It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

A question about theories

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
See what I mean? Perfect example.




posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   


Err... would it be correct to say that you haven't taught public school for five or more years? In my experience, teachers who deviate from the state-mandated standards are usually "outed" by their pupils. This leads to parents screaming at the principal (not pleasant), a call to "have a chat" in the office, a note being put in your personnel file and (if it's outrageous enough -- and these days it doesn't take much) rather quick termination. I don't know of any teachers who have successfully taught their own theories in public schools. Your mileage may vary.
reply to post by Indellkoffer
 


That would be correct, I haven't taught since shortly after Goals 2000 was implemented. The state mandated standards are not facts but goals and correct me if I am wrong, teachers are encouraged to come of with creative ways to meet those goals that may include inappropriate methods. They only face problems if they get caught, and even then there is a protocol for damage control that protects the school. this is off topic here... I am planning to make a thread in regards to the education system , methods and true purpose later this week.

I am very aware of the tactics that are used by the education system to coerce families and students. If you are looking at this topic from a teachers angle, sorry...I am not to concerned about the control mechanisms put in place for them, my focus has always been on the child and what is being done to them. The whole system is designed to brainwash, process children like cattle and control knowledge...so I am sorry if I have little sympathy for those who help ruin our country and families for a paycheck. If the biggest crimes got punished in this country, the education system would be eliminated, and a lot of big people would go to jail. That's where I am coming from hun.

Sorry to OP for straying off topic, I won't make further comments in your thread in this subject. I just felt the need to answer.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Quite interesting, and thank you for the links (new stuff to me, obviously!) My knowledge is 'old school' QM and I haven't kept up on the new material.

I'm aware of the "spooky action at a distance" conundrum and had spent some time several years ago with a prof from Washington state who was doing an experiment to verify quantum entanglement at a distance, but have since forgotten to watch for updates.

I do confess that (based on older knowledge) I am still waiting to be convinced that QM massively affects reality in the ways I've seen discussed. While belief or thought might change the direction of quanta, I don't see that my 'thinking' at a lightbulb can turn it on or off. I'd be open to the idea that my observation might temporarily change pathways and so forth but I don't see it affecting reality on a large scale.

On the other hand, QM might lead to research that would someday allow me to "think" lights on or off. I can see an inherent problem with this, since I'm a terribly (squirrel!) distractible (cat! squirrel!) person and I can just see (butterfly!) the lights going nuts trying to keep (husband!) up with my (dishes!) intent.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Over the years, I've seen countless posts that begin something like "the theory of E=MC2 never made sense. So I have a new theory about how this works."

You've seen those posts.

Now -- I have a question for people: Why is the answer to "this doesn't make sense to me" NOT "Ohboy... I need to learn a bunch of things so I can understand it?" Why is the response "This means it's wrong so I need to construct a new theory that makes it right"?

What's your idea on this?

This is an excellent question.

I think there are several reasons going on here. One is called the Dunning-Kruger Effect (which I'll call DK). People who are unfamiliar with a subject tend to underestimate its complexity, and to overestimate their understanding of it. That's why you have so many would-be Quantum physicists who never got past high school algebra. I'm going to rewrite physics. I mean, how hard could it be?

A second reason is that Quantum theory and Relativity are highly unintuitive. A particle can be here *and* there at the same time - or nowhere at all? Things change size and mass as they move? What kind of crap is this? People who make science their religion often want to make these things go away, so they rewrite science.

Third, as others have pointed out, the math is prohibitively difficult. I've got a *lot* of math - up to and including partial differential equations - and I like it. I'd still have to spend a few more years learning math in order to become competent in these fields. Most people hate math and never learn much of it. Because of this, people rely on the analogies often used to describe physical theories - for example, mass warping space is like a bowling ball warping a rubber sheet it's sitting on, that sort of thing. Encouraged by such simple analogies, these folks extend them far beyond what is appropriate, and create all manner of bovine dejecta.

Fourth, stories like Einstein developing Special Relativity while working as a patent clerk fire the imagination, encouraging people to think that they, too, a mere pizza driver, can rewrite physics. What is often overlooked is that Einstein was not only highly competent at math (contrary to urban legend), he was also a fully-qualified professor of mathematical physics. He was working in a patent office, not because he was an untrained outsider, but because he was something of a jerk who had alienated the professors who might otherwise have written letters of recommendation to get him a job teaching physics.

