I'm pretty tired of this line ...

Tar.Aldarion

It is surprising when I run into people that don't believe in gravity, hence soon getting my new tshirt:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/65a4/zoom/

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

The conclusion here is based on the unproven asumption that its a deterministic system.

Quantum effects, as best we can determine, are non-deterministic. Unless our scientific model is wrong (which it may well be), it would be impossible to observe all pertinent facts.


Again, based on an unproven assumption that the system is entirely deterministic. The sum effect of such tiny and apparently insignificant factors as how each person in the world moves over the coming year may well have an effect.

Thus, unless human behaviour in its entirety is deterministic, there is no way we can conclude that the weather is in turn deterministic....unless we can show that the model of weather patterns is entirely seperated from such "butterfly in China" effects. This, while possible, is contrary to the current scientific understanding.

So, is human behaviour deterministic? Current scientific thinking (as opposed to theory) says that it may be, but if it is, its beyond our capability to determine. Theory says that - once again - quantum effects mean that the system cannot be deterministic in nature.


Untrue.

I would suggest you read up on Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem if you're not familiar with it, as it suggests that you are incorrect.

The (apparent) non-deterministic nature of Quantum uncertainty also suggests you are incorrect.

They're two might big opponents you're squaring yourself off against, taking a position that is contrary to some of the most fundamental positions in mathematics and physics.

Finally, surely you can see that you are still only expressing a belief about what might someday be possible...and are claiming that your belief is truth.

Unfortunately, I am not a physicist, nor, strictly speaking, an educated man.

However.

The argument that these things cannot be predicted would appear to be flawed in terms of causality. The position you take is also flawed because you are assuming that we havent the required information to work oout what will happen. My point is that given that information, it is possible to work out what will happen.

I'm not saying that we have the abilty to do so now, but given enough time, enough resources and enough information it is possible. This is not a belief, it is a statement of statisitcal fact.

For example, the weather effects.

If you have sufficient information regarding the movement of atmospheric molecules, surface temperature, topography, solar radiation etc then it is possible to predict the effects that this will have on the weather.

The same applies to cognitive and emotional responses. Given enough information about a persons psychology, biology and history then it is possible to predict what he will enjoy and not enjoy.

Assuming that the big bang is the source of all matter and energy in the universe (which is the genereal consensus), then if you can measure and chart the information at that point you can say that everything is pre determined and therefore deterministic.

However, all of this is an entirely different argument to the original post which is that the use of the term "Truth" to describe a persons belief is nonsense. That there is the truth, which is the existance of measureable facts and concrete explanations of how the mechnanisms work etc and that using the the dismissive nonsense of "This is MY truth and its different to YOUR truth" is no more relevant or usefull than "singing la la la" (to quote Aristotle)

Hivemind187

bluewolf wrote:

It's not gravity, it's intelligent falling!

No its not!!!

God is pushing some things down and holding other things up. He pushes down the things he doesnt like and the lifts the things he does like.

Only he gets bored and is a little clumsy so he tends to drop most thigns from time to time.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Why would a theist want to rebut the law of gravity?

You know. I actually have no idea. But then I have no idea why they like to refute evolution in favor of intelligent deisgn either.

If I had to guess I'd say its to do with Angels. Biologically speaking, in order for them to fly with teh wings they are often dipicted with they would need 6foot thick chest muscles to achieve enough lift against tte earths gravity.

joe_chicken

bonkey wrote:

Quantum effects, as best we can determine, are non-deterministic.

That's a great line.

Truth is an over-used under-estimated word.
Non of us can define it fully.

Atheists asserting objective truth is what annoys me the most

*ducks*

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

You know. I actually have no idea. But then I have no idea why they like to refute evolution in favor of intelligent deisgn either.

If I had to guess I'd say its to do with Angels. Biologically speaking, in order for them to fly with teh wings they are often dipicted with they would need 6foot thick chest muscles to achieve enough lift against tte earths gravity.

I'm interested in this. (Not the humorous silliness about angels) Have you really encountered a theist who wanted to rebut the law of gravity? I've never heard of such a thing. Were they a normal kind of theist (Christian, muslim, hindu etc) or some kind of Star Trek/UFO freak? They weren't composed of straw by any chance?

