But is it useful?

[Psudopod]

I ahve seen several posters on this forum advocate things like the past was different or there was age embedded into creation. The argument is, I belive that by ignoring the bible, our model of reality is wring becase we are misisng things like this. Let's ignore any flaws in the arguments themselves and consider the implcations of them being true for science.

Consider the following: scientists have been studying the electron for a while now and know quite a bit about them. We know their charge, their rest mass etc. We've studied the properties of semi-conductors and the electronmagnitc force. Through our studies, we have built many useful technologies, such as the computer I am typing on.

Now, supposing our model of what the electon is is wrong. In fact, electons as not fundamental particals of the leptron variety, but are infact small fairies with transucent wings. And the behaviour of electrons is not controlled by the electromagntic force, but by an invisible pink unicorn, that blows the electons about in such a way that it appears they are controlled by a fundamental force, have a constant rest mass and charge and are part of a family fundamental particals.

If we have IPUism revealled to us suddenly, how does this change the way we model electron behaviour? Will all our electronics stop working? If we knew about it before we made our models, would we have been able to create computers?

In a similar light, we have the age of the earth, determined by dating methods which can be cross referenced and those dating methods themselves are derrived from falsifiable theories. If there was any inconsistancies then we'd be aware of them, so as afar as all the evidence goes, the method works within the given parameters that it is supposed to be used.

If the past was different, we can't detect it. Our dating methods don't suddenly break, everything ties up as far back as we look. So the past is different in such as way that it doesn't show phyiscally.

If this is true, is it necessary for science to acknowledge it? It won't change our models, it won't change the way things work, or any technologies developed out of these studies. we may have the TRUTH - but the TRUTh does not add anything useful to our understanding of the world.

So even if the different past / embedded age / IPU is true, is it useful to know about it in a scientific sense?

 

[thaumaturgy]

This is something I used to try to discuss with the poster named Dad, who was one of the fiercest defenders of "different past". The thing I found fascinating about this hypothesis is that it borders on the extremes of Empiricism that Hume talked about.

In a sense we really don't know anything about cause and effect. We push a billiard ball and it hits another ball and that ball rolls away. It could just be chance that that second ball was going to just start rolling but it just so happened that the first ball hit it at the exact moment it was going to start rolling. So we develop a model of "cause and effect" that really doesn't hold.

Indeed this could happen an infinite number of times and every time we try it it just happens to fit our model. In essence we really can't know if the first caused the second.

But in science we are stuck with "best fit models". I don't know if it would make any difference if our model appears to work 99.9999...9% of the time when it really is just a matter of chance each time, or if we were to suddenly realize that we just have 99.999...9% luck at choosing when to push one billiard ball into another. In the end we can make it work.
Just like gravity, we don't really know how it works, but we can describe its effects quite accurately, so it's a workable model without full understanding.

NOW, that being said, I am not an extreme empiricist because that can lead to problems of "induction" which is a killer for scientists. But that's OK because we all have the "workable model" dodge. It works, and I can describe the response 999 times out of a thousand or better. No scientist ever claims 100.000...0% accuracy. When they do, they set off big sirens.

 

[Maxwell511]

Long story short: If the "Models" turn out to be false but workable, it won't affect the engineers, but it will affect the theoreticians. And in the end, who gives a *&^% about theoreticians?

The classical model of physics is workable but the effect of the difference in that and the quantum model is the difference in Electrical Engineers designing light bulbs and CPUs.

 

[LittleNipper]

I ahve seen several posters on this forum advocate things like the past was different or there was age embedded into creation. The argument is, I belive that by ignoring the bible, our model of reality is wring becase we are misisng things like this. Let's ignore any flaws in the arguments themselves and consider the implcations of them being true for science.

Consider the following: scientists have been studying the electron for a while now and know quite a bit about them. We know their charge, their rest mass etc. We've studied the properties of semi-conductors and the electronmagnitc force. Through our studies, we have built many useful technologies, such as the computer I am typing on.

Now, supposing our model of what the electon is is wrong. In fact, electons as not fundamental particals of the leptron variety, but are infact small fairies with transucent wings. And the behaviour of electrons is not controlled by the electromagntic force, but by an invisible pink unicorn, that blows the electons about in such a way that it appears they are controlled by a fundamental force, have a constant rest mass and charge and are part of a family fundamental particals.

