Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 12:51:51 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The difference between science and religion  (Read 6454 times)
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
October 04, 2018, 02:34:32 PM
 #261


You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  


Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths.  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.



Your welcome af_newbie.

I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.

We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.

These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.

I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.

Don't assume that the universe is logical, prove it to yourself.

Think about singularities, black holes, birth and death of stars, streching of space time by the dark energy and pulling it all together by the dark matter, all uneven across the observable universe. Carnage caused when galaxies colide etc. All natural processes, but not logical in a sense as in intelligently designed by a sentient being.

Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

As for religions, well, I see wealthy religions and poor worshippers.

The idea that a sentient being created all the mess that we observe and that being is somehow interested in us, it just does not compute with me.

I see the world as is not as it could be.

Life started thanks to supernovae.

Without them there would be no atoms to create the first amino acids.

PS. Discover magazine (November 2018, page 26) has a good article on the subject of superstitions and how to overcome them.  Read it, it might help you.

You are so funny.

Take a look at a raging river. Everything in the river acts logically, according to the physics of the universe. Why would black holes, or the carnage of colliding galaxies be any different? All of it acts logically, according to the physics of the universe.

Overcoming superstitions is done by finding out what works, scientifically. That's why when scientists believe science theories to be fact, they have a superstition going for themselves. They haven't found that the theory is fact. If they had, it wouldn't be a theory any longer.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
1711673511
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711673511

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711673511
Reply with quote  #2

1711673511
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711673511
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711673511

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711673511
Reply with quote  #2

1711673511
Report to moderator
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055



View Profile
October 04, 2018, 02:42:56 PM
Last edit: October 04, 2018, 03:10:15 PM by CoinCube
 #262

...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html
Quote from: Tanya Lewis
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.

In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.

"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).

"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."

The idea follows the observation that nature is full of patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence, a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. The flowering of an artichoke follows this sequence, for example, with the distance between each petal and the next matching the ratio of the numbers in the sequence.

The nonliving worldalso behaves in a mathematical way. If you throw a baseball in the air, it follows a roughly parabolic trajectory. Planets and other astrophysical bodies follow elliptical orbits.

"There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," said Tegmark, who loves math so much he has framed pictures of famous equations in his living room.

One consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.

Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.

Max Erik Tegmark is a Swedish-American physicist and cosmologist. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the scientific director of the Foundational Questions Institute.

af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1467



View Profile WWW
October 04, 2018, 04:44:09 PM
 #263

...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html
Quote from: Tanya Lewis
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.

In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.

"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).

"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."

The idea follows the observation that nature is full of patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence, a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. The flowering of an artichoke follows this sequence, for example, with the distance between each petal and the next matching the ratio of the numbers in the sequence.

The nonliving worldalso behaves in a mathematical way. If you throw a baseball in the air, it follows a roughly parabolic trajectory. Planets and other astrophysical bodies follow elliptical orbits.

"There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," said Tegmark, who loves math so much he has framed pictures of famous equations in his living room.

One consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.

Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.

Max Erik Tegmark is a Swedish-American physicist and cosmologist. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the scientific director of the Foundational Questions Institute.

Congrats you found one to confirm your bias.

dippididodaday
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 441
Merit: 278


It's personal


View Profile
October 04, 2018, 06:20:35 PM
Merited by Moloch (1)
 #264


It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.

In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
October 04, 2018, 07:59:27 PM
 #265


It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.

In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.

Both have truths and both have lies.

The difference is that past religion was science of that day. And it is still holding out past truths an fallacies.

Today's science has become one of the major religions of today in believing the fallacy that it provides... that science theories are fact.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055



View Profile
October 04, 2018, 09:40:34 PM
Last edit: October 04, 2018, 09:57:16 PM by CoinCube
 #266

...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

Congrats you found one to confirm your bias.


Thanks but credit for that initial logic goes to Perry Marshall who's background was in electrical engineering before he went on to make his money in IT. My own educational background was in biochemistry before I went on to a doctorate in medicine so your "bet" was really not a wise one. Perhaps having been shown incorrect in one area you should reexamine other axioms?

Regardless if you are interested in further exploration Professor Tegmark wrote an entire book on this topic.

