Concept of Infinity

[swoleupinya]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.[/quote]

If you show that there is an inherent gap in scientific understanding, a “god of the gap” makes pretty good sense IMHO.[/quote]

That’s not, God of gaps is a terrible argument. It might have been fine for cave men, but it will never survive scrutiny. I actually am not sure how he drew the conclusion of the God of gaps.[/quote]

You’re the one claiming that your god is of the natural world.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.[/quote]

If you show that there is an inherent gap in scientific understanding, a “god of the gap” makes pretty good sense IMHO.[/quote]

Except that it consistently is disproved by further investigation.

Anyway, it is reasonable to argue that the only gap that really exists in quantum mechanics is that of human discomfort with the concept. [/quote]

No, there are big gaps in quantum. But inherent gaps in the understanding of science is what I’m discussing. INHERENT. Science never fully answers the question “why?” It cannot by definition. The only thing it ever “reduces” is the terms used to discus the “god gap”.

For example.
Originally people didn’t understand lightning, so they said god(s) did it.

Now, because of science we know lightning is composed of electrons in a cloud attracted by a positive charge on the ground. And that when the voltage is sufficient the electrons jump to the ground charge.

BUT that never really answers the same question the “god did it” belief does. Now I simply have to ask, why are electrons attracted to protons? The gap in understanding is still there.

Great, you figured out how gravity works, but why gravity in the first place?

Science doesn’t fill in those gaps. They are still there, the terms are just different.[/quote]

Hmm… I disagree, and to a degree I think you’ve proved my point. The example of lighting does so quite well in fact.

To me, it is more plausible that we will continue to better understand the universe than it is that we will ever prove the existence of or understand a god. This is why I find reliance on theology, mysticism, spirituality or any other superstition to shape your world view to be foolish.

Could there be a god? Sure.

Does anyone have the answer to this question and also understand the nature of such an entity? I can say with almost 100% certainty, “no.”[/quote]

I agree with pretty much all of what you said. I never claimed otherwise on any of those points. BUT science never actually closes any of the “god gaps”. In my opinion it’s still a viable theory.

Edit: Lets see if I can state my point more clearly. Science attempts to model and describe the way the universe is. It is a reaction or description of what already is. As such, it can never close the gaps that are “pre-system”. At root ALL “why questions” are external questions. Science can’t close those gaps because they are beyond science defined scope.

[pat]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.[/quote]

If you show that there is an inherent gap in scientific understanding, a “god of the gap” makes pretty good sense IMHO.[/quote]

That’s not, God of gaps is a terrible argument. It might have been fine for cave men, but it will never survive scrutiny. I actually am not sure how he drew the conclusion of the God of gaps.[/quote]

You’re the one claiming that your god is of the natural world. [/quote]

Natural world? No I claimed that believing there is nothing "super"natural about God’s existence. That’s not a demotion, that I don’t believe it to be extraordinary. I believe it to be a simple fact, like the speed of light.

[DoubleDuce]

Okay, swoleupinya, I challenge you to show me how science has closed the gap of why things fall.

I claim god makes things fall. Prove me wrong.

[pat]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
The “uncaused cause” and the “transition point between the physical and the metaphysical”[/quote]

…are two different things. I never said God fills a quantum gap. Metaphysics is a vast well of stuff. There are plenty of professors and such who work in metaphysics and are atheists. Metaphysics does not presume an assumption of God’s existence.
Math for instance, is a metaphysical construct. We represent math with symbols or material things, but the concepts do not exist in the physical world. You cannot sense it with any of your senses and its not made of anything. It’s a concept. Actually, it’s just plain deductive logic, where the equal symbol indicates a conclusion.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.[/quote]

If you show that there is an inherent gap in scientific understanding, a “god of the gap” makes pretty good sense IMHO.[/quote]

That’s not, God of gaps is a terrible argument. It might have been fine for cave men, but it will never survive scrutiny. I actually am not sure how he drew the conclusion of the God of gaps.[/quote]