Five: Well, after all, when Einstein found that something didn't make sense, he constructed a new theory. A few new theories, actually. Of course, Einstein *did* first learn a bunch of things, before trying Plan B, something most people overlook in their quest for immortality.

It may even be that some folks, utterly boggled by the math and even the verbal explanations of physics (or science in general), assume that it's mostly nonsense, and if they spout sufficient technical jargon they'll be taken seriously, too. I don't know. It just seems that way from some of the corrections to Quantum Mechanics I've read.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
Science in the Western world is flawed. Theories are taught almost as if they are fact. Who came up with the theory matters greatly. Theories are in fact unproven ideas, nothing more.

A question for you OP, why do you dismiss theories based on your perception of the poster's education level?

Theories are a starting point to enable us to search for answers. In themselves, they are not answers, only the prelude to questions.

P


Much of what you say is true; however, it seems you may have some misunderstanding about science.

First, let me clarify that no one perfectly practices science, any more than they perfectly follow a religion, obey the law, do their job, etc. Scientists are human. They are subject to prejudice, political or economic pressure, arrogance, ignorance, etc. - just like you and me. When I say "science" I refer to the ideal.

There really isn't "Western" science. The scientific method may have originated in the West (some would question this), but it has been adopted by everyone who concerns himself with the natural world. This is because no other method is as effective in understanding the physical world.

Often scientific theories are taught as fact. This isn't a fault of science, but of education, teachers who themselves don't properly understand how science works.

Ideally, science is a process of discovery. Science should be conducted as the "scientific method," not as some body of facts handed down as Holy Writ. There is no canon, no dogma. All theories, without exception, are subject to question and possible rejection. Check out this article about falsifiabiliby.

As a result of this, there are no "answers" in science, no "proven" ideas, only theories and data. What we call an answer is a current theory that has so far passed all the tests applied to it. As you suggested, it's a prelude to more questions. Always.

Scientists are always getting things wrong, just like everyone else. However, science (eventually) corrects itself when experience conflicts with prediction. This is often seen as a weakness. "Scientists were wrong, and they even admitted it!" In fact, this is what makes science unique. Scientists learn from their mistakes, revise or replace their theories, and go on to the next grand blunder.

I don't want to put words into the OP's mouth, but I don't think she was dismissing theories based on peoples' education levels. It see it as her wish that people would learn the subject before trying to concoct theories about it. She wasn't talking about education level; she was talking about knowledge of the subject. Huge difference.

You don't have to be a physicist to discuss physics, any more than you have to be an English professor to discuss Shakespeare. But in both cases, you have to be able to read the language the work is written in - English in one case, mathematics in the other. If you can't read the work, you can't talk sensibly about it. It's like how some people talk about the New Age, claiming that they all worship the devil. They need to learn about the New Age before discussing it.

Same with science, but it's harder for many folks to spot the BS, because they themselves also lack a proper background in science and math. But it's not education, it's learning.

Without wishing to sound arrogant or elitist, let me just say that if you don't know the math, you can't understand most of physics - and certainly not Relativity or Quantum Theory. None of the words written about them give even a hint of what's going on. Trying to understand physics without the math is something like trying to viewing a painting you've never seen by listening to a sportscaster describe it to you. And then, since you find the description not to your liking, you revise it and present your own view - all without ever having seen the painting.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   


Axioms can never have proof. ...We thought this was a fact by axiom. Until we discovered non-euclidean geometry, we thought triangles had 180 degrees.
...
If you travel south 10 miles, east 10 miles and then north 10 miles, how can you arrive at the same place you started? ...If you believe in euclidean geometry only, you will be lost trying to figure out how.
...
The law of inverse squares states that we will eventually return to the source understanding given time and awareness.

Your post is a prime example of what the OP was talking about. It is evident that you are unfamiliar with non-Euclidean geometry.

What you described is Euclidean geometry. It's called spherical geometry, as distinguished from plane geometry. The Greeks developed it a couple of thousand years ago. Your example indicates that you've confused 3-D Euclidean geometry with analogies that seek to explain 2-D elliptic geometry shown in 3-D.

Non-Euclidean geometries were developed in the 19th Century. They arose when mathematicians replaced Euclid's fifth axiom (or postulate) with other axioms. Roughly speaking, In Euclidean geometry, parallel lines remain the same distance apart, no matter how far they are extended. In hyperbolic geometry, the lines diverge; in elliptic geometry, they converge.

