsify that!
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 28, 2011
"For instance, time and distance are related to each other by the SPEED of light, c, which is a fundamental constant.


Speed requires change... you cannot describe time absent of change, how long will it take you to understand this?
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 28, 2011
So you are saying that because God interacts with people that God is not fundamentally undetectable but may be practically undetectable and still therefore non-existent.


What?!?

No, you're not following along at all, you should just give up this is obviously beyond your ability to understand.

If something does not interact with anything than the practical difference between the existence and non-existence of that thing is zero... I consider this very simple, intuitive, and even obvious. I guess some people just aren't wired to think this way.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
you cannot describe time absent of change


.. and you cannot describe change absent of Time.

CHollman82
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 28, 2011
you cannot describe time absent of change


.. and you cannot describe change absent of Time.



Time is a measurement, it is a concept we use to describe change. What physically exists is matter and energy, and matter and energy change. We measure this change with the concept we created called "Time"

Isn't it obvious that matter and energy is what physically exists? A property of matter and energy is change... change is a property of that which physically exists... time is a concept used to measure that property.

This common sense, this is intuitive and obvious.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2011
Change is a concept used to describe transformations of matter and energy within Time. Change is not a property of matter and energy. Change is a property of Time. Change is a concept that quantifies the flow of Time.

One more time for the ignoramus - existence does not depend on YOU having knowledge of interaction. YOU cannot know if "something does not interact with anything", unless you are a God, so your argument is worthless.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 28, 2011
Change is a concept used to describe transformations of matter and energy within Time. Change is not a property of matter and energy. Change is a property of Time. Change is a concept that quantifies the flow of Time.


Wrong. Change is governed by physical law and applies to matter and energy, which exist.

One more time for the ignoramus


Are you 5?

existence does not depend on YOU having knowledge of interaction. YOU cannot know if "something does not interact with anything", unless you are a God, so your argument is worthless.


I have NEVER said that anything that I am talking depends on my PERSONAL ability to perceive anything... you can't follow a simple concept, like I said you should stop trying it is beyond your ability to comprehend.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2011
Speed requires change... you cannot describe time absent of change, how long will it take you to understand this?
That reminds me - I havent eaten yet. Maybe I'll have spaghetti.

If you should reference your culinary source I would be happy to sample it.

Maybe you should try fish. I hear it is a brain food.
Hang on a minute they are both on TV so have been detected and therefore are real. Falsify that!
Try unplugging your tv. Or close your eyes and like everything else, mickey and Klaus disappear. Right philos?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2011
This common sense, this is intuitive and obvious.
Many things in quantum physics and relativity are counter-intuitive and not at all obvious, and yet numbers and the people who know how to use them tell us that quantum physics and relativity are (most likely) real.

Describe change in light(?) of a single photon passing through 2 different slits at the same time.
http://en.wikiped...periment

-I love wiki. Its like K-mart - if you cant find what you want there, you probably dont need it.
Defining time independent of SOME variables does not define time independent of change. I believe CHs claim was that time cannot be defined independent of change.
CHs claim did not specify what sort of 'change' he was referring to. I disproved the notion that the entire set 'change' enabled time to exist, by showing that some elements within this assumed set did not necessarily affect time. I thereby negated his whole hypothesis.

He has yet to respond meaningfully.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
Maybe you should try fish. I hear it is a brain food.


You're thinking of pomegranate and blueberries, which I've heard are flavors of neutrinos. I might brew a neutrino Belgian lambic ale this fall. I'll let you know if I go back in time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
CH would have to supply at least ONE valid physics or mathematics reference indicating that at least ONE kind of change was essential to the existence of time.

Bluster is not a valid response. Unqualified opinion is not a valid response. CHs intuition is not a valid response.

This is a physics website and CH made a statement which I countered with valid physics. CH has the responsibility to either respond in kind or kiss my hairy butt. Take your pick CH.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
OOps double post- Lets see do I have anything more to say? Uh no
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
CH would have to supply at least ONE valid physics or mathematics reference indicating that at least ONE kind of change was essential to the existence of time.

Bluster is not a valid response. Unqualified opinion is not a valid response. CHs intuition is not a valid response.

This is a physics website and CH made a statement which I countered with valid physics. CH has the responsibility to either respond in kind or kiss my hairy butt. Take your pick CH.


I provided you with an article on physorg where physicists make the exact same claims that I am making, you brushed it aside without consideration.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
CHs claim did not specify what sort of 'change' he was referring to.


Deliberately.

When I use the word "change" without further qualification I am referring to all change, I thought that was obvious.

I disproved the notion that the entire set 'change' enabled time to exist, by showing that some elements within this assumed set did not necessarily affect time. I thereby negated his whole hypothesis.


What the hell are you talking about? You obfuscate the hell out of anything you try to discuss with juvenile wordplay.

Let's go way back and take this slow, I'll ask you a SIMPLE question and you answer it, if you will.

First, a quantity of time refers to a change from some state of reality to another state of reality, whether that be the position of the second hand on a clock or the vibrational state of a cesium atom... do you agree?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
Deliberately.
No, absentmindedly. Without adequate knowledge of what you were talking about.

When I use the word "change" without further qualification
You have little idea what youre talking about.
I am referring to all change, I thought that was obvious.
And I presented to you at least 2 cases in which it didnt apply. You have yet to show scientific evidence where it applies for ANY ONE case.
First, a quantity of time refers to a change... whether that be the position of the second hand on a clock or the vibrational state of a cesium atom... do you agree?
Give me equations which include the variables describing the workings of a clock movement and/or the vibrations of a cesium atom in relation to time, which shows that these variables are essential for time to exist. THE EQUATIONS. Your WORDS are useless in discussing these things.

And then I will repeat the EQUATIONS which state that time can operate independent of at least 2 variables signifying change.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
from some state of reality to another state of reality
Define 'state' and 'reality' SCIENTIFICALLY. Mathematically. Scientists can do this for their own purposes which are the only purposes necessary to work with 'states' and 'reality' which MATTER.
What the hell are you talking about? You obfuscate the hell out of anything you try to discuss with juvenile wordplay.
You have the juvenile idea that science can be discussed and understood using WORDS. Grownups know this isnt true.

You first have to know the science that the words represent; like scientists do.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
And I presented to you at least 2 cases in which it didnt apply.


Bullshit, you presented two cases in which time did not DIRECTLY rely on change, only indirectly.

Give me equations which include the variables describing the workings of a clock movement and/or the vibrations of a cesium atom in relation to time, which shows that these variables are essential for time to exist.


I didn't say that clock hand movement or cesium atom vibration is necessary for time to have meaning... Jesus Christ Otto, those are only examples of change in the physical structure of reality, which is what is necessary for time as a concept to have meaning. I could give you a thousand examples if I was so inclined and you would not refute my point by showing that time can exist absent of those thousand examples, because they are only examples, of an unlimited number of examples of change in physical reality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
Bullshit, you presented two cases in which time did not DIRECTLY rely on change, only indirectly.
Ho so Dr. CH Spock?
physical structure of reality
Right. Define the 'Physical' 'structure' of 'reality' by referencing EQUATIONS the way scientists do. This will take you quite some TIME I would imagine; time which will pass whether you do it or not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2011
unlimited number of examples of change in physical reality.
Whatever makes you think theyre unlimited? Name some that science hasnt already assigned variables to and defined in terms of numbers and equations; or cant if they havent already.

I dont think you have any idea what change IS from a scientific perspective. I gave you 3; change in weight, location, and size. LivaN gave you some more.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
Change cannot occur without time.

Thus time is not a mere measurement of change. In GR space and time are a single thing. Change takes place in space-time. Time is not dependent on change. Change is dependent on time.

We went through this a while ago with Amit. All he did was repeat himself and the article was his.