If we have IPUism revealled to us suddenly, how does this change the way we model electron behaviour? Will all our electronics stop working? If we knew about it before we made our models, would we have been able to create computers?

In a similar light, we have the age of the earth, determined by dating methods which can be cross referenced and those dating methods themselves are derrived from falsifiable theories. If there was any inconsistancies then we'd be aware of them, so as afar as all the evidence goes, the method works within the given parameters that it is supposed to be used.

If the past was different, we can't detect it. Our dating methods don't suddenly break, everything ties up as far back as we look. So the past is different in such as way that it doesn't show phyiscally.

If this is true, is it necessary for science to acknowledge it? It won't change our models, it won't change the way things work, or any technologies developed out of these studies. we may have the TRUTH - but the TRUTh does not add anything useful to our understanding of the world.

So even if the different past / embedded age / IPU is true, is it useful to know about it in a scientific sense?

What is, and what presently seems to work, are not affirmations that this is how is always has been. TRUTH does add to our understanding of our place in eternity, and makes hope, joy and peace real possibilities.....

 

[thaumaturgy]

The classical model of physics is workable but the effect of the difference in that and the quantum model is the difference in Electrical Engineers designing light bulbs and CPUs.

I was actually just joking. I used to work for a chemist who decreed once that theoretical chemists had never done anything of value, ever. It was pretty funny.

I think the underlying point was, however, more along the lines of "If the model works but we are fundamentally mistaken about some aspect of it but mistaken in such a way as it doesn't matter, we can still operate effectively."

Kind of like QED with the renormalization that confused Feynman himself. Something is strange but its one of the most well-tested models in all of physics, iirc.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is, and what presently seems to work, are not affirmations that this is how is always has been. TRUTH does add to our understanding of our place in eternity, and makes hope, joy and peace real possibilities.....

Then what about nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons? If the current decay rates, strong and weak forces, and speed of light are not steady then reactors and weapons will either suddenly explode or become inert. How can we use forensic evidence in murder cases if the chemical and physical laws might have changed for 5 minutes in a tiny little corner of the world? Why even have cooking recipes if the laws of chemistry go this way and that?

It is quite obvious that "changing physics in the past" is nothing more than an ad hoc excuse to ignore the overwhelming evidence against special creation and a young earth. That is it's only practical or pragmatic use, as a brick in the house of christian apologetics.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I ahve seen several posters on this forum advocate things like the past was different or there was age embedded into creation. The argument is, I belive that by ignoring the bible, our model of reality is wring becase we are misisng things like this. Let's ignore any flaws in the arguments themselves and consider the implcations of them being true for science.

Consider the following: scientists have been studying the electron for a while now and know quite a bit about them. We know their charge, their rest mass etc. We've studied the properties of semi-conductors and the electronmagnitc force. Through our studies, we have built many useful technologies, such as the computer I am typing on.

Now, supposing our model of what the electon is is wrong. In fact, electons as not fundamental particals of the leptron variety, but are infact small fairies with transucent wings. And the behaviour of electrons is not controlled by the electromagntic force, but by an invisible pink unicorn, that blows the electons about in such a way that it appears they are controlled by a fundamental force, have a constant rest mass and charge and are part of a family fundamental particals.

If we have IPUism revealled to us suddenly, how does this change the way we model electron behaviour? Will all our electronics stop working? If we knew about it before we made our models, would we have been able to create computers?

In a similar light, we have the age of the earth, determined by dating methods which can be cross referenced and those dating methods themselves are derrived from falsifiable theories. If there was any inconsistancies then we'd be aware of them, so as afar as all the evidence goes, the method works within the given parameters that it is supposed to be used.

If the past was different, we can't detect it. Our dating methods don't suddenly break, everything ties up as far back as we look. So the past is different in such as way that it doesn't show phyiscally.

If this is true, is it necessary for science to acknowledge it? It won't change our models, it won't change the way things work, or any technologies developed out of these studies. we may have the TRUTH - but the TRUTh does not add anything useful to our understanding of the world.

