Concept of Infinity

[kamui]

science can only answer questions beginning with “how”, not questions beginning with “why”.

that being said, that doesn’t prove the existence of God / Shiva / Odin / Xenu. and that doesn’t make it more probable.
it only proves the necessity of metaphysics.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Well… let’s see… there is the ever expanding fossil record. If you remember, the god of the gaps theory originated as a refutation of evolution. Its primary point was a lack of fossil evidence of certain transitional species.

I think I actually missed your game here, BTW. What you are posing is a prime mover theory, not a god of the gaps theory.

I wasn’t clear on your specific definition of why vs. how. Now I get it.

If we are talking about “god of the gaps,” then science has reasonably disproved many of its claims, mostly via fossil discoveries and advances in genetics. If we are talking about a prime mover theory (which seems to be what you are positing), then science has no need to disprove it.

Honestly, I think that you are conflating two different ideas. One is a stupid theory that has been consistently chipped away at over the last fifty years or so. The other is a claim entirely lacking in evidence… not worthy of the title “theory.”

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Well… let’s see… there is the ever expanding fossil record. If you remember, the god of the gaps theory originated as a refutation of evolution. Its primary point was a lack of fossil evidence of certain transitional species.

[/quote]
That is a very specific version of some individuals. Evolution doesn’t contradict the idea that god did it.

I think I actually missed your game here, BTW. What you are posing is a prime mover theory, not a god of the gaps theory.

I wasn’t clear on your specific definition of why vs. how. Now I get it.

If we are talking about “god of the gaps,” then science has reasonably disproved many of its claims, mostly via fossil discoveries and advances in genetics. If we are talking about a prime mover theory (which seems to be what you are positing), then science has no need to disprove it.

BS. You are backtracking and trying to re-negotiate terms again. I used “god of the gaps” only in reference to your usage of the term. And since no one had claimed there was no evolution, that isn’t what you were referring to when YOU introduced the term. Your new definition doesn’t fit your original usage. And if there is no need (actually no ability) to disprove it, then what was your claim about?

Honestly, I think that you are conflating two different ideas. One is a stupid theory that has been consistently chipped away at over the last fifty years or so. The other is a claim entirely lacking in evidence… not worthy of the title “theory.”

There you go with more claims of chipping away with NO support.

[swoleupinya]

First of all, what “claim” of mine are you referencing?

I was attempting to understand this very interesting statement made by Pat:

It depends on what they are asserting… I see things a little different though. You guys see anything to do with God and religion as supernatural, I see it as the most basic of nature. It’s very natural to me, I don’t see it as “special”…

… which he then further supported with this:

It’s also why I really like the quantum theories…I find that realm the transition point between the physical and metaphysical. I could be wrong, but quantum mechanics is just weird enough to fit…

This all seemed to me like an extension of the “god of the gaps” theory into the realm of cosmology and particle physics. You’ll notice that he used the words “transition point.” This is what I picked up on. It could very well be that I misunderstood what he was trying to say.

So… no. I am not renegotiating any terms. You are jumping off from what was an attempt to understand what Pat was saying into a completely different argument… one not relevant to the terms you are using.

Now. If you want a refutation of the “god of the gaps” theory, look to the fossil record. Look to our evolving understanding of thermodynamics, electro-magnetism, etc… I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit your definition of evidence.

What you are talking about, though, is clearly a prime mover theory, not a “god of the gaps” theory. The two are very different arguments, though they share a similarity in that they employ the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance. If you would like to argue the efficacy of the “god of the gaps” theory, I would be happy to do that, but so far we are talking about something entirely different.

As for the prime mover theory. There is no way to effectively disprove it. This is because there is no attempt at proof to work against. All you have is conjecture and no evidence.

[pat]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[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
[/quote]

The math involved with entanglement is far more complicated than that, but 2+2 still equals 4.

If you have 2 particles pairs spinning down, or having a negative charge and their matched pairs spinning up 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 light years away, there are still 4 total particles.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[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
[/quote]

The math involved with entanglement is far more complicated than that, but 2+2 still equals 4.