I will get around to Dogbert silliness later as I just made over twenty posts in reply to Yellowdart's YEC stuff, you know the stuff Dogbert says barely exists. This particular tine/change silliness had been going long enough to bug me. Time may be meaningless without change but there is no reason to claim it would not still exist. BUT change cannot exist without time.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
Thus time is not a mere measurement of change. In GR space and time are a single thing. Change takes place in space-time. Time is not dependent on change. Change is dependent on time.
Possibly. Youre not going to try to use just WORDS are you? You got any equations you can reference to back them up? Try GOOGLE like I do.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 28, 2011
Change cannot occur without time.


It's two ways of looking at the same exact thing though, it is a co-dependent relationship, don't you at least understand this?

There is no difference between considering it to be the way you stated and considering it to be the reverse way that I am stating, they are equivalent. The reason I prefer my way is because matter and energy PHYSICALLY exist, and matter and energy change according to the laws of physics... this change gives rise the meaningful concept of time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2011
Change cannot occur without time.
For instance did inflation occur 'without' time? As time is inextricably bound to c then apparently inflation occured in a 'timeless' fashion.

What about entanglement? State changes are conveyed apparently in total disregard for c.

If you need references I'll be happy to provide them.
It's two ways of looking at the same exact thing though, it is a co-dependent relationship, don't you at least understand this?
No because you dont.
There is no difference between considering it to be the way you stated and considering it to be the reverse way that I am stating, they are equivalent.
That reminds me, I havent eaten yet. Pasta maybe.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
Youre not going to try to use just WORDS are you?
The words are enough. The equations don't really mean anything here EXCEPT that GR is in SPACE-TIME and they work.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
It's two ways of looking at the same exact thing though,
No. The change is dependent on time and not the other way around.

it is a co-dependent relationship, don't you at least understand this?
I understand that it is unlikely to be co-dependent. You can't MEASURE time without change but there is no reason to think it would not still exist as time and space are one not four. One property of the universe with four variables.

they are equivalent.
--> is not <--. They are not equivalent. Negative is not positive. They are not equivalent. Mass and weight are not equivalent, weight is dependent and not the other way around.

Want more? Change is dependent on time and space.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
The reason I prefer my way is because matter and energy PHYSICALLY exist
Within space-time.

nd matter and energy change according to the laws of physics.
Within space-time.

this change gives rise the meaningful concept of time.
Meaningful to us. There is no change without time, there is no meaning without time as we run on this universe and the changes we perceive occur in time-space. They cannot occur without time as it is part of space-time. IF you can figure out a way to extricate time from space-time you MAY have a point.

Ethelred
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
It's two ways of looking at the same exact thing though,
No. The change is dependent on time and not the other way around.


Wrong, they are both dependent on each other, they two words that describe the same thing.

it is a co-dependent relationship, don't you at least understand this?
I understand that it is unlikely to be co-dependent. You can't MEASURE time without change but there is no reason to think it would not still exist as time and space are one not four. One property of the universe with four variables.

All that time is is a measurement.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
Within space-time


SCIENTISTS SUGGEST THAT "SPACETIME" HAS NO TIME DIMENSION

http://www.physor...ion.html
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
"With clocks, we measure the numerical order t0,t1,t2,,tn of a material change, i.e., motion running in space. There is no experimental evidence that clocks measure time. It is convenient to replace the concept of time with the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds more adequately to the physical world"

Sorry... you're wrong.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
It's two ways of looking at the same exact thing though,
No. The change is dependent on time and not the other way around.

it is a co-dependent relationship, don't you at least understand this?
I understand that it is unlikely to be co-dependent. You can't MEASURE time without change but there is no reason to think it would not still exist as time and space are one not four. One property of the universe with four variables.

they are equivalent.
--> is not <--. They are not equivalent. Negative is not positive. They are not equivalent. Mass and weight are not equivalent, weight is dependent and not the other way around.

Want more? Change is dependent on time and space.>>

Wrong, they are both dependent on each other, they two words that describe the same thing.
No. Our ability to measure time depends on TIME the change we measure occurs in time.

All that time is is a measurement.
Time exists whether it measured or not.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
Written before looking.
SCIENTISTS SUGGEST THAT "SPACETIME" HAS NO TIME DIMENSION
And Amrit was a total ass who got his ass whipped so bad all he could do was repeat himself.

Now to look.

In two recent papers (one published and one to be published) in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli,
Yep you quoted Amrit. Read the whole page. There was at least more article. He was incompetent on both. There is no way someone that spaced out could say anything relevant except by accident.

ZephirAWT and beelize54 are both the same Zephir as usual. There was another Zephir sockpuppet, Vesta, there but it was deleted. rawa1 showed up for the first time there. Four sockpuppets for Zephir.

http://www.physor...itSorli/

That is the author of the paper. The other names on it are mostly just filler.

http://www.timele...rse.net/

That is Amrit's website. His picture fits his thinking. SPACED OUT. Or drugged.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
The subtitle
The Foundation for Cosmic Religiousness
Yeah that is a great source for rational thought there.

Read the discussion.

Here is a quick summary of me vs Amrit

A - Time a ordered series of change.

E - What does that contribute to human knowledge that is different from change is dependent on time?

A - Time a ordered series of change.

E- In GR space and time are one property with 4 dimensions.

A - Time a ordered series of change.

E - If I simply invert what you say to 'change is a ordered series by time' we are back to the standard math so what have gained with your idea?

A - Time a ordered series of change.

Amrit actually did say a few other things but he NEVER answered my questions and he never even showed there was the evidence that he claimed backed him.

He got his spacey ass kicked.

Ethelred
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2011
Otto & Ethelred are wrong, though Ethelred presents a more considered argument.

If you could somehow place yourself outside a hypothetical empty universe and peer inside - how would you measure the passage of time? Time would have no meaning.

Even if that universe had a single, unchanging object inside, you could still not do it. Only if you had two objects (or more) which were in motion relative to each other, would you be able to derive a measure of time.
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2011
You can't MEASURE time without change but there is no reason to think it would not still exist

And that is a metaphysical argument. If it's impossible to measure or detect, then asserting it's existence is as valid as asserting that there is no reason to believe that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
With clocks, we measure the numerical order t0,t1,t2,,tn of a material change, i.e., motion running in space.
A change that happens in space-time. There is no space there is no time there is only space-time.

There is no experimental evidence that clocks measure time
There is no experimental evidence that clocks measure change.

Neither of the statements make sense. Experiments take place in time and we measure it as change vs time. We don't use pendulums anymore. For accurate time we use light. Which is as blatant a measure of space-time as it gets.

It is convenient to replace the concept of time with the numerical order of material change.
It is exceeding awkward to do the reverse so it becomes a waste of TIME to do so.

This view corresponds more adequately to the physical world"
That view entail such awkward circumlocutions it is amazing anyone managed to say that with a straight face.>>
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
Otto & Ethelred are wrong, though Ethelred presents a more considered argument.

If you could somehow place yourself outside a hypothetical empty universe and peer inside - how would you measure the passage of time? Time would have no meaning.

Even if that universe had a single, unchanging object inside, you could still not do it. Only if you had two objects (or more) which were in motion relative to each other, would you be able to derive a measure of time.


Exactly. The concept of time, that is, the concept of relative changes in matter/energy, is utterly dependent on that relative changes to which it refers.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
Time exists whether it measured or not


Time is a measurement of change relative to other change. You want proof? The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium atom at it's resonant frequency.

The second is a unit of time, and like ALL units of time it is defined by physical change... what other proof do you want?
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
Sorry... you're wrong
No. Go ahead and show how change is a better unit then time to do science in.

Show where the person you were quoting did those experiments. I know you are dying for me to ask who said it.

Never mind it was Amrit. You are quoting the ass that did so badly in his evasions with me. He never did any experiments that supported him. Nor could he answer my questions.

The concept of time, that is, the concept of relative changes in matter/energy, is utterly dependent on that relative changes to which it refers
The concept of change is utterly dependent on the existence of space-time.