Crucifix

Hivemind187 wrote:

The argument that these things cannot be predicted would appear to be flawed in terms of causality. The position you take is also flawed because you are assuming that we havent the required information to work oout what will happen. My point is that given that information, it is possible to work out what will happen.

To sum it up quickly Scientific determinism is basically "If you had all the info and all the laws, you could predict the future". But in quantum mechanics there are interactions for which we can only predict the probabilities of various outcomes, and never actually know which will occur.
Heisenberg uncertainty was also a problem, as it means it's impossible to really have all the info, or at least, for all that info to be 100% accurate.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

I'm interested in this. (Not the humorous silliness about angels) Have you really encountered a theist who wanted to rebut the law of gravity? I've never heard of such a thing. Were they a normal kind of theist (Christian, muslim, hindu etc) or some kind of Star Trek/UFO freak? They weren't composed of straw by any chance?

I have encountered folk who claim that gravity is a whim of god subject to change at a given moment. In other words it is not the mass of an object warping the fabric of space and causing stuff to fall towards it but the desire of god that these things be closer together.

Its actually difficult to think that way.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

I have encountered folk who claim that gravity is a whim of god subject to change at a given moment. In other words it is not the mass of an object warping the fabric of space and causing stuff to fall towards it but the desire of god that these things be closer together.

Its actually difficult to think that way.

Ah, now that is a very different matter. It sounds like you have encountered someone who says that gravity is part of the way in which God upholds and governs the universe. Then they stated (probably, I would guess, in the context of whether miracles occur?) that God is able, if He chooses, to suspend the law of gravity so that a man, for example, could walk on water. (The validity of that claim would be a subject for another thread, possibly the one that discusses whether magic is simply undiscovered technology?)

If so, then the second sentence of your quote is in error. A theist making such a claim would not be rebutting the law of gravity, nor would they be disputing that the mass of an object warps the fabric of space and causes stuff to fall towards it. They would simply be stating that an omnipotent God can, at a time and place of His choosing, cause the mass of an object to have a different effect and so not cause stuff to fall toward it.

I guess, if you approach the subject with a lot of preconceived notions and a lack of an inquiring spirit, it would be difficult to think in such a way.

coffee_cake

PDN wrote:

I'm interested in this. (Not the humorous silliness about angels) Have you really encountered a theist who wanted to rebut the law of gravity? I've never heard of such a thing. Were they a normal kind of theist (Christian, muslim, hindu etc) or some kind of Star Trek/UFO freak? They weren't composed of straw by any chance?

My bf has baptist friends who insist that not every two particles are the same "how do you know they are? have you checked them all? the speed of light ISNT constant! It's god pushing them all around individually"
so yeah, I would say it's entirely possible...

5uspect

Hivemind187 wrote:

Getting back to my original point though. The statement "That is your truth and this is my truth" is illogical and nonsensical. The truth is. It is not mutable. Once percieved, the idea of the truth or the comprehension of same may be skewed by the beholder, but this does not change its substance.

I realise that this is getting into the quantum now and I will get the uncertainty principal thrown at me but the OP was not about physics, it was about the illogical and redundant argument used by theists who cannot provide a decent, constructive, rebuttle to explanations of reality like evolution, the laws of gravity and thermo dynamics, physics, logic and reason.

Scientific truth is updated and replaced all the time. Newton was simply wrong. Einstein was less wrong, etc etc. However for me as an Engineer Newton was correct enough for pretty much everything I need to do. My "truth" is indeed very different to that of a physicist or cosmologist.

Maybe this also applies to theists. I can justify my version of truth to a pretty good extent, where as a theist must go always with faith (unless your a creationist who makes evidence up). It is often argued that all science also rests on a faith position also and as a result is no better than religion.

I don't think this is a fair point tho, at least there is a continued endeavourer to eliminate all possible uncertainties in science, where as religion seems to wallow in mystery. Also this is where the likes of quantum theory come in for fire as they seem to perpetuate the mystical nature of things.

Essentially no single religion can say its the one true religion, they're all the same (no matter how the try to show otherwise). And you're right they cannot provide a proper explaination of why they're even on the right track, never mind attempting to undermine science.