An axiom is a "given." No attempt is made to prove it. It's the starting point for a sequence of logical steps that do prove something. The idea isn't that X is true, so it follows that Y is also true. It's *IF* X is true, then Y must be true. This implies that if X is false, Y is not necessarily true. The Greeks were careful to keep this in mind. They were meticulous thinkers, unlike many who followed them.

It is important to distinguish between mathematical and physical space. In mathematics, space can have any number of dimensions. It can be based on any choice of axioms. It is a purely intellectual construct that is not constrained by observations.

Whatever we say about physical space needs to fit in with observation. We don't get to choose our axioms. For example, in the presence of massive bodies, physical space exhibits a positive curvature (it is elliptic). The curvature of space overall - that is, the curvature of the Universe - is an open question. No observation to date has found the curvature to be measurably different from zero.

A law of inverse squares (usually called an inverse square law) states that a quantity varies according to the inverse of the square of the distance from the source of the quantity. If you get 100 units of light at 1 meter from the source, then you would get only 1 unit if you move to 10 meters away. Inverse square laws already have a definition that has nothing to do with what you claim. Attempting to redefine clearly defined concepts doesn't further knowledge. It only leads to confusion.

Finally, efforts to apply scripture to physical reality have had uniformly dismal results. Scripture may possibly be relevant in the realm of spirit, but when it comes to understanding physics, math is the way to go. Consider: who would you rather have build the airplane you're in - devout Christians relying on the Word for their knowledge, or atheists who have studied aerodynamics but not the Bible? I can't answer for you, but I think that it would be much safer to rely on the trained atheists. But of course, I've never heard of any complex mechanism that was built by someone relying solely on scripture, so perhaps the question is moot...



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by baruch60610
 


Wow, you guys make it so complicated to draw a triangle.
I'd hate to hire you guys to build a pyramid, I'd be a confused old man before it got started.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by baruch60610
 


Wow, you guys make it so complicated to draw a triangle.
I'd hate to hire you guys to build a pyramid, I'd be a confused old man before it got started.


You'd be safe.
They'd just point and say "put that thang over yonder, if you would, please."

Sadly, there is a point when attempting to explain things for people without a very deep background results in them getting the wrong impression. I know enough geometry to know that any theorizing about Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry is going to go way above my head -- and when talking to my husband (who is a mathematician), the poor guy sometimes has to go back and fill me in on all the background before I really "get" what it is he's saying.

Makes me feel very dimwitted at times. I've just recently decided to amend this and grabbed all the old math books in the house and am starting to work my way through Algebra again.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by baruch60610
 


What I said is completely related to what you are stating from wikipedia. Nothing that I stated goes against what you are pointing out. In the case of the law of inverse squares, you are mistaking my premise. The fact that we travel closer to the light allows our frame of reference to see the details more clearly. The source I am speaking of is the source of the physical laws you are referring to. I would totally disagree with your commentary of the Bible applied to physics. In this case, our understanding of physics is mistaken. Our best analogies of Time, Space, Matter and especially Energy, are correct only if viewed by what the Bible has said all along.

1) Energy is information and can only be seen as an element of light that is information in movement. John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Word is also the wave of particle and wave duality. Science misses this by disallowing consciousness as a key component of the trinity (not duality) of light.

Also, the universe is made from the macrocosm up by information and light. Light is not seen. It only reveals what it reflects. Information is not seen unless expressed by light into form.

Hebrews 11

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Genesis 1:1-3

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

Light is projected in a hologram of time, space, matter and energy (Wave / Information). Word is the primary mechanism for rendering matter in the process by collapsing wave function. We are in an image.

1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

I am sorry, but Science is a Johnny-come-lately with this information. They still miss the third aspect of light. What is the Image of God projected from? Particle, Wave and Consciousness. How do I know energy is information:







edit on 4-9-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by baruch60610
 

What I said is completely related to what you are stating from wikipedia... In the case of the law of inverse squares, you are mistaking my premise... I would totally disagree with your commentary of the Bible applied to physics...

Look. It is clear to me that you don't have a solid background in geometry. There's no shame in this; I'm not putting you down. Truth is infinite; what any human can know is infinitesimal. If I say you are limited, I say I am equally limited.

I provided some tools for you to develop this background. What you do with them is up to you. You seem to think you already know the topic, which is the greatest obstacle to learning it.

I don't blame you for not accepting what I say. I am a stranger to you. Just because I claim to know a topic doesn't mean I have a clue.

