Defining the term "evidence" in religion/science

[quatona]

Great. We're off to a good empirical start.

Start??
That physically defined ideas are subject to science, whereas "supernaturally" defined ones aren´t has never even been a point of disagreement between us.

Hmmm. Let's talk "neutrinos" then.

Remind me: Which ancient mythology is the term "neutrino" associated with?

At one point in time, we discovered from particle physics experiments that some particle physics transactions resulted in what appeared to be the loss of some small amount of energy. The laws of physics *insisted* that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. So where did that little extra bit of energy go anyway?

A few folks came up with the idea that a small amount of energy was being released as a 'new particle', one never seen in nature before. A great deal of effort was put into trying to figure out exactly how much energy was missing, and what kinds of atoms such a small amount of energy might interact with in terms of actual experiments.

At *some moment in time*, there was no actual "empirical laboratory evidence" for such a particle. After *years* of efforts and lots of money, they finally did demonstrate the existence of such particle in controlled experiments on Earth. There was however a moment in time where the particle itself was "unseen in the lab", only the *effect* of the missing particle was seen in the lab, in the form of a small amount of 'missing energy'.

All fine and dandy - but how is all that addressing what you wrote it in response to?

This is the point in time where Elendur's evidence model is actually useful IMO. Furthermore, you and I have to show some sort of "latitude" about whether or not that law of physics combined with observations in controlled experimentation can be considered evidence of a "missing particle/energy"?

I'm specifically talking about the period of time from the observation of 'missing energy/mass' to the moment that neutrinos were verified in the lab.

Yes? No?

Yes/no to what question? I don´t see any. Although your previous paragraph ended with a question mark, it didn´t contain any question.
On top, it didn´t seem to address my post.

In terms of 'introducing them into science', I'm not actually doing that, I'm simply "observing" that humans the world over have written about *communing with God". They describe *methods* that were used to initiate the process, and they typically describe the 'presence' of God within themselves (as in physically inside them). They often describe the experience of 'Becoming one with the Universe", or "One with God". Christianity takes this one step further in the sense the Jesus described an "intelligent comforter" that would come to others, and "testify" as to the authenticity of his statements. I'm not technically 'introducing' anything into the conversation other than 'evidence' that the connection between God and humans has been talked about for thousands of years.

Of course you are introducing it into the scientific discussion, in that you interprete scientific theories as confirming people´s impressions as confirmed by science. Not only that - you pick and choose from various terminologies and pick the one of a particular religion.
From what I have seen in your thread, Michael, you already have a hard time convincing mainstream scientists of your ideas even without loading them with religious interpretations. Now, if you bundle your scientific ideas and your religious interpretations, I can easily see why things get even harder for you: By calling your scientific ideas religious names you require people to not only consider your scientific ideas but your religious associations along with them. That´s quite a package.

I'm not changing the term for this 'communion presence', I'm using a term straight from a religious text that describes this process in detail.

As we all know, there are countless interpretation as to what a religious text describes. Religious texts are, by their very nature, highly interpretable - and that´s why it´s not a good idea to load a process that aims for precision with terms from religious texts.

I disagree about the confusion aspect. I'm providing you with a perfectly 'physical' definition of "God" so that we have an empirical starting point.

Well, what if I insist to call this physically defined thing "Satan" instead?

We can debate whether or not that physical structure is "alive" and "aware" and whether it interacts with humans in physical ways, but at least we have a physical definition of God as a logical starting point in our discussion. You can understand the *physical* thing I'm talking about when I use the term "God".

I would understand it better if you wouldn´t use such a loaded term.
Especially when a defining element of the term is - in its traditional use - the "supernaturality" of the subject, whereas you are insisting that you are talking about a physical phenomenon. You know, not even many theists would agree that what you call "God" is actually God.
By using this loaded language you create unnecessary problems for everyone involved - yourself being the first.

We can now debate the merits of the "issues' that really matter, and forget all the 'supernatural' stuff entirely. Nothing "invisible" was introduced into our definition. Nothing *untestable* was introduced into our discussion.

No, we can not forget it, as long as you replace neutral terms by terms that are known to describe the opposite ideas of the ones you are presenting: "supernatural" ones.

I agree. I suggest we discuss that actual topic in the Empirical Theory Of God thread.

I'll try to take some time today to do that for you in the other thread. Stay tuned. [/quote]
No offense meant - but sorry, attending one of these threads is enough for me. If you want to respond to me, please do it here. If not, that´s fine with me, as well.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'll concede that the term "empirical" can be interpreted as an observation, which technically has no control mechanism. You however will need to concede that redshift is an "empirical observation", but expansion claims are an *interpretation*, not an empirical observation. There is a place here where subjectivity creeps into the conversation in a hurry without control mechanisms. You're also right that I'm imposing greater restrictions by requiring cause/effect claims to be "lab demonstrated", but frankly it's not an impossible hurdle in religion, so I fail to see why it would be an impossible hurdle for science either.

No, redshift has never been observed except as motion of objects within a medium. It is a "Doppler effect," and despite mainstreams claim to the contrary, has never been observed independent of a medium. Besides which mainstream ruled out velocity of objects as a possible cause when technology advanced and redshift would of made galaxies recede at fractions of c; a result even mainstream could not stomach.

Plasma redshift however, is an empirical observation and experimental result.
Mainstream's reliance on a spacetime composed of nothing expanding and stretching the light waves is a leap of faith so great as to shame any religion. A leap of faith so great it is contradicted by the empirical evidence.
99% of the universe is plasma, plasma redshift has been observed in the laboratory. Instead mainstream attempts to defend a nothing that expands, excuse me, has accelerating expansion, but is not an ether.

