It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Do you want "scientific proof"?

page: 12
60
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:30 PM

how do you explain wave = particle when it comes to our understanding of light?

this is just one of the things we don't really understand about our universe

logic tells me that there are many more things that we don't understand, and that the things we hold true today and consider facts could some day in the future be shown that they are wrong

I'm not even arguing that logic is wrong here, I am simply telling you, that there is no doubt in my mind that there are things we don't understand about the universe, we only think we do.

you seem to think that everything we consider fact is true and history tells us that things change.

perceived truth does not always = truth

perception is the only thing we have to validate our findings. the way we view things can change.

just because our understand of A changes to B^2, does not mean that I am suddenly a car and it will not unravel to foundations of the universe,

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
IT is both, actually.... because we can actually observe the world to check the veracity of the statement.

The thing is: your axiom is mathematical, despite you saying it is not.

Check here: en.wikipedia.org...

A mathematical axiom is something that can be concluded without the use of observation. It is universally correct, regardless of subjective experience because of its redundancy. Scientific study uses observation to try and conclude results of our Universe.

From what I am interpreting, you are trying to use this reflexive axiom as a representation of reality. Basically saying that "reality is reality", which is true but is also a logical and philosophical statement. What science is doing is trying to prove the absolution of objects within this reality. However, we can not prove that reality is subjective or objective but more evidence leads to reality being subjective, still neither are falsifiable.

The reason I say that reality being subjective is more likely is because of the philosophical ideals of solipsism, which can be summed up in one question. Can your prove that anything outside of your own mind exists?

A few other questions for thought:

Can we prove that this is not a dream? Can we prove that we are not in a coma? Can we prove that our mentality has broken down so much that we are now manifesting a different reality than the one our true self exists in physically?

We can not prove either of these things.

So, under that assumption that reality is subjective, we will take your representation of it in the form of a mathematical axiom.

Reality is reality, A = A. This is true.

Now let's observe the objects within reality. We will look at objects 1, 2, and 3.

We could say that 1 = 1, 2 = 2, and 3 = 3. Remember, these are realistic objects, not mathematical numbers. We are representing reality with numbers, but they do not necessarily hold the same numerical values as math.

Since reality is subjective, we can not really prove that 1, 2, or 3, in fact, exists. What we can prove exists is our mind and the reality it creates, i.e "A".

Now everything would have to be a reflection (reflexion) of A.

Which we would then conclude that:

1 = A
2 = A
3 = A

because 1, 2, and 3 is our reality(A), which would mean that 1 =/= (does not equal) 1 universally.

This is because I can prove my reality, but I can not prove yours, and you can prove your reality, but can not prove mine. Which would conclude that I have a reality, and you have a reality, from each of our own perspectives. This would result in my reality(A) and your reality(B).

The conclusions would be the same for you:

1 = B
2 = B
3 = B

And since A =/= B, but both A and B govern the object 1, we can say that 1 =/= 1 in an objective sense from a subjective reality.

However, as I stated, neither subjective reality nor objective reality are falsifiable so it comes down to a matter of perspective.

In any event, your axiom is still mathematical logic. Not science.

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:49 AM

end of my participation in this conversation

Well, that didn't last too long, did it?

how do you explain wave = particle when it comes to our understanding of light?

Stop citing quantum physics as proof if you don't understand it.

Do you even know WHY the particle Wave duality is expressed for a photon?

this is just one of the things we don't really understand about our universe

I fail to see how this refutes the assertion that a Thing is Provably Itself.

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:56 AM

The thing is: your axiom is mathematical, despite you saying it is not.

The Sun is the Sun.

I can verify this in observable reality.

Yes, there exist things for me to perceive, therefore there exists something outside of my mind TO perceive.

Other than that, I can see that you wish to completely ignore the foundation of all logic as neccesary for any scientific discovery, so, I shall now PROVE to you that Science is Provable.

Postulate: The Earth Currently Exists.

Proof: The Existence of the Earth.

Now, explain to me what in the future could change the FACT that the Earth currently exists?

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:00 AM

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Postulate: The Earth Currently Exists.

Proof: The Existence of the Earth.

Now, explain to me what in the future could change the FACT that the Earth currently exists?

Perception

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:03 AM

Perception

That is a word, not an explanation.