If you can't show some reason for replacing time with change why do it? It is an exceeding awkward way to do things for a mere bit of philosophy that doesn't fit human experience OR the math.

The universe has properties for which the questin 'why' is meaningless. Time is one. Space is equally another but for some reason some people think that space is self-evident.

Ethered
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2011
The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium atom at it's resonant frequency.

The second is a unit of time, and like ALL units of time it is defined by physical change... what other proof do you want?
Ethelred
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium atom at it's resonant frequency.
Which functions in space-time.

what other proof do you want?
Math that works better than what we have. Something that actually is usefull as opposed to merely an awkward bit of philosophy that adds nothing to human knowledge.

Ethelred
CHollman82
1 / 5 (14) Sep 28, 2011
Never mind it was Amrit. You are quoting the ass that did so badly in his evasions with me. He never did any experiments that supported him. Nor could he answer my questions.


Oh wow, you were actually surprised when a PhD physicist didn't respond to angry angsty emails from a teenage armchair popular mechanics scientist? You consider his blowing you off an admission of the correctness of your undoubtedly arrogant assertions regarding his work?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2011
An 'empty universe', Deesky! You must mean 'nothing', as in nothing between your ears. Why do you find it odd that the absence of anything (nothing), there is also no Time? Such powerful magic it must be to 'peer' inside this nothing.

Then your nonsensical empty Universe has got an unchanging object in it and you are observing this object, exactly how? Did you observe this object without any time passing?

Hypothetical is different to nonsensical.

Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
Oh wow, you were actually surprised when a PhD physicist didn't respond to angry angsty emails from a teenage armchair popular mechanics scientist?
He PMd me not the other way around and what angst? What teenager. I am older than Amrit. I don't popular mechanics and HE DID RESPOND. Excatly like Oliver does. He repeated that stuff he was being asked about.

ou consider his blowing you off
He didn't blow me off. He simply had no reasoned response. He just repeated himself. Just like Olver.

an admission of the correctness of your undoubtedly arrogant assertions regarding his work?
Go read the discussion before you make even more statements that don't fit reality.

That one got a one. It deserved it for the excessive and false assumptions that were in it.

If you want to discuss this can the crap.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
If you could somehow place yourself outside a hypothetical empty universe and peer inside - how would you measure the passage of time? Time would have no meaning.
Then I couldn't measure it or experience it. Nor would there be anything to see as there is no space without time. The two are one property in this universe. We are talking about THIS universe not one that pretty much by definition doesn't exist.

And that is a metaphysical argument.
So was Amrit's side. But he refused to admit it.

If it's impossible to measure or detect
Then the universe is over. There is name for it. Timelike Infinity. There is nothing left to discuss with such a universe. It is done BECAUSE time is done.

no reason to believe that the flying spaghetti monster exists.
That cereal upstart does not exist. The Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark created all that is. Even the Aardvark worked in time. The Aardvark eats cereal.

Ethelred
bluehigh
2 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2011
Its going to be sad when I go into the study and tell the flying spaghetti monster that he doesn't exist and has been replaced by an invisible Aardvark. * locks cereal in pantry *

hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2011
Quoting self:
There is nothing subjective about cleaning up more barf.[q/]
To all the moppers many thanks. You know who you are.
By all means eat. Avoid the indigestible.
Sticking to my guns, change bears the burden...(of time).
Time found refuge in space. And a point is labeled (defined)to make the label called location possible.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2011
Quoting self:

There is nothing subjective about cleaning up more barf.[q/]

To all the moppers many thanks. You know who you are.
By all means eat. Avoid the indigestible.

Sticking to my guns:
... change bears the burden...(of time).

Time found refuge in space.
And a point (is) labeled (defined)to make the label called location possible.

Sorry, I hate grey, therefore the edit correction.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2011
lol
Third attempt.
Quoting self:
There is nothing subjective about cleaning up more barf.


To all the moppers many thanks. You know who you are.
By all means eat. Avoid the indigestible.

Sticking to my guns:
... change bears the burden...(of time).

Time found refuge in space.
And a point (is) labeled (defined) to make the label called location possible.

And a backslash / is one of the most important mathematics
tools ever. It all depends on placement. The difference between grey and legibility. lol. Sorry for the multiples.

Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
Not replaced. The Aardvark has existed longer than the Monster. I checked. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was created after the Aardvark.

I am not sure but if I remember correctly the Giant Invisible Aardvark was created by an anesthesiologist, who later quit to go to law school. This was on Commport which used to be the Maximum PC forum. Somewhere around 2000, 2001.

The FSM was first written about in 2005.

Sorry I don't have a link. Delphi doesn't allow searches that far back without paying 50 a year.

http://forums.del...1562.253

I think it was Anthony that created the Aardvark.

Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
lol
Mr. Bluehigh tear down those pantry walls! All free cereals, wherever they may reside, are meals of Aardvark. And therefore, as a free cereal/meal, I take pride in the words "I am a donut!"
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
CH, I tried to tell you to read the other thread. I tried to lay it out.

Eth, thank you for chiming in. You are so much more eloquent then I am. I will refrain from copying your posts in this thread and re-posting them.

@CH said
You consider his blowing you off an admission of the correctness of your undoubtedly arrogant assertions regarding his work?
Actually, the crazy "PhD" was actively involved in the conversation. Read the thread. He just kept repeating himself. We thrashed him so bad that he got laughed off of other boards because of our thrashing. Here is an example (I used Google translate to read).
http://forum.kvar...?p=52219
The basic gist is, "Go away frozen chicken. Your ideas are nonsense."

Eth, evidence of the effects of pirating on global warming far pre date your invisible ant gobbler. Beware his noodly appendage.

Ramen.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
I am terribly sorry to inform all here that not only is the Flying Spaghetti Monster a johnny come lately but even the Giant Orbiting Aardvark is only half the age of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

However while I am unable to muster up hate for nonexistent gods I have no difficulty whatsoever of developing a deep and abiding loathing of anything smacking of Unicorns of any kind. As for PINK Unicorns the term loathing is only a shadow of my actual emotional state. The whole idea that the Universe might have been created by a PINK Unicorn is almost enough to drive me to join the Church of Urantia which does not harbor Unicorns, not even of any kind. Galactic Inspectors YES Pink Unicorns NO.

Ethelred Hardrede
Future Galactic Inspector #1764
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
Pyle

Thanks for that link.

Weird to read what I wrote after undergoing two layers of translation. English to Slovenian and back to English.

As for "philosophical mental masturbation" which seems to have caught the imagination, well it could have been worse. Sometimes I use "philosophical circle jerk" instead.

Odd thing is that there aspects of this I sometimes agree with.

shrink(on the Slovenian site) said
Oh, yes, forgetting your belief that nature is subordinated to mathematics.


Which I happen to agree with. The difference between me an Amrit on this is that I KNOW that it is philosophy and not science. He is under the delusion that he has PROVED it. In the Wheeler MultiWorlds approach to QM time is inherently a series of ordered events, but the order is timelike and there is no reason to use change instead of time. It is not a CHANGE ordered series it is a TIME ordered series.

And yes I am very fond of the Wheeler model. I loath the Copenhagen model.

Ethelred
LivaN
5 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
bluehigh
The example of God is that although undetectable within the constraints of scientific inquiry, the existence or otherwise of God has a demonstrable effect on a large group of people.
Fallacy. appeal to the people. "If many believe so, it is so."

bluehigh
So, we have a cause that for science is undetectable
Belief is very detectable. It is a well documented psychological state.

bluehigh
I reconcile my cognitive dissonance by excluding the argument that because something is undetectable it does not exist.
Are you in a metal institution having a delusion that is your life? Do you live in the matrix? Did aliens create humanity and spread God propaganda? Is our planet in fact a brain that gives rise to an imagined reality that is the human experience? Etc.
There are an almost infinite set of unknowables that could give rise to the current circumstances we find ourselves in. Did you take all into consideration before deciding that God is the answer?
bluehigh
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2011
LivaN, your ignorant tirade regarding delusion deserves a - BARF.