I'll also concede that empirical *lab* standards are limiting, maybe too limiting at times. I'll have to see if quatona participates in and how he fairs in the other thread, but I'll concede that scaling presents a problem for all cosmology theories as it relates to "lab demonstrations'. I may need some "wiggle room" somewhere between "lab standards" and "empirical observation" in terms of what constitutes "evidence". We'll see.

It is all based upon pure mathematical constructs that are imagined to be in place. But the math does not need these Fairie Dust constructs to describe the solar system one little bit. It just needs them when mainstream attempts to restrict plasma to the math of solids, liquids and gasses.

Every single particle but the atoms being bonded in a plasma is a charged particle. They are not governed by the equations of bound matter, but unbound matter.

Mainstreams own Big Bang theory demands that plasma be the first state of matter from which all solids, liquids and gasses coalesced. And after supposedly 13-14 billion years, only 1% of the entire universe has coalesced into solids, liquids and gasses. Yet mainstream insists I use the same math to describe that other 99%, and when observations show the math does not apply, throw in Fairie Dust entity after Fairie Dust entity in an attempt to "save" that theory.

It doesn't need "saving," it works quite well for what it was meant to describe: solids, liquids and gasses. Now mainstream just needs to include the electrodynamic formulas to describe the other 99% and all will be well. The macro and micro finally united. Regardless that mainstreams attempt to unite the two is to develop SUSY or other Fairie Dust theories that discard the electric force, but well, we see how well those keep working out.

Nothing wrong with GR, just dumbed down Weber Electrodynamic Laws is all, to account for the balanced electric and magnetic fields. But well, plasma isn't balanced, almost every particle is a free electron or an ion (an atom with an unequal number of protons and electrons,) giving it a net positive or negative electrical charge.

 

[Elendur]

True. Then again, true cause/effect relationships, like the relationships between inelastic scattering and photon redshift can really *only* be demonstrated in the lab, otherwise it's a "guess/assumption". That's certainly true for the claim that 'expanding space' is the "cause" of photon redshift. That particular claims *cannot ever* be demonstrated in controlled experimentation actually.

Ye, because you can never ever observe relationships outside of labs.
Yup, that's how it is.

We can't know my chair is above the floor, because it's not in a lab.
We can't know how the moons weight is relative to the earths, because none of them is in a lab.
We can't know if the rabbit populations decline was due to the foxes moving in, because they're not in a lab.
We can't know the composition of any star, because they won't fit in our labs.
We can't know the structure of our solar system, because it won't fit in a lab.

If you observed a certain interaction between objects, be careful, it didn't happen if it wasn't in a lab.

Seriously, give it a rest already! A lab is only a room dedicated to experimentation!
Nothing.
More.

I think your advantage is useful in *lab testable* physics, specifically particle physics. It's less advantageous in the realm of astronomy IMO, or scenarios that include claims that defy laboratory testing. In fact it's down right dangerous in the sense it provides no real falsification process that *completely* falsifies any claim. So far I've seen no restriction on the number of hypothetical constructs, and I just can't see any logical way to *fully* falsify an *original* claim, like the claim of "space expansion" using that method.

... So many points in one paragraph...
1. LAB!
2. LAB!
3. It provides with a falsification process. If there's an observation (or rather a body of observations, if we're going with that observations might be false) that's against one of the propositions, it's a falsification.
4. Yes, there's no restriction on the hypothetical constructs, because there's a need for it not to be.
5. Why would we bother with the original claim, since the term itself indicates that it has been abandoned in favor of a different one?

So when Guth claims the universe is homogenous on the largest scales and it's lopsided in the Planck data, can we also claim that there is evidence *against* inflation theory? What happens when the next hypothetical entities gets stuffed in there? Are you going to let them claim that there is 'new evidence for both inflation theory *and* some new hypothetical entity (megaverse/curvaton)?

I've already explained this several times.
If a theory/hypothesis expects (A) and we see (not A), then that specific observation is evidence against the theory/hypothesis.
If they change the theory/hypothesis, they've abandoned the older one in favor for the new one.
And the new one exists independent of the older one.

I don't appreciate that you leave the general for the specific, especially when it's obvious that, since you're using your favorite examples again and again, you're trying to make implicit statements.
Be explicit. It's more polite.

I don't think that excuse "cuts it" in an age when we can run PET scans and watch peoples brain light up while they meditate, while they lie, while the tell the truth, etc. We can even use such technology to filter out the lies, or include their effects in our study if we're clever about the way we use that technology.

Great, scan them and we'll arrive at "they wrote it and they believe it" (if we're lucky).
That they believe it is independent on whether it's true or not.

7 Health Benefits of Meditation

Prayer =/= meditation.
The only time they mention prayer is in "repetitive prayer", which indicates it could be replaced with anything if you say it often enough.

Um, that's an irrelevant study IMO since it assumes that God must answer 'yes' to any and all requests, regardless of the scenario. Sorry, but that's just *not* what I'm talking about.

No, they did not assume that. They we're checking whether it had a statistical effect or not.
Even if there was a low probability (reasonably) that the prayer would be answered it would have given a result.
You've read statistical theory, have you not? To state that they assume such a thing is really... bad.

I understand. I also understand how your method can be useful in the realm of empirically lab testable claims like the Higgs, *before* it was actually found. I get that. What I don't see however is any useful way to outright falsify an original base claim, or even a couple of base claims. It doesn't "penalize" for the addition of multiple supernatural constructs, and there's no limit placed on the number of of supernatural constructs that can be used to 'provide evidence'.

