Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norwegian
Trad climber
Placerville, California
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 03:31pm PT
|
thread died.
twas buried.
now, it has RISEN.
shall we lose our intelligence over this?
...not directed at you wanda.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 15, 2010 - 03:31pm PT
|
There was actually some intelligent discussion at times, of course not at the highly cerebral level of the locker-wolf boy discourses.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 03:43pm PT
|
Yeah I'm with you, WandaFuca, Jeff, (JuanDeFuca, lostarrow, prowsolo & and whatever), sucks.
Starts all these dumb ass threads all the time and then decides to fuk with people just when it starts interesting.
Jeff ..... oh never mind ....
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
san diego
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 03:44pm PT
|
I think it had something to do with lockers "BLOW UP DOLL"....no wonder the thread crashed!!
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Peenemunde
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 03:46pm PT
|
Give me a break, the information is still there.
Just not the same subject over and over again.
Juan
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 03:50pm PT
|
Sure it's there Jeff, but by nuking the thread you fuked with flow it had going just before you nuked it.
That's pretty selfish of you.
Should not be your style.
Now go smoke a coed in your bowl ......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 03:51pm PT
|
I agree. It's not the end of the world, but it shouldn't have been nuked. There was many a good thought in that there thread. Thanks for re-posting, Wanda.
Now, WBraun, should we get on with it...
Maybe, since our last discourse, you've seen the error of your ways? and we can get some traction? and move forward?
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
san diego
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 03:56pm PT
|
Well, your always welcome back here juan, if all else fails("To theWomen of SuperTopo.").
Might be an apology in order though...to lockers "BLOW UP DOLL!!
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
san diego
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 04:08pm PT
|
Locker!
Does she have a sister?
Just looking for someone to talk to about hot air, the weather, anything...honest!
EDIT: Just one AIRHEAD talkin to another AIRHEAD sorta thing!!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 04:12pm PT
|
Actually, he WAS wrong. If Einstein was correct (still an open question, btw), then Newton was WRONG! The fact the Newtonian Mechanics can still be USED (again that pesky pragmatism vs. truth thingy) in a more or less crude fashion does not mean that he was CORRECT! On every substantive point, the Einsteinian universe does not resemble the Newtonian universe.
The problem with scientists is that they continually conflate "it works so far" with "it is true."
no, Newton was not wrong, but his theory of the universe was provisional, and limited to what could be tested at the time.
I am not making a claim of truth here, just understanding.
As for science making "claims," the requirement is that the claims be verifiable empirically. So while you can construct a universe by revealed truth, as religion does, top down as it were, you can build a set of empirical observations into a theory, predict the outcome of observations you have not done to test the ability of your theory to predict the behavior of nature, and then go out and observe that behavior. The theory can be compact, and explain a large amount of what can be observed, and point the way to additional observations.
Having done that, the theory can be enlarged and incorporate more and more, just as Newtonian physics is incorporated into Einstein's physics.
The statement that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is testable, as is the statement that the Earth is any other age. The same theory central to that test also tells us the probability of a neutrino will interact with a nucleus, that there are neutrinos, the mass of the W-boson, and points to the unification of observed forces in nature.
Undoing one of those things undoes the others...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 04:23pm PT
|
DMT, I am recovering from this back thing, so easy is what I can do...
but I'm back and doing things...
first list: the Roper Obscurities up to 5.6 or so...
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
san diego
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 04:28pm PT
|
Locker- "FULL OF HOT AIR."
Have you explained to her the theory that all BLOW UP DOLLS evolved from HOT AIR BALLOONS??
Might cool her down a bit!
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 04:32pm PT
|
jstan
climber
Apr 15, 2010 - 11:12am PT
MB1:
I think Ed has pretty well discussed this in his post.
Science really does not make any “claims”. It gives you a method that allows you to predict what you will get when you make a measurement. There is no requirement for belief. If a calculation works you just use it. And when a different calculation that has been shown to be better comes along, you switch over to the new calculation.
People who “believe” are doing something that is partially similar. But only partially. If one finds that “believing” some old story makes them feel better then it just works for them. So they just believe it. But that is where any similarity ends. “Believing” the story does not allow one to predict. The people who believe the rapture will come next Tuesday, or whatever, are trying to make such a “faithful” leap. So far at least, the predictive power has been nil.
Quite a bit of time has gone by without producing one good prediction, so the expectation of getting a successful prediction in the next week or so – becomes smaller with each passing year.
And he is on point to ask for a defintion of "to understand."
The meaning of the word is not obvious.
jstan
climber
Apr 15, 2010 - 11:41am PT
"The knowledge is not perfect, it's always defective by imperfect beings."
Werner you are theorizing when you talk of something "perfect" in the real world. Here I use the word "theorizing" as meaning a process that takes place in the brain. We can not measure anything in the real world with "perfect" precision. We can always think of a precision ten times greater than the precision we currently possess.
"Perfect" is a theory. One that has yet to be seen.
We do perceive perfection however. When we read a story over and over again, particularly when we are under stress and the brain is rewiring itself in real time, synapses are exercized and strengthened. When this synapse has been strengthened enough it always repeats. Just the fact that it repeats is perceived as "perfection."
So the power of "perfection" , as a concept has over us, arises from our fear. The fear we are unable to predict the future and to control our fate. A quite reasonable fear, as we are in fact unable to predict the future or to control our fate.
When afraid we recount an old story to ourselves so as to feel once more something, anything, that we can predict.