I could defend my assertions but its pointless when dealing with yet another imbecile.

However, I will add that at no stage did I suggest that God is an answer to anything, simply that God is an example of an possibly empirically undetectable entity that has a known soft science effect. Similar to the Pink Unicorns that have the effect of inducing loathing in Ethelred, they may not be real for you.

Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2011
Wheeler MultiWorlds approach to QM time is inherently a series of ordered events, but the order is timelike and there is no reason to use change instead of time. It is not a CHANGE ordered series it is a TIME ordered series.

And yes I am very fond of the Wheeler model. I loath the Copenhagen model.

They're all flawed (that's why there's so many of them), so hanging your hat on any one interpretation that strikes your fancy does not make a convincing argument.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
It's o.k. LivaN. The clean and mopping up(of barf)is self assigned to me. Continue.

First FTL, now ..."I am terribly sorry to inform all here...-Eth" as science takes us through the paces.

Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2011
so hanging your hat on any one interpretation that strikes your fancy does not make a convincing argument.
More like they all work. And I don't expect anyone to be convinced. I do expect some to take another look at both and notice just how clunky the Copenhagen model is and it has that observer problem that seems a tad ego based.

The Wheeler model is disturbing to many. I am not all that comfortable with it either.

I also like a wave based model as the math that is used IS mostly wave based. Despite all the talk about particle/wave duality it isn't particle based math that is being used.

I tend to use both of them to look at things. Not just one. I never use the Copenhagen model due the crap about an observer. What makes the atoms in an observer special? Yes that means I do NOT see Schroedinger's Cat as simultaneously dead and alive in the same universe. The BOX is the observer. Nay the atoms of air in the box are effected by the test thus THEY observe.

Ethelred
LivaN
5 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
bluehigh
LivaN, your ignorant tirade regarding delusion deserves a - BARF.
I could defend my assertions but its pointless when dealing with yet another imbecile.

Fallacy. Ad hominem: attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

bluehigh
God is an example of an possibly empirically undetectable entity that has a known soft science effect.

Please give an example of such a known effect?
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2011
I never use the Copenhagen model due the crap about an observer. What makes the atoms in an observer special?

Nothing. Many people get hung up on this, but it's needless anthropomorphizing - the observation is simply an interaction or a measurement, which causes a wave function collapse due to that interaction with the environment.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2011
That is my thinking BUT it does not lead to the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment. Which so many find fascinating. I used to before I figured the unspoken assumption that only conscious observations would collapse the probability wave.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
LivaN
Please give an example of such a known effect?
You are, I think, misinterpreting in what Bluehigh was getting at.

The BELIEF is what is having the effect. He may believe himself but that was not his point. For instance YOUR belief that he was on some sort of fanatic rant resulted in you missing this:

the existence or otherwise
Even though you quoted the 'OTHERWISE' you did not see it. And then went on a rant. That resulted in Bluehigh ranting back.

The only thing you proved is that ranting is contagious. And that neither of you have the talent to do so in an entertaining manner.

I recommend John Scalzi's site for an education in expert ranting.

http://www.scalzi...hatever/

http://whatever.s...t-thing/

and here is one for Marjon
http://whatever.s...hrugged/

That ought to make him beat Elon Musk to Mars.

Ethelred
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
LivaN, I believe it was you that descended into the gutter with unnecessary personal attacks and prior to that I found some agreement with your comments. The example of yet another known effect of an unknown cause (in the sense of being empirically undetectable)(Voltaire rolls in his grave) was - 'lets say 3 billion people are affected by God'. For Christs sake (!) does not attending church regularly not constitute an effect?

Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2011
I used to before I figured the unspoken assumption that only conscious observations would collapse the probability wave.

Eh? What do you mean by that?
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 29, 2011
And that neither of you have the talent to do so in an entertaining manner.


Indeed quite correct and i am disappointed in myself for not elaborating on my special relationship with the flying spaghetti monster. So I will saddle up a Pink Unicorn and ride off into the sunset and come back another time (if it exists)!

Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
Eh? What do you mean by that?
All right it is a SPOKEN assumption in the Copenhagen model.

In the Schroedinger's Cat experiment by the Copenhagen model the cat is BOTH alive and dead after the specified time and the probability wave collapses when the box is opened. I did not make that up. Schroedinger and Einstein came to that conclusion and neither Heisenberg nor Bohr disabused them of the notion.

Only it's pure crap. The air in the box, the container of the radioactive material, the Cat, the box itself, and the detector are all made of atoms and I sincerely doubt that the Universe gives a damn that the atoms were not attached to a human. And frankly I think if the Cat was Siamese it would meet the standard of a conscious observer. Not so sure about Persians.

The whole load of crap behind that was some philosophical bullshit from India and according to Noumenon, Kant, though he is under the delusion that it wasn't bullshit. It had ZERO mathematical or scientific basis.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2011
Thus the detector OR ANYTHING else that was involved in poisoning the cat, would have collapsed the wave. Lots of nonsense has been written based on the crap idea that a conscious observer is needed to collapse the wave. No experiment nor equation has or even can support it.

Ethelred
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2011
In the Schroedinger's Cat experiment by the Copenhagen model the cat is BOTH alive and dead after the specified time and the probability wave collapses when the box is opened. I did not make that up. Schroedinger and Einstein came to that conclusion and neither Heisenberg nor Bohr disabused them of the notion.

Only it's pure crap.

Of course it is. It's not a serious experiment but a metaphor.

Lots of nonsense has been written based on the crap idea that a conscious observer is needed to collapse the wave.

Crap gets written all the time in the popular press. It appears that you're placing way too much significance in a metaphorical 'experiment' and thus working yourself into an unnecessary lather.
LivaN
5 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
LivaN
Please give an example of such a known effect?
You are, I think, misinterpreting in what Bluehigh was getting at.

The BELIEF is what is having the effect.

Thank you for clearing that up. I was under the mistaken impression that Bluehigh was implying that God could be a possible cause for the effect, rather than belief in God being the cause.

In that case, arguing that belief causes an effect has no bearing on whether that belief is true or not. Since there is no evidence for God other than belief, we can conclude he does not exist until such time as he becomes detectable.

you missing this:

the existence or otherwise

I did not miss that, I simply assumed it was in error, as it implies that with or without God the effect would still be there, thereby relieving God of the necessity of existing as cause for the effect.

cont..
LivaN
5 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
Ethelred
And then went on a rant.

There is no rant. I simply tried to make a case that was as explanatory as possible. Given my mistake in concluding that bluehigh believed in God, my final question seems offensive, for which I am sorry. Sorry bluehigh.

A better rephrasing might be; given the unknowns are possibly infinite, how do you go about reconciling them without concluding they don't exist? How do the infinite unknowables impact you aside from a philosophical standpoint?

bluehigh
LivaN, I believe it was you that descended into the gutter with unnecessary personal attacks

My apologies, I did not mean to offend by my question.
bluehigh
For Christs sake (!) does not attending church regularly not constitute an effect?

Yes it does, I was mistakenly asking for an effect attributable to God, not belief in God. I was intending to preset God as non-existent, not belief in God as non-existent. This was my error.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
Of course it is. It's not a serious experiment but a metaphor.
You seem to missed what was crap. The thought experiment itself is fine and its purpose was to show the silliness of the Copenhagen model.

It appears that you're placing way too much significance in a metaphorical 'experiment' and thus working yourself into an unnecessary lather.
Two mistakes there. It THE COPENHAGEN model not the experiment that is crap. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

And I am not in a lather. That is an exceeding rare thing for me online. I am sure that I have gotten pissed off at least once online in the last year but maybe not. Annoyed sometimes but that is not the same thing.