Mathematical Universe
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

Here are some reviews of that book also by scientists.

Brian Greene, physicist, author of The Elegant Universe and The Hidden Reality
“Our Mathematical Universe boldly confronts one of the deepest questions at the fertile interface of physics and philosophy: why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos? Through lively writing and wonderfully accessible explanations, Max Tegmark—one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists—guides the reader to a possible answer, and reveals how, if it’s right, our understanding of reality itself would be radically altered.”

Michio Kaku, author of Physics of the Future
“Daring, Radical. Innovative. A game changer. If Dr. Tegmark is correct, this represents a paradigm shift in the relationship between physics and mathematics, forcing us to rewrite our textbooks. A must read for anyone deeply concerned about our universe.”

Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near
“Tegmark offers a fresh and fascinating perspective on the fabric of physical reality and life itself. He helps us see ourselves in a cosmic context that highlights the grand opportunities for the future of life in our universe.”

Prof. Edward Witten, physicist, Fields Medalist & Milner Laureate
“Readers of varied backgrounds will enjoy this book. Almost anyone will find something to learn here, much to ponder, and perhaps something to disagree with.”

Prof. Andrei Linde, physicist, Gruber & Milner Laureate for development of inflationary cosmology
“This inspirational book written by a true expert presents an explosive mixture of physics, mathematics and philosophy which may alter your views on reality.”

Prof. Mario Livio, astrophysicist, author of Brilliant Blunders and Is God a Mathematician?
“Galileo famously said that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. Now Max Tegmark says that the universe IS mathematics. You don’t have to necessarily agree, to enjoy this fascinating journey into the nature of reality.”

Prof. Julian Barbour, physicist, author of The End of Time
“Scientists and lay aficionados alike will find Tegmark’s book packed with information and very thought provoking. You may recoil from his thesis, but nearly every page will make you wish you could debate the issues face-to-face with him.”

Prof. Seth Lloyd, Professor of quantum mechanical engineering, MIT, author of Programming the Universe
“In Our Mathematical Universe, renowned cosmologist Max Tegmark takes us on a whirlwind tour of the universe, past, present—and other.  With lucid language and clear examples, Tegmark provides us with the master measure of not only of our cosmos, but of all possible universes.  The universe may be lonely, but it is not alone.”

Prof. David Deutsch, physicist, Dirac Laureate for pioneering quantum computing
“A lucid, engaging account of the various many-universes theories of fundamental physics that are currently being considered, from the multiverse of quantum theory to Tegmark’s own grand vision.”

af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1467



View Profile WWW
October 04, 2018, 11:58:24 PM
Last edit: October 05, 2018, 01:40:58 PM by af_newbie
 #267

...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

Congrats you found one to confirm your bias.


Thanks but credit for that initial logic goes to Perry Marshall who's background was in electrical engineering before he went on to make his money in IT. My own educational background was in biochemistry before I went on to a doctorate in medicine so your "bet" was really not a wise one. Perhaps having been shown incorrect in one area you should reexamine other axioms?

Regardless if you are interested in further exploration Professor Tegmark wrote an entire book on this topic.

Mathematical Universe
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

Here are some reviews of that book also by scientists.

Brian Greene, physicist, author of The Elegant Universe and The Hidden Reality
“Our Mathematical Universe boldly confronts one of the deepest questions at the fertile interface of physics and philosophy: why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos? Through lively writing and wonderfully accessible explanations, Max Tegmark—one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists—guides the reader to a possible answer, and reveals how, if it’s right, our understanding of reality itself would be radically altered.”

Michio Kaku, author of Physics of the Future
“Daring, Radical. Innovative. A game changer. If Dr. Tegmark is correct, this represents a paradigm shift in the relationship between physics and mathematics, forcing us to rewrite our textbooks. A must read for anyone deeply concerned about our universe.”

Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near
“Tegmark offers a fresh and fascinating perspective on the fabric of physical reality and life itself. He helps us see ourselves in a cosmic context that highlights the grand opportunities for the future of life in our universe.”