Not only is there no limit to supernatural constructs, there is no such a thing as a supernatural.
I thought I wrote that before.

Well, Lambda-CDM became trivial to me with the inclusion of "dark energy", and irrelevant to cosmology since the Planck data fiasco.

Then you obviously have a different concept of trivial than me.

 

[Elendur]

I disagree. Redshifted photons are observed. We can use various emission lines to demonstrate a distance/redshift relationship. The redshift of photons is observed.

Please then, inform me of how I might observe redshifted photons.
In fact, please tell me how I might observe a photon.
And I'll show you how they're derived results.

Expansion of ''space" claims have *never* been observed. It's a *non demonstrated* claim. Never has an empirical link been demonstrated between expansion of space claims and the phenomenon of redshift in controlled experiments. On the other hand, inelastic scattering and moving objects *can* be empirically (in the lab) shown to "cause" the phenomenon of photon redshift.

This is irrelevant.
When I've shown the former part you'll know why.

I don't care if you're liberal or not either, but I do need a reliable way to *falsify* various claims.

And we have a reliable way (for all non-trivial cases, and for some trivial).

Example:
Take the height hypothesis:
We propose that the global average height is X.

1. We observe that the global average height is X+1.
2. We observe that the worm in Peterssons garage at Spooner street is slightly purple.

Observation 1 is a falsification of the hypothesis.
Observation 2 is not a falsification of the hypothesis.

 

[Michael]

Please then, inform me of how I might observe redshifted photons.

Any Doppler shift experiment should do the trick, or Chen's paper on Stark redshift in plasma should suffice. I'll round up the link for you if you like if this isn't just a rhetorical question.

In fact, please tell me how I might observe a photon.

Your eyes don't see them?

And I'll show you how they're derived results.

You mean the light gets converted into electrical signals in your brain that allow your 'awareness' to interact with them?

And we have a reliable way (for all non-trivial cases, and for some trivial).

You do have a reliable falsification mechanism in *empirical physics*, but you don't have such a method in hypothetical physics. If you *limited* the number of hypothetical entities to one, you would have a reliable way to falsify the original hypothetical entity. If you don't limit the supernatural constructs however, a "failure" in a prediction only means that the first hypothetical entity is assumed to be "true" and a *new* hypothetical entity emerges to "save the day". It's a lot like polytheism if you ask me, too much so for my tastes. I'm really a *lot* more comfortable with a purely empirical (lab) standard of evidence, and I'm fine with suggesting some ideas (like the Higgs) simply did not enjoy the support of "evidence' until LHC experiments. That's acceptable to me.

The 'rub' comes in the neutrino scenario, but even that idea came about due to 'events on Earth' in controlled experiments, and seeming conflicts with *laws* of physics.

IMO your method is find in empirical physics, but it's too 'loosie-goosie" for hypothetical forms of science, or religion IMO. Without restrictions on the number of hypothetical entities, you end up with a high likelihood of polytheism in religion, and multiple supernatural constructs inside one "scientific" hypothesis in "science", none of which are actually "falsifiable" by observational evidence.

The goal posts just can't be allowed to move around like that or the concept of individual falsification for individual hypothetical claims goes flying right out the window.

 

[Michael]

Start??
That physically defined ideas are subject to science, whereas "supernaturally" defined ones aren´t has never even been a point of disagreement between us.

Ok.

Remind me: Which ancient mythology is the term "neutrino" associated with?

That would technically be the first paper written on the topic. Its ancient history now, at least as far as my kids are concerned.

All fine and dandy - but how is all that addressing what you wrote it in response to?

IMO you're ignoring the many human accounts of communing with something they called "God" as "evidence" of some sort of an *effect* which we can attempt to associate with (external or internal) EM fields. In other words 'God' does have a tangible effect on humans according to the testimony of various humans. I'm not the first one to suggest it. I won't be the last either. I'm simply using their testimony as 'evidence' of an effect, and I'm looking for an empirical "cause" that might explain that effect. We both have to at least *try* to explain that cause/effect relationship. Whatever the actual physical cause, there must be one.

Yes/no to what question? I don´t see any. Although your previous paragraph ended with a question mark, it didn´t contain any question.
On top, it didn´t seem to address my post.

Sorry about that. It was busy at work yesterday.

The point I was inelegantly trying to make was that in the neutrino scenario, initially all there was to work with was a perceived amount of "missing energy" and there was no other direct physical evidence of additional particles/energy. No controlled experiment could demonstrate they existed at first. How do we deal with that scenario in terms of what counts as 'evidence' in such a case? Was their 'evidence' of neutrinos, simply by virtue of the *perception* of missing energy from nuclear decay experiments?

Of course you are introducing it into the scientific discussion,

Well, I didn't dream up the Boltzmann brain concept. It was open for scientific discussion long before I ever heard of the idea in "science".

The worst you might accuse me of is associating that scientific hypothesis with panentheism, a "religious" claim about the universe.

in that you interprete scientific theories as confirming people´s impressions as confirmed by science.

I'm only noting that there is a *possible* explanation, and a possible mechanism to explain human experiences. Why not do so?

Not only that - you pick and choose from various terminologies and pick the one of a particular religion.

Sure. I put panetheism and Boltzmann brain theory together since that is the place where "religion' and 'science' meet inside the realm of *empirical physics*. Every idea *can me* (hadn't necessarily yet) been tested in the lab. I'm simply noting the empirical place where science and religion do meet.