So even if the different past / embedded age / IPU is true, is it useful to know about it in a scientific sense?

Our models of how electrons behave is just that: a model. Since we have no experiance of being an electron, we can only model it's apparent behaviour. A good analogy is Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics: for a long time, CM explained everything we saw, but a few experiments did things that weren't predicted by CM. Hence, QM. Even QM may be wrong, but it explains the data presented, and is the most viable and probable and accurate model we have of how quantum particles behave.

Pink unicorns could simulate random behaviour in electrons, but to invoke such entities would violate Occam's Razor. Thus, the 'simpler' (inverted commas becase QM is hardly simple ) explanation is preferred.

Empiricism and the like allow us to discern the most probable models from the infinite array of models available.

Indeed, to quote my sig: "I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right." - Stargate: SG1. If evidence of pink subatomic unicorns was found, then it would be very exciting. But until then, it is irrational and illogical to invoke unevidenced entities (e.g., pink unicorns and deities).

 

[Psudopod]

What is, and what presently seems to work, are not affirmations that this is how is always has been.

This is my point. While this may be true, if we cannot test for it, is it worth considering from a scientific point of view? The Discovery Institute and other want to change the definition of science to include the supernatural, but is there any value in doing so? As far as I can see science would continue as it was doing now, but with the caveat that an unknown and unpredictable being could change reality at any moment, but we wouldn't necessarily know that it had.

TRUTH does add to our understanding of our place in eternity, and makes hope, joy and peace real possibilities.....

You have no way of determining that it is TRUTH. Neither are dieties or unicorns necessary for hope, peace and joy.

 

[[serious]]

This is my point. While this may be true, if we cannot test for it, is it worth considering from a scientific point of view? The Discovery Institute and other want to change the definition of science to include the supernatural, but is there any value in doing so? As far as I can see science would continue as it was doing now, but with the caveat that an unknown and unpredictable being could change reality at any moment, but we wouldn't necessarily know that it had.



You have no way of determining that it is TRUTH. Neither are dieties or unicorns necessary for hope, peace and joy.

What you seem to be arguing against is the young creation of an old earth. This idea, while not impossible, is out of favor with most creationists as well as scientists. Scientists have a problem with it's complete untestability and lack of any contribution to anything. Creationists (and Christians in general) tend to feel that this would make God dishonest and thus would be unacceptable.

Most creationists I know tend to take the view that the evidence is against the appearance of an old earth no matter how much the facts contradict this.

 

[Loudmouth]

Glenn Morton's personal testimony says it all. He found himself in the field of oil geology. Through his experiences at this job he ended up abandoning Young Earth Creationism. He then asked other YEC's in the oil biz if they used Young Earth Creationism in their work. Here is the exchange:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ," That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

Quite telling, if you ask me.

 

[thaumaturgy]

One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

Quite telling, if you ask me.

I've heard about such crises of faith after joining the oil industry...I think it's usually called a "mass layoff event". Which is why I'm sorta glad I ended up veering off into chemical R&D. I was originally ontrack to work in petroleum or coal, and heard about the luscious "signing bonuses", but then would hear about friends who said during the "bad years" it was like being a survivor in a war, everyone you worked with was gone and offices were ghost towns. Of course now Exxon has made more record profits but I bet the next time there's a downturn it will be the same story.

Feast and famine over and over and over. Not unlike the Israelites trekking across the Sinai waiting for the next rain of dead insects to feed them. It would have to do something to your spirit.

-^%$#@

 

[Psudopod]

What you seem to be arguing against is the young creation of an old earth.

Not quite. What I'm arguing against is the incorperation of unfalsifiable ideas into science. My point is that even if they were found to be true, they would add nothing to science.

 

[Dragar]

There are two views on this.

One is the instrumentalist approach. That is, our models are nothing more than tools. It doesn't matter what electrons really are - they could be invisible faeries in reality, for all a scientist is concerned with. All that matters is he can build a mathematical (or even conceptual) model of how they behave, to use as an instrument for predicting future behaviour.

I don't buy that. Science contains more than just predictions, it contains explanations. From a scientific standpoint, I think it most certainly does matter what the reality of the situation is.

