Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Axioms are assumed to be true statements!Axioms are by definition taken to be true within the system in which they are used. They are the basis of such systems, not absolute or universal truths.
Just as there are different geometries depending on the specified axioms, there are also variations of mathematics using different axioms.
Do you believe that Jesus was an historical person, who lived and died in Israel?I agree with scholars in the paucity of evidence for an historical Jesus.
From what I hear, most physicists/cosmologists take a 'singularity' just to mean that our physical models break down in that context, not that there really is/was an infinitely small, infinitely dense point there. Opinion seems to be that it will (at least) take a theory of quantum gravity to resolve the issue.To make the claim that there existed a singularity, is not a claim that is subject to a scientific test or even to falsification. The claim of the existence of a singularity, is a claim that an entity existed before the natural laws of science even existed. This claim should be rejected by the scientific community. Science is defined as observation, measurement, repeatable experiments, hard evidence supporting a valid theory through objective agreement.
Science cannot progress unless an idea can be tested and is subject to being falsified.
Any claim, theory, hypothesis, that cannot be tested is not in the domain of science.
The Big Bang as a scientific explanation is mere science fiction.
The Big Bang at the initial phase (singularity) is undefined, unbounded, not finite, thus cannot be measured or tested!
I am not always right but never wrong.You are just wrong. A good theory can make predictions about what we might find if it were true. If the predicted elements are found, it strengthens the theory.
What predictions does creationism make in the realm of physical sciences?
Well your comments earlier regarding the historicity of Jesus are invalid!Perhaps. It's really not that important to me.
If the event cannot be observed, measured or is capable of being falsified, then it is not a scientific claim. No one even knows whether a singularity even existed, it is beyond the reach of scientific methodology.From what I hear, most physicists/cosmologists take a 'singularity' just to mean that our physical models break down in that context, not that there really is/was an infinitely small, infinitely dense point there. Opinion seems to be that it will (at least) take a theory of quantum gravity to resolve the issue.
None of that contradicts what I said - or vice-versa. For example, the axioms of Euclidean geometry (i.e. flat geometry) are taken to be true for Euclidean geometry - but they are not the same as the axioms of non-Euclidean geometries.Axioms are assumed to be true statements!
I don't think that science would exist as a valid ideology without measurement.
Measurement is a mathematical methodology.
Mathematics stands on the mathematical axioms.
Assumptions and axioms are the beating heart of science.
Yes most certainly, yet the axioms must be true, otherwise your wasting everyone's time.None of that contradicts what I said - or vice-versa. For example, the axioms of Euclidean geometry (i.e. flat geometry) are taken to be true for Euclidean geometry - but they are not the same as the axioms of non-Euclidean geometries.
It would be more accurate to say that we don't yet have a scientific explanation for what happens in those contexts.No one even knows whether a singularity even existed, it is beyond the reach of scientific methodology.
Don't use that concept, 'infinity', in our conversations about science. Mathematics is based on finite entities called counting numbers. A number line for example never approaches infinity because a number line, is a defined finite construction. Consider a number line of positive integers, now every integer must have an integer that follows it.From what I hear, most physicists/cosmologists take a 'singularity' just to mean that our physical models break down in that context, not that there really is/was an infinitely small, infinitely dense point there. Opinion seems to be that it will (at least) take a theory of quantum gravity to resolve the issue.
But Einsteins theories are also limited in their application.It would be more accurate to say that we don't yet have a scientific explanation for what happens in those contexts.
That doesn't mean it's permanently beyond science, it means our models are currently incomplete or inadequate - but we knew that. Newtonian mechanics works pretty well, but fails to correctly describe some situations; we found a better model (Einsteinian relativity) that supersedes Newtonian mechanics and correctly describes those situations, so we have a scientific explanation for them.
Like I said, they're taken to be true for the system in which they're used. They may not be true in other systems. See Alternative Axiomatic Set Theories.Yes most certainly, yet the axioms must be true, otherwise your wasting everyone's time.
True - that's why a lot of work is going into finding a more encompassing theory.But Einsteins theories are also limited in their application.
The fact is; there is no contemporary record of either the death or resurrection of a Jesus.Which ones, specifically?
Much ado about nothing.True - that's why a lot of work is going into finding a more encompassing theory.
Well I did say that they generally don't think that the infinities that appear in the calculations reflect reality, but that the theory underlying calculations is inapplicable in those contexts.Don't use that concept, 'infinity', in our conversations about science.
We do not even know whether an infinity of anything can even exist. It is an intellectual idea not an observable reality. You cannot measure infinity, science should not use the concept.Well I did say that they generally don't think that the infinities that appear in the calculations reflect reality, but that the theory underlying calculations is inapplicable in those contexts.
Having said that, I'll use the concept of infinity whenever I think it may be useful.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?