You’re the one claiming that your god is of the natural world. [/quote]

Natural world? No I claimed that believing there is nothing "super"natural about God’s existence. That’s not a demotion, that I don’t believe it to be extraordinary. I believe it to be a simple fact, like the speed of light. [/quote]

I’m not sure I understand the distinction.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Ahhhh… okay. So, you’re of the “god of the gap” ilk? I take it back. I have heard this before… honestly, it was just so ridiculous that I didn’t imagine it coming from you.[/quote]

If you show that there is an inherent gap in scientific understanding, a “god of the gap” makes pretty good sense IMHO.[/quote]

Except that it consistently is disproved by further investigation.

Anyway, it is reasonable to argue that the only gap that really exists in quantum mechanics is that of human discomfort with the concept. [/quote]

No, there are big gaps in quantum. But inherent gaps in the understanding of science is what I’m discussing. INHERENT. Science never fully answers the question “why?” It cannot by definition. The only thing it ever “reduces” is the terms used to discus the “god gap”.

For example.
Originally people didn’t understand lightning, so they said god(s) did it.

Now, because of science we know lightning is composed of electrons in a cloud attracted by a positive charge on the ground. And that when the voltage is sufficient the electrons jump to the ground charge.

BUT that never really answers the same question the “god did it” belief does. Now I simply have to ask, why are electrons attracted to protons? The gap in understanding is still there.

Great, you figured out how gravity works, but why gravity in the first place?

Science doesn’t fill in those gaps. They are still there, the terms are just different.[/quote]

Hmm… I disagree, and to a degree I think you’ve proved my point. The example of lighting does so quite well in fact.

To me, it is more plausible that we will continue to better understand the universe than it is that we will ever prove the existence of or understand a god. This is why I find reliance on theology, mysticism, spirituality or any other superstition to shape your world view to be foolish.

Could there be a god? Sure.

Does anyone have the answer to this question and also understand the nature of such an entity? I can say with almost 100% certainty, “no.”[/quote]

I agree with pretty much all of what you said. I never claimed otherwise on any of those points. BUT science never actually closes any of the “god gaps”. In my opinion it’s still a viable theory.

Edit: Lets see if I can state my point more clearly. Science attempts to model and describe the way the universe is. It is a reaction or description of what already is. As such, it can never close the gaps that are “pre-system”. At root ALL “why questions” are external questions. Science can’t close those gaps because they are beyond science defined scope.[/quote]

You’re setting yourself against most of modern cosmology, astrophysics and particle physics… but that’s your choice.

I think it’s more plausible that science and reason will close those gaps than that there is a god that fits them.

[pat]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, swoleupinya, I challenge you to show me how science has closed the gap of why things fall.

I claim god makes things fall. Prove me wrong.[/quote]

Interesting. I wanna see how this goes.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

Prove your body exists, then. Make the argument and I will then happily destroy it.[/quote]

If, at one point in time, we shake hands; would that prove my body exists?

You can thing the mind-body problem does not exist, your entitled to that, but believing it and it being true are not the same thing. You simply don’t understand it, that is all. I did spend a great deal of time in formal education on the matter, so I do have that advantage. I am not really sure how to explain it so you understand it. It is a complicated thing to get and I could write pages and pages on it, but I will spare you. Unlike Des Cartes I don’t think the mind and body are separate in the same way that the mind exists independently of the body. That’s one of the reasons why I said he was wrong. But the objects, or subject of thoughts do exist independently. For instance, think about this if nobody discovered Calculus, would it exist? The answer is of course, yes, can you tell me why?

Why do you say “discovered” instead of “invented”?

If you had said “radiowaves” instead of calculus, i’d had an easier time agreeing that radiowaves existed before they were discovered, but calculus? I don’t know, i can’t answer that question.

If you warm yourself on a fire, is the warmth separate from the fire, from the flames, or from the wood that’s burning? Or is it an integral part of the whole?