Prof. Edward Witten, physicist, Fields Medalist & Milner Laureate
“Readers of varied backgrounds will enjoy this book. Almost anyone will find something to learn here, much to ponder, and perhaps something to disagree with.”

Prof. Andrei Linde, physicist, Gruber & Milner Laureate for development of inflationary cosmology
“This inspirational book written by a true expert presents an explosive mixture of physics, mathematics and philosophy which may alter your views on reality.”

Prof. Mario Livio, astrophysicist, author of Brilliant Blunders and Is God a Mathematician?
“Galileo famously said that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. Now Max Tegmark says that the universe IS mathematics. You don’t have to necessarily agree, to enjoy this fascinating journey into the nature of reality.”

Prof. Julian Barbour, physicist, author of The End of Time
“Scientists and lay aficionados alike will find Tegmark’s book packed with information and very thought provoking. You may recoil from his thesis, but nearly every page will make you wish you could debate the issues face-to-face with him.”

Prof. Seth Lloyd, Professor of quantum mechanical engineering, MIT, author of Programming the Universe
“In Our Mathematical Universe, renowned cosmologist Max Tegmark takes us on a whirlwind tour of the universe, past, present—and other.  With lucid language and clear examples, Tegmark provides us with the master measure of not only of our cosmos, but of all possible universes.  The universe may be lonely, but it is not alone.”

Prof. David Deutsch, physicist, Dirac Laureate for pioneering quantum computing
“A lucid, engaging account of the various many-universes theories of fundamental physics that are currently being considered, from the multiverse of quantum theory to Tegmark’s own grand vision.”

Saying that something can be expressed in Math does not mean you actually can.  We don't know anything about how the space time behaves when the length is less than the Planck's length or express events in less than Planck's time.  How can you say you can express these in the Math equation if you don't know what you need to express or simulate on the computer?  Ask any of the guys you listed above.

BTW, I like the idea of universe being a computer simulation.  Just because I like some idea or want it to be true does not mean it is true.

Don't take it personally, I actually enjoy talking to you.  My hope is you'll start thinking for yourself rather than just read what others said.
You know, I still think you are delusional, but I engage all kinds of people on this forum.  Some are gone more than others.

The idea that some supernatural being is overseeing this universe, never mind creating it, is just plain stupid since you have absolutely no proof that what you believe is actually true, IMHO.

But it looks like I failed to convince you to change your position.

PS. If some alien civilization is running us as a simulation, what makes you think they have good intentions?  They can unplug us and restart it to work out the bugs.  Anyway, a sci-fi novel writes itself...

Moloch (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 722



View Profile
October 05, 2018, 01:46:05 AM
 #268


It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.

In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.

Both have truths and both have lies.

Got a link to a source of scientists lying?  Got any facts to back up your bullshit claim?

Scientists can be wrong, but they don't intentionally lie... science that is not repeatable is not science, so who would lie when they KNOW they would get caught as soon as someone repeated their experiment?

It just doesn't make any sense that a scientist would lie, there is no upside, and you'd lose your job as a scientist... religion is beneficial for liars, not science

Sorry, not sorry
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
October 05, 2018, 02:41:46 AM
 #269


It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.

In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.

Both have truths and both have lies.

Got a link to a source of scientists lying?  Got any facts to back up your bullshit claim?

Scientists can be wrong, but they don't intentionally lie... science that is not repeatable is not science, so who would lie when they KNOW they would get caught as soon as someone repeated their experiment?

It just doesn't make any sense that a scientist would lie, there is no upside, and you'd lose your job as a scientist... religion is beneficial for liars, not science

Sorry, not sorry

Every serious evolution scientist is a liar. How? Because all of them know that cause and effect operate in everything. Yet they almost totally ignore C&E with regard to evolution, because it shows that evolution theory doesn't fit reality. How doesn't it fit reality? By the fact that there is no random mutation. Everything is set to operate exactly as C&E dictates.

Is that lying? Perhaps not directly. But the result is the same. Intentionally ignoring C&E, which is possibly the most bottom-line foundation of all science, is so close to lying that there really isn't much difference.