From what I have seen in your thread, Michael, you already have a hard time convincing mainstream scientists of your ideas even without loading them with religious interpretations.

You are absolutely right about that. Electric universe theory is the satanic like figure of mainstream cosmology theory. They fear the whole concept. They don't understand it either.

Now, if you bundle your scientific ideas and your religious interpretations, I can easily see why things get even harder for you: By calling your scientific ideas religious names you require people to not only consider your scientific ideas but your religious associations along with them. That´s quite a package.

Yep. It's quite a package. FYI, I've never tried to actually "publish" anything theistically oriented in any any scientific papers, and I wouldn't even attempt such a thing. I have no problem focusing on demonstrated physics, and you're right, the rest isn't going to help anyone grasp EU/PC theory.

As we all know, there are countless interpretation as to what a religious text describes. Religious texts are, by their very nature, highly interpretable - and that´s why it´s not a good idea to load a process that aims for precision with terms from religious texts.

Virtually all of them however describe a 'God' and describe a *communion* process that allows them to 'be one with' God. Either way you look at it, they're all describing a living being they connect to *inside their head*. I'm simply proposing an empirical definition of the thing they're calling 'God' and I'm proposing a *mechanism* (EM fields) to explain the "in their head' aspect.

Well, what if I insist to call this physically defined thing "Satan" instead?

Well, for starters, the root word comes from the term "adversary" and it ultimately applied to the selfish desires and motives within the individual.

I would understand it better if you wouldn´t use such a loaded term.

In terms of the cosmology aspects I can certainly use the term "Boltzmann brain' if that helps at all?

Especially when a defining element of the term is - in its traditional use - the "supernaturality" of the subject, whereas you are insisting that you are talking about a physical phenomenon. You know, not even many theists would agree that what you call "God" is actually God.
By using this loaded language you create unnecessary problems for everyone involved - yourself being the first.

Well, which term is "unnecessary" in terms of determining *if* panentheism is a "better' explanation of the functions of our universe, or if Lambda-CDM does a better job?

No, we can not forget it, as long as you replace neutral terms by terms that are known to describe the opposite ideas of the ones you are presenting: "supernatural" ones.

The term "God" is just a term. It *can be* associated with 'natural' phenomenon (atheists do it all the time in fact), and it can be associated with 'supernatural' ideas too. I'm simply trying to determine if there's an empirical way to define that term and an empirical way to explain human experiences. I'm not personally obligated to agree with those who associate 'God' with a supernatural construct anymore than you are.

No offense meant - but sorry, attending one of these threads is enough for me. If you want to respond to me, please do it here. If not, that´s fine with me, as well.

I'd rather this tread stay on topic in terms of defining a valid definition of "evidence". I'm confident that you personally have done so in a way that allows us to continue discussing the 'evidence' of God. I'd rather however that we do so in the thread that I specifically started on that topic.

The only place where your definition of evidence gets "blurry" is in the Higgs/neutrino scenario, and perhaps in relationship to 'expanding space" claims.

I do have one more question about "evidence" for you. Do you agree/disagree that there is "evidence" of 'expanding space' as the "cause of' photon redshift? As far as I can tell, your answer should be "no", but I need to be sure I'm correctly understanding your position.

 

[Michael]

No, redshift has never been observed except as motion of objects within a medium. It is a "Doppler effect," and despite mainstreams claim to the contrary, has never been observed independent of a medium. Besides which mainstream ruled out velocity of objects as a possible cause when technology advanced and redshift would of made galaxies recede at fractions of c; a result even mainstream could not stomach.

Plasma redshift however, is an empirical observation and experimental result.
Mainstream's reliance on a spacetime composed of nothing expanding and stretching the light waves is a leap of faith so great as to shame any religion. A leap of faith so great it is contradicted by the empirical evidence.

You and I know that, but it's highly unlikely that the 'average joe' has any clue about the fact that redshift has never been empirically linked to 'space expansion', or even understands the meaning of the term 'space expansion".

The last question I put to quatona about redshift and "space expansion" was directly related to that same issue. As long as he's not trying to suggest there is 'evidence' that redshift is related to the 'metric expansion of space", I think he and I are pretty close to agreement.

I'm having a *much* harder time accepting Elendur's concept of evidence, specifically because it has no effective falsification mechanism, just like the mainstream model. I can't help but feel that such a method is "designed" to justify/allow for the mainstream position, and I just don't see how one might *ever* falsify a concept when the goal posts keep moving every day, and the supernatural constructs keep piling up.

The very fact that Lambda-CDM includes no room for *any* inelastic scattering, and it includes no calculations related to EM fields is simply absurd. I really don't understand how anyone can take that hypothesis seriously after the Planck data fiasco. That variation between the hemispheres is the last and final nail in the coffin of inflation theory. Not *one single* claim Guth made was correct, so by anyone's definition, the claim 'should be' falsified once and for all. There is no other way to falsify a hypothetical entity than to falsify it based upon 'failed predictions'.

 

[Elendur]

Any Doppler shift experiment should do the trick, or Chen's paper on Stark redshift in plasma should suffice. I'll round up the link for you if you like if this isn't just a rhetorical question.

It isn't a rhetorical question, but I won't need any paper.
We seem to have some sensory input that's very compatible with the idea of photons. The photons are a derived result from our combined inputs and mechanical help.
The redshift relation that we observe for the photons are a derived relation from lots of observations gathered over a long time.
We have no way to discern a regular photon from a redshifted photon without some kind of context. I.e. we need to derive its nature.

Your eyes don't see them?

Most likely, but it's not certain. See above.