I’m not sure where you’re going with this, but my interest is piqued.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Prove your body exists, then. Make the argument and I will then happily destroy it.[/quote]

If, at one point in time, we shake hands; would that prove my body exists?

You can thing the mind-body problem does not exist, your entitled to that, but believing it and it being true are not the same thing. You simply don’t understand it, that is all. I did spend a great deal of time in formal education on the matter, so I do have that advantage. I am not really sure how to explain it so you understand it. It is a complicated thing to get and I could write pages and pages on it, but I will spare you. Unlike Des Cartes I don’t think the mind and body are separate in the same way that the mind exists independently of the body. That’s one of the reasons why I said he was wrong. But the objects, or subject of thoughts do exist independently. For instance, think about this if nobody discovered Calculus, would it exist? The answer is of course, yes, can you tell me why?

Why do you say “discovered” instead of “invented”?

If you had said “radiowaves” instead of calculus, i’d had an easier time agreeing that radiowaves existed before they were discovered, but calculus? I don’t know, i can’t answer that question.

If you warm yourself on a fire, is the warmth separate from the fire, from the flames, or from the wood that’s burning? Or is it an integral part of the whole?

I’m not sure where you’re going with this, but my interest is piqued.
[/quote]

Is 2+2 4 even if man never was? Man doesn’t validate math, the universe does.

[ephrem]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Prove your body exists, then. Make the argument and I will then happily destroy it.[/quote]

If, at one point in time, we shake hands; would that prove my body exists?

You can thing the mind-body problem does not exist, your entitled to that, but believing it and it being true are not the same thing. You simply don’t understand it, that is all. I did spend a great deal of time in formal education on the matter, so I do have that advantage. I am not really sure how to explain it so you understand it. It is a complicated thing to get and I could write pages and pages on it, but I will spare you. Unlike Des Cartes I don’t think the mind and body are separate in the same way that the mind exists independently of the body. That’s one of the reasons why I said he was wrong. But the objects, or subject of thoughts do exist independently. For instance, think about this if nobody discovered Calculus, would it exist? The answer is of course, yes, can you tell me why?

Why do you say “discovered” instead of “invented”?

If you had said “radiowaves” instead of calculus, i’d had an easier time agreeing that radiowaves existed before they were discovered, but calculus? I don’t know, i can’t answer that question.

If you warm yourself on a fire, is the warmth separate from the fire, from the flames, or from the wood that’s burning? Or is it an integral part of the whole?

I’m not sure where you’re going with this, but my interest is piqued.
[/quote]

Is 2+2 4 even if man never was? Man doesn’t validate math, the universe does.[/quote]

But how does that even make pat’s point? IOW, so what?

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Prove your body exists, then. Make the argument and I will then happily destroy it.[/quote]

If, at one point in time, we shake hands; would that prove my body exists?

You can thing the mind-body problem does not exist, your entitled to that, but believing it and it being true are not the same thing. You simply don’t understand it, that is all. I did spend a great deal of time in formal education on the matter, so I do have that advantage. I am not really sure how to explain it so you understand it. It is a complicated thing to get and I could write pages and pages on it, but I will spare you. Unlike Des Cartes I don’t think the mind and body are separate in the same way that the mind exists independently of the body. That’s one of the reasons why I said he was wrong. But the objects, or subject of thoughts do exist independently. For instance, think about this if nobody discovered Calculus, would it exist? The answer is of course, yes, can you tell me why?

Why do you say “discovered” instead of “invented”?

If you had said “radiowaves” instead of calculus, i’d had an easier time agreeing that radiowaves existed before they were discovered, but calculus? I don’t know, i can’t answer that question.

If you warm yourself on a fire, is the warmth separate from the fire, from the flames, or from the wood that’s burning? Or is it an integral part of the whole?

I’m not sure where you’re going with this, but my interest is piqued.
[/quote]

Is 2+2 4 even if man never was? Man doesn’t validate math, the universe does.[/quote]

But how does that even make pat’s point? IOW, so what?
[/quote]

Well it does at least partially. 2+2 would still equal 4 whether man exists or not. Can you think of a circumstance where it would not?