But ultimately scientific ideas. theories and hypothesizes are the product of human brains as models of what we observe. Stating them as absolute truth is also a faith position. Every single bit of science has the potential to be totally wrong.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

A theist making such a claim would not be rebutting the law of gravity, nor would they be disputing that the mass of an object warps the fabric of space and causes stuff to fall towards it. They would simply be stating that an omnipotent God can, at a time and place of His choosing, cause the mass of an object to have a different effect and so not cause stuff to fall toward it.

Back to the game of chess analogy (Karl Popper said this first I think). Say your watching a game of chess for the first time and you can only see a small part of the board, say 4 squares. You will pretty quickly figure out most of the moves. But suddenly a knight throws you for six! What just happened there?!

The theist says that god (the player) is moving the pieces.
The scientist says that our theory is wrong and goes back to the drawing board.

The theist in postulating a prime mover, or a creator in this situation jumps the gun and takes the analogy too far. he explains the observation in a wholly untestable manner with a significantly more complex explaination, that doesn't even seem to require explaination.

The scientist, attempts to understand the observation by assuming as little as possible without having to invoke massive gaping holes in the theory that cannot be filled.

PDN

5uspect wrote:

Back to the game of chess analogy (Karl Popper said this first I think). Say your watching a game of chess for the first time and you can only see a small part of the board, say 4 squares. You will pretty quickly figure out most of the moves. But suddenly a knight throws you for six! What just happened there?!

The theist says that god (the player) is moving the pieces.
The scientist says that our theory is wrong and goes back to the drawing board.

The theist in postulating a prime mover, or a creator in this situation jumps the gun and takes the analogy too far. he explains the observation in a wholly untestable manner with a significantly more complex explaination, that doesn't even seem to require explaination.

The scientist, attempts to understand the observation by assuming as little as possible without having to invoke massive gaping holes in the theory that cannot be filled.

Or he denies that the knight ever moved at all, because it contradicted his notion of what has already been 'proved' about the moves of chess. Then anyone who claims they saw the knight move is dismissed as a religious nut.

coffee_cake

PDN wrote:

Or he denies that the knight ever moved at all, because it contradicted his notion of what has already been 'proved' about the moves of chess. Then anyone who claims they saw the knight move is dismissed as a religious nut.

No, then he gets labelled as a nut and no scientist listens to him.

5uspect

I'm not saying the system is perfect but to say that religious beliefs reflect the Knight is a bit of a stretch.

And even if a prime mover was discovered (making him a natural occurrence BTW) how would that validate any religion?

bonkey

Hivemind187, to Scofflaw wrote:

You said that it could not be predicted or answered by science. It can.

Science says otherwise.

Hivemind187, to bonkey wrote:

Unfortunately, I am not a physicist, nor, strictly speaking, an educated man.

However.

The argument that these things cannot be predicted would appear to be flawed in terms of causality.

No, its not. Modern physics has already determined that the so-called laws of causality are not aboslute.

My point is that given that information, it is possible to work out what will hapen.

And I'm telling you that you are wrong, in that there are situations where this cannot hold true, effectively because the information cannot be known. This is what a non-deterministic system is by definition - a system where (certain) things cannot be determined with certainty.

I'm not saying that we have the abilty to do so now, but given enough time, enough resources and enough information it is possible. This is not a belief, it is a statement of statisitcal fact.

You're wrong. Pleading that you're not that educated on the areas of physics and mathematics that falsify your claim doesn't stop it being falsified.

If you have sufficient information regarding the movement of atmospheric molecules, surface temperature, topography, solar radiation etc then it is possible to predict the effects that this will have on the weather.

The same applies to cognitive and emotional responses. Given enough information about a persons psychology, biology and history then it is possible to predict what he will enjoy and not enjoy.

Unless when you get to that level, quantum effects come in to play - which they do. And, as I said, quantum effects, as best we can determine, are non-deterministic. They include a degree of randomness that we currently believe is inherent and unavoidable.

To put that into clearer english...you are right in that you need to look closer and closer and closer, and were it possible to accumulate all of that information, you'd have a far more accurate model than at present. But, as you look closer, you eventually get to a point where the information you seek cannot be determined. It is the inbuilt "uncertainty" of quantum mechanics and until and unless we can show otherwise it will ultimately constrain the accuracy of any model.