You mean the light gets converted into electrical signals in your brain that allow your 'awareness' to interact with them?

See above.

You do have a reliable falsification mechanism in *empirical physics*, but you don't have such a method in hypothetical physics. If you *limited* the number of hypothetical entities to one, you would have a reliable way to falsify the original hypothetical entity. If you don't limit the supernatural constructs however, a "failure" in a prediction only means that the first hypothetical entity is assumed to be "true" and a *new* hypothetical entity emerges to "save the day". It's a lot like polytheism if you ask me, too much so for my tastes. I'm really a *lot* more comfortable with a purely empirical (lab) standard of evidence, and I'm fine with suggesting some ideas (like the Higgs) simply did not enjoy the support of "evidence' until LHC experiments. That's acceptable to me.

1. Ditch the supernatural term.
2. Nowhere do the hypotheses/theories assume anything. They propose.
3. Ditch the lab req. .
4. You've extensively used the therm hypothetical when it bears no meaning within this context.
5. You've not once addressed any of my examples when I've described how changed claims are different from the original and how adding unfalsifiable parts still doesn't render the new one unfalsifiable.

The 'rub' comes in the neutrino scenario, but even that idea came about due to 'events on Earth' in controlled experiments, and seeming conflicts with *laws* of physics.

I don't see how this is relevant.

IMO your method is find in empirical physics, but it's too 'loosie-goosie" for hypothetical forms of science, or religion IMO. Without restrictions on the number of hypothetical entities, you end up with a high likelihood of polytheism in religion, and multiple supernatural constructs inside one "scientific" hypothesis in "science", none of which are actually "falsifiable" by observational evidence.

I've given you examples of how they're still falsifiable and I've explicitly stated that if they somehow are unfalsifiable they're trivial, and of no interest to me (and certainly of no use to anyone).
It doesn't matter if it's "a high likelihood", what if the world actually is like that?

The goal posts just can't be allowed to move around like that or the concept of individual falsification for individual hypothetical claims goes flying right out the window.

It most certainly does not.

Again. A claim that has been modified is not the same as the original.

Example:
Hypothesis 1: Z
Hypothesis 2: X

We add (Y or not Y) to hypothesis 1:
Hypothesis 3: Z and (Y or not Y)

Are hypothesis 1 and 3 equal? No.
Are hypothesis 1 and 2 equal? No.
Is hypothesis 3 reducible to hypothesis 1? Yes.
Is hypothesis 3 reducible to hypothesis 2? No.

That hypothesis 3 reducible to hypothesis 1 is standard logic:
(A) and (True) <=> (A)

Note that the reducible statement only holds when we've added a proposition which is trivially true (i.e. unfalsifiable), it does not generally hold.
This also demonstrates that even though we've added an unfalsifiable part to a falsifiable hypothesis we've still produced a falsifiable hypothesis.

We then arrive at the conclusion that if we add something to a hypothesis/theory we've produced a new one. An unequal one. A different one.

It's no use for further discussion if you won't recognize this.

Edit: Also thought that I should add this http://www.christianforums.com/t7775767-11/#post64235235

 

[Michael]

1. Ditch the supernatural term.

I fail to see why I should do that. We have to differentiate between claims that can be verified by experimentation and claims that cannot. Guth's inflation theory is *at least* as 'supernatural' as any concept of "God" He attributes it with antigravity properties, negative pressure properties, "free" energy and he claimed gravity was 'negative energy'. Sorry, but that's *definitely* a *very* supernatural construct that he personally whipped up in his overactive imagination.

2. Nowhere do the hypotheses/theories assume anything. They propose.

But you can't then move the goal posts because the proposal is falsified. The proposal in Guth's case "supposedly" came with "testable predictions". They were of course nothing more than assumption based on *known* features we were already aware of, but he formally put his claim into math formulas and claimed we could test them. We did. They all failed, every single one.

It's irrational to then claim "Oh, inflation is "probably true", but we left out this new supernatural construct called......". Come on. They can't even make up their mind yet on how to "fix" the Planck data fiasco.

3. Ditch the lab req. .

Only when you can demonstrate a valid way to outright falsify a claim. I see no way to do that if the number of supernatural constructs increases beyond one. The moment you do that, you're ultimately making it impossible to *outright* falsify the *original* claim.

4. You've extensively used the therm hypothetical when it bears no meaning within this context.

If so, I apologize, but....

Space expansion is a hypothetical claim.
Inflation is a hypothetical claim
Dark energy is a hypothetical claim
Exotic long lived matter is a hypothetical claim

Individually it might be possible to falsify any single one of those "hypothetical" entities. When they are all combined into one gigantic metaphysical frankenstein of a theory however, not so much. Even if you can falsify those four claims *collectively*, you're just letting them stuff in a fifth hypothetical claim and away they go!

5. You've not once addressed any of my examples when I've described how changed claims are different from the original and how adding unfalsifiable parts still doesn't render the new one unfalsifiable.

Explain to me now how I can *individually falsify* inflation claims. Every single one of Guth's *original* claims were falsified. By definition his original claim should also be falsified. If however you allow them to stuff curvatons into the mix, how is then possible to falsify inflation theory at all?

How do I falsify string theory in your model? How do individually falsify dark energy theory in your model? How do I falsify the claim about metric expansion of space in your model?

Honestly Elendur, I'm trying to work with you here, but I simply see no way to falsify anything using your model because it's basically too loosie-goosie to allow for any *outright* falsification of any claim, either religious hypothetical entities, or scientific hypothetical entities. I'm trying to meet you in the middle somewhere, but you must give me something in terms of a falsification mechanism that allows me to simply "say no" to a specific hypothetical entity.