I will get back to this gotta run for now…

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, swoleupinya, I challenge you to show me how science has closed the gap of why things fall.

I claim god makes things fall. Prove me wrong.[/quote]

A claim isn’t deserving of disproof, and I like to think of you as smart enough not to make such a lame challenge.

As for why things fall:
Newtonian mechanics do a pretty good job of governing the terrestrial effects of gravity. You could also look to some Einstein for a grander scale… of course, there are also emergent theories related to thermodynamics that are being considered. I don’t claim to know shit about them, though.

I suspect that I know where this exercise is going, but I’ll let you have your fun.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Prove your body exists, then. Make the argument and I will then happily destroy it.[/quote]

If, at one point in time, we shake hands; would that prove my body exists?

You can thing the mind-body problem does not exist, your entitled to that, but believing it and it being true are not the same thing. You simply don’t understand it, that is all. I did spend a great deal of time in formal education on the matter, so I do have that advantage. I am not really sure how to explain it so you understand it. It is a complicated thing to get and I could write pages and pages on it, but I will spare you. Unlike Des Cartes I don’t think the mind and body are separate in the same way that the mind exists independently of the body. That’s one of the reasons why I said he was wrong. But the objects, or subject of thoughts do exist independently. For instance, think about this if nobody discovered Calculus, would it exist? The answer is of course, yes, can you tell me why?

Why do you say “discovered” instead of “invented”?

If you had said “radiowaves” instead of calculus, i’d had an easier time agreeing that radiowaves existed before they were discovered, but calculus? I don’t know, i can’t answer that question.

If you warm yourself on a fire, is the warmth separate from the fire, from the flames, or from the wood that’s burning? Or is it an integral part of the whole?

I’m not sure where you’re going with this, but my interest is piqued.
[/quote]

Is 2+2 4 even if man never was? Man doesn’t validate math, the universe does.[/quote]

But how does that even make pat’s point? IOW, so what?
[/quote]

Well it does at least partially. 2+2 would still equal 4 whether man exists or not. Can you think of a circumstance where it would not?

I will get back to this gotta run for now…[/quote]

Entanglement

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Is 2+2 4 even if man never was? Man doesn’t validate math, the universe does.[/quote]

But how does that even make pat’s point? IOW, so what?

Well it does at least partially. 2+2 would still equal 4 whether man exists or not. Can you think of a circumstance where it would not?

I will get back to this gotta run for now…[/quote]

Within the context of what we were discussing pat: so what?

What are you getting at?

[Makavali]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Especially when you consider the ultra parochial perspective that the earth is the only planet in the entire universe that is populated by intelligent life. What a colossal waste of resources.[/quote]

Wow I didn’t even consider that. I was thinking about things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

It is referred to as “recurrent” because the branches of the nerve innervate the laryngeal muscles in the neck through a rather circuitous route: it descends into the thorax before rising up between the trachea and esophagus to reach the neck.

Calling it “intelligent” design is pretty ironic.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, swoleupinya, I challenge you to show me how science has closed the gap of why things fall.

I claim god makes things fall. Prove me wrong.[/quote]

A claim isn’t deserving of disproof, and I like to think of you as smart enough not to make such a lame challenge.

As for why things fall:
Newtonian mechanics do a pretty good job of governing the terrestrial effects of gravity. You could also look to some Einstein for a grander scale… of course, there are also emergent theories related to thermodynamics that are being considered. I don’t claim to know shit about them, though.

I suspect that I know where this exercise is going, but I’ll let you have your fun. [/quote]

Cop-out.

Why things fall?

First, the easiest way to show how these don’t close the god gap is to simply acknowledge that these may be the mechanisms god created to make things fall.

You left so much of the “why” intact. Why is big G big G? Why do masses attract to begin with? Or even the more general and fundamental item in that question, why things at all? To close the “gap” you have to answer show how science has solved all those things. I posed the question why things fall, and you attempted an answer by quantifying and labeling how things fall.