I understood your point about the inverse square laws. Disagreeing doesn't always mean not understanding. It *could* mean that I understood and thought you were wrong anyway. In this case, by applying a term with a specific meaning to an unrelated situation, you were misusing the term.

The inverse square laws have a well-defined meaning that has not been shown to apply to distance from God.
  • If God is everywhere, can there be a distance from Him? If not, then the laws don't apply.
  • In the physical world there are situations in which the effect of distance varies according to the inverse of a power other than two. Is there any evidence to show that God's effect decreases with the inverse of the *square* of the distance from Him, as opposed to some other relation? If not, then applying an inverse *square* law to Him is a guess.
  • Does your law allow for the notion of Grace? If not, you imply that God obeys a mathematical law. If so, then your law is not an inverse square relationship and should not use the name.

    You can't just hijack the name of a principle for your own purposes. If you do that, what prevents someone from claiming that it's God they're summoning up in satanic rituals? To you, God is God, and other things have other names (I assume; correct me if I'm wrong).

    There is no justification for preferring what the Bible says over what can plainly be observed. In the Bible (2 Chr. 4:2), pi is described as being equal to 3. This is incorrect. Either the Bible is wrong, or else the Bible doesn't always speak the literal truth (i.e., it rounded the number). Claiming that pi is really 3 isn't going to work. I've used a simplistic example here; I hope you understand that I mean this to apply generally.

    Finally, it is unlikely that anyone can even read the Bible. The languages it was written in (Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek) haven't been spoken in hundreds to thousands of years. No one speaks them now; only scholars and perhaps some members of religious communities use them.

    Think how much trouble we have understanding Shakespeare - or the KJV, for that matter. That English is only a few hundred years old, yet it's almost gibberish to us. The problem with Biblical languages is similar, but worse.

    But no one reads the original languages. We require translations. No two translations are the same. Which one is right? Each translation inserts biases based on the beliefs of the translators. In some cases, the errors are egregious. Jerome apparently thought Moses grew horns from his head after talking to God (Ex. 34:29-30). This mistranslation of the Hebrew word for "beams" or "rays" (like a halo or nimbus) persisted for hundreds of years. Everyone else gets halos when they talk to God. Moses gets horns. Come on... Every translation has its flaws. Learn physics through corrupted texts? I don't think so.

    You still haven't answered my question about who you'd rather have design an airplane you were going to ride in - untrained Believers, strong in the Word, or atheistic engineers, strong in the Math. I think I know the answer, though.

    I don't claim that the knowledge isn't in the Bible, just that this knowledge is inaccessible there until it has been found elsewhere. I've never seen a single instance of someone using the Bible to develop *new* information. Like Nostradamus, the prophecies are always *after* the fact. Anyone can shoot at a wall and then paint targets around the bullet holes. It's the only way to be right 100% of the time.

    One of the most important qualities of science is its ability to discover new information. As far as I can see, it is unique to science. What, besides science, comes up with predictions that can be tested - and then admits being wrong if the predictions fail to appear?



  • posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:40 PM
    link   
    reply to post by baruch60610
     


    On application of inverse square law:

    Inverse square law is applicable to electric, radiation, gravity, light, economics, engineering, communication and the list goes on. It is a law that can be verified as evident in relation to most aspects of our reality, including something as simple as understanding and perspective by frame of reference. Crossing this law over to belief and intelligence related to light and information is not a leap at all. Philosophy and ethics is directly related to our ability to connect the concrete world to the abstract nature of relationship with unseen law. Saying that the inverse square law has nothing do do with intellect and understanding is like saying that gravity has nothing to do with the apple hitting the ground when falling from the tree. No natural law can be disconnected from the nature of the changing states of matter and information. They are interdependent.




    You still haven't answered my question about who you'd rather have design an airplane you were going to ride in - untrained Believers, strong in the Word, or atheistic engineers, strong in the Math. I think I know the answer, though.



    This is an incorrect premise. I take the believers that are strong in math and happen to have engineering degrees. I can trust their work far more than the unbeliever with high math skills and an engineering degree that spent his time drinking and chasing women. The believer is more likely to have been in his dorm studying and attending church on weekends with his one girlfriend.



    One of the most important qualities of science is its ability to discover new information. As far as I can see, it is unique to science. What, besides science, comes up with predictions that can be tested - and then admits being wrong if the predictions fail to appear?


