Ask a physicist anything. (6)

[Wiccan_Child]

Add the word "physical" to your statement, and it becomes true. Science is the study of the physical world. There are branches of science that study less concrete things, and at a point it ceases to be science, no matter who might like to label it as still science.

Could you provide a definition of 'physical'? What constitutes the 'physical' world? Are neutrinos physical, even though billions stream through my body every second without so much as a peep? Are ghosts non-physical, even though they give off a range of phenomena and are far more 'concrete' than neutrinos?

If you have a better way than science of acquiring truth, I'd love to hear it.

 

[razeontherock]

Could you provide a definition of 'physical'? What constitutes the 'physical' world? Are neutrinos physical, even though billions stream through my body every second without so much as a peep? Are ghosts non-physical, even though they give off a range of phenomena and are far more 'concrete' than neutrinos?

If you have a better way than science of acquiring truth, I'd love to hear it.

These are interesting questions, but not being a scientist I'm not going to try to address such fine lines of distinction. I'm surprised to see you allude to ghosts, and I suspect you don't really think it's a "ghost," any more than I do.

If you think it's difficult trying to create a line of demarcation between physical and Spiritual, you should try doing it between Spirit and soul!

Spiritual Truth does not try to address scientific pursuit. Your questions here are clearly not of the Spiritual realm.

 

[Chalnoth]

Add the word "physical" to your statement, and it becomes true.

No, it's true period. You can't escape logic by adding special modifiers like "spiritual" or "supernatural" to something you want to believe without having an evidence-based reason to do so.

 

[razeontherock]

So what you're saying is you're a materialist? Imagine that.

 

[Chalnoth]

I've never heard that definition before. What about the mandlebrot? Surely that's a two dimensional object, albeit one with a ridiculously complex edge?

Well, the formal definition is that it has a Hausdorff dimension which is greater than its topological dimension.

You can read up on the Hausdorff dimension here: Hausdorff dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wiccan_Child]

These are interesting questions, but not being a scientist I'm not going to try to address such fine lines of distinction. I'm surprised to see you allude to ghosts, and I suspect you don't really think it's a "ghost," any more than I do.

Indeed, I don't believe they exist at all; it was a hypothetical. Regardless of whether or not ghosts exist, they are traditionally deemed spiritual, supernatural, paranormal, etc. This suggests that the different between 'physical' and 'spiritual' is a traditional one, not one that has any actual meaning. Why are ghosts spiritual and neutrinos physical? What is it about them that separates them so?

If you think it's difficult trying to create a line of demarcation between physical and Spiritual, you should try doing it between Spirit and soul!

Spiritual Truth does not try to address scientific pursuit. Your questions here are clearly not of the Spiritual realm.

On the contrary, you were the one how asserted a demarcation between the physical and spiritual. If you don't know what the difference is, how do you know there's a difference at all?

Let's look at it another way. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, a way of accruing facts and using them to support or disprove explanations or claims about the universe ("Pluto exists, and here are the facts", "Tiktaalik exists, and here are the facts"). You say that science can't go beyond the physical, the natural, etc. Thus, we can deduce what the 'physical' is. As the physical is anything and everything that's within the bounds of science, and since science is the pursuit of verifiable knowledge, we can therefore say that something is 'physical' if it can be scientifically studied, if its existence can be supported with data.

Ghosts, for instance, therefore become 'physical'. If they exist as traditionally understood, their existence can be proven and they can be scientifically studied - by your own definition, this places them squarely in the realm of the physical, natural world.

Since you define science as being restricted to the physical world, would you say the above is a reasonable definition of 'physical'?

 

[razeontherock]

Ghosts, for instance, therefore become 'physical'. If they exist as traditionally understood, their existence can be proven and they can be scientifically studied - by your own definition, this places them squarely in the realm of the physical, natural world.

I don't think we have supporting data for that but I don't know, I don't watch TV

Since you define science as being restricted to the physical world, would you say the above is a reasonable definition of 'physical'?

I have no qualms with what you said, but again some of those lines seem to blur. I think you're fitting better into the definition of materialism. (Do I even need to point out this is reasonable for a physicist?)