Can't remember the last someone got my heart rate up online. It's 64 at the moment.

Ethelred
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
Typical Bluehigh. Barf and vanish. Just as well. No more mops here. Besides, anything beyond the Giant Orbiting Aardvark is way over my head.
LivaN
not rated yet Sep 29, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923
CHs claim did not specify what sort of 'change' he was referring to.

Correct, however you added a specification to his claim, that being "entire set". You have disproved this revised claim.

Here is your post highlighting the added specification:
I disproved the notion that the [ENTIRE SET] 'change' enabled time to exist, by showing that some elements within this assumed set did not necessarily affect time.

This is true.
Now we remove the added specification:
I disproved the notion that 'change' enabled time to exist, by showing that some elements within this assumed set did not necessarily affect time.

This is invalid.
Time defined by a subset of change is still time being defined by change.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2011
It THE COPENHAGEN model not the experiment that is crap.

I don't find the Copenhagen interpretation to be 'crap' if you don't take the conscious observer nonsense to be at its core (which I do not). Collapsing a wave function through interaction with the environment is more logical to me than assuming than there is an infinity of other universes working in parallel at every moment.

But, as I said, I think all interpretations are necessarily flawed and merely act as a crutch for our limited imaginations when we should really just shut up and calculate.

And I am not in a lather.

Very well. It just seemed that way going by the frequency of your usage of the word 'crap' where it really doesn't apply (if you discount what the popular press says).
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2011
Time defined by a subset of change is still time being defined by change.
Change is defined by time. That is, if you try to replace T for time in equations with C for change you will not succeed UNLESS you simply try to hide time as Vendicar did on the other thread.

Go ahead and try. I don't think it can be done and I REALLY don't think it can be done in a clean manner. Now if it can be done clean THEN it would be sensible to use Change instead of time. Amrit has been pushing this for a two years at least and he either didn't understand what was needed or he couldn't do it and refused to admit it.

Ethelred
CHollman82
1 / 5 (12) Sep 29, 2011
In the Schroedinger's Cat experiment by the Copenhagen model the cat is BOTH alive and dead after the specified time and the probability wave collapses when the box is opened. I did not make that up. Schroedinger and Einstein came to that conclusion and neither Heisenberg nor Bohr disabused them of the notion.

Only it's pure crap.


Wow...

SCHRODINGERS CAT IS AN ANALOGY... it is not meant to be taken literally... do you really think you're super intelligent for not understanding that and then coming to the realization independently? To me that makes you foolish, not smart...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium atom at it's resonant frequency.
Which functions in space-time.

what other proof do you want?
Math that works better than what we have. Something that actually is usefull as opposed to merely an awkward bit of philosophy that adds nothing to human knowledge.

Change is defined by time. That is, if you try to replace T for time in equations with C for change you will not succeed UNLESS you simply try to hide time as Vendicar did on the other thread.
So it looks like we're back to math. In other WORDS you can't really discuss physics with people who are not familiar with the math behind the words.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (11) Sep 29, 2011
So it looks like we're back to math. In other WORDS you can't really discuss physics with people who are not familiar with the math behind the words.


Likewise, you cannot discuss physics with people who think Schroedinger's Cat is meant to be taken literally...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
SCHRODINGERS CAT IS AN ANALOGY... it is not meant to be taken literally...
And the only way to properly understand and discuss the phenomena behind the gross analogy is mathematically. That's why science abandoned the use of words for numbers centuries ago.

Science is not philosophy. Science works.
LivaN
not rated yet Sep 29, 2011
Ethelred
Change is defined by time.

In what instance is there time without change? Change however can be identified without time, though it cannot be so without at least one dimension which may inevitably be a time like dimension.

Ethelred
That is, if you try to replace T for time in equations with C for change you will not succeed UNLESS

I do not wish to replace time with change, as time is defined by change, doing so will equate change to change. This I do agree would be very unsuccessful.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2011
So it looks like we're back to math. In other WORDS you can't really discuss physics with people who are not familiar with the math behind the words.


Also, when time is used in math it is in TERMS of physical change... you cannot escape this. All time, all quantities of time, are expressed in terms of physical change. This is because it is a measurement that refers to that which it measures... You know this.
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2011
So it looks like we're back to math. In other WORDS you can't really discuss physics with people who are not familiar with the math behind the words.

You mean, like you - a self confessed math illiterate?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
SCHRODINGERS CAT IS AN ANALOGY..
It is a Gedankenexperiment. Not an analogy.

it is not meant to be taken literally...
What part of "thought experiment" was hard to comprehend?

do you really think you're super intelligent for not understanding that
I think I am more intelligent than the person that thought I was not aware that it was a THOUGHT experiment. Not an analogy.

To me that makes you foolish, not smart...
Well I guess that shows me. You sure did deal with nothing I said. My mistake. Next time I will assume that you will make things up for me again. Might as well it sure is a popular way to discuss things here.

Look guys. I know what it was. I know the history of it. I have seen discussions for decades. I have NOTHING against the experiment. It is the COPENHAGEN model I don't like. With or without a mystical observer it is clunky. The observer concept seems to be Bohr's to some extent. The Wiki is about as willing to deal with it as I am.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2011
What is it around here that so many go off on things I didn't say. Is there some sort reading in-comprehension test that I missed and thus was allowed to join?

http://en.wikiped...%27s_cat

http://en.wikiped...retation

Astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin describes it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s.[13]
Maybe but in his book Schrödinger's Cat he emphasized the Copenhagen model though, if I recall correctly, he liked the MultiWorlds model. My copy is in storage so I can't check.

And no I don't think I am smarter than Heisenberg or even Bohr. But I haven't polluted my mind with German Philosophy and gave up on religious thinking a long time ago. Plus I have the advantage of many decades of other people's reasoning that they did not have.

Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
Interesting:
Now if it can be done clean THEN it would be sensible to use Change instead of time. - Eth


As if time is fine. Change is fine too. As if change is offering a choice more appealing than time if freed from dependence.

I believe you see an appeal (of preference), if choice were possible, that change offers. That time does not offer or possess.

What is this appeal? One closer to human nature? One that liberates the maths or (assumed) paradoxes instead of incumbering the maths?

Will you ever tell us?*

*(When you obtain your future Inspectorship #1764 status)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
So it looks like we're back to math. In other WORDS you can't really discuss physics with people who are not familiar with the math behind the words.

You mean, like you - a self confessed math illiterate?
Absolutely. Unlike you I admit this, which is why I am careful to use references when I have something to say.
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2011
okay hush1, I cleaned up the cereal mess, might be a good idea to get a new mop.

SCHRODINGERS CAT IS AN ANALOGY.

It was a thought experiment. Einstein and his peers often engaged in these to promote research into fundamental physics.

you can't really discuss physics with people who are not familiar with the math behind the words.

So you alienate significant parts of society because you seem no more authoritative that a lay preacher. You stand there saying 'just believe me' because I know better but cant explain because you people are not among the chosen ones.

as time is defined by change

Perversely twisted. Try instead 'change is defined by Time".

LivaN, Your questions earlier - 'given the unknowns are possibly infinite, how do you go about reconciling them without concluding they don't exist?' and 'How do the infinite unknowable's impact you aside from a philosophical standpoint?' - deserve more than a glib response, perhaps some other time.
Deesky
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2011
Absolutely. Unlike you I admit this, which is why I am careful to use references when I have something to say

Except that you cannot possibly know which references are worthy and which aren't. Math can be used to describe the physical, the physically theoretical and the unphysical.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
In what instance is there time without change? - LivaN


Are we allow to guess? (No worries, not asking permission)
When T=0? In a dimension labeled the zero dimension?
Ethelred
2.8 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2011
In what instance is there time without change?
Here we go again. Well we could go the frozen chicken route.

In what instance is there change without time?