Explain how future perception (changing I assume) could wipe out the current existence of the earth.
edit on 15-1-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:14 AM

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
That is a word, not an explanation.

Explain how future perception (changing I assume) could wipe out the current existence of the earth.
edit on 15-1-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

Oh.. you don't use words in your explanations?

Since this is each individual's reality, one could technically fall victim to a means of perceiving the existence of the Earth as nil.

Of course, there are various means but I will state the example of a societally deemed "mental" person. His/her mind could become so altered that they could start perceiving the Earth as non-existant. They could have visual disturbances (hallucinations) that cause them to view the Universe as if they are floating in space, and the world is no longer existant to them because of some tragic accident.

As I stated earlier, this is their reality so anything that exists in it (i.e their perception) would be a truth for them.

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:16 AM

perceiving the existence of the Earth as nil.

So, Perception creates reality, is what you are saying, yes?

edit on 15-1-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: ITT

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:39 AM

Yes. A = A

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 04:06 PM

Originally posted by redoubt

Headliner: Do you want "scientific proof"
First paragraph: Well, too bad. You'll never get it.

Beautiful! What a set-up!

Science will never prove anything because science doesn't have the full answer book in hand. Yes, they can do a number of things... the obvious, but for those thing less known?

Science relies on faith as much as faith relies on faith. Our species is just beginning to understand how things work. Someday we may reach out and touch the stars but in our lifetimes? trusting science is as much an act of faith as being baptised to go to heaven.

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by playswithmachines

Originally posted by redoubt

Headliner: Do you want "scientific proof"
First paragraph: Well, too bad. You'll never get it.

Beautiful! What a set-up!

Science will never prove anything because science doesn't have the full answer book in hand. Yes, they can do a number of things... the obvious, but for those thing less known?

Science relies on faith as much as faith relies on faith. Our species is just beginning to understand how things work. Someday we may reach out and touch the stars but in our lifetimes? trusting science is as much an act of faith as being baptised to go to heaven.

Right. When you use a hammer and you pound a nail on the head, you have to have "faith" that the next time you do the same thing with a hammer, the same thing happens.

And, guess what, it does! Billions of times over. That's science.

When we get billions of confirmed postcards from heaven, then that will be science too.

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:48 PM

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by playswithmachines

Originally posted by redoubt

Headliner: Do you want "scientific proof"
First paragraph: Well, too bad. You'll never get it.

Beautiful! What a set-up!

Science will never prove anything because science doesn't have the full answer book in hand. Yes, they can do a number of things... the obvious, but for those thing less known?

Science relies on faith as much as faith relies on faith. Our species is just beginning to understand how things work. Someday we may reach out and touch the stars but in our lifetimes? trusting science is as much an act of faith as being baptised to go to heaven.

Right. When you use a hammer and you pound a nail on the head, you have to have "faith" that the next time you do the same thing with a hammer, the same thing happens.

And, guess what, it does! Billions of times over. That's science.

When we get billions of confirmed postcards from heaven, then that will be science too.

Right. However, in the literal sense, the same never happens twice. Although it does appear the same.

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:01 PM
I can't believe this thread has grown past five pages. This a splitting of a hair. Sure, theories change, but only after rigorous testing. If several hundred tests show the same results again and again, I'd call that evidence, if not proof, that said results will almost always prove true. Sure, that doesn't mean you stop testing; tweak the experiment and test the theory a thousand times over. Your understanding may grow, but those initial tests will always be the foundation, except in exceptionally ground-breaking scenarios.
edit on 15-1-2012 by RatoAstuto because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:55 PM

Originally posted by RatoAstuto
I can't believe this thread has grown past five pages. This a splitting of a hair. Sure, theories change, but only after rigorous testing. If several hundred tests show the same results again and again, I'd call that evidence, if not proof, that said results will almost always prove true. Sure, that doesn't mean you stop testing; tweak the experiment and test the theory a thousand times over. Your understanding may grow, but those initial tests will always be the foundation, except in exceptionally ground-breaking scenarios.
edit on 15-1-2012 by RatoAstuto because: (no reason given)

there have been many many ground breaking scenarios that in testing and science and had a firm foundation on all of our reality that have since been deemed no longer valid. You can never ever say that something is always going to prove true. Unless of course you have proven the universal nature of truth first and have a solid understanding that it is merely a perception and not a reality.