Because you see science is nothing more than the construction of a model. And a model by definition contains less information than the original. Science can tell me nothing about the behavior of the universe beyond what is discovered by simple observation of the universe. And in fact, the imperfection (simplification) of the scientific model is the only reason it’s useful. Perfected science is merely a duplication of the universe and entirely un-useful and pointless.

I didn’t ask for a model of falling. I asked why things fall.

But maybe this is just one of the few gaps science hasn’t closed yet. Maybe you could point me to one of the things formerly attributed to god, that science has replaced.

So, all you have done is change the question from “why things fall?”, to “why gravity?”. You simple labeled and better quantified the terminology of the question. You didn’t answer it.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, swoleupinya, I challenge you to show me how science has closed the gap of why things fall.

I claim god makes things fall. Prove me wrong.[/quote]

A claim isn’t deserving of disproof, and I like to think of you as smart enough not to make such a lame challenge.

As for why things fall:
Newtonian mechanics do a pretty good job of governing the terrestrial effects of gravity. You could also look to some Einstein for a grander scale… of course, there are also emergent theories related to thermodynamics that are being considered. I don’t claim to know shit about them, though.

I suspect that I know where this exercise is going, but I’ll let you have your fun. [/quote]

Cop-out.

Why things fall? [/quote]

Well, I hope you’re having fun with it at least.

First, the easiest way to show how these don’t close the god gap is to simply acknowledge that these may be the mechanisms god created to make things fall.

“may” be is somewhere near the bottom of a scale that tops out at “is.” In between there is “might” be and “could” be… “is likely” to be… etc…

The god of the gaps argument is ridiculous because there is no evidence to support it. It’s foundation is a LACK of evidence.

For all that, I could make the claim that the universe is a lab experiment conducted by an infinitely persisting race of hyper-intelligent turtles… Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

You left so much of the “why” intact. Why is big G big G? Why do masses attract to begin with? Or even the more general and fundamental item in that question, why things at all? To close the “gap” you have to answer show how science has solved all those things. I posed the question why things fall, and you attempted an answer by quantifying and labeling how things fall.

What you are asking for here is akin to a unification theory, and there are certainly those who think it is possible. As I mentioned in my response, there are a few physicists who are trying to establish a link between thermodynamics and gravity, and this takes us a step closer to answering your “why.”

Because you see science is nothing more than the construction of a model. And a model by definition contains less information than the original. Science can tell me nothing about the behavior of the universe beyond what is discovered by simple observation of the universe. And in fact, the imperfection (simplification) of the scientific model is the only reason it’s useful. Perfected science is merely a duplication of the universe and entirely un-useful and pointless.

So, if you are a proponent of the god of the gaps theory, then you too have developed a model. You may find this shocking, but that is the limitation of observation and cognition.

[quote] I didn’t ask for a model of falling. I asked why things fall.

But maybe this is just one of the few gaps science hasn’t closed yet. Maybe you could point me to one of the things formerly attributed to god, that science has replaced.

So, all you have done is change the question from “why things fall?”, to “why gravity?”. You simple labeled and better quantified the terminology of the question. You didn’t answer it.[/quote]

You’ve really answered your own question here. To be clear, the answer is that you must have fortitude and patience in equal parts.

To recap the most important point;

The “god of the gaps” theory is ridiculous because there is no evidence to support it. it relies on an ever-evolving lack of evidence. Feel free to buy into it, but it would just prove to me that you are weak-minded.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, swoleupinya, I challenge you to show me how science has closed the gap of why things fall.

I claim god makes things fall. Prove me wrong.[/quote]

A claim isn’t deserving of disproof, and I like to think of you as smart enough not to make such a lame challenge.

As for why things fall:
Newtonian mechanics do a pretty good job of governing the terrestrial effects of gravity. You could also look to some Einstein for a grander scale… of course, there are also emergent theories related to thermodynamics that are being considered. I don’t claim to know shit about them, though.

I suspect that I know where this exercise is going, but I’ll let you have your fun. [/quote]

Cop-out.

