Ask a physicist anything. (2)

[Cabal]

 

[Chesterton]

Here's how I picture WC:

At work:

And after hours:

 

[Doveaman]

Thus, one can be a gnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist.
Some people have a different vocabulary to me. To them, what I call a strong atheist and a weak atheist, they call an atheist and an agnostic. Confusing, I know!

If I decide to convert from “theist” I think I’ll become a “weak atheist” just to play it safe in case there is a God.

I'm also disinclined to consider subjective revelation as legitimate evidence.

What if "subjective revelation" is supported by observed facts, wouldn't that be evidence to the one who received the revelation?

Evidence is simply the accrue of facts in favour of some proposition, no?

Yes. But you have evidence of things I have no evidence for, and therefore I do not believe all of what you believe because I don't have the evidence you do. Even if you present your evidence to me I can still disagree with it, but it will still be evidence to you.

Arguably, then, pure logical proofs constitutes evidence (as I said above): "1 + 1 = 2" is a fact, and thus could potentially be used as evidence in favour of some proposition.

Yes, but there are some people who don’t believe “1 + 1 = 2”, and therefore they have no logical reason to believe “1 + 1 = God”.

The idea that life comes from non-life or that the singularity/universe just popped into existence out of nothing just doesn't add up for some people unless God did it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You're both wrong, I'm actually...

AV1611VET!

You guys didn't actually believe all that embedded age stuff did you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If I decide to convert from “theist” I think I’ll become a “weak atheist” just to play it safe in case there is a God.

If there is a God, who's to say he won't favour only strong atheists? For all we know, rejecting the possibility that deities exist could be the very thing that gets you into Heaven.

What if "subjective revelation" is supported by observed facts, wouldn't that be evidence to the one who received the revelation?

No, it would be circumstantial at best. The revelation just so happens to agree with observed facts; if I dream that it's going to rain, and the next day it does indeed rain, does that correlation constitute evidence that my dreams are prophetic? No: it's just a curious coincidence.

Unless, of course, they really are prophetic . But correlation alone is not sufficient.

Yes. But you have evidence of things I have no evidence for, and therefore I do not believe all of what you believe because I don't have the evidence you do. Even if you present your evidence to me I can still disagree with it, but it will still be evidence to you.

We can disagree on whether something constitutes evidence, just as we can disagree that "1 + 1 = 2". That doesn't mean both arguments are equally valid, though: you can deny that the sky is blue, but the sky's colour is blue regardless.
The whole point of a debate is to argue such points. I consider this and that to be evidence supporting evolution, but you don't. You consider this and that to evidence God, but I don't. The debate rests on demonstrating that the facts do indeed support the proposition.

Yes, but there are some people who don’t believe “1 + 1 = 2”, and therefore they have no logical reason to believe “1 + 1 = God”.

You'd be surprised what inane arguments people can come up with to prove there's a God (and, indeed, to prove there isn't).

The idea that life comes from non-life or that the singularity/universe just popped into existence out of nothing just doesn't add up for some people unless God did it.

And for others, it does. That's why science remains objective: regardless of what we may feel about the matter, the facts are the facts. We may not like time dilation, but that's irrelevant to its veracity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ever wondered what it would look like if you plotted a sperm whale's movements?

"This image depicts the movements of a sperm whale in the central Gulf of California during a seven-day period. Frequent deep dives in a small area during one three-day interval (center) probably indicate foraging in a prey-rich locale."

Source.

Cools, no?

 

[pgp_protector]

Ever wondered what it would look like if you plotted a sperm whale's movements?

"This image depicts the movements of a sperm whale in the central Gulf of California during a seven-day period. Frequent deep dives in a small area during one three-day interval (center) probably indicate foraging in a prey-rich locale."

Source.

Cools, no?

Cool yes.
And take a look at that one deep dive compared to the others.
I wonder what was going on that time.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Cool yes.
And take a look at that one deep dive compared to the others.
I wonder what was going on that time.

Wouldn't you want to see how far you could dive? That's what I think he was doing

 

[Doveaman]

What if "subjective revelation" is supported by observed facts, wouldn't that be evidence to the one who received the revelation?

No, it would be circumstantial at best. The revelation just so happens to agree with observed facts; if I dream that it's going to rain, and the next day it does indeed rain, does that correlation constitute evidence that my dreams are prophetic? No: it's just a curious coincidence.

We are not talking about dreams; we are talking about divine revelation. There is a big difference. Observed facts do not always agree with dreams, but observed facts do always agree with divine revelation, so those observed facts that always agree with the divine revelation would be considered evidence to the one who received the revelation.

Unless, of course, they really are prophetic.

They are.

But correlation alone is not sufficient.

It would be sufficient if the observed facts are always consistent with the revelation.

How do you confirm a scientific hypothesis/revelation?