 

[Chalnoth]

So what you're saying is you're a materialist? Imagine that.

I'm not talking about a belief system. I am talking about facts, reason, and logic. The facts are that there exists no other way of arriving at truth about reality that is compatible with reason and logic than the scientific method, because the scientific method will accept any logically-sound arguments that help to arrive at the truth.

Saying that there are other ways of knowing is simply an excuse to avoid reason and logic, to believe what you want without evidence or in spite of it. Show that there is another way of knowing, and demonstrate that it works, and it will be included in science. It's that "demonstrate that it works" part that guarantees that science is the only valid way of knowing: if you can't demonstrate it, then you can't know it. End of story.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't think we have supporting data for that but I don't know, I don't watch TV

Still, if ghosts exist as usually depicted, they would emit light, move objects, lower temperatures, even talk to us - all things which we can scientifically measure. We could potentially take reliable series of pictures of them and demonstrate that they exist. That would surely make them physical, yes?

I have no qualms with what you said, but again some of those lines seem to blur. I think you're fitting better into the definition of materialism. (Do I even need to point out this is reasonable for a physicist?)

That depends. As I've tried to explain, I'm not enamoured with 'naturalism', 'materialism', or any other arbitrary demarcation of such objects. I'm a physicist, a scientist, which means I want to know why things work, why things do what they do and not what they don't.

I don't care if the explanation involves ghost or gods, so long as it's the truth. I believe science is the best method we have of acquiring the truth, and I believe everything that exists that can potentially interact with us (be it water or neutrinos or ghosts or God) falls under the purview of science. I don't believe science is limited in any real way, nor do I have much truck with the apparently meaningless labels of 'material/immaterial', 'physical/spiritual', 'normal/paranormal', 'natural/supernatural', etc.

Label me what you will, that's my view of things. Science is the acquisition of truth, whatever the truth might be. If God exists, science will find him.

 

[razeontherock]

Saying that there are other ways of knowing is simply an excuse to avoid reason and logic, to believe what you want without evidence or in spite of it.

Incorrect. Faith is built upon reason and logic; it just doesn't deal with the same sorts of things science does. Not everything attempts to be included in science." The principles contained in the scientific method can still be applied to some extent though, and of course that's a good idea.

 

[razeontherock]

Still, if ghosts exist as usually depicted, they would emit light, move objects, lower temperatures, even talk to us - all things which we can scientifically measure. We could potentially take reliable series of pictures of them and demonstrate that they exist. That would surely make them physical, yes?

Such data would do so, but would not remove the spiritual component. Just like humans

I don't care if the explanation involves ghost or gods, so long as it's the truth. ... If God exists, science will find him.

I certainly will not stand in your way! I would re-iterate that science has been "finding G-d" (via His works) for a very long time now. And when people ask how to seek G-d, I won't be pointing them in the direction of science for that. In fact there is right now a very mixed up individual asking that very question, who can look back and see they become obsessed with listening to debates between Ev and Cr, and this preceded their crisis of Faith. I expect to find their dilemma was largely failure to separate physical things from Spiritual, and this to be most clearly reflected in their understanding of the Bible. If it proves that instead it is science that helps him understand, you'll be the first to know!

 

[sandwiches]

Incorrect. Faith is built upon reason and logic; it just doesn't deal with the same sorts of things science does.

What does faith deal with?

 

[Chalnoth]

Incorrect. Faith is built upon reason and logic; it just doesn't deal with the same sorts of things science does.

Yeah, um, faith itself is spurious reasoning (as faith is belief in the absence of evidence). Saying it's based upon reason and logic is rather like saying murder is based upon love and empathy. It's positively absurd.

Not everything attempts to be included in science."

Then why, pray tell, are the faithful continually attempting to get science to support their views?

The principles contained in the scientific method can still be applied to some extent though, and of course that's a good idea.

They can be applied in full. And they show that religion is entirely wrong about virtually everything it tries to say about the nature of reality.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Such data would do so, but would not remove the spiritual component. Just like humans

What spiritual component is that, exactly? Are you saying that something can be both physical and spiritual?