If you have 2 particles pairs spinning down, or having a negative charge and their matched pairs spinning up 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 light years away, there are still 4 total particles.[/quote]

Agreed. And, I will admit that I am in WAY over my head on this topic.

However, isn’t one of the puzzling effects of entanglement that if you add 2 particles to 2 particles, where one of the two pairs is entangled with another pair (no specification of distance necessary), that you now have 6 particles in the group without ever having acted upon 2 of them in any mathematical sense?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[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
[/quote]

The math involved with entanglement is far more complicated than that, but 2+2 still equals 4.

If you have 2 particles pairs spinning down, or having a negative charge and their matched pairs spinning up 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 light years away, there are still 4 total particles.[/quote]

Agreed. And, I will admit that I am in WAY over my head on this topic.

However, isn’t one of the puzzling effects of entanglement that if you add 2 particles to 2 particles, where one of the two pairs is entangled with another pair (no specification of distance necessary), that you now have 6 particles in the group without ever having acted upon 2 of them in any mathematical sense?
[/quote]

Mathematical groupings don’t require action. They exist only by definition.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
First of all, what “claim” of mine are you referencing?

[/quote]
That science is chipping away at god of the gaps as originally defined by you.

I was attempting to understand this very interesting statement made by Pat:

It depends on what they are asserting… I see things a little different though. You guys see anything to do with God and religion as supernatural, I see it as the most basic of nature. It’s very natural to me, I don’t see it as “special”…

… which he then further supported with this:

It’s also why I really like the quantum theories…I find that realm the transition point between the physical and metaphysical. I could be wrong, but quantum mechanics is just weird enough to fit…

This all seemed to me like an extension of the “god of the gaps” theory into the realm of cosmology and particle physics. You’ll notice that he used the words “transition point.” This is what I picked up on. It could very well be that I misunderstood what he was trying to say.

Yeah, you referred to holes in cosmology and particle physics as “god of the gaps”. Exactly. That is the definition I was going by. If go of the gaps only referred to the original “evolution didn’t happen” line of thought then your usage is invalid. But I will make the effort to now refer to it as the “extension of the “god of the gaps”” as you are now terming your reference.

So… no. I am not renegotiating any terms. You are jumping off from what was an attempt to understand what Pat was saying into a completely different argument… one not relevant to the terms you are using.

you used the term “god of the gaps” outside of any claim of denying evolution. You cannot now limit it to claiming evolution didn’t happen.

Now. If you want a refutation of the “god of the gaps” theory, look to the fossil record. Look to our evolving understanding of thermodynamics, electro-magnetism, etc… I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit your definition of evidence.

you used the term “god of the gaps” outside of any claim of denying evolution. You cannot now limit it to claiming evolution didn’t happen.

What you are talking about, though, is clearly a prime mover theory, not a “god of the gaps” theory. The two are very different arguments, though they share a similarity in that they employ the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance. If you would like to argue the efficacy of the “god of the gaps” theory, I would be happy to do that, but so far we are talking about something entirely different.

I have not as of yet argued for or claimed validity of anything. I have only pointed out that you were making unsupported claims using your own setup and definitions.

As for the prime mover theory. There is no way to effectively disprove it. This is because there is no attempt at proof to work against. All you have is conjecture and no evidence.

Can I pose another question to you?
Science works of the axiom that the universe is unchanging (big G is always big G and such). Now, I would like to ask you to do some simple statistics to support this claim. What is a sufficient experiment recording measures of G to ensure a confidence level of 5%, which is ridiculously low by science standards? Here is a hint, the population size is infinite.

The answer of coarse is that in an infinite system confidence is scientifically not existent. There is no test or evidence that can scientifically validate any axiom of science. The only reason we believe it is because of a lack of contrary evidence. Sound familiar?

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
First of all, what “claim” of mine are you referencing?

[/quote]
That science is chipping away at god of the gaps as originally defined by you.