You are basically saying that its theoretically possible to know this stuff, and thus to determine things, even though science says otherwise.

I, in response, would say that this is - at its very core - a non-scientific position in that it is non-falsifiable (you can always say that science is wrong, and that some time in the future it will be possible) and that it flies in the face of what it is trying to support - the "truth" of science.

Science might someday show that this universe is a deterministic system. It might someday show that it is non-deterministic. In this latter case, then your basic "knowing everything is possible" argument is wrong. We have no way of knowing...so your assertion is wrong in that we can only say it might be possible.

Assuming that the big bang is the source of all matter and energy in the universe (which is the genereal consensus), then if you can measure and chart the information at that point you can say that everything is pre determined and therefore deterministic.

Again, you're working under some misconceptions.

As best we can tell, the conditions at the big bang were so extreme that "simple" concepts like causality ceased to have meaning. Effect could come before cause. Determinism was a no-no. As best we can tell, Determinism is still a no-no.

You can repeat your insistence otherwise all you like, but what you're essentially doing is rejecting science out of hand, because you hold something else to be true. Does that remind you of anything?

However, all of this is an entirely different argument to the original post which is that the use of the term "Truth" to describe a persons belief is nonsense.

Its not an entirely different argument...as I've just shown. You are rejecting science out of hand to hold your position to be true.

From a strict perspective, a lot of what you hold to be true is as much non-sense as what it is you're attacking. Its probably "less wrong", but just like Newton's "Laws", its still wrong.

If truth is an absolute, as you maintain, then you don't have it any more then they do. (Nor do I, nor does Scofflaw, nor does the Young Earth Creationist).

So by what right do you get to call their views non-sensical, but object when they do the same in return?

I maintain that no view is absolutely correct, and that we adopt positions based on their usefulness.

For the layman on the street, it doesn't actually matter if modern science offers a more accurate representation of things then religion. What matters to them is that - on one hand - they gain benefits of other people holding science to be true, whilst - on the other hand - they gain a different set of benefits for what they hold to be true.

If faith is a core of someone's being, then it may be that the distress caused by accepting certain scientific theories is outweighted by any personal benefit it will give them. So they hold what truths are most useful to them. What is useful to you is clearly different to what is useful to me, although perhaps not as wildly divergent as what is useful to either of us and what is useful to a Young Earth Creationist.

That there is the truth, which is the existance of measureable facts and concrete explanations of how the mechnanisms work etc

Thats your truth, not mine.

and that using the the dismissive nonsense of "This is MY truth and its different to YOUR truth" is no more relevant or usefull than "singing la la la"

I, and others, are telling you that your understanding of science and the implications of current scientific knowledge is (somewhat) flawed. In the face of this, you have accepted that you're not a physicist, but continue to argue about what your truth is even though it differs to that of the physicists.

So are you not doing exactly what it is that bugs you? Holding your truth to be true, despite it being at odds with the very thing (science) you claim should be underpinning what truth really is?

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Ah, now that is a very different matter. It sounds like you have encountered someone who says that gravity is part of the way in which God upholds and governs the universe. Then they stated (probably, I would guess, in the context of whether miracles occur?) that God is able, if He chooses, to suspend the law of gravity so that a man, for example, could walk on water. (The validity of that claim would be a subject for another thread, possibly the one that discusses whether magic is simply undiscovered technology?)

If so, then the second sentence of your quote is in error. A theist making such a claim would not be rebutting the law of gravity, nor would they be disputing that the mass of an object warps the fabric of space and causes stuff to fall towards it. They would simply be stating that an omnipotent God can, at a time and place of His choosing, cause the mass of an object to have a different effect and so not cause stuff to fall toward it.

I guess, if you approach the subject with a lot of preconceived notions and a lack of an inquiring spirit, it would be difficult to think in such a way.

Well, was calling me a closed minded pillock really necessary?

But as far as it goes, the folks I was talking to seemed pretty sure that everyone from Newton to Einstein was wrong. But you should know that it was part of a casual conversation. I didnt get into a huge debate over it.

joe_chicken

What bonkey said!