    Science continues to hold on to axioms that are not evident. Collapsing wave function is one such axiom that is revealing that evolution cannot create consciousness from matter. It is the other way around. Energy is now known to be information. Entropy in information denies any evolution of choice from chaos to function apart from a consciousness collapsing the indeterminate to determine the best outcome. Nothing rises above its source, yet science continues to hold the theory that consciousness can arise from the sun, moon and earth. We (microcosm) are a picture of the macrocosm. Our source is what we flow from. We are vastly more complex than the Earth, Moon or Stars. All things flow from a source.

    Is there an oak tree enfolded into an acorn? Is the acorn the oak tree or is the oak tree the acorn? Neither. They are both an image of word.

    John 1

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

    You can never focus this light into truth unless your awareness (Screen catching the light) is narrow or your distance from the source is not matched to awareness. This is the inverse square law in relation to the source of the light.

    Regarding my original response to the OP, we are viewing God from dimensions below. Until our axioms are narrowed to the higher dimensions, the multiplicity of what we know cannot be brought into a frame of reference to understand what we describe. You and I both agree on this. The Bible is complicated, locked in parable and symbol and must be mined by linguistics and source languages. Further, these languages must then be defined by the roots and the morphology of each word from that root. You are implying that this is simply too hard. Not the case. Check my link in the signature and you will see that I have done this. The LITTLE bit that I have done in this direction has revealed mountains of new perspective that simply unifies theology under higher axioms.

    Example:

    Baptism is being immersed in water to rise to new life. Taken to the root of meaning an it is our soul being immersed into the water of life. When Christ said, "You must be born again," he was referring to transmigration of the soul back into the water over many lives. 1 Kings 17 reveals this, but not if you are not aware of Elijah's relationship to John the Baptist. It IS possible to know. The point of seeking and knocking on each door is that the task is not easy. It only goes to those who look. The key to finding is not you or I. It is the Holy Spirit speaking to the individual. Science has an answer for this. Communication is through the water (Hydrogen Cycle). Collapsing wave function starts at one proton and one electron in hydrogen, positive and negative in balance.

    Light spreads out from the plasma in an electric universe. Again, another axiom that is new. Science still holds out for Nuclear reactions. It's electric and plasma. The sun is a sphere and not oval. It is externally powered. What does this have to do with anything? It has everything to do with wave function and the projection of an image.


    edit on 5-9-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:49 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by EnochWasRight
    reply to post by baruch60610
     

    On application of inverse square law:
    Inverse square law is applicable to electric, radiation, gravity, light, economics, engineering, communication and the list goes on. It is a law that can be verified as evident in relation to most aspects of our reality, including something as simple as understanding and perspective by frame of reference. Crossing this law over to belief and intelligence related to light and information is not a leap at all. Philosophy and ethics is directly related to our ability to connect the concrete world to the abstract nature of relationship with unseen law. Saying that the inverse square law has nothing do do with intellect and understanding is like saying that gravity has nothing to do with the apple hitting the ground when falling from the tree. No natural law can be disconnected from the nature of the changing states of matter and information. They are interdependent.


    Yes, it is a leap, for two reasons.

    First, you still haven't shown that the concept of distance even applies in spiritual matters, that there can in fact be a genuine distance from God (for that matter, you haven't demonstrated the existence of God, but I'm letting that one slide). If you can show that the concept of distance is valid in spiritual matters, you still haven't shown that the intensity of the effect of the Source varies according to the distance from the Source. And if you show these two points, you have not yet shown that it is an inverse *square* law. A case could easily be made that when a soul grows more distant from God, His effect *INCREASES* in an effort to lead the soul back to Him.

    I did not claim that the inverse square laws have nothing to do with intellect and understanding. I said only that you haven't even come close to demonstrating that they have any application whatsoever to them. In order to answer my statement, you need to support your claim. Otherwise all you're making is a statement of faith. And that's fine, as long as you acknowledge it as such.

    You make another claim now: "No natural law can be disconnected from the nature of the changing states of matter and information." I don't even know what you're talking about. I have a nagging suspicion that you don't, either. But it is possible, and entirely too common, for people to completely disconnect physical laws from any legitimate form of ethics or philosophy. You certainly don't need any ethics to work physical laws.

    You keep avoiding my question. My guess - it can only be a guess, of course - is that you know that your answer conflicts with what you are saying here. You are too honest to lie, but unwilling to concede the point.