As far as losing your job for lying... It's exactly the opposite. When you are financed by a university, you toe the university line, no matter what it is, if you want to keep your job. It's the political direction of the universities that determines what is scientifically stated as truth. And it is all based on threatening the scientists that work for them with loss of job.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055



View Profile
October 05, 2018, 07:30:25 PM
Last edit: October 05, 2018, 09:11:22 PM by CoinCube
 #270

...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

Saying that something can be expressed in Math does not mean you actually can.  We don't know anything about how the space time behaves when the length is less than the Planck's length or express events in less than Planck's time.  How can you say you can express these in the Math equation if you don't know what you need to express or simulate on the computer?  Ask any of the guys you listed above.

Don't take it personally, I actually enjoy talking to you.  My hope is you'll start thinking for yourself rather than just read what others said.

You know, I still think you are delusional but I engage all kinds of people on this forum.  

You are entertaining af_newbie. First you argue my claim is ridiculous and that I will not be able to find a single scientist that supports my view.

Then when I show you not one but several highly regarded scientist who take this idea very seriously you argue that I should stop reading scientist's books and think for myself?

Just so you know I wrote my Argument for God a few months before I stumbled across professor Tegmark's excellent book:

Mathematical Universe
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

Why are you twisting yourself up into such rhetorical knots. It is not necessary.

All you need to say is that you are not convinced that the universe is logical and mathematical thus you reject my first claim. You could also correctly point out that the idea of a logical and mathematical universe as outlined by professor Tegmark is not universally accepted among scientists.
 
By going beyond that and turning to personal attack calling me delusional and implying that I am "far gone" presumably into insanity you only expose you own bias and weaken your arguments.

In regards to your other comments the Planck length is a certain combination of the three physical constants fundamental to general relativity and to quantum theory. As we currently lack a unified physical theory that incorporates all three of these constants we do not fully understand the physical meaning and significance of the Planck length.

Such an understanding would require a physical theory that subsumes both quantum theory and general relativity. Should such a theory be discovered we cannot even be certain it would continue to ascribe a fundamental status to the three constants from which the Planck length is derived.

If the universe is logical and mathematical then the answers to these questions exist and simply wait to be discovered.

af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1467



View Profile WWW
October 05, 2018, 10:09:06 PM
 #271

...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

In this also you are mistaken.

What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html

Saying that something can be expressed in Math does not mean you actually can.  We don't know anything about how the space time behaves when the length is less than the Planck's length or express events in less than Planck's time.  How can you say you can express these in the Math equation if you don't know what you need to express or simulate on the computer?  Ask any of the guys you listed above.

Don't take it personally, I actually enjoy talking to you.  My hope is you'll start thinking for yourself rather than just read what others said.

You know, I still think you are delusional but I engage all kinds of people on this forum.  

You are entertaining af_newbie. First you argue my claim is ridiculous and that I will not be able to find a single scientist that supports my view.

Then when I show you not one but several highly regarded scientist who take this idea very seriously you argue that I should stop reading scientist's books and think for myself?

Just so you know I wrote my Argument for God a few months before I stumbled across professor Tegmark's excellent book:

Mathematical Universe
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

Why are you twisting yourself up into such rhetorical knots. It is not necessary.

All you need to say is that you are not convinced that the universe is logical and mathematical thus you reject my first claim. You could also correctly point out that the idea of a logical and mathematical universe as outlined by professor Tegmark is not universally accepted among scientists.
 
By going beyond that and turning to personal attack calling me delusional and implying that I am "far gone" presumably into insanity you only expose you own bias and weaken your arguments.

In regards to your other comments the Planck length is a certain combination of the three physical constants fundamental to general relativity and to quantum theory. As we currently lack a unified physical theory that incorporates all three of these constants we do not fully understand the physical meaning and significance of the Planck length.

Such an understanding would require a physical theory that subsumes both quantum theory and general relativity. Should such a theory be discovered we cannot even be certain it would continue to ascribe a fundamental status to the three constants from which the Planck length is derived.

If the universe is logical and mathematical then the answers to these questions exist and simply wait to be discovered.


Sorry it was my unprofessional opinion. My background is in Electrical Engineering not Psychiatry.

My point was that sometimes we work ourselves into a thinking knot as you put it.  Instead you should look at what is known and supported by evidence.