(great post by the way!)

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

Science says otherwise.



No, its not. Modern physics has already determined that the so-called laws of causality are not aboslute.



And I'm telling you that you are wrong, in that there are situations where this cannot hold true, effectively because the information cannot be known. This is what a non-deterministic system is by definition - a system where (certain) things cannot be determined with certainty.


You're wrong. Pleading that you're not that educated on the areas of physics and mathematics that falsify your claim doesn't stop it being falsified.


Unless when you get to that level, quantum effects come in to play - which they do. And, as I said, quantum effects, as best we can determine, are non-deterministic. They include a degree of randomness that we currently believe is inherent and unavoidable.

To put that into clearer english...you are right in that you need to look closer and closer and closer, and were it possible to accumulate all of that information, you'd have a far more accurate model than at present. But, as you look closer, you eventually get to a point where the information you seek cannot be determined. It is the inbuilt "uncertainty" of quantum mechanics and until and unless we can show otherwise it will ultimately constrain the accuracy of any model.

You are basically saying that its theoretically possible to know this stuff, and thus to determine things, even though science says otherwise.

I, in response, would say that this is - at its very core - a non-scientific position in that it is non-falsifiable (you can always say that science is wrong, and that some time in the future it will be possible) and that it flies in the face of what it is trying to support - the "truth" of science.

Science might someday show that this universe is a deterministic system. It might someday show that it is non-deterministic. In this latter case, then your basic "knowing everything is possible" argument is wrong. We have no way of knowing...so your assertion is wrong in that we can only say it might be possible.


Again, you're working under some misconceptions.

As best we can tell, the conditions at the big bang were so extreme that "simple" concepts like causality ceased to have meaning. Effect could come before cause. Determinism was a no-no. As best we can tell, Determinism is still a no-no.

You can repeat your insistence otherwise all you like, but what you're essentially doing is rejecting science out of hand, because you hold something else to be true. Does that remind you of anything?


Its not an entirely different argument...as I've just shown. You are rejecting science out of hand to hold your position to be true.

From a strict perspective, a lot of what you hold to be true is as much non-sense as what it is you're attacking. Its probably "less wrong", but just like Newton's "Laws", its still wrong.

If truth is an absolute, as you maintain, then you don't have it any more then they do. (Nor do I, nor does Scofflaw, nor does the Young Earth Creationist).

So by what right do you get to call their views non-sensical, but object when they do the same in return?

I maintain that no view is absolutely correct, and that we adopt positions based on their usefulness.

For the layman on the street, it doesn't actually matter if modern science offers a more accurate representation of things then religion. What matters to them is that - on one hand - they gain benefits of other people holding science to be true, whilst - on the other hand - they gain a different set of benefits for what they hold to be true.

If faith is a core of someone's being, then it may be that the distress caused by accepting certain scientific theories is outweighted by any personal benefit it will give them. So they hold what truths are most useful to them. What is useful to you is clearly different to what is useful to me, although perhaps not as wildly divergent as what is useful to either of us and what is useful to a Young Earth Creationist.


Thats your truth, not mine.


I, and others, are telling you that your understanding of science and the implications of current scientific knowledge is (somewhat) flawed. In the face of this, you have accepted that you're not a physicist, but continue to argue about what your truth is even though it differs to that of the physicists.

So are you not doing exactly what it is that bugs you? Holding your truth to be true, despite it being at odds with the very thing (science) you claim should be underpinning what truth really is?

Ok, I cant argue with most of that.

It still doesnt change my original point.

The my truth your ruth thing is utter garbage. The truth can only have a single definition. Thats the point of truth.

I am not talking about "My" truth because I dont have a "my" truth. I was talking about "the" truth. I object to people invoking this concept of "truth" as a way of justifying a redudant argument for which they have no other way of defending save to dismiss all questions and challenges out of hand.

Thats all that the "my truth" arguement does and thats why I object to it.

All quantum theory, chaos theory, Newtons Laws etc aside at the root of everything there is its substance and form. There are its mechanics and its explanation. Those are the truth because they are the constituents of reality. Dismissing these (eventual facts and laws since they cannot be explained etc presently) by using the argument that "God" is another truth, an over riding and pervasive one that is the explanation for everything, is incredibly lazy and useless rationale.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Ok, I cant argue with most of that.