 

[Psudopod]

I don't buy that. Science contains more than just predictions, it contains explanations. From a scientific standpoint, I think it most certainly does matter what the reality of the situation is.

I agree, but what about a situation where you cannot show one way or the other? We cannot show there is no IPU controlling the movement of electrons. We cannot show that the earth has embedded age or that it does not. And we cannot show the past was different if it was different in such a way that it appears it wasn't.

Ie, these are assertions that not only have no evidence, but cannot show any evidence becuase if they could, they would be falsifable. It it useful to make proposals like this in a scientific sense?

 

[Dragar]

Falsifiability isn't a 'gold standard' in science, though it is a worthwhile criteria to use. But those explanations are rejected for the same reason that we reject the cosmology of a universe built out of spherical shells surrounding the Earth (a cosmology which our observations cannot rule out, I hasten to add).

We reject them because they are rubbish explanations. The spoil perfectly good other theories by introducing contradictions and complications, and not offering any explanation of their own.

Consider, for instance, the explanation that electrons are actually small winged demons. Forgoing any theory of demonic motion, this explanation doesn't actually offer any insight into how electrons move. You would have to say they are demons that move as if they were fundamental particles of the lepton variety. By itself, all you have done is added further problems. We would all know how electrons (demons) move, but we wouldn't know why.

It's not that the predictions it makes are problematic, or that it's unfalsifiable to say so. It's that the theory fails on other standards - it doesn't explain anything. That's the goal, remember. An explanation that doesn't explain anything is no explanation at all.

 

[Maxwell511]

Consider, for instance, the explanation that electrons are actually small winged demons. Forgoing any theory of demonic motion, this explanation doesn't actually offer any insight into how electrons move. You would have to say they are demons that move as if they were fundamental particles of the lepton variety. By itself, all you have done is added further problems. We would all know how electrons (demons) move, but we wouldn't know why.

With are current knowledge it is impossible to know why an electron moves like it does.

The problem is that we don't know what some of the fundamental concepts in physics actually are. We don't know what energy is. Energy is fundamental to our understanding of motion and therefore we cannot understand why it moves like it does, we can understand how very well though.

I think that every undergraduate program in physics should start with an assignment to simply explain why the first law of thermodynamics is true. Hopefully it would give students a deep understanding of what modern physics is. In the words of David Rose "Energy is an abstract concept invented by physical scientists in the nineteenth century to describe quantitatively a wide variety of natural phenomena". I would add all of physics to this by extension.

 

[Dragar]

With are current knowledge it is impossible to know why an electron moves like it does.

We certainly have a lot more of a clue than we would if it was demons that moved as if they obeyed the Schrodinger equation, no?

Energy is just the conserved quantity due to time invariance in the laws of physics. It's no more remarkable than any other number that is conserved due to symmetries.

 

[Maxwell511]

We certainly have a lot more of a clue than we would if it was demons that moved as if they obeyed the Schrodinger equation, no?

If electrons are demons that always act in a manner that could be decribed by Schrodinger's equation then no.

Energy is just the conserved quantity due to time invariance in the laws of physics. It's no more remarkable than any other number that is conserved due to symmetries.

Could you expand on this idea?

 

[[serious]]

Falsifiability isn't a 'gold standard' in science, though it is a worthwhile criteria to use. But those explanations are rejected for the same reason that we reject the cosmology of a universe built out of spherical shells surrounding the Earth (a cosmology which our observations cannot rule out, I hasten to add).

Actually, we can directly rule out that model based on direct observation. However, when the theory was innitially rejected you were right. The model was innitially rejected based on a heliocentric model providing an accurate model of planetary model, something that a geocentric model was never able to quite do.

 

[Dragar]

Actually, we can directly rule out that model based on direct observation.

No...we really can't. Perhaps we can when it comes to the local surroundings, but certainly not when it comes to cosmology. Hubble's Law, for instance, it quite open to the interpretation that everything is flying away from us, and so the universe is centred upon us. It's only if you assume homogeneity and isotropy that everyone else in the universe must see the universe expanding away from them, too. It's perfectly valid to assume that everyone else sees the universe expanding away from us, and us alone.

We can't rule that out. We can mock it, though.