A Mistake A Lot of People Make...

[Neutral Observer]

I am honestly sick and tired of people quoting media thinking that proves anything except that you can quote media.

STUDY NOTES

Test subject @Warden_of_the_Storm seems to be just a bit high strung.​

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

STUDY NOTES

Test subject @Warden_of_the_Storm seems to be just a bit high strung.​

No, just another guy keeps doing it continuously on another thread and it just gets annoying after too many times.

 

[Mountainmike]

Except that, as I said in the OP, it was in response to a thread made by another user on this site who did exactly that, conflate the two together, and also it has happened many times on this forum. So you're wrong on that count.



Except that I didn't and you haven't shown what the so-called false statement is. You rambled about how you singularly view science, as you are prone to do, but you did nothing that showed that what I said in the OP was incorrect or false. Wrong on that count. 2 for 2.

Now the for the first time in your life, read some science.

Discover such as the eg uncertainty principle, eg wave function and collapse , eg two slit experiments that say categorically you do not know where particles are.
For which reason your concept on particle positions is wrong.

Just as noted in my previous post.
I like precision in statements on what you can know, and scientific models.

As for the thread , I took it at face value.
A comparison of two dislike things. I did not see a precursor.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now the for the first time in your life, read some science.

For possibly the first time in your life, get some manners.

 

[Mountainmike]

For possibly the first time in your life, get some manners.

Yet in actual science the double slit experiment has been performed not just on neutrons, but even molecules of 50-100 atom size, so “ position“ of “ particles” is not as defined as you think, and combine that with bell experiments that show it’s not just you don’t know where things are before observation , the position does not exist. The wave function is unresolved.

As for manners - You seem happy to talk down to others , or tell them they are wrong, from A not so high base of understanding seemingly, on a forum in which posters routinely ridicules theists.. Your post relies on the nature and certainty of laws. I am not convinced you understand them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yet in actual science the double slit experiment has been performed not just on neutrons, but even molecules of 50-100 atom size, so “ position“ of “ particles” is not as defined as you think, and combine that with bell experiments that show it’s not just you don’t know where things are before observation , the position does not exist. The wave function is unresolved.

As for manners - You seem happy to talk down to others from A not so high base of understanding, seemingly, on a forum in which posters routinely ridicules theists From a false assumption on the certainty or metaphysical status of science. Your post relies on the nature and certainty of laws. I am not convinced you understand them.

Yet I don't care because that has nothing to do with the OP at all.

You can't read and understand the OP in simple English, that's your problem not mine. You've got nothing to contribute to the thread, nor making any attempt to even understand it, so just leave.

 

[AV1611VET]

The best example being the law of physics which says that no two objects can occupy the same space simultaneously.

I'm glad you brought this up.

Science needs to know when it's licked though; and its adherents aren't ready to raise the white flag.

If all science can do is describe things, fine.

No problem.

But when science CAN'T describe something, it needs to admit its shortcoming, instead of saying it didn't or can't happen.

Case in point, your example above.

Explain the trinity scientifically.

 

[Diamond7]

laws of science are descriptive

According to the law of science if I drop a hammer on my foot, it is going to hurt. I do not see the moral laws as being all that different. If you sleep around, you are going to get a disease and get sick. That is not a whole lot different to me than dropping a hammer on your foot. Or a friend of mine nailed his foot to the roof once. But that is another story. I pretty much quit doing construction because of the risk and injuries.

 

[Diamond7]

The best example being the law of physics which says that no two objects can occupy the same space simultaneously.

This may be true on the level of atoms. We are mostly made up of energy. In theory, we could walk through a wall and there is very little chance that one of our atoms would collide with an atom in the wall. I have seen two cars in the same space at the same time with no damage. But I guess it just looked that way to me.

 

[Diamond7]

Explain the trinity scientifically.

Some people would say everything in the physical world is designed to help us understand God. For example, an analogy used is the concept of light, which has three aspects: brightness, color, and heat. These three are distinct but inseparable, and they work together to form the full nature of light. Similarly, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons with their own characteristics, but they are united as one God. The same with water. It can be steam, liquid, or solid (ice). The number three plays a significant role to represent various aspects of the Divinity of God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm glad you brought this up.

Science needs to know when it's licked though; and its adherents aren't ready to raise the white flag.

Hasn't happened yet.

If all science can do is describe things, fine.

No problem.

But when science CAN'T describe something, it needs to admit its shortcoming, instead of saying it didn't or can't happen.

There are plenty of things where "science" isn't the right means to explore.

Case in point, your example above.

Explain the trinity scientifically.

Of course not. the "trinity" is a theological construct, not a natural phenomena. Don't try dragging us out of our lane.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yet I don't care because that has nothing to do with the OP at all.

You can't read and understand the OP in simple English, that's your problem not mine. You've got nothing to contribute to the thread, nor making any attempt to even understand it, so just leave.

“ cant read” … and you speak of manners?

I read it.
You compare two dislike entities ( agree?) whose purpose is different ( agree?) and discover their nature is different.(agree?)

But Did anyone ever claim they were the same?
( the ones you allege made a mistake , who said what and when? )
A genuine question?? the answer is?

You then use an example in error, but the error is actually revealing, because it hits at the nature of science in which there are multiple models, classical particle , wave and quantum which dont always agree, so these “ laws “ of which you speak are not cast in tablets, they are models. The trick is knowing which to use when.

Whilst what Hans says is true, in particle model, Pauli exclusion prevents certain types from coexisting,
Waves can pass through each other ( so overlap in space) , where quantum modeks say the position is not even defined, but the wave functions certainly can overlap. We also see from molecule two slit experiments, that this isn’t just the preserve of very small things.