Faith is a refuge.
A mental "device."
MB1:
From previous conversations I know you are not a "mainstream christian", whatever that is. You are willing and able to discuss, and do so very cogently.
Let me start:
"Here's a claim: "The universe is really ten-dimensional.""
MB1, have you heard or read where a string theorist has said, "We are perfectly convinced the universe is ten-dimensional"? If you have, give me the link. I'll be amazed.
Einstein never thought his relativistic equations were complete. He just threw in the term with an additional constant so the equations could allow a static universe. Then when it was shown to be expanding he said he regretted throwing in that term. Now that we have data suggesting the universe's expansion is even accelerating Einstein's term is looking prescient and is actually needed. In light of that term we know he never thought they were "perfect". He knew the world in which he lived was not perfect just as his equations were not perfect.
That said, currently even our GPS equipment has to take into account relativistic corrections to get the present accuracy.
We love perfection. We love to say something is (perfectly) correct. We are never satisfied to say, "Within these limits this is pretty good."
But in this world - that's what we got.
And what more could one ask than - little by little we are getting better and better.
These points have been made here on ST dozens of times by persons far more able than myself but the same old misreadings keep cropping up. No one reads I guess while paying attention to the meaning of the words.
As to the meaning of the word "understand" I remain persuaded we use the word "without understanding."
Understanding arises out of experience. We have two different experiences to one of which we are used and the other new. We say we "understand" the new experience when the possibility of the new experience can be seen logically as being predicted by the first experience. I understand that an apple falls when released because I have before dropped stones. Quite a few, though I will deny it if challenged. If I had never personally seen a stone dropped and someone were to claim "apples fall when released", I might well accuse the claimant as being idiotic. But I do try to be more civil than this. Being uncivil gets one nowhere.
Even an old and extremely effective model like Quantum Mechanics seems idiotic. Einstein thought it 'incomplete". He knew it was very useful and nothing better existed. But it flies in the face of many experiences in the macro-world. It will remain 'idiotic" until we have taught children perturbation theory in kindergarten so they will have two experiences in the micro-world they can rub together to produce,
"understanding".
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 15, 2010 - 06:04pm PT
|
no, Newton was not wrong, but his theory of the universe was provisional, and limited to what could be tested at the time.
Provisional.
My belief in what science shows--which is often second or third-hand information since I am not doing the experiments myself--and everything else that I believe in, is provisional.
My belief that New Zealand and Evolution and the Andromeda Galaxy and Global Climate Change are real is contingent on my sense of their probability, so there is always the possibility my beliefs could change if the evidence changed.
But all I hear from those that believe in a god is their certain, definite, unconditional belief in something that has no supporting evidence and which is extremely improbable, especially as the descriptions become more ornate.
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Peenemunde
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 06:28pm PT
|
I have no idea why I deleted the post?
I really really worry about myself.
Juan
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 06:40pm PT
|
Jeff:
While in an intemperate mood I posted above that I will, henceforth, refrain from posting in your threads. I deleted it but the fact is that is what I will do.
It will be no great loss to your threads, but there it is.
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
san diego
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 06:43pm PT
|
"BLOW UP DOLLS" will do that to a guy...locker for example!
EDIT: Just kidding Lock, your humor is contagious...
"A merry heart is good medicine..." Proverbs 17:22
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 06:58pm PT
|
Juan wrote-
I have no idea why I deleted the post?
I really really worry about myself.
Juan
No worries.
(Just don't do it again, m'kay...)
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
|
I'm enjoying the thread. I hope this one doesn't get "disappeared."
Science and Religion, two very different methods for answering 2 very different questions:
Science = Cosmic Order. Asks and answers What? and How? questions using the Scientific Method, which when done correctly and honestly is self-correcting and leads to workable predictive models. Using physical empirical data and methods. It does works. Is it perfect? By no means, but predictive models will improve given more insight, research, study, and discovery.
We scientists look through a smoky and fog covered pane of glass. Our vision is not complete nor perfect.
Religion = Cosmic Purpose. Religion asks and answers Who? and Why? questions using recorded history, the written word, personal testimony, eye-witness accounts, archeology, faith, philosophy, logic, and reason. Some of it is testable to a degree. There are scientific approaches to verifying the account of some of the written word within the Bible. This is happening, and some people are indeed doing this. Our understanding is not complete and far, far from perfect. We have so much to learn.
Those of us who have religious faith look through a smoky and fog covered pane of glass. Our vision and understanding of GOD is not complete nor perfect.
I believe the two approaches are ultimately asking the same questions but from two very different approaches: How does it all work? How did it all happen? Where did we come from? Who are we? Does GOD exist? If GOD exists, then what is his purpose and plan? How do we fit into all of it, and what are we supposed to do?
I believe the two approaches are converging to the same point in time and space, and will ultimately come to the same conclusions. I believe in the end both approaches will say the same thing and come to a perfect agreement.
Science does indeed strenghten my faith in GOD. I'm sure many cannot understand that. But it is true. There are scientific discoveries now that verify what I have read and have believed to be true in the Word of GOD. And there are things that I have read in the word of GOD that the official scientific establishment does not accept at this time, that in time I believe will bear out to be true, and the official science community will have to change and adapt.
If science is truly about following truth through the means of the Scientific Method, and faith in GOD and his word is truly about the truth, and it is, then there will be a merging and coming together, a final agreement between both approaches.
There is no other possibility if both pursuits are about knowing the truth.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!