Sometimes really smart people can believe in batshit crazy stuff and argue eloquently to support their position.

I have worked with one really smart guy, probably the smartest guy on my team who later was diagnosed with schizophrenia.  If you talked to him you would never know that the guy was losing touch with reality.

Fantasing about something that gives you comfort does not make your fantasy any more true.

I just offered you my unbiased opinion.

BTW, the biggest issue that I see are the singilarities that cannot be computed in bound time.  Math can deal with infinities, Physics or Computer Science not so much.

The world does look like it was fine tuned, but that is probably just an illusion.

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055



View Profile
October 06, 2018, 01:34:15 AM
Last edit: October 06, 2018, 01:56:16 AM by CoinCube
 #272

...
My point was that sometimes we work ourselves into a thinking knot as you put it.  Instead you should look at what is known and supported by evidence.
...
The world does look like it was fine tuned, but that is probably just an illusion.


Indeed we certainly can tie ourselves into thinking knots. To avoid this we must deeply scrutinize our assumptions for these are the foundation our structures of thought rest upon.

We must identify and look at each a priori belief and genuinely consider the possibility and that the assumption is untrue. Not a trivial rejection but a full exploration of a foundational shift on ones entirely structure of thought. This is actually extremely difficult to do because our basic assumptions deeply shape our very patterns of thoughts. Everything rests on them.

Perhaps one of us has tied ourselves into such a thinking knot. Are you absolutely certain that I am the one tangled up?

Which of us has adopted a set of beliefs that has been shown in basically every study to be correlated with lower health, lower fertility, and reduced well-being?

Which of us has adopted beliefs that appear to, limit possible cooperation over time?

The world does indeed look like it was fine tuned. Maybe that's not an illusion but a simple observation of reality.

I will leave that for you to decide.

Time constraints force me to bow out of this conversation. The final word is yours.

af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1467



View Profile WWW
October 06, 2018, 02:06:01 AM
Last edit: October 06, 2018, 02:32:32 AM by af_newbie
 #273

cannot be falsified, is entirely consistent with our knowledge of truth, and maximizes cooperation over time

Health and Religion


...
My point was that sometimes we work ourselves into a thinking knot as you put it.  Instead you should look at what is known and supported by evidence.
...
The world does look like it was fine tuned, but that is probably just an illusion.


Indeed we certainly can tie ourselves into thinking knots. To avoid this we must deeply scrutinize our assumptions for these are the foundation our structures our thought rest upon.

We must identify and look at each a priori belief and genuinely consider the possibility and that the assumption is untrue. Not a trivial rejection but a full exploration of a foundational shift on ones entirely structure of thought. This is actually extremely difficult to do because our basic assumption deeply shape our very patterns of thoughts. Everything rests on them.

Perhaps one of us has tied ourselves into such a thinking knot. Are you absolutely certain that I am the one tangled up?

Which of us has adopted a set of beliefs that has been shown in basically every study to be correlated with lower health, lower fertility, and reduced well-being?

Which of us has adopted beliefs that appear to [/u][/url], limit possible cooperation over time?

The world does indeed look like it was fine tuned. Maybe that's not an illusion but a simple observation of reality.

I will leave that for you to decide.

Time constraints force me to bow out of this conversation. I will leave you the final word.


I could definitely be wrong.  Some new evidence of the supernatural effects will invalidate my position.

To be honest with you, I don't try to validate my position by looking at the effects it has or used to have on the society.
Why? Because people are good or evil despite their world view so you will always find a paper that would argue benefits of your world view.

My reality is based on science. I am an engineer, always was and always will be, so I will probably never understand metaphysics, quantum energy levels of Deepak Chopra or Peterson's inner self dream actualization etc.or whatever world salad they use.

I do know one thing for sure.  Religions are parasitic in nature and are immoral.

Impulseboy
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 4


View Profile
October 06, 2018, 02:33:46 AM
Merited by Moloch (1)
 #274

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s

This section of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate sums it up perfectly.

"What, if anything, would ever change your mind."

Religious answer - nothing.

Scientific answer - evidence.