What Hans says is also true.. the car crash is not the result of attempt to overlap in space or touching at particle level, matter is mostly empty space. It’s the result of electrostatic and other forces repelling. It’s the big problem for nuclear fusion!

In discussing the nature of scientific laws isn’t it important to discuss the true nature of them?

As for please leave…
You mean in case I challenge your science , which need for challenge is part of the nature of science , it’s how science progresses.
You said this to another poster in a very rude way, “you don't understand one of the most basic facts of physics”
when it isn’t actually a “ fact “ it is very nuanced. So which one of you didn’t understand?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm glad you brought this up.

Science needs to know when it's licked though; and its adherents aren't ready to raise the white flag.

If all science can do is describe things, fine.

No problem.

But when science CAN'T describe something, it needs to admit its shortcoming, instead of saying it didn't or can't happen.

Case in point, your example above.

Explain the trinity scientifically.

Can't because the laws of physics apply to the physical world, not the spiritual world and since God is of the spiritual world, He cannot be described nor bound by the laws of physics.

SO.... not really science getting licked then.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

“ cant read” … and you speak of manners?

I read it.
You compare two dislike entities ( agree?) whose purpose is different ( agree?) and discover their nature is different.(agree?)

But Did anyone ever claim they were the same?
( the ones you allege made a mistake , who said what and when? )
A genuine question?? the answer is?

You then use an example in error, but the error is actually revealing, because it hits at the nature of science in which there are multiple models, classical particle , wave and quantum which dont always agree, so these “ laws “ of which you speak are not cast in tablets, they are models. The trick is knowing which to use when.

Whilst what Hans says is true, in particle model, Pauli exclusion prevents certain types from coexisting,
Waves can pass through each other ( so overlap in space) , where quantum modeks say the position is not even defined, but the wave functions certainly can overlap. We also see from molecule two slit experiments, that this isn’t just the preserve of very small things.

What Hans says is also true.. the car crash is not the result of attempt to overlap in space or touching at particle level, matter is mostly empty space. It’s the result of electrostatic and other forces repelling. It’s the big problem for nuclear fusion!

In discussing the nature of scientific laws isn’t it important to discuss the true nature of them?

As for please leave…
You mean in case I challenge your science , which need for challenge is part of the nature of science , it’s how science progresses.
You said this to another poster in a very rude way, “you don't understand one of the most basic facts of physics”
when it isn’t actually a “ fact “ it is very nuanced. So which one of you didn’t understand?

You're not challenging science nor me. You're just being a pedantic pain in the bum for no serious reason.

If you cannot understand what I said in the OP, then that's not my problem, that's yours and I refuse to communicate with your further on this since all you are doing is being a troll.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

According to the law of science if I drop a hammer on my foot, it is going to hurt. I do not see the moral laws as being all that different. If you sleep around, you are going to get a disease and get sick. That is not a whole lot different to me than dropping a hammer on your foot. Or a friend of mine nailed his foot to the roof once. But that is another story. I pretty much quit doing construction because of the risk and injuries.

Just because you see them as the same, does not mean they are the same.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This may be true on the level of atoms. We are mostly made up of energy. In theory, we could walk through a wall and there is very little chance that one of our atoms would collide with an atom in the wall. I have seen two cars in the same space at the same time with no damage. But I guess it just looked that way to me.

You need your eyes tested then.

 

[Diamond7]

You need your eyes tested then.

According to the Bible, in the Gospel of John, Chapter 20, after Jesus was resurrected from the dead, he appeared to his disciples who were gathered together in a locked room, without using the door. Can you explain that?

 

[Diamond7]

Just because you see them as the same, does not mean they are the same.

Just because you don't does not mean they are not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

According to the Bible, in the Gospel of John, Chapter 20, after Jesus was resurrected from the dead, he appeared to his disciples who were gathered together in a locked room, without using the door. Can you explain that?

Nothing to do with the thread, so I do not care.

Just because you don't does not mean they are not.

Except that they aren't the same. The laws of science are not laws on how a person should live their life. The laws of science explain how the world works. That's it. They are not the same.

 

[Neutral Observer]

No, just another guy keeps doing it continuously on another thread and it just gets annoying after too many times.

Fair enough, but just to clarify, I presume that you started this thread with the intention of getting the members feedback. I'm here to give you some. (Even if I consider your original statement to be completely accurate) So if I say or do something stupid, please consider that I do believe that I have the weaker position in this exchange. So I'm reaching a bit.

But then again one doesn't learn much from a one sided discussion.

That said, I'll admit that 'Survival of the Fittest" is a tautology, but I'll counter that every theory of existence must by necessity lead to a tautology. Simply because there must be a 'First Cause', which is by definition simply a cause with no preceding cause... a tautology. Or that which exists, simply because it exists.

None-the-less is 'Survival of the Fittest' a law? I would argue that it is. In fact I would argue that it's the law from which all other laws are derived. Richard Feynman used to explain why light always travels in a straight line by essentially arguing that it's simply because light that travels in a straight line is the only light that survives. According to Feynman light actually takes every possible path from the source to the detector but due to interference the only light that survives the trip is the light that took the shortest path. Which is most often the straight path.

Now I'm sure that Feynman or someone else has already written this all down in a nice neat equation, be it the 'Sum over Histories' or some such thing, but my point is that it can more simplistically be described as 'Survival of the Fittest", and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if every law in physics has its underlying cause writ within that exact same principle... that everything in nature obeys the inviolable law of 'Survival of the Fittest'.

If we took absolutely any set of circumstances and applied Feynman's 'Sum over Histories' to it, would it always give us the correct outcome? And what difference does it make if I refer to this as Feynman's 'Sum over Histories' or simply 'Survival of the Fittest'?