    There is no "premise" in the question. It is a question, not a syllogism. It is a hypothetical question in which you are given two options, and asked which you would choose. The options were: Believers in the Word, untrained in engineering, or atheists, well trained in engineering. It is a simple question that, if properly responded to, has a simple answer.

    In point of fact, planes are probably built mostly by non-believers, simply because believers are a relative minority. Oh, and a whole lot of the believers would be Muslims, Communists, and Hindus, since we have to import so many of our scientific and engineering skill from other countries such as Pakistan, India, and China. So unless your definition of The Word includes Al Qur'an, the Communist Manifesto, and the Bhagavad Gita, you're not getting a whole lot of believers anyway.



    posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:26 PM
    link   
    reply to post by baruch60610
     




    If you can show that the concept of distance is valid in spiritual matters, you still haven't shown that the intensity of the effect of the Source varies according to the distance from the Source.


    Not my premise. My premise is that our understanding of the fixed source is an inverse square of our understanding by relation to our frame of reference to it. Nothing about the source changes. You should consult Kant and Hume to see the connection to philosophy. Axioms are dead apart from the philosophy and implication they draw as a relation by proximity.



    posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:29 PM
    link   
    reply to post by baruch60610
     





    You make another claim now: "No natural law can be disconnected from the nature of the changing states of matter and information." I don't even know what you're talking about. I have a nagging suspicion that you don't, either. But it is possible, and entirely too common, for people to completely disconnect physical laws from any legitimate form of ethics or philosophy. You certainly don't need any ethics to work physical laws.


    All proverbs are descriptions of natural law. Science can only ask if followed by a then this. Law is what is studied. No axiom can be separated from the law it describes.



    posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:34 PM
    link   
    reply to post by baruch60610
     





    You keep avoiding my question. My guess - it can only be a guess, of course - is that you know that your answer conflicts with what you are saying here. You are too honest to lie, but unwilling to concede the point.

    There is no "premise" in the question. It is a question, not a syllogism. It is a hypothetical question in which you are given two options, and asked which you would choose. The options were: Believers in the Word, untrained in engineering, or atheists, well trained in engineering. It is a simple question that, if properly responded to, has a simple answer.

    In point of fact, planes are probably built mostly by non-believers, simply because believers are a relative minority. Oh, and a whole lot of the believers would be Muslims, Communists, and Hindus, since we have to import so many of our scientific and engineering skill from other countries such as Pakistan, India, and China. So unless your definition of The Word includes Al Qur'an, the Communist Manifesto, and the Bhagavad Gita, you're not getting a whole lot of believers anyway.


    I answered your question fully, yet I changed the pretext of your premise. You asked the question with a pretext. You defined the rules of the question. If you dropped the pretext, you could ask, "Would you rather have a plane built by believer or a non-believer?" Now the question has an answer apart from a pretext. Your question defined the parameters based on one perspective. I would much rather have a believer build my plane since they adhere to law. Non-believers do not believe that laws are governed and therefore, they are not obligated to it. A believer works for the good of others. A non-believer may only be working for himself. Corners are cut when we are not in it for the many.



    posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:04 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by EnochWasRight

    Science continues to hold on to axioms that are not evident. Collapsing wave function is one such axiom that is revealing that evolution cannot create consciousness from matter. It is the other way around... Nothing rises above its source ... We (microcosm) are a picture of the macrocosm. Our source is what we flow from. We are vastly more complex than the Earth, Moon or Stars. All things flow from a source.

    As someone once said, "this isn't even wrong."

    You said: " Energy is now known to be information." Really? Where do you find this? Credible sources, please, not someone's blog.

    You said: "Entropy in information denies any evolution of choice from chaos to function apart from a consciousness collapsing the indeterminate to determine the best outcome." What in God's name are you talking about? This sentence is meaningless.

    You said: "science continues to hold the theory that consciousness can arise from the sun, moon and earth." Please show me where science says this. Not someone's blog. Scientists, and especially physicists, don't even have a concept of consciousness in their theories.

    I encourage you to go back and look up the meanings of the words you're using. Among them, check out the word, "axiom." You use it a lot, and you're using it incorrectly most of the time. Other words to look up are entropy, information, intelligence, consciousness, dimension, theory, hypothesis. Check out "collapsing wave function," though I'll tell you right now that if you haven't learned the math, you will never understand it sufficiently to discuss it intelligently.

