 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Argumentative religious people often seem to comment that science requires
> faith. Argumentative non-religious people say that's nonsense, since there
> is evidence. I contend that there are at least two things most scientists
> take on faith, without supporting evidence:
> 1) That reality works substantially in accordance with measurements.
Science doesn't claim to know the truth (unlike many religions). Science is,
more or less by definition, the study of what can be observed and measured.
It's based on reason and logic. There's no reson to believe that reality
doesn't work in accordance to measurements. When something is measured in
different ways and all these measures give consistent (ie. non-contradictory)
results, and there's no evidence to show that what is being measured is not
reality, there's no logical reason to believe it isn't reality.
One could argue that one doesn't have to *believe* something is reality
if all evidence seems to show that it is. It's not a question of faith.
It's just a question of reason.
Maybe you could argue that science makes the *assumption* that measurements
correspond to reality, but as long as there's no evidence of the contrary,
there's no reason to think otherwise. Someone could argue this *is* faith.
However, it's a kind of "faith" that is based on reason, not on wishful
thinking.
> 2) Humans aren't special.
> 2A) Humans aren't at the center of the universe, in spite of everything
> moving away from us.
> 2B) Humans aren't the first intelligent life forms, in spite
> of the Fermi paradox.
Well, hypotheses are not necessarily taken for fact in science. It's
hypothesized that humans aren't the first intelligent life form in the
Universe. However, it's just that: A hypothesis. The negative of the
hypothesis (ie. we are the first) is impossible to prove (to such an extent
that it would become a theory). For example the cosmological horizon makes
it physically impossible to prove it (if current understanding of astrophysics
is even remotely correct). Only the positive could be proven, if we can find
older intelligent life inside the observable Universe.
One could also hypothesize the opposite: If there exists intelligent life
in the Universe, then some of that life had to be the first. We could as
well be that first.
> 2D) There is no advanced or supernatural entity(ies) guiding evolution, etc,
> such that humans come out on top. (E.g., the meteor strike that wiped
> out the dinosaurs was accidental.)
It's not so much belief as much as observing the evidence: As long as
there is no evidence, there's no reason to believe otherwise.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 3) Reality is consistent.
> 3A) The physical laws don't change. To the extent they change,
> there is a physical law telling you how the laws change.
> 3B) The physical laws are consistent. (E.g., There *is* an
> as-yet-undiscovered scientific theory unifying QM and GR.)
Well, that is the theory. There's no reason to think otherwise so far.
Science is open to alternatives, though.
> 3C) What we think we know about reality does not change how
> reality behaves. I.e., Truth is true regardless of whether
> you believe it.
Some things in quantum mechanics behave so oddly that it's hard to say
what is and isn't dependent on what we "know"... :P
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> One could also hypothesize the opposite: If there exists intelligent life
> in the Universe, then some of that life had to be the first. We could as
> well be that first.
As I understand it, General Relativity means that at cosmological
scales, the idea of "first" is no longer valid due to the weirdness of time.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > One could also hypothesize the opposite: If there exists intelligent life
> > in the Universe, then some of that life had to be the first. We could as
> > well be that first.
> As I understand it, General Relativity means that at cosmological
> scales, the idea of "first" is no longer valid due to the weirdness of time.
But from our point of view we may well be the first intelligent life in
the universe.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> One could also hypothesize the opposite: If there exists intelligent life
>>> in the Universe, then some of that life had to be the first. We could as
>>> well be that first.
>
>> As I understand it, General Relativity means that at cosmological
>> scales, the idea of "first" is no longer valid due to the weirdness of time.
>
> But from our point of view we may well be the first intelligent life in
> the universe.
Ah, yes. That's possible...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 1) That reality works substantially in accordance with measurements.
>
> If you mean "the universe is deterministic",
No. I mean that our measuring devices measure something called reality, and
they're not conspiring to confuse us.
> This is the same argument.
That's why it's "A" and "B" and "C", you see. ;-)
>> 1C) There is no supernatural entity attempting to mislead us.
>
> Again, if you assume that some all-powerful entity is trying to mislead
> us, we can stop now. So it's more interesting to assume that there isn't.
I didn't say it was a bad assumption. I simply said it was something taken
on faith. I don't know of many actual scientists who try to measure the
affect of Satan on their experiments. The assumption is that if something
doesn't jive, it's because the experiment was done wrong.
>> 2C) Humans aren't in a region of space whose physical laws and/or
>> constants
>> are significantly different than elsewhere.
>
> If this isn't the case, it's almost impossible to prove it.
Well, yes. That's why I'm saying it's taken on faith. For example, the
measurement of the hubble expansion is predicated on the idea that stars far
away behave like stars up close, etc.
> Science is, by definition, only concerned with that which is provable.
> This isn't necessarily what is true, just what you can prove.
Prove, based on certain articles of faith, like that your measurements
aren't consistently corrupted by evil forces. Which you wouldn't, by
definition, be able to prove.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Maybe you could argue that science makes the *assumption* that measurements
> correspond to reality, but as long as there's no evidence of the contrary,
> there's no reason to think otherwise. Someone could argue this *is* faith.