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:18 PM

the idea that both order and disorder are illusions imposed on the universe by the human nervous system, and that neither of these illusions of apparent order and disorder are any more accurate or objectively true than the other

therefore, earth (order) no earth (disorder).

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:28 AM

the idea that both order and disorder are illusions imposed on the universe by the human nervous system, and that neither of these illusions of apparent order and disorder are any more accurate or objectively true than the other

No, Order and Disorder are words that we humans use to describe *very real* conditions in the Universe.

The entire idea that Perception creates reality is self defeating, and I'll tell you why....

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:41 AM
As champions of the scientific method, a system of drawing conclusions from observable fact rather than from assumptions, skeptics present themselves as priests of pure science. But it turns out that they practice what they condemn most, a "belief system" known as scientific materialism, the doctrine to which the scientific method devolves when scientists trade free thought and inquiry for the dogma of absolute materialism.

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:29 AM

Originally posted by angellicview
As champions of the scientific method, a system of drawing conclusions from observable fact rather than from assumptions, skeptics present themselves as priests of pure science. But it turns out that they practice what they condemn most, a "belief system" known as scientific materialism, the doctrine to which the scientific method devolves when scientists trade free thought and inquiry for the dogma of absolute materialism.

Thank you for your profound words.

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by angellicview
As champions of the scientific method, a system of drawing conclusions from observable fact rather than from assumptions, skeptics present themselves as priests of pure science. But it turns out that they practice what they condemn most, a "belief system" known as scientific materialism, the doctrine to which the scientific method devolves when scientists trade free thought and inquiry for the dogma of absolute materialism.

This is one part of the problem, a real scientist believes nothing & everything, is totally objective, and is concerned only with observable facts and logic.
Unfortunately, the whole institution of scientific learning is run much like the church, everyone bowing heads & leaning the psalms, not once daring to question the validity of it all.

The 'scientific method' is all about recording facts,events. Making deductions that would show another event that may be recorded, that supports the first event.
Having recorded the second event, it is normally possible to deduce the existence of a third event, and so on.
At this point you have recorded many events that support the theory behind the first event.
So far so good, you can be reasonably certain that the theory is correct, I. E. Gravity is an attracting force, and all objects fall 'down'.

But that does not rule out 100% that there is not a place in the universe where gravity is in fact a repelling force, and objects would fall 'up'.
NOTHING is clear-cut 100% certain, and can not be claimed to be so by scientists, they can only go on what events they have measured, the accuracy of the measurements, and what the theory predicts.
So i can provide scientific proof that gravity is the same on other planets (in this case the Moon, with Niel Armstrong dropping a hammer). So far so good.
You can also predict that gravity would be less on the moon, because it is less massive, and gravity appears to be associated with mass (matter).

Right now, we hit a snag already
since the gravity of the moon is not what it should be according to it's diameter and internal structure..
The only logical explanation for this discrepancy is that the moon is made of lighter material, or it is partially hollow. NASA says it's very similar to earth rocks, and in fact has a molten iron core like Earth does.
I could expand on this, but you get my drift.
If we can't even agree on how gravity works on the only other planet we've been to, how can we say with absolute certainty that gravity is overall the same in the universe

"But i KNOW the Earth is flat, this theory proves it"

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:56 PM

Originally posted by playswithmachines
Unfortunately, the whole institution of scientific learning is run much like the church, everyone bowing heads & leaning the psalms, not once daring to question the validity of it all.

Look up Einstiens universe/static universe theory amongst various other hundreds of things that other scientists have disputed.

Scientists generally love proving things wrong. Is science perfect? No, but scientific minds are constantly arguing with one another, and even the greatest most applauded minds get proven wrong on a rather surprisingly regular basis.

Many scientists have reacted with incredulity at their own results, and been shocked by how weird the universe actually is. In my experience lay persons are much more likely to do the head bowing and pslam saying. There are times when theories are thrown out or disputed by modern science and it takes the rest of the population five to twenty years to actually catch on.

If you can correct me, please do, but I've read countless occassions of theories being disputed/proven wrong/replaced etc ... I just don't think the mainstream media spends enough time discussing these events with proper weight and gravitas.

new topics

top topics

60