    Learn about the laws of thermodynamics - fortunately non-mathematical descriptions can be adequate. Learn them. Especially learn that while entropy tends to a maximum globally, locally it can decrease. Just as it does with life, and other forms of organization such as crystallization.

    But just one example. Wikipedia: An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. Wikipedia isn't the final authority, but this definition is close enough. The collapsing wave function is not a premise of any kind; it is at best a theory. To my understanding, it isn't even that; it's a hypothesis.

    And what about my other question: "What, besides science, comes up with predictions that can be tested - and then admits being wrong if the predictions fail to appear?" Certainly not religion. Religions never admit they're wrong. They just claim that "God works in mysterious ways" and leave it at that. What new information has ever been discovered in the Bible, that science only found afterwards, and not before? None to my knowledge. If I am wrong, kindly offer an example.

    You are wasting your time trying to justify the Bible by quoting the Bible. I could do the same with Al Qur'an or several other holy books, each claiming to be the Inerrant Word of God (tm). It is not possible for them all to be right, but it is certainly possible for them all to be wrong.

    Self-reference isn't acceptable, any more than a prospective employer would allow me to give myself a good recommendation. I might really be an OK guy, but hearing it from me isn't altogether convincing.

    What you're doing is trying to show, retroactively, that the Bible's somehow predicted scientific principles. You can do that with Tarot cards if you want, or any other source of vague statements. Probably Shakespeare if you try hard enough.

    Show me an example where someone went to the Bible, discerned some principle in it, and went on to make a scientific discovery as a result of this realization. Because if all you can do is take scientific ideas and then go back and see whether they can be twisted to agree with scripture (or twist scripture to agree with science), that's not good enough.

    You believe in the Bible. That's perfectly fine. You're not going to learn much science by studying the Word, but it may be what God wants you to do. Where you're getting into trouble is thinking you know science, and thinking you'll learn more from the Word. That isn't going to happen.

    As I look back, though, I see that you've simply ignored many of my questions and vital points. Most of them, in fact.

    Look, I'm growing weary of this, because you're misusing terms with specific, precise definitions, and you're ignoring my questions. And throwing scriptures at me that are completely out of context and unsupported by anything approaching evidence.

    But as the Bible says, "But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee to speak these words? hath not he sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (2 Ki. 18:27)

    And my personal favorite, "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly." (Pro. 26:11)

    Those guys sure knew how to party.



    posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:24 PM
    link   
    reply to post by baruch60610
     




    You said: " Energy is now known to be information." Really? Where do you find this? Credible sources, please, not someone's blog.


    Not quite. Leonard Susskind is from Stanford Physics. I already linked this here.


    edit on 5-9-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:32 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Indellkoffer
     

    The reason that Theories hold value is that we can use them to engineer practical applications for every day life.

    Example...we have No Idea how Quantum Mechanics Work...yet a persons Cell Phone is based and has been created using Theories on Quantum Mechanics. We have designed many things without really understanding the reason they work...yet the MATH allows us to develop new innovations.

    Split Infinity



    posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:32 PM
    link   
    reply to post by baruch60610
     




    You said: "Entropy in information denies any evolution of choice from chaos to function apart from a consciousness collapsing the indeterminate to determine the best outcome." What in God's name are you talking about? This sentence is meaningless.


    Entropy in Information theory assumes that bits of information degrade over time. Life must rise to overcome. Simple life, apart from consciousness, must be shown with the ability to make value judgments or evolution is dead as a theory. Collapsing wave function theory states that the observer collapses the indeterminate (not yet determined) wave function to make a choice. To change the states of matter, a value must be selected from probability. The 3rd dimension is where 3D objects reside as matter. The 4th dimension is a movement of 3D in time. The 5th dimension is a probability space. The observer must have consciousness to make a choice.

    Read up on the two theory sets and watch Imagining the 10th Dimension Videos Series by Rob Bryanton. Here is his book. Don't just take his word. Consult current dimensional theory. Axioms will change, but as I said before, we are at the event horizon of meeting the source. The law of inverse squares allows us to see clearly for once. I choose not to let pride blind me from the evident answer.



    posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:37 PM
    link   
    reply to post by baruch60610
     




    You said: "science continues to hold the theory that consciousness can arise from the sun, moon and earth." Please show me where science says this. Not someone's blog. Scientists, and especially physicists, don't even have a concept of consciousness in their theories.





    new topics

    top topics



     
    11
    << 1  2    4 >>

    log in

    join