Why things fall? [/quote]

Well, I hope you’re having fun with it at least.

First, the easiest way to show how these don’t close the god gap is to simply acknowledge that these may be the mechanisms god created to make things fall.

“may” be is somewhere near the bottom of a scale that tops out at “is.” In between there is “might” be and “could” be… “is likely” to be… etc…

[/quote]
Nice way to scientifically address the point.

The god of the gaps argument is ridiculous because there is no evidence to support it. It’s foundation is a LACK of evidence.

OH no, this is back pedaling. YOU made the claim that science was slowly and relentlessly replacing the god of the gaps. You claimed science was proving wrong the claimed acts of god. So are you now recanting that claim? There may not be evidence, But it would be nice to prove the theory wrong in just one case.

For all that, I could make the claim that the universe is a lab experiment conducted by an infinitely persisting race of hyper-intelligent turtles… Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Once again, this isn’t about my claim. You are the one that made the initial claim that science was replacing the god of gaps. All I’m doing is forcing you to support YOUR claim.

You left so much of the “why” intact. Why is big G big G? Why do masses attract to begin with? Or even the more general and fundamental item in that question, why things at all? To close the “gap” you have to answer show how science has solved all those things. I posed the question why things fall, and you attempted an answer by quantifying and labeling how things fall.

What you are asking for here is akin to a unification theory, and there are certainly those who think it is possible. As I mentioned in my response, there are a few physicists who are trying to establish a link between thermodynamics and gravity, and this takes us a step closer to answering your “why.”

You missed the point here entirely. I was working from the premise that these theories were already complete. That whole argument still applies to a unified theory.

Because you see science is nothing more than the construction of a model. And a model by definition contains less information than the original. Science can tell me nothing about the behavior of the universe beyond what is discovered by simple observation of the universe. And in fact, the imperfection (simplification) of the scientific model is the only reason it’s useful. Perfected science is merely a duplication of the universe and entirely un-useful and pointless.

So, if you are a proponent of the god of the gaps theory, then you too have developed a model. You may find this shocking, but that is the limitation of observation and cognition.

I’m only a proponent as far as I acknowledge science and reason have yet to disprove any of it’s claims.

[quote] I didn’t ask for a model of falling. I asked why things fall.

But maybe this is just one of the few gaps science hasn’t closed yet. Maybe you could point me to one of the things formerly attributed to god, that science has replaced.

So, all you have done is change the question from “why things fall?”, to “why gravity?”. You simple labeled and better quantified the terminology of the question. You didn’t answer it.[/quote]

You’ve really answered your own question here. To be clear, the answer is that you must have fortitude and patience in equal parts.

To recap the most important point;

The “god of the gaps” theory is ridiculous because there is no evidence to support it. it relies on an ever-evolving lack of evidence. Feel free to buy into it, but it would just prove to me that you are weak-minded.

This is a change of tune. But no, it does not rely on an “evolving” lack of evidence. It relies on a logical reality that there are limits on the scope of science. There is a big difference.

There is nothing to wait for science to discover about why things fall because why things fall is not a science question. Show me a possible experiment designed to discover why, not how, things fall. It cannot scientifically be done. You cannot even ask the question using scientific principals. Because science is by definition limited to the reactionary observation of what already is.

I’m still waiting on one, just one, single, itty bitty instance where science has replaced the god of gaps.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Entanglement
[/quote]

My understanding of entanglement is that some particles share a bond where altering one affects the other. I’m not sure how that invalidates 2+2 = 4.

And my point with this was that addition exists naturally without numbers and symbols to represent them. So to does higher order math. 2+2 is four because the natural world dictates that’s the way it is, NOT because a man defined it as such. For example, calculus and the relationships between functions are like they are because that’s the was the universe is. Integral is defined be the relationship between acceleration and velocity, NOT because some guy said so. Just like PI is defined by physical natural of a circle. PI therefore was discovered, not invented. Math is what the universe says it is, not man. It exists without us.