We then arrive at the conclusion that if we add something to a hypothesis/theory we've produced a new one. An unequal one. A different one.

It may be "different", but it's ultimately unfalsifiable just like the old one in terms of falsifying the whole list of hypothetical entities. The hypotheticals just keep increasing, much like the epicycles of ancient heliocentric theory.

It's no use for further discussion if you won't recognize this.

It seems to me that you must recognize the need for outright falsification of various claims, from expanding space, to inflation, to exotic matter claims. There must be a way to falsify inflation theory, or the method is meaningless IMO. It opens the door wide open to polytheism in religion, and it opens the metaphysical barn door in the realm of science.

I'd like to figure out a way here to meet you in the middle, but I need a way to falsify the idea *outright* without the risk of more hypothetical entities being used to prop up the idea and move the goal posts again.

 

[Michael]

Let's try a different approach....

Suppose I was creating a 'religion' to explain the universe. I started by claiming that "God" exists. I furthermore claim that God created the universe from virtually nothing using something I called Godflation. I furthermore claim that GR be damned, the whole physical universe is a "free lunch" from God, and it holds exactly zero net energy because gravity is actually a form of 'negative energy'. I also claim that God also accelerates the the universe with 'God energy'. God also uses a secret invisible ingredient called "God matter" too.

Now suppose I pilfered the math from Lambda-CDM and the whole set of maths is now falsified by the Planck data. Instead of living and dying by that math however, when the Planck data comes along, I simply say "Oh, that's no problem. That's because God used Godatons to create the universe and it *isn't really* homogenous like I've been claiming for the past 30 years". Would you be happy with that *blatant* moving of the goal posts when my religion was threatened by the data?

How would you then be able to individually falsify any of my claims about the existence of A) God, B) Godflation C)God energy, D)God matter, E)Godatons now that I've kludged in the Godatons claim to cover up my original error?

Every single "testable prediction' of Lambda-CDM started as 'postdiction' to start with, including whatever new hypothetical entity get's used to 'explain away' Guth's falsification problem.

 

[Elendur]

I fail to see why I should do that. We have to differentiate between claims that can be verified by experimentation and claims that cannot. Guth's inflation theory is *at least* as 'supernatural' as any concept of "God" He attributes it with antigravity properties, negative pressure properties, "free" energy and he claimed gravity was 'negative energy'. Sorry, but that's *definitely* a *very* supernatural construct that he personally whipped up in his overactive imagination.

You fail to understand that how I have defined the term have nearly nothing to do with what you've written. Except for one thing.
"claims that can be verified by experimentation and claims that cannot"
It would be advantageous to be able to discern between claims that can or cannot be verified, those who are unfalsifiable are those whos opposite can't ever be verified.
We can. Those who can, aren't trivially false. Those who cannot, are trivially false.
Experimentation though is, also, not a requirement. A useful and broad tool, but not a requirement.

I won't allow you to equate supernatural with unfalsifiable since the term has a load of luggage which we have no reason to include in this discussion. Feel free to convince me otherwise though.

But you can't then move the goal posts because the proposal is falsified.
{snip}

I've snipped for a reason... I'm getting quite tired of this...

Why is it that we cannot construct a new hypothesis when we've falsified the older one?

Only when you can demonstrate a valid way to outright falsify a claim. I see no way to do that if the number of supernatural constructs increases beyond one. The moment you do that, you're ultimately making it impossible to *outright* falsify the *original* claim.

You've claimed that... But I've again and again explained why that's incorrect.
Please, without resorting to any of your favorites, can you construct a general example for me, as I've done for you several times?

If so, I apologize, but....

{snip}

Read what I've written literally.
It bears no meaning.
I.e. it's not defined within this context.
I see no need to define it within this context.

Explain to me now how I can *individually falsify* inflation claims. Every single one of Guth's *original* claims were falsified. By definition his original claim should also be falsified. If however you allow them to stuff curvatons into the mix, how is then possible to falsify inflation theory at all?

I'll assume all you've written is true, just for the sake of the argument.
If they've used the older, falsified one, within the new one, the new one is also falsified.

How do I falsify string theory in your model? How do individually falsify dark energy theory in your model? How do I falsify the claim about metric expansion of space in your model?

By finding unpredicted observations (i.e. observations that are not allowed in the worlds contained within the theory/hypothesis, or at the very least has a lower probability).

Honestly Elendur, I'm trying to work with you here, but I simply see no way to falsify anything using your model because it's basically too loosie-goosie to allow for any *outright* falsification of any claim, either religious hypothetical entities, or scientific hypothetical entities. I'm trying to meet you in the middle somewhere, but you must give me something in terms of a falsification mechanism that allows me to simply "say no" to a specific hypothetical entity.

See above, really.

It may be "different", but it's ultimately unfalsifiable just like the old one in terms of falsifying the whole list of hypothetical entities. The hypotheticals just keep increasing, much like the epicycles of ancient heliocentric theory.

Please.
Given hypothesis 3 and observation (not Z).
What is your conclusion?

Also, see above regarding the term hypothetic.

It seems to me that you must recognize the need for outright falsification of various claims, from expanding space, to inflation, to exotic matter claims. There must be a way to falsify inflation theory, or the method is meaningless IMO. It opens the door wide open to polytheism in religion, and it opens the metaphysical barn door in the realm of science.

So the way you determine whether something is meaningful, or not, by asking the question "can it falsify inflation theory?"?