I think what makes it faith is the behavior in the face of contradictions to
what one has faith in.
The behavior when showing a religious person things that tend to contradict
their faith is generally denial and looking for some way to show you've
misinterpreted their holy works or some such. The classic example is if you
show someone where the bible says God is evil, they will tell you that
you're misinterpreting the bible.
If you tell a scientist that you have measurements that don't match theory,
the first assumption is that you measured incorrectly. The second assumption
is that the theory is wrong. I don't think there's ever an assumption that
reality is conspiring against you.
> Well, hypotheses are not necessarily taken for fact in science. It's
> hypothesized that humans aren't the first intelligent life form in the
> Universe. However, it's just that: A hypothesis.
Sure. Those were just examples of the kind of "what are we missing" ideas.
Nobody says "Well, it's settled, we're the only intelligent life forms,
unless we find evidence otherwise." Instead, it's almost always "we're
pretty sure they're out there, we just don't know why we aren't seeing them."
I think scientists are willing to be proved wrong about a lot of stuff. But
I think there's a handful of things that regardless of the amount of
evidence, scientists will believe they're doing science wrong rather than
admit they are stumped. For example, if physical laws vary, I don't believe
scientists would ever stop looking for a rule by which they can determine
how it varies. I don't think they'll ever stop looking for a way to unify GR
and QM. It's just taken on faith that there's one set of rules that apply to
everything.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/28/2010 1:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Science is, by definition, only concerned with that which is provable.
>> This isn't necessarily what is true, just what you can prove.
>
> Prove, based on certain articles of faith, like that your measurements
> aren't consistently corrupted by evil forces. Which you wouldn't, by
> definition, be able to prove.
>
Uh.. Taking the opposite position.. One would have to presume then that
the universe its consistent, but that the thing confounding the
equations is being overly persistent in creating the appearance of such?
Wouldn't this, in and of itself disprove that the universe can't contain
consistency, since, if it didn't, the thing mucking with the equations
would have a hard time "creating" the appearance of something that even
it can't perceive in the universe?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/28/2010 1:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Maybe you could argue that science makes the *assumption* that
>> measurements
>> correspond to reality, but as long as there's no evidence of the
>> contrary,
>> there's no reason to think otherwise. Someone could argue this *is*
>> faith.
>
> I think what makes it faith is the behavior in the face of
> contradictions to what one has faith in.
>
> The behavior when showing a religious person things that tend to
> contradict their faith is generally denial and looking for some way to
> show you've misinterpreted their holy works or some such. The classic
> example is if you show someone where the bible says God is evil, they
> will tell you that you're misinterpreting the bible.
>
> If you tell a scientist that you have measurements that don't match
> theory, the first assumption is that you measured incorrectly. The
> second assumption is that the theory is wrong. I don't think there's
> ever an assumption that reality is conspiring against you.
>
>> Well, hypotheses are not necessarily taken for fact in science. It's
>> hypothesized that humans aren't the first intelligent life form in the
>> Universe. However, it's just that: A hypothesis.
>
> Sure. Those were just examples of the kind of "what are we missing"
> ideas. Nobody says "Well, it's settled, we're the only intelligent life
> forms, unless we find evidence otherwise." Instead, it's almost always
> "we're pretty sure they're out there, we just don't know why we aren't
> seeing them."
>
> I think scientists are willing to be proved wrong about a lot of stuff.
> But I think there's a handful of things that regardless of the amount of
> evidence, scientists will believe they're doing science wrong rather
> than admit they are stumped. For example, if physical laws vary, I don't
> believe scientists would ever stop looking for a rule by which they can
> determine how it varies. I don't think they'll ever stop looking for a
> way to unify GR and QM. It's just taken on faith that there's one set of
> rules that apply to everything.
>
At least one, currently sidelined, scientist thinks there is an answer
to this, in the fact that "nano-particles", which are larger than a
photon, still behave in the sort of "wave or particle" fashion. His
hypothesis is that, over a certain number of atoms, gravity sort of
"switches off" QM effects. That, beyond that size, you can't get quantum
effects, because the localized gravity of the particles "in" the object
prevent them contained, and limit how much QM jitter you end up with.
Now, the consequence of this would, presumably, be that the "width" of
the effect narrows, as you get things bigger, i.e., it scatters over an
area less and less, and that, at some point, you just stop seeing a
pattern, instead of solid hits. A few people are experimenting with it
now, but.. most scientists seem to prefer some other solution at the
moment (though what that would be, or why they think the experiment to
work out the threshold size is not worth doing, is beyond me...)
Still, its an interesting idea, and explains nicely why your desk will
never "jump" all into one corner of the room, for no reason. Though.. It
may still leave open the question of why the air in the room doesn't... lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Still, its an interesting idea, and explains nicely why your desk will
> never "jump" all into one corner of the room, for no reason.
I think we already knew that. If you work out the probability that happens,
it's exceedingly low.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