I certainly will not stand in your way! I would re-iterate that science has been "finding G-d" (via His works) for a very long time now.

What works, exactly?

And when people ask how to seek G-d, I won't be pointing them in the direction of science for that. In fact there is right now a very mixed up individual asking that very question, who can look back and see they become obsessed with listening to debates between Ev and Cr, and this preceded their crisis of Faith. I expect to find their dilemma was largely failure to separate physical things from Spiritual, and this to be most clearly reflected in their understanding of the Bible. If it proves that instead it is science that helps him understand, you'll be the first to know!

I wonder if he would be so conflicted if he was an atheist - unlike theists, we don't have to struggle to reconcile our religious beliefs with what we know about the world. Perhaps his crisis of faith wasn't caused by an error on his part, but perhaps an insurmountable conflict between science and religion? Perhaps he genuinely felt that his religion implied Creationism, while his science implied evolution.

 

[razeontherock]

Yeah, um, faith itself is spurious reasoning (as faith is belief in the absence of evidence).

Well if you go w/ that definition none of it makes sense, that's for sure.

Saying it's based upon reason and logic is rather like saying murder is based upon love and empathy. It's positively absurd.

Only if you insist on using a wrong definition, rather than finding out what is meant.

Then why, pray tell, are the faithful continually attempting to get science to support their views?

"They," are not. It is a very small minority.

They can be applied in full. And they show that religion is entirely wrong about virtually everything it tries to say about the nature of reality.

Only within the confines of a materialist POV, which is where most of Christian false ideas come from

 

[hasone]

It looks like the Sun goes round the Earth, and the other planets go round the Sun, and their moons go round their planets. Basically, it'd look like the normal heliocentric model with the camera following the Earth.


You'd be in a non-inertial frame, as the Earth is accelerating. To assume it's at rest generates fictitious forces. To assume an inertial reference frame, you'd find the Earth accelerating from rest as it moves round the Sun.

thanks!

 

[pgp_protector]

Yeah, um, faith itself is spurious reasoning (as faith is belief in the absence of evidence).

Well if you go w/ that definition none of it makes sense, that's for sure.
...snip...

Isn't that the Bible's definition of faith though?
Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well if you go w/ that definition none of it makes sense, that's for sure.

What do you mean "go with that definition"? This is what people mean by the word in relation to the pursuit of truth!

Now, other uses of faith are "trust in a person" and "a particular religion", but those obviously aren't what we are talking about here, are they?

"They," are not. It is a very small minority.

Seems a pretty darned popular position to me.

Only within the confines of a materialist POV, which is where most of Christian false ideas come from

I said nothing whatsoever about materialism. Only being able to check your answers. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can't check your answers, then you're guaranteed to get it wrong. Period.

 

[razeontherock]

What does faith deal with?

One way of addressing this is to say it is the eye of our Spirit. Which is why it's so absurd when someone claims that Faith is not rational. We see, or understand, Spiritual things via Faith, which is evidence.

 

[razeontherock]

What spiritual component is that, exactly? Are you saying that something can be both physical and spiritual?

Yes! Our species is the only example I know of for sure though.

What works, exactly?

I keep trying to return this thread to it's purpose. I hope you see that? Anyway, maybe some of this is in some small way at least tangentially related. The context here is you showed the attitude that if G-d exists, science will find Him. I find this to be admirable, and rare! I said science has been finding Him via His works, with said works being ... anything with physical existence, apparently. If He is creator of all that is, seen and unseen, that includes laws of physics.

I should interject this comment I just stumbled upon in another thread, to see what you might make of it:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck

Obviously I will point out some similarity with at least 2 notable passages of Scripture, but do you discredit Planck?

I wonder if he would be so conflicted if he was an atheist - unlike theists, we don't have to struggle to reconcile our religious beliefs with what we know about the world. Perhaps his crisis of faith wasn't caused by an error on his part, but perhaps an insurmountable conflict between science and religion? Perhaps he genuinely felt that his religion implied Creationism, while his science implied evolution.

Well I don't yet know if his faith got "leavened" with falsely thinking it should contradict science. That certainly is one possibility that plagues him, but currently it is his turn to atheism that troubles him.