I'd like to figure out a way here to meet you in the middle, but I need a way to falsify the idea *outright* without the risk of more hypothetical entities being used to prop up the idea and move the goal posts again.

There it is again (see section above).

 

[Elendur]

Let's try a different approach....

Sure.

Suppose I was creating a 'religion' to explain the universe. I started by claiming that "God" exists. I furthermore claim that God created the universe from virtually nothing using something I called Godflation. I furthermore claim that GR be damned, the whole physical universe is a "free lunch" from God, and it holds exactly zero net energy because gravity is actually a form of 'negative energy'. I also claim that God also accelerates the the universe with 'God energy'. God also uses a secret invisible ingredient called "God matter" too.

So to summarize:
1. God exists.
2. The universe exists.
3. The universe was created.
4. The universe was created from "virtually nothing".
5. God created the universe.
6. God created the universe using something you "called" "Godflation".
7. GR is "damned".
8. The whole physical universe is a "free lunch".
9. The "free lunch" "the whole physical universe" was from God.
10. The "free lunch" "the whole physical universe" holds exactly zero net energy.
11. The "free lunch" "the whole physical universe" holds exactly zero net energy because gravity "actually is a form of" negative energy.
12. God uses "God energy".
13. God uses "God energy" to accelerate the universe.
14. God uses "God matter".
15. The "God matter" is a secret invisible ingredient.

Now suppose I pilfered the math from Lambda-CDM and the whole set of maths is now falsified by the Planck data. Instead of living and dying by that math however, when the Planck data comes along, I simply say "Oh, that's no problem. That's because God used Godatons to create the universe and it *isn't really* homogenous like I've been claiming for the past 30 years". Would you be happy with that *blatant* moving of the goal posts when my religion was threatened by the data?

You used a falsified part, the whole was falsified as a result.
But then you produced a new one where you had an additional claim:
16. God used "Godatons" to create the universe.
17. The math is excused because God used "Godatons" to create the universe.
18. It "*isn't really*" homogenous.
19. It "*isn't really*" homogenous like you've been claiming the past 30 years.

I don't see any problem with it. You've produced a new thing.
Except for that you introduced a contradiction. See point 6 and 16. Which makes it trivially false.
I think I might've missed something while summarizing as well, if you find anything that would fall within that category, please inform me.

How would you then be able to individually falsify any of my claims about the existence of A) God, B) Godflation C)God energy, D)God matter, E)Godatons now that I've kludged in the Godatons claim to cover up my original error?

I don't know what you mean by individually falsify, since I haven't defined anything like that, nor you. I assume it's equal to falsify.
A) By finding evidence against god.
B) "Godflation" isn't anything you've proposed to exist, only that it was used for the creation of the universe.
C) By finding evidence against "God energy".
D) By finding evidence against "God energy".
B) "Godatons" isn't anything you've proposed to exist, only that it was used for the creation of the universe.

Every single "testable prediction' of Lambda-CDM started as 'postdiction' to start with, including whatever new hypothetical entity get's used to 'explain away' Guth's falsification problem.

Don't care. You've ground whatever small care I had for the problem into nothing.

 

[Michael]

I don't see any problem with it. You've produced a new thing.

The problem as I see it is that I've produced a new *unfalsifiable* thing. I've already set a precedent that demonstrates that direct falsification of the original claim, along with any number of additional claims that I have made over decades of time are utterly impossible so long as I'm willing to move the goal posts anytime I see fit. That's particularly true if I'm willing to move the goal posts using whatever "supernatural/hypothetical" entities I see fit.

As I see it, there's no possible way to falsify the *original* claim (aka God exists), and no way to falsify any the supernatural properties I've ascribed to God whenever I saw fit to do so.

I don't see any possible falsification mechanism for the *original* claim.

I can however see how quatona and I can hope to *eventually* falsify or empirically verify *one specific* empirical definition of either a "Boltzmann brain", or a panentheistic concept of "God, depending on the scientific/religious orientation you prefer, but I see no logical way for you to have any hope of *ever* falsifying my claims about 'God did it' with respect to an ever moving set of supernatural goal posts.

That's essentially my problem with your method in a nutshell.

 

[Elendur]

The problem as I see it is that I've produced a new *unfalsifiable* thing. I've already set a precedent that demonstrates that direct falsification of the original claim, along with any number of additional claims that I have made over decades of time are utterly impossible so long as I'm willing to move the goal posts anytime I see fit. That's particularly true if I'm willing to move the goal posts using whatever "supernatural/hypothetical" entities I see fit.

There you go again, using both supernatural and hypothetical even though they both lack meaning.
No. It's not unfalsifiable.
See points 1-16 and 18-19.
Only point 17 was anything that could be called trivially true.
(Also note that, as stated earlier, points 6 and 16 are trivially false together, which falsifies it directly)
Assuming, of course, you haven't baked in something into the terms I've marked with quotation marks. Which really only allows for more trivially false statements, but still.

As I see it, there's no possible way to falsify the *original* claim (aka God exists), and no way to falsify any the supernatural properties I've ascribed to God whenever I saw fit to do so.

You've used supernatural again.
See point A.

I don't see any possible falsification mechanism for the *original* claim.

See point A.
(Note that it's rather easy to mistake your reference "*original* claim" for a reference to the "pilfered math")

I can however see how quatona and I can hope to *eventually* falsify or empirically verify *one specific* empirical definition of either a "Boltzmann brain", or a panentheistic concept of "God, depending on the scientific/religious orientation you prefer, but I see no logical way for you to have any hope of *ever* falsifying my claims about 'God did it' with respect to an ever moving set of supernatural goal posts.