Change however can be identified without time
Really. Be the first. Identification occurs within space-time.

though it cannot be so without at least one dimension which may inevitably be a time like dimension
That is time as opposed to change. I said that already myself. A time-like ordered series. You can't do it with a change-like order. Which is just replacing time with time-like except in the Wheeler model where that is what time is. A time-like order of quantum states.

I do not wish to replace time with change
That is what the discussion has been about. So why are arguing with me instead of CHollman82?

Time is part of a property of the Universe, The whole property is space-time. All change occurs within space-time. To have change you MUST have both time and space for the change to occur in.

Ethelred
LivaN
5 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
bluehigh
Try instead 'change is defined by Time".

Hmm...but in a two dimensional space, one lacking a time like dimension, there will still be a change between various locations along the two remaining dimensions. Change is defined by space OR time is more appropriate in my opinion.
Time however cannot exist without change. Take the three dimensional spacetime. Up is representing time dimension. It is necessary for a change in location from one point to the next. How can you move from one location to the next, if the next location is not changed from the proceeding one?
bluehigh
deserve more than a glib response, perhaps some other time.

Cool, I would like to have that conversation some time. I agree it would needs more time either of us has right now.
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 29, 2011
Time is part of a property of the Universe .. To have change you MUST have both time and space for the change to occur in.


Correct and undeniable in any logically reasonable reality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
This is funny
So you alienate significant parts of society because you seem no more authoritative that a lay preacher. You stand there saying 'just believe me' because I know better but cant explain because you people are not among the chosen ones.
So... You're being petulant because you can't do science like the big guys? You feel inferior to people who know more than you and you resent this?? Ahaaahaha! You're a religionist as I recall. Yes? You believe everybody can do physics in heaven I bet.

Physics came up with the cat analogy not to assist them in doing physics, but to show the dweebs how complicated their work is. "What Dr zhivago you're saying the cat is both alive AND dead?? But how can that be?" "Nevertheless my dear this is what our numbers tell us." "But that damn fool bomb will never go off and I've been blowing things up all my life!" "No? Watch this..."

It's kind of like the vicar trying to explain the trinity to you. Only physics is real.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2011
Tell me which you disagree with:

1. All measurements of time require change.

2. If no change occurs time cannot be measured.

3. Time can only be perceived by measuring it, which can only occur with change... therefore time cannot be perceived without change.

4. If all change ceases, it will never begin again... for a spontaneous change in a static universe would be fundamentally unexplainable.

4. If something cannot ever be perceived (fundamentally), it's existence is equivalent to it's non-existence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
Time however cannot exist without change. Take the three dimensional spacetime. Up is representing time dimension. It is necessary for a change in location from one point to the next. How can you move from one location to the next, if the next location is not changed from the proceeding one?
See if scientists were having this discussion, one of them would be standing at a whiteboard writing out some equations critical to his hypothesis. Others would be suggesting changes and substitutions and they would be doing this using words as shortcuts for variables and standard equations which they assume everyone is familiar with.

They would be resolving these issues in 2 minutes which you guys spend hours bickering over and getting nowhere with, because they're properly doing it with math and you're not.

If the people here who are math and science-illiterate had at least the proper appreciation for this, they would be asking a lot more questions and supplying refs of their own.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2011
Time however cannot exist without change. Take the three dimensional spacetime. Up is representing time dimension. It is necessary for a change in location from one point to the next. How can you move from one location to the next, if the next location is not changed from the proceeding one?
See if scientists were having this discussion, one of them would be standing at a whiteboard writing out some equations critical to his hypothesis. Others would be suggesting changes substitutions and they would be doing this words as shortcuts for variables and standard equations which they assume everyone is familiar with.


Except change and time are synonyms so if all you do is replace T for C in the equations the result comes out the same... Know how I know? Because time is ALWAYS in terms of change. I have said this how many times now and you have failed to address it...

TIME IS ALWAYS IN TERMS OF CHANGE.

Again, it is two sides of the same coin.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
The bachelor time did fine and booked success. (Newtonian)
The wedded time did fine and booked success. (Einsteinian)
And change, the child, long before illegitimate, to stand legitimately alone now?
Sorry. I needed an excuse for my new mop. :) Barf here ->
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
There ARE people who are trained in trying to explain physics to 'laypersons'. Lawrence Krause is one of them.
http://www.youtub...a_player
It takes a considerable amount of training, experience, and patience to do even this. And tact.
Correct and undeniable in any logically reasonable reality.

TIME IS ALWAYS IN TERMS OF CHANGE.
How could you possibly know? Physics is often illogical and unreasonable, as in relativity or quantum physics. CH was given specific examples where this is not so and yet continues to display his... lack.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
I thought it wasn't that space-time governs matter, but that the relative interactions between matter particles affect each other, and this dynamic is merely described as (or emerges as) space-time. Would this idea necessitate a long distance "graviton" particle?

Since there are problems with that (can't renormalize graviton interactions in the Feynman diagrams - http://en.wikiped...lization ), doesn't this mean that we can't yet know the answer to this time/change argument?

(If I'm way off base, just ignore me. I'm just trying to mediate; you don't have to take time on me.)
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2011
@Otto(the bus driver man),

- Its very late here and my comment was not about me or you, rather I was suggesting that the idea of physics being only explainable through advanced math causes a disassociation with the general public and is an arrogance that causes resentment.

'You're being petulant because you can't do science like the big guys?'

- my employer would likely disagree with you. I DO science for a living (and in my view quite a good living thanks).

'You feel inferior to people who know more than you and you resent this??'

- Hardly. Its the perception of science in the community that bothers me and pronouncing 'we cant explain unless you know the Math' is unhelpful. I know this because part of my role(s) involves community forums.

'You're a religionist as I recall'

That is just silly. I don't know if God does or does not exist and the last time I attended church (for an Easter service) it burned down the next day.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
Except change and time are synonyms
...
...do science for a living. Well THAT'S embarrassing ( for you). Ever notice how some people who are competent in certain specific disciplines get the mistaken impression that this makes them competent in others?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
Only physics is real.


How do you feel?

CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (13) Sep 29, 2011
Except change and time are synonyms
...


Neither is defined without the other. They are codependent, they describe each other, they are two ways to discuss the same exact physical phenomena.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2011
CH was given specific examples where this is not so and yet continues to display his... lack.


NO you have NOT given me any example of time defined independent of change... all you've done is failed to understand what change means.

Give me a unit of time that does not depend on change, do it right now, you've been skirting this for long enough.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (12) Sep 29, 2011
Tell me which you disagree with:

1. All measurements of time require change.

2. If no change occurs time cannot be measured.

3. Time can only be perceived by measuring it, which can only occur with change... therefore time cannot be perceived without change.

4. If all change ceases, it will never begin again... for a spontaneous change in a static universe would be fundamentally unexplainable.

5. If something cannot ever be perceived (fundamentally), it's existence is equivalent to it's non-existence.


No one is going to answer... as usual.

Just like no one can give me a unit of time that does reference, and therefore depend on, physical change.

Instead you post silly bullshit about word salad and chickens and mopping up barf and play with the juvenile rating system.

Bunch of fucking children or weirdos in here.
bluehigh
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2011
Ever notice how some people who are competent in certain specific disciplines get the mistaken impression that this makes them competent in others?


Yep, I have. For example Deesky and CHollman are expert wankers that think they know something about Physics.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
Ever notice how some people who are competent in certain specific disciplines get the mistaken impression that this makes them competent in others?