 

[Chesterton]

Wouldn't you want to see how far you could dive? That's what I think he was doing

The whale was probably thinking "Maybe if I go deep enough the pressure will make this stupid tag malfunction and these creepy humans will stop spying on me."

 

[TerranceL]

We are not talking about dreams; we are talking about divine revelation. There is a big difference. Observed facts do not always agree with dreams, but observed facts do always agree with divine revelation, so those observed facts that always agree with the divine revelation would be considered evidence to the one who received the revelation.

Especially after the thing that were divinely revealed already happened.

 

[Maxwell511]

Beyond pure logic, I don't know of any.

Arguably, then, pure logical proofs constitutes evidence (as I said above): "1 + 1 = 2" is a fact, and thus could potentially be used as evidence in favour of some proposition.

I would disagree. Pure logic is not evidence.

1+1=2 is not a fact; it is a deduction from the Peano Axioms. In order to assert that it as a fact you would need to "prove" the Peano Axioms and the only way to really do this is through the use of empirical evidence.

You can have algebras where 1+1=0, for example (think NAND gate), the "factness" of the equality is dependent on the axioms that hold empirically for the actual system in consideration.

The only way logic proves the non-existence (and it can only prove non-existence not existence) is if it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.

The status of any proposition can only be judged as "true" empirically unless its truth is self contradictory.

 

[Doveaman]

Especially after the thing that were divinely revealed already happened.

Nope.

 

[Nostromo]

I would disagree. Pure logic is not evidence.

1+1=2 is not a fact; it is a deduction from the Peano Axioms.

Isn't 2 defined as 1 greater than 1? Surely the above is tautological and necessarily true?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We are not talking about dreams; we are talking about divine revelation. There is a big difference. Observed facts do not always agree with dreams, but observed facts do always agree with divine revelation, so those observed facts that always agree with the divine revelation would be considered evidence to the one who received the revelation.

Exactly: they're evidence to the one who received the revelation. But not to anyone else. To anyone else, there is no difference between revelation and imagination: they're both claims that need to be verified. That one happens to be divinely inspired doesn't matter.

It would be sufficient if the observed facts are always consistent with the revelation.

Indeed. But, of course, they're not. Oh you can claim they are, as many Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc, do, but debate still rages as to whether they actually do.

The fulfilled prophecies of Christ, for instance. I've debated them on many an occasion. And let's not forget the so-called 'knowledge' God reveals to the likes of Rob Paterson...

How do you confirm a scientific hypothesis/revelation?

By trying to disprove it. If it's true, you won't be able to disprove it, and will instead just accrue evidence for it. If it's false, you will be able to disprove it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Isn't 2 defined as 1 greater than 1? Surely the above is tautological and necessarily true?

Actually, no: '2' is defined as: |{{}, {{}}}|. That is, it's the cardinality of the set containing the null set and the set containing the null set.

Well, that's one way to define it. You can define 2 as the sum of 1 and 1, but then, what is 1?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would disagree. Pure logic is not evidence.

1+1=2 is not a fact; it is a deduction from the Peano Axioms. In order to assert that it as a fact you would need to "prove" the Peano Axioms and the only way to really do this is through the use of empirical evidence.

I disagree, though this is going into the very nature of proof and axiomatic logic. 1 + 1 = 2 is defined to be true. Peano Axioms (or ZPF, which I prefer) are definitions of '1', '2', '+', and '=', and it follows from those definitions that '1 + 1 = 2'. I argue that the statement '1 + 1 = 2' is known to be true with 100% certainty, and that this constitutes a fact.

What is a fact, if not a true statement?

You can have algebras where 1+1=0, for example (think NAND gate), the "factness" of the equality is dependent on the axioms that hold empirically for the actual system in consideration.

Naturally. A conclusion is only proven when the argument's premises are sound, and the logical steps are valid.

The only way logic proves the non-existence (and it can only prove non-existence not existence) is if it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.

In practice, but not in principle. I don't see why, in principle, logical analysis cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of something (that we haven't yet is, of course, not proof that we can't).

 

[Doveaman]

You can define 2 as the sum of 1 and 1, but then, what is 1?

The sum of 1 and 0.

Is zero a number in science?

 

[Doveaman]

And let's not forget the so-called 'knowledge' God reveals to the likes of Rob Paterson...

Who? Never met him.

By trying to disprove it. If it's true, you won't be able to disprove it, and will instead just accrue evidence for it. If it's false, you will be able to disprove it.

Then divine revelation is true.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The sum of 1 and 0.

That's tautologous: we still don't have a definition of '1'.
The actual definition (that I like to use) is that '1' is |{{}}|, or the cardinality of the set containing the empty set.

Is zero a number in science?

That question is answered by mathematics, not science. And the answer is: yes, zero is a number.