I see no logical way for anyone to falsify a claim that is ever changing.
By any method.
Unless we define some kind of convergence, but I doubt anyone would make an infinitely changing hypothesis/theory.

That's essentially my problem with your method in a nutshell.

It feels as if you don't read a lot of what I write, as I've been over a couple of these things several times.
But we broke some new ground.

 

[poolerboy0077]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7753868-70/#post64188950

You know I love you Mr Strawberry, and I'm not picking on you individually, or directing my question to you personally, but this particular exchange seems to be quite common around here. It begs the question: What exactly counts as "evidence"?

In science it's not uncommon for 'evidence" to be based upon a perceived *effect* that something has on another thing. For instance, we notice the *effect* that gravity has on objects. We notice the effect that EM fields have on charged particles.

The concept of evidence gets blurry quickly however as we move toward 'theoretical' physics because the cause/effect relationship *cannot be demonstrated* in controlled experimentation. For instance, there is no cause/effect demonstration between redshift and 'expansion of space' in the lab, no cause/effect demonstration between inflation and expansion of space, not cause/effect demonstration between dark energy and expansion of space, no demonstration between exotic matter and any effect on photons. All the cause/effect relationships are simply *assumed* without respect to laboratory confirmation.

Those aren't assumptions, they're inferences based on observable data. The inferences have to account for supriousness, meaning the existence of other possible causes have to be dealt with. You also have them backwards. Redshifting doesn't cause expansion of space. Space expansion causes redshifting.

 

[mzungu]

One cannot apply the word evidence to the unfalsifiable. Such things as holly spirit can only at best be described as electric pulses triggered in the synapses to make the brain imagine they are real. Like watching a CG movie!

 

[Michael]

One cannot apply the word evidence to the unfalsifiable.

I agree actually. While it's possible to discuss evidence related to a panentheistic/Boltzmann brain concept of the universe, it's impossible to falsify the 'religion' I outlined for Elendur. It's therefore meaningful to talk about evidence in the first case, but the 'evidence' is entirely contrived in the second case where I'm simply moving the supernatural goal posts to suit myself anytime I feel like it.

Such things as holly spirit can only at best be described as electric pulses triggered in the synapses to make the brain imagine they are real. Like watching a CG movie!

It may also be an EM field effect that has an *external* and intelligent source.

 

[Michael]

Those aren't assumptions, they're inferences based on observable data.

They are both actually. The cause/effect relationship are *assumed* as the supernatural construct is being created. For instance, "space expansion" is an "assumed" cause of photon redshift that hasn't and cannot be demonstrated in a lab. On the other hand, inelastic scattering and moving objects *can* be linked to photon redshift in the lab. The claim of metric expansion of space, and it's relationship to photon redshift is *assumed*, whereas the relationship between inelastic scattering and photon redshift can be *lab demonstrated*. It would be an 'inference' to suggest that the process of photon redshift was related to inelastic scattering, but it's a pure *assumption* that metric space expansion happens, and it's an *assumption* that it has something to do with photon redshift.

The inferences have to account for supriousness, meaning the existence of other possible causes have to be dealt with.

That's the whole problem with Lambda-CDM (and my made up Godflation religion as well) by the way. Neither of them takes the EM fields associated with a mostly plasma universe into account. Neither one of them even allows for *any* kind of inelastic scattering or signal broadening in plasma, both of which are *observed* in the lab! The laws of physics would literally have to work differently in spacetime than the do here on Earth for light to not experience inelastic scattering and signal broadening in a mostly plasma universe.

You also have them backwards. Redshifting doesn't cause expansion of space. Space expansion causes redshifting.

You absolutely cannot and will never be able to demonstrate that cause/effect claim you just made in a controlled lab experiment. That *assumption* of cause/effect relationships is *assumed*, and it's an *act of pure faith* on your part. There are even other demonstrated options to choose from.

 

[Michael]

There you go again, using both supernatural and hypothetical even though they both lack meaning.

That's the whole problem though as I see it. Nothing in that 'religion' that I described to you has any real physical meaning. God isn't physically defined. Godflation isn't physically defined. God energy isn't physically defined, and God matter isn't physically defined. At best case they are mathematical constructs devoid of any *falsifiable* physical meaning.

No. It's not unfalsifiable.

The *original* claims, in this case "God", is not falsifiable. The second claim, "God causes space expansion" is not demonstrated and it's not falsifiable. The third claim: Godflation causes space expansion cannot be falsified. The forth claim: God energy causes space acceleration cannot be falsified. The moment that anyone found any evidence that my postdicted supernatural theory didn't fit the data set, I simply moved the supernatural goal posts again by stuffing in Godatons to cover up the problems.

The new religion I handed you is again a purely postdicted ad hoc fit to the data set, and it now matches all the data again. It's unfalsifiable in terms of the individual claims I've made, and should you be able to find a postdiction that wasn't correct to begin with, nothing prevents me in your system from moving the goal posts again.

Panetheism *might* be a falsifiable concept, but Godflation oriented "bang" theories could *never* be falsified, simply because I'm free to move the goal posts anytime I see fit, using whatever new stuff I dream up in my head.

I can't falsify every concept of God, but I just might be able to verify or falsify a Boltzmann brain oriented view of the cosmos.

 

[Elendur]

One cannot apply the word evidence to the unfalsifiable.

Indeed. Exactly as I've defined it...

Wait a minute...
*rereads posts*

*sigh*

I seem to have overlooked the trivially false/true cases in the early posts.

I think I should do a recap. Thanks for helping me catch that