I was attempting to understand this very interesting statement made by Pat:

It depends on what they are asserting… I see things a little different though. You guys see anything to do with God and religion as supernatural, I see it as the most basic of nature. It’s very natural to me, I don’t see it as “special”…

… which he then further supported with this:

It’s also why I really like the quantum theories…I find that realm the transition point between the physical and metaphysical. I could be wrong, but quantum mechanics is just weird enough to fit…

This all seemed to me like an extension of the “god of the gaps” theory into the realm of cosmology and particle physics. You’ll notice that he used the words “transition point.” This is what I picked up on. It could very well be that I misunderstood what he was trying to say.

Yeah, you referred to holes in cosmology and particle physics as “god of the gaps”. Exactly. That is the definition I was going by. If go of the gaps only referred to the original “evolution didn’t happen” line of thought then your usage is invalid. But I will make the effort to now refer to it as the “extension of the “god of the gaps”” as you are now terming your reference.

So… no. I am not renegotiating any terms. You are jumping off from what was an attempt to understand what Pat was saying into a completely different argument… one not relevant to the terms you are using.

you used the term “god of the gaps” outside of any claim of denying evolution. You cannot now limit it to claiming evolution didn’t happen.

Now. If you want a refutation of the “god of the gaps” theory, look to the fossil record. Look to our evolving understanding of thermodynamics, electro-magnetism, etc… I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit your definition of evidence.

you used the term “god of the gaps” outside of any claim of denying evolution. You cannot now limit it to claiming evolution didn’t happen.

What you are talking about, though, is clearly a prime mover theory, not a “god of the gaps” theory. The two are very different arguments, though they share a similarity in that they employ the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance. If you would like to argue the efficacy of the “god of the gaps” theory, I would be happy to do that, but so far we are talking about something entirely different.

I have not as of yet argued for or claimed validity of anything. I have only pointed out that you were making unsupported claims using your own setup and definitions.

As for the prime mover theory. There is no way to effectively disprove it. This is because there is no attempt at proof to work against. All you have is conjecture and no evidence.

Can I pose another question to you?
Science works of the axiom that the universe is unchanging (big G is always big G and such). Now, I would like to ask you to do some simple statistics to support this claim. What is a sufficient experiment recording measures of G to ensure a confidence level of 5%, which is ridiculously low by science standards? Here is a hint, the population size is infinite.

The answer of coarse is that in an infinite system confidence is scientifically not existent. There is no test or evidence that can scientifically validate any axiom of science. The only reason we believe it is because of a lack of contrary evidence. Sound familiar?
[/quote]

DD… really. You’re reaching. I didn’t claim that the “god of the gaps” theory applied to cosmology. I asked Pat if he was extending it there. It’s a huge fucking difference.

To your last few points;

1. Science does not work on the axiom that the universe is unchanging… you’re staring to sound like Joab. If the nature and/or function of gravity changed tomorrow, science would seek to understand it, just as it does now.

2. I agree with your statistical model in one sense. This is why I am generally a skeptic. I don’t assume that the limited scope of our understanding affords us anything like absolute knowledge. This is actually the most interesting thing to me about science… there will always be something new to learn.

3. No. It does not sound familiar. Do you have some theory that I am unaware of, for which you have some evidence?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
First of all, what “claim” of mine are you referencing?

[/quote]
That science is chipping away at god of the gaps as originally defined by you.

I was attempting to understand this very interesting statement made by Pat:

It depends on what they are asserting… I see things a little different though. You guys see anything to do with God and religion as supernatural, I see it as the most basic of nature. It’s very natural to me, I don’t see it as “special”…

… which he then further supported with this:

It’s also why I really like the quantum theories…I find that realm the transition point between the physical and metaphysical. I could be wrong, but quantum mechanics is just weird enough to fit…

This all seemed to me like an extension of the “god of the gaps” theory into the realm of cosmology and particle physics. You’ll notice that he used the words “transition point.” This is what I picked up on. It could very well be that I misunderstood what he was trying to say.

Yeah, you referred to holes in cosmology and particle physics as “god of the gaps”. Exactly. That is the definition I was going by. If go of the gaps only referred to the original “evolution didn’t happen” line of thought then your usage is invalid. But I will make the effort to now refer to it as the “extension of the “god of the gaps”” as you are now terming your reference.