Yep, I have. For example Deesky and CHollman are expert wankers that think they know something about Physics.
...
- Hardly. Its the perception of science in the community that bothers me and pronouncing 'we cant explain unless you know the Math' is unhelpful. I know this because part of my role(s) involves community forums.
This is why doctors take courses in how to politely but firmly explain to patients that they need to let doctors make medical decisions for them. Scientists don't nOrmally interact with the public. That's what people like Krause are for.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
Give me a unit of time that does not depend on change


Vendicar had one (if I remember correctly) that specifically required no change, would apply to you at any time, and was likely a reflection of your character.

a nanoTard

Though, if you practice hard you could grow up to be a MegaTard.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
@Otto, watch the road you nearly knocked over that stop sign.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2011
Give me a unit of time that does not depend on change


Vendicar had one (if I remember correctly) that specifically required no change, would apply to you at any time, and was likely a reflection of your character.

a nanoTard

Though, if you practice hard you could grow up to be a MegaTard.



More deflecting.

Of course no one can provide answers to the questions I am asking that lead one to my conclusion... I am not surprised. This has become childish.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2011
You can give me all the ones you want I don't give a damn about the juvenile ratings, the fact is, which no one has even bothered to address, that all references to time and the passage of time are in terms of physical change.

How do I know that time depends on change to be meaningful? Because the only way to refer to a quantity of time is as a direct or indirect comparison to physical change.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
@CH -
In fact there was a physorg article recently referencing a publication in the journal Nature that says exactly the same thing I am saying, that time is not real, but a concept used to measure change... I'll see if I can dig it up.

AHHHHH!!!! Another frozen chicken!!! See Gawad!!! It wasn't just me. Sorli's affliction was contagious.

This was in Physics Essays not Nature. Is it the same paper?
http://www.physor...ion.html


Yup. Definitely FCS (Frozen Chicken Syndrome). I'm firing off an e-mail to the CDC this very minute! ;^)
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
CH, I apologize for not being explicit enough.
Spacetime requires reference points to be meaningful. None of the 3 and 1 dimensions can be measured without change. Everything is relative, meaning you need to have a differentiated observation point from which to make observations.

In response to your 5:

1. All 3 and 1 dimensions require change to be measured.
2. If no change occurs nothing can be measured.
3. Nothing can be perceived without change.
4. Static universes are boring. Nothing ever happens there. why are we talking about them? Philo BS.
5. Perception is reality? I think everybody agrees that if something can never be perceived then its existence is meaningless.

Basically, you are elevating time to a special place for the wrong reasons. The specialness of time is our inability to move in any direction but forward. This is special. Eth resists replacing time with change because it adds no value. Otto is arguing to argue. BH and CH are grumpy. Me, I'm having fun.
CHollman82
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 29, 2011
Juvenile nonsense...

No one can give me a single instance/measurement/quantity/description of time that does not reference physical change, and most people are simply ignoring this. That's all the proof I need that there's something to this idea.

Enjoy acting like children.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2011
That was in response to Gawad, not you Pyle
Pyle
1 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
Oops. Nm what I was going to write here.
CHollman82
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 29, 2011
CH, I apologize for not being explicit enough.
Spacetime requires reference points to be meaningful. None of the 3 and 1 dimensions can be measured without change. Everything is relative, meaning you need to have a differentiated observation point from which to make observations.

In response to your 5:

...

Basically, you are elevating time to a special place for the wrong reasons. The specialness of time is our inability to move in any direction but forward. This is special. Eth resists replacing time with change because it adds no value. Otto is arguing to argue. BH and CH are grumpy. Me, I'm having fun


I like this response, this is a good place to end this. I still think that both views are equally valid are a matter of perspective alone.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
@Livawurst
In what instance is there time without change?
As you recall, you said
Defining time independent of SOME variables does not define time independent of change. I believe CHs claim was that time cannot be defined independent of change.
-To which I need only point out, that one need not assume the presence of ALL possible change, to show that time can exist independent of CHANGE in the form of the variables I referred to.

I referenced an equation which showed that time is independent of some types of change. It is up to you to show that it is not independent of other types, in order for you to show that time cannot exist without change.

Can you do that? If so, it would be an easy way of ending this discussion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
"For instance, time and distance are related to each other by the speed of light, c, which is a fundamental constant. It is possible to use this relationship to eliminate either the fundamental unit of time or that of distance. Similar considerations apply to Planck's constant, h, which relates energy (with dimensions of mass, length and time) to frequency (dimensions of time). In theoretical physics it is customary to use such units (natural units) in which c = 1 and ?? = 1.

"Slightly different considerations apply to the so-called permittivity of free space, which historically has been regarded as a separate physical constant in some systems of measurement but not in others.

In the SI system, there are seven fundamental units: kilogram, meter, candela, second, ampere, kelvin, and mole.

"In theory, a system of fundamental quantities (or sometimes fundamental dimensions) would be such that every other physical quantity (or dimension of physical quantity) can be generated from them."
Pyle
1 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
Otto, let's try an analogy.

CH has a bag of M&M's.
CH says "In order to know how many there are you have to count them."
Otto says, "What if the bag has no red M&M's? Then you don't have to count the red ones. Therefore you don't have to count the M&M's to know how many there are in the bag."

Silly I know. Otto, what CH is looking for is an alternative method of measuring time. In my analogy, if you weighed the bag instead you could estimate the number of M&M's without counting them. CH just wants anyone to give a way to "weigh" time without using change. I agree with him, it can't be done. But I think it is a silly argument to be having because everything is dependent on change / the universe not being static and uniform. We should all move on.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
The article then includes ways of eliminating ALL the variables of change, one at a time, and thus concludes:

"That leaves every physical quantity expressed simply as a dimensionless number, so it is not surprising that there are also physicists who have cast doubt on the very existence of incompatible fundamental quantities."

ERGO, time exists as a fundamental unit whether there are any other 'change' variables present or not.
http://en.wikiped...tal_unit

DISPUTE THIS.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2011
CH has a bag of M&M's.
CH says "In order to know how many there are you have to count them."
Sorry I dont get this at all. I think that if CH didnt have enough fingers to count his candy on, otto would merely suggest that since a single M&M weighs so much, then you could weigh the bag and do the math.

But since CH doesnt know math he would just stomp his feet and hold his breath and claim that otto was trying to steal his candy.

This is not science.
Gawad
not rated yet Sep 29, 2011
God for example seems to be fundamentally undetectable and yet there are very practical differences in equating Gods existence or non-existence to - ah, lets say 3 billion people.

But that's not God. That's only their idea of God in their head. Or rather, when you write "God for example seems to be fundamentally undetectable" this refers to the existence (or lack thereof) of a creator for our universe and its level of apparent scientific detectability (zero). When you write "yet there are very practical differences in equating Gods existence or non-existence to - ah, lets say 3 billion people" that may be so, IN THEIR HEADS, and that's precisely the problem: the latter statement involves only their idea of a god in their head. This is different from and independent of whether or not the universe is actually created.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Sep 29, 2011
That makes no sense. God interacts with billions of people.
Aye, that's the rub: there's no evidence that this is so outside of their imagination.
CHollman82
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2011
CH has a bag of M&M's.
CH says "In order to know how many there are you have to count them."
Sorry I dont get this at all. I think that if CH didnt have enough fingers to count his candy on, otto would merely suggest that since a single M&M weighs so much, then you could weigh the bag and do the math.

But since CH doesnt know math he would just stomp his feet and hold his breath and claim that otto was trying to steal his candy.

This is not science.


No, it's you acting like a petulant child...

Thanks for trying Pyle.
hush1
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2011
Yes. I had fun too. Thks everyone.

Nature tells me she doesn't use what we label numbers. She said beyond the two body problem, our numbers for motion and/or change take forever and she just doesn't have the time. :)
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
That was in response to Gawad, not you Pyle

Thanks Mr. Hollman. But I'd like to point out that my juvi quip was in response to Pyle's own juvi comment, which I should add, I thought was a very appropriate wink to a whale of a thread we quite enjoyed at the expense of a half baked "scientist".