I agree. I think that one of the biggest differences between science and religion is that science is very evidence-based, whereas religion heavily relies on faith. This is why the two always clash. Add to this the existence of technology, with science, new and advanced technology such as AI  can be accepted with sufficient evidence, but religion may disregard it completely simply because it goes against their faith.
anthonytcm
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 06, 2018, 11:14:33 PM
 #275

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s

This section of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate sums it up perfectly.

"What, if anything, would ever change your mind."

Religious answer - nothing.

Scientific answer - evidence.

Human nature plays a huge role into it, and pride, in fact so much so, most people don't want to realize they base their beliefs in false stuff. Imagine that god turned out existing. People would still deny his existence, we see it all the time specially in today's social climate with social media and stuff, look at how many anti vaxxers have appeared! And this is people that is being manipulated. Some of these religious folks say they wouldn't change their views but it's just because science doesn't cater to their interests.

So it is a difficult thing to deal with. But not impossible.
Moloch (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 722



View Profile
October 09, 2018, 02:37:35 AM
 #276

I found this on the interwebs

The important difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements, that neither can be proved or disproved, and science evolves from relative truths and statements, that can be testified and proven false (which means: science has to develop, in order to replace (partly) untrue theories, and replace them with better ones). Science does not claim it has absolute knowledge on anything. Religion claims it has.

All scientific theories are in principle disprovable, and in the end all theories will be disproven (at least it can be shown there is a limiting case in which the theory does not work).

Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute either to it's proof. It is also unprovable.

If something is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is useless.
It can only have value to people who prefer to be ignorant, and don't want to get into complicated knowledge, and prefer to believe in something that is disprovable.

Science is for people that realize that in order to acquire knowledge, some work (sometimes a LOT) has to be done! And even despite you put in a LOT of work, someone else my disproof all (or part) of your work! That is : you have to try even harder!

Religion is for people who claim to know EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY ("God created the world", for instance ) without having done any work to get to that opinion, and for which nobody can give any disproof. So it is a very safe position. You don't have to do WORK for entitling yourself an opinion on matters that seem important, and nobody can force you to do some work for finding a better opinion, cause there lacks the ability to disproof you.

What a comfortable position!
dippididodaday
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 441
Merit: 278


It's personal


View Profile
October 09, 2018, 08:36:25 PM
Last edit: October 10, 2018, 07:44:56 PM by dippididodaday
 #277


Furthermore, religion, at its base, wants to fix / "preserve" people-groups at a terrible cost: omission of the truth; to the degree that written-in-stone falsities are upheld at all cost, as truth -  whilst constantly and persistently siphoning off valuable time and labor of the community members the religion is supposed to serve, all the time in an all to important effort to maintain status quo, but disrupting, disrespecting, and disowning those who dare to oppose said falsities, banishing any single individual who dares to ask a serious question pertaining to actual truth.

Science, on the other hand, seeks truth openmindedly and wholeheartedly. It restores / rewards valuable time and labor efforts to its community members, especially whose who question known ideas vigorously and boldly, kind of like the exact opposite of religion.

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
October 10, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
 #278

Science is when the scientist calmly figures out scientific answers.

Religion is when the scientist's answers have been proven wrong and his feelings are hurt.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
Moloch (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 722



View Profile
October 10, 2018, 10:45:42 PM
 #279

3 scientists just won a Nobel Prize for using evolution in chemisty!

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf

Quote
A (r)evolution in chemistry

  The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
  This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold.  
(...)
  For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

  After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
 
  Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.

  In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.

  With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.

  The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.

(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)


Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate

Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
October 10, 2018, 11:02:45 PM
 #280

3 scientists just won a Nobel Prize for using evolution in chemisty!

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf

Quote
A (r)evolution in chemistry

  The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
  This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold.  
(...)
  For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

  After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
 
  Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.

  In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.

  With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.

  The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.

(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)


Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate

Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?

Again, it is not evolution theory evolution, and it is based on Nobel Prize people having been talked into believing in evolution when there is no proof.

The people who started evolution, like Darwin, were shrewd enough to suggest that evolution took thousands or millions of years. This way evolution could never be proven or disproven. Because of this, evolution got its foot in the door. Look at the big religion the science of evolution has become today.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!