So… no. I am not renegotiating any terms. You are jumping off from what was an attempt to understand what Pat was saying into a completely different argument… one not relevant to the terms you are using.

you used the term “god of the gaps” outside of any claim of denying evolution. You cannot now limit it to claiming evolution didn’t happen.

Now. If you want a refutation of the “god of the gaps” theory, look to the fossil record. Look to our evolving understanding of thermodynamics, electro-magnetism, etc… I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit your definition of evidence.

you used the term “god of the gaps” outside of any claim of denying evolution. You cannot now limit it to claiming evolution didn’t happen.

What you are talking about, though, is clearly a prime mover theory, not a “god of the gaps” theory. The two are very different arguments, though they share a similarity in that they employ the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance. If you would like to argue the efficacy of the “god of the gaps” theory, I would be happy to do that, but so far we are talking about something entirely different.

I have not as of yet argued for or claimed validity of anything. I have only pointed out that you were making unsupported claims using your own setup and definitions.

As for the prime mover theory. There is no way to effectively disprove it. This is because there is no attempt at proof to work against. All you have is conjecture and no evidence.

Can I pose another question to you?
Science works of the axiom that the universe is unchanging (big G is always big G and such). Now, I would like to ask you to do some simple statistics to support this claim. What is a sufficient experiment recording measures of G to ensure a confidence level of 5%, which is ridiculously low by science standards? Here is a hint, the population size is infinite.

The answer of coarse is that in an infinite system confidence is scientifically not existent. There is no test or evidence that can scientifically validate any axiom of science. The only reason we believe it is because of a lack of contrary evidence. Sound familiar?
[/quote]

DD… really. You’re reaching. I didn’t claim that the “god of the gaps” theory applied to cosmology. I asked Pat if he was extending it there. It’s a huge fucking difference.

To your last few points;

1. Science does not work on the axiom that the universe is unchanging… you’re staring to sound like Joab. If the nature and/or function of gravity changed tomorrow, science would seek to understand it, just as it does now.

2. I agree with your statistical model in one sense. This is why I am generally a skeptic. I don’t assume that the limited scope of our understanding affords us anything like absolute knowledge. This is actually the most interesting thing to me about science… there will always be something new to learn.

3. No. It does not sound familiar. Do you have some theory that I am unaware of, for which you have some evidence?

[/quote]

Yes, science assumes consistency of universal rules. period. None of science works without that assumption. If gravity were to suddenly change, all of science would be invalid.

And lastly, it should sound familiar. It is an argument from ignorance. And it’s also the bases of belief in science.

[swoleupinya]

Well… I suppose it works for you to define science that way. Never mind all of the physicists and cosmologists who propose changing and even flexible laws of physics (gravity, time direction, thermodynamics, etc…) in different regions of space. Never mind Hawkings suggesting that the most fundamental law of cause and effect is reversed past the event horizon of a black hole.

I guess you’ve got it right, and they all have it wrong. Clearly this is a deterministic universe, and anyone who disagrees can not be a scientist.

And, no… that is not an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance

It is an argument with limited evidentiary support.

[pat]

[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]

Damn it! I had this all written out and then my computer friggin’ crashed! I’ll try again, but it would be as good probably

No, shaking hands with you would not prove you exist. If you go to your home town mental institution, you are likely to find at least one person who interacts with people or things we don’t think or see existing. We think he’s crazy, but he may really see things we don’t. For instance, he can take drugs that will stop him from seeing things, or we can take drugs that cause us to see things. Senses can be fooled, they can be wrong in the first place. When I look at the color red and you look at the color red, we both call it ‘red’ but if I jumped into your head and saw it as you saw it, it may look magenta, or baby-shit brown to me through your eyes. If one person sees a ghost and the 10 other people with him did not, the consensus would be there is no ghost. Now if ten people see a ghost and one does not, then does that ghost exist in this case?
Bottom line, much of what we sense is validated by consensus. Consensus can be evidence, but does not prove anything other than a bunch of people agree that they sense the same thing. Further, you don’t need to be nuts or drugged to fool your senses. Stare at a point on a wall for over 60 seconds and see what you brain starts to do to it. We can also engage in sensory depravation, it’s a cruel treatment, but if you deprive someone of sensory information for over 24 hours, their brain makes a reality for them.
Senses provide information, but the information is not complete and may or may not be accurate.