Now, FWIW, I happen to agree with you that there's no terribly useful way of quantifying time other than as a measure of change in a physical system. But I also think defining time as a measure of change is "second order" at best. You touch on what I think is a much better approach when you write that "what is real is matter and energy". S_H did as well when he suggested imagining a static universe (hint: what's missingmomentarilyin a "static" universe). Somebody else (was it Pyle or Deesky?) also kind of bumped into it when they brought up what the minimum conditions would be to meaningfully talk about space (at least TWO particles-an "empty" universe is no universe at all).
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
So, more fundamental than "change", IMO, it's useful to think of TIME as an overall manifestation of conservation of energy. We EXPERIENCE this as change. (Note that the ARROW of time constitutes a distinct problem.) If you were to imagine a completely static universe, i.e., a timeless universe, what you would actually have a universe with matter & other particles but without any energy whatsoever. In the same vein, bring all particles, real and virtual, in a universe together to a single point (i.e. force them to share quantum numbers for position) and you completely lose any notion of SPACE.

IOW, I've accepted space-time as EMERGENT from mass/energy (and in a sense matter). That doesn't mean it's not subject to distortion à la SR and GR. On the contrary. IMO it's precisely because it's emergent from mass/energy that it's subject to distortion from these. (Also, note that while Eth is right that they've been unified since SR, time is still treated differently in the S-T interval.)
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2011
I've accepted space-time as EMERGENT from mass/energy (and in a sense matter). That doesn't mean it's not subject to distortion la SR and GR. On the contrary. IMO it's precisely because it's emergent from mass/energy that it's subject to distortion from these.


If only I could express myself this well. oh well :)

This is my understanding, 'mathless' as it is. (well, i used to know all the physics 101 formulas, fwiw *notmuch*)

This is where, as good as he is, Ethelred might have it wrong. He's trying to elevate space-time itself to "thinghood" and I just don't get that. I've heard it many times, and it might be true, but if it were, space-time would be "more (?)" real than matter, and since all this physics stuff is learning from our perspective, I don't see how that helps us. Easier calcs? The only way we have to do em? You might as well call it the ether if your going to elevate space-time above the matter and energy. But, I'm talking out my ass, so whatev
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2011
The article then includes ways of eliminating ALL the variables of change, one at a time, and thus concludes:

"That leaves every physical quantity expressed simply as a dimensionless number, so it is not surprising that there are also physicists who have cast doubt on the very existence of incompatible fundamental quantities."

ERGO, time exists as a fundamental unit whether there are any other 'change' variables present or not.
http://en.wikiped...tal_unit

DISPUTE THIS.
ANYBODY?? Except the Hollowhead
if your going to elevate space-time above the matter and energy.
Define 'elevate' and 'above' in quantifiable physics terms; ie with math. Assign variables to the terms 'space-time' 'matter' and 'energy' with which they can be 'value-rated' in terms of ??? Anything??
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
if your going to elevate space-time above the matter and energy.
Define 'elevate' and 'above' in quantifiable physics terms; ie with math. Assign variables to the terms 'space-time' 'matter' and 'energy' with which they can be 'value-rated' in terms of ??? Anything??


The terms and variables themselves are based on what we are talking about here. You are essentially asking me to come up with a GUT equation(s). Sorry, I'm not that ambitious. I do, however, enjoy reading and discussing these things, with words, because that has value to me. We aren't scientists here. I get your disdain for confidence from laymen, I really do, but I think many of us are operating on the premise that these are all barely theories in our minds. Whether you like the fuzziness or not, some of us are actually learning things with these "worthless" words of ours. We aren't after proofs. We're after a slightly less vague understanding. Enough for you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2011
Enough for you?
Well not really skulch. I mean you guys can have your fun and all that as do I, and I can tell you have the same kind of respect for science that I do.

But if you look back up this thread and others you see Religionists and philosophers who do not. You see people who do resent science because they don't understand it, and think they ought to, and proceed to try to preach their versions of it here.

I don't understand most of it, and I know why, and so I'm fine with that. I think that message is important enough to share with you all. I think the proper understanding of how science is done is a good way of protecting it from detractors.

The cheap hollowhead shot was directed at mr hollman. Do I feel remorseful about that? Naw-
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2011
Juvenile nonsense...

No one can give me a single instance/measurement/quantity/description of time that does not reference physical change, and most people are simply ignoring this. That's all the proof I need that there's something to this idea.

Enjoy acting like children.

From someone who leveled comments of being British or being gay at posters for using a common expression like "word salad" (i.e., throw some fancy words together, toss and think you've come up with something substantial)...that's pretty rich, Mr. Hollman.
Skultch
3 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2011
You've certainly opened my eyes to their subtle tactics, Otto. But, much like the scientists that use words with their colleagues because of a common understanding of the underlying math, I was going on an analogous assumption the past few days when it was apparent that the cranks and whatnot stopped posting on this thread. I'm a little bit weary from the battle from time to time. I sorta envy guys like you with seemingly infinite stamina.
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2011
I sorta envy guys like you with seemingly infinite stamina.
It's called crazy Skultch. I might have some extra if you want some.
Skultch
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2011
I sorta envy guys like you with seemingly infinite stamina.
It's called crazy Skultch. I might have some extra if you want some.


haha No thanks. Plenty here. Hiding the crazy is precisely what makes me weary.
Gawad
not rated yet Sep 30, 2011
The article then includes ways of eliminating ALL the variables of change, one at a time, and thus concludes:

"That leaves every physical quantity expressed simply as a dimensionless number, so it is not surprising that there are also physicists who have cast doubt on the very existence of incompatible fundamental quantities."

ERGO, time exists as a fundamental unit whether there are any other 'change' variables present or not.
http://en.wikiped...tal_unit

DISPUTE THIS.
ANYBODY?? Except the Hollowhead
if your going to elevate space-time above the matter and energy.
Define 'elevate' and 'above' in quantifiable physics terms; ie with math. Assign variables to the terms 'space-time' 'matter' and 'energy' with which they can be 'value-rated' in terms of??? Anything??
Hi Otto, I'm not sure how to take this request as an answer is rigth on the page you link to. (The fundamental constant c allows you to eliminate S or T, so how fundamental can they be?)
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2011
Also, one other slight objection: that page you linked to is about fundamental units, but the Time v. Change part of this thread seems to hinge mone on the question of what constitutes fundamental properties (I realize the tow can overlap, though).

Also, sorry I was late to the party. As far as the primary topic of this thread, it is utter bullshit that science and religion MIX. Such a mixture is always toxic. That isn't to say however that scientific and spiritual or even outright religious ideas can't occupy the same brain, they certainly can and do for a number of people. But even in those individuals it can only be problematic when each is not kept confined to its own domain.

I worked with churchgoing researchers who produced excellent science...but the only ones who did were the ones who kept their spiritual beliefs out of their work. And I use "spiritual" in a very broad sense as religious beliefs are hardly the only ones based on non-evidence based thinking.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2011
Mirror, mirror on the..
Yes, yes, what now?
Who is the wisest of all?

The wisest of all are the dreamers who's number of dreams outpace the same dreams destroy by reality.
The wise are all extinct now.

Why are you waving that hammer at me?

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2011
Also, sorry I was late to the party. As far as the primary topic of this thread, it is utter bullshit that science and religion MIX.
You bet. They are mutually exclusive.
Also, one other slight objection: that page you linked to is about fundamental units, but the Time v. Change part of this thread seems to hinge mone on the question of what constitutes fundamental properties (I realize the tow can overlap, though).
I thought it provided a good perspective on how science addresses these fundamental 'things'. Also the conflict was over the notion of whether time requires 'change' in order to exist; put forth by the asstute mr hollman. It seemed to me that the wiki article made the argument scientifically that time could and did operate independently of all the variables listed, but I was not sure of this.

I also objected to the word 'change' as it was unqualified.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2011
Why are you waving that hammer at me?

Because, Hush, sommetimes that funny knob on top of your shoulders really makes you look like a nail!