It still doesnt change my original point.

The my truth your ruth thing is utter garbage. The truth can only have a single definition. Thats the point of truth.

I think the issue is, some Christians say:
"I have found the truth", they are using the definite English article i.e. "the", but that's grammatically incorrect, "the" truth to what?
They could say use the indefinite English article:
"I have found a truth" that would be ok.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think the issue is, some Christians say:
"I have found the truth", they are using the definite English article i.e. "the", but that's grammatically incorrect, "the" truth to what?
They could say use the indefinite English article:
"I have found a truth" that would be ok.

Hmmmm I still have a problem with that.

"A truth" to what? Can someone point me in the direction of this ehtereal "truth"?

and what the hell is a "personal" truth anyway? What you did what you are made of, what you are, where you are and how much cash you have in your wallet. The state that you exist in. thats about all I can think of for that.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Hmmmm I still have a problem with that.

"A truth" to what? Can someone point me in the direction of this ehtereal "truth"?

and what the hell is a "personal" truth anyway? What you did what you are made of, what you are, where you are and how much cash you have in your wallet. The state that you exist in. thats about all I can think of for that.

Well that's a valid question: "A truth" to what? It's up for them to explain that.
But it's not logical or grammatically incorrect to say "I have found a truth".
It's not a great usage of the word even when using the indefinite article, it's more rhetoric than logic. But it's worth pointing out exactly what's wrong with it rather than just dismissing it.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well that's a valid question: "A truth" to what? It's up for them to explain that.
But it's not logical or grammatically incorrect to say "I have found a truth".
It's not a great usage of the word even when using the indefinite article, it's more rhetoric than logic. But it's worth pointing out exactly what's wrong with it rather than just dismissing it.

I was actually hoping I had done that and that the niggly bits would be obvious.

It appears, however, that I have a bit more reading to do.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

I was actually hoping I had done that and that the niggly bits would be obvious.

It appears, however, that I have a bit more reading to do.

That's amazing to hear that. I frequent these boards regularly and it is rare to hear somebody say something like that. A true rationalist fair play to you.

To quote Russell:

"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality. "

Son Goku

There's a few obstacles to complete determinism.

Firstly Chaos means that enough information cannot be gathered to completely determine a system. You would need to gather a continous infinity of information to be accurate.

Secondly Quantum Mechanics means that the classical and quantum world always interface in a random way (even though they are totally deterministic on their own), so some information is always lost in the any process which brings them together.

Thridly (ignore this if you're not interested) there is the issue of global hyperbolicity. Due to the curvature of spacetime, objects don't necessarily depend on their own pasts entirely. So even if you did gather all the information, you still couldn't predict things. This gets worse the more time dimensions the universe has, which is why science would be impoosible if there were more than one time dimension.

As for non-P problems, as far as I know they are more to do with the argument over whether or not their is a god.

NP problems refer to problems whose answer is simple to check but hard to find. An example would be finding a solution to an equation. It's hard to find/work out the solution, but if you are handed the solution it is easy to check that it is correct.

Finally Godel's Incompleteness theorem, I think it came up, refers to the fact that any language is either inconsistent or incomplete, never both and never neither. Inconsistent means it is possible to say a sentence in the language that doesn't make sense. Incomplete means that there are some statements in the language whose truth you can't verify by using only the language itself.

Basically either a collection of mathematics is self-contradictory somewhere or it isn't. If it isn't it is consistent. However if it is consistent then (by Godel's Theorem) you can't prove it is consistent.

Or to put it another way, a flawed mathematical system can tell you it is flawed, but a perfect system can't tell you it is perfect.

Fallen Seraph

I've come across theists who claim that god mediates the strong nuclear force. Now there's a feat worthy of a deity!

Hivemind187

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I've come across theists who claim that god mediates the strong nuclear force. Now there's a feat worthy of a deity!

Blimy ... I must work out :eek:

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Why would a theist want to rebut the law of gravity?

Why would a theists want to rebut evolution? Or general relativity?

They always seem to come up with a reason