I say ‘discovered’ for a reason your brain cannot create anything. It can sense information, store information, reprocess information, categorize information, amalgamate information, but what ever our brains come up with, those thoughts are comprised of already existing things in your head. Go ahead, try and come up with an original thought that is comprised of nothing you have previously been exposed to, it’s impossible.

Now, since the brain cannot create anything it does do some amazing things with the information. Math exists, Calculus is just really complicated math. That which functions on those principles didn’t start that process once we discovered it, it always was there. Learning how to interpret with math is a tool. As we evolve our thinking we discover more and more stuff, but that stuff didn’t just pop into existence.

“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?”

Both are correct. Each part is a separate component of the fire, but you need all the components to have the scenario. Gestalt theory, the whole is greater than the sum of it’s partsâ?¦Originally came from Psychology, but it fits here too.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:
science can only answer questions beginning with “how”, not questions beginning with “why”.

that being said, that doesn’t prove the existence of God / Shiva / Odin / Xenu. and that doesn’t make it more probable.
it only proves the necessity of metaphysics.

[/quote]

Word.

[pat]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[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
[/quote]

The math involved with entanglement is far more complicated than that, but 2+2 still equals 4.

If you have 2 particles pairs spinning down, or having a negative charge and their matched pairs spinning up 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 light years away, there are still 4 total particles.[/quote]

Agreed. And, I will admit that I am in WAY over my head on this topic.

However, isn’t one of the puzzling effects of entanglement that if you add 2 particles to 2 particles, where one of the two pairs is entangled with another pair (no specification of distance necessary), that you now have 6 particles in the group without ever having acted upon 2 of them in any mathematical sense?
[/quote]

It just means that 2+2=4 is not applicable to this scenario, doesn’t invalidate the equation.

[pat]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Well… I suppose it works for you to define science that way. Never mind all of the physicists and cosmologists who propose changing and even flexible laws of physics (gravity, time direction, thermodynamics, etc…) in different regions of space. Never mind Hawkings suggesting that the most fundamental law of cause and effect is reversed past the event horizon of a black hole.

I guess you’ve got it right, and they all have it wrong. Clearly this is a deterministic universe, and anyone who disagrees can not be a scientist.

And, no… that is not an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance

It is an argument with limited evidentiary support. [/quote]

The only fundamental law of cause and effect is that causes necessitate their effects, it doesn’t matter in which direction they go. Reverse causation is still causation.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Well… I suppose it works for you to define science that way. Never mind all of the physicists and cosmologists who propose changing and even flexible laws of physics (gravity, time direction, thermodynamics, etc…) in different regions of space. Never mind Hawkings suggesting that the most fundamental law of cause and effect is reversed past the event horizon of a black hole.

I guess you’ve got it right, and they all have it wrong. Clearly this is a deterministic universe, and anyone who disagrees can not be a scientist.

And, no… that is not an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance

It is an argument with limited evidentiary support. [/quote]

No, you missed my point. laws being mathematically consistently varriable isn’t the same thing as laws not being continuous. Nor does changing theory indicate changing laws. Gravity can vary, but it is consistent. When I specifically singled out big G I was referring to Newtonian physics. The same concept applies to modern physics.

The definition from your link:
“It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)”

But as I’ve already pointed out and you agreed to, the axioms of science are not supported by sufficient evidence anyway.

[DoubleDuce]

But the truth is, if this line of reasoning is so foolish, why can’t you poke a single hole in it?

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

Damn it! I had this all written out and then my computer friggin’ crashed! I’ll try again, but it would be as good probably

No, shaking hands with you would not prove you exist. If you go to your home town mental institution, you are likely to find at least one person who interacts with people or things we don’t think or see existing. We think he’s crazy, but he may really see things we don’t. For instance, he can take drugs that will stop him from seeing things, or we can take drugs that cause us to see things. Senses can be fooled, they can be wrong in the first place. When I look at the color red and you look at the color red, we both call it ‘red’ but if I jumped into your head and saw it as you saw it, it may look magenta, or baby-shit brown to me through your eyes. If one person sees a ghost and the 10 other people with him did not, the consensus would be there is no ghost. Now if ten people see a ghost and one does not, then does that ghost exist in this case?
Bottom line, much of what we sense is validated by consensus. Consensus can be evidence, but does not prove anything other than a bunch of people agree that they sense the same thing. Further, you don’t need to be nuts or drugged to fool your senses. Stare at a point on a wall for over 60 seconds and see what you brain starts to do to it. We can also engage in sensory depravation, it’s a cruel treatment, but if you deprive someone of sensory information for over 24 hours, their brain makes a reality for them.
Senses provide information, but the information is not complete and may or may not be accurate.[/quote]

You’re talking about mental states here, but you asked if i could prove my body exists. It may not be much to look at, but it’s a physical entity nonetheless. Because i don’t separate my mind from my body, by proving my body exists i prove i exist.

Our senses fool us, yes. What we perceive is an approximation of reality, yes. But you and i have discussed at length via the web over the years; i’m not imagining that. I stopped doubting existence a number of years ago.

I say ‘discovered’ for a reason your brain cannot create anything. It can sense information, store information, reprocess information, categorize information, amalgamate information, but what ever our brains come up with, those thoughts are comprised of already existing things in your head. Go ahead, try and come up with an original thought that is comprised of nothing you have previously been exposed to, it’s impossible.

I am comprised of previously existing information. That is true. The essence of self is in the past in order to anticipate the future. I agree, but you have failed to connect the dots here pat. What is your point?

Now, since the brain cannot create anything it does do some amazing things with the information. Math exists, Calculus is just really complicated math. That which functions on those principles didn’t start that process once we discovered it, it always was there. Learning how to interpret with math is a tool. As we evolve our thinking we discover more and more stuff, but that stuff didn’t just pop into existence.

You made a leap of faith, and now you say you know. Because you think stuff just didn’t pop into existence. Because we are toddlers trying to make sense of the unknown. Your guess is as good as mine.

[quote]“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?”

Both are correct. Each part is a separate component of the fire, but you need all the components to have the scenario. Gestalt theory, the whole is greater than the sum of it’s partsâ?¦Originally came from Psychology, but it fits here too.
[/quote]

Right. So why do you separate thought, or objects in thought, from the whole: the brain/body?

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But the truth is, if this line of reasoning is so foolish, why can’t you poke a single hole in it?[/quote]

I’ve poked the biggest fucking hole you can poke into it - there is no evidence to support it. Seriously. What more do you want?

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Well… I suppose it works for you to define science that way. Never mind all of the physicists and cosmologists who propose changing and even flexible laws of physics (gravity, time direction, thermodynamics, etc…) in different regions of space. Never mind Hawkings suggesting that the most fundamental law of cause and effect is reversed past the event horizon of a black hole.

I guess you’ve got it right, and they all have it wrong. Clearly this is a deterministic universe, and anyone who disagrees can not be a scientist.

And, no… that is not an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance

It is an argument with limited evidentiary support. [/quote]

No, you missed my point. laws being mathematically consistently varriable isn’t the same thing as laws not being continuous. Nor does changing theory indicate changing laws. Gravity can vary, but it is consistent. When I specifically singled out big G I was referring to Newtonian physics. The same concept applies to modern physics.

The definition from your link:
“It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)”

But as I’ve already pointed out and you agreed to, the axioms of science are not supported by sufficient evidence anyway.[/quote]

No. You said the evidence is not sufficient. I said it was limited, and thus I remain skeptical of everything.

And, Newtonian mechanics are not NECESSARILY true because they have not been proven false. Newtonian proposed his mechanics to be valid because of sufficient evidence.

Do you understand the difference?

An argument from ignorance is one on which lack of disproof is the basis of its claim to validity.

A rational argument has evidence to support its claims.