Comparing faith to the Scientific Method.

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Vance Elwood, Mar 19, 2015.

  1. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    According to this recent article we live in one of many, possibly an infinite number, of parallel universes due to Quantum Mechanical implications. It also suggests there is something more fundamental than QM and Classical Mechanics. An idea that dates back to David Bohm:

    “The beauty of our approach is that if there is just one world our theory reduces to Newtonian mechanics, while if there is a gigantic number of worlds it reproduces quantum mechanics,” he says.
    “In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton’s theory nor quantum theory.

    https://app.griffith.edu.au/news/2014/10/27/new-quantum-theory-is-out-of-this-parallel-world/
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Jesus said he would return before his current generation would pass, and that some living people would still be around to see it. So that didn't happen.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    He did not say that about His current generation.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Yeah he did, he was pretty clear about it.
     
  8. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    What he said about His generation came to pass...He also mentioned another generation--of which YOU are a member.
     
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I find that I don't need absolutes since I pitched them. I feel a lot better about that, because absolutes will force you into the human equivalent of a halting problem.

    Machines deal with absolutes. We need not.
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    People mistake faith for religion, albeit faith is obvious in to religion than science. Faith is the belief in things not seen. As an example of faith in science, we can't see dark energy or dark matter in the lab with our eyes to make sure this real and not a fantasy. This comes under the definition of faith. We can only infer dark energy from bulk affects light years away. We have faith, we may see this in the lab, someday.

    One could parallel the approach of this science faith in dark energy, by assuming the distance affect attributed to dark energy is due to God. The parallel is, we can't see God in the lab either, while the religion theory has always assumed the finger of God stirs creation; this is a prediction of that theory. It is not as cut and dry that faith equals religion. The charisma of faith is the ability to function outside the box of what can be seen and proven.

    The idea of a random universe, requires faith, because I there is more order than random. It is all how you look at the universe. If we react oxygen and hydrogen we get water and not a different thing each time. That is not random. There are only a given number of elements in the periodic table that maintain the same properties. These don't change randomly but are built on the number of protons and electrons. A diamond may have defects, but this is a small percent with the majority based on order. The random universe assumes a proportion that is out of proportion; faith.

    There are thousands of diseases, which has odds, in the random universe perception, yet if you only get a few of these in your lifetime, this is an example of order dominating. The electron may move as a wave and particle around the nucleus of the atom, with uncertainty, but orbital shapes are not random. Random is important to those who like to gamble, motivated by faith in a jackpot that they can't see but have faith is there.

    Ancient religions also had faith in a random universe; whims of the gods. Nothing was certain because the gods and goddesses were fickle and could alter anything into something else. This was irrational. This evolved into monotheism where there is no longer competing principles that can add disorder by misplacing their affects. With monotheism specific were laid down; order. Much of science has chosen to regress back to an early path that was considered obsolete long ago; faith in a foreign god of gambling casinos and jackpots.
     
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Stephen Wolfram labored for 20 years on a theory of how randomness can result in order for cellular automata, using every symbolic math and statistical tool available. No surprise, he came up short of his goal. The joke was really on him when he suggested science itself should henceforth be done this way. Counting complements cognition, but cannot replace it even for an AI without producing an idiot.

    Give up on absolutes particularly the ones represented by symbols. That evidently is an idea that transcends mathematics. Or cellular automata. This does not suggest the existence or non-existance of a deity or G-d, only that you will not find the answers in symbols that are the handicap of a finite mind. Don't worship them (the symbols themselves or a deity composed of them) or else you will be sorry you did. Symbols are powerful tools; nothing more,

    FYI, a hypothesis of dark energy at this point is only that; an observation lacking any kind of explanation that has been put to a test. Which is to say, this idea has not attained the level of science yet. It isn't even pseudoscience. Until a testable cause is found, it is in the domain of non science, or nonsense if you prefer. Gravitation is, for the most part, established science. Dark energy, quintessence, and the like, are decidedly not.

    How it is that folks these days seem to believe that an untested hypothesis alone is science or a a fulfillment of the requirements of the scientific method, I don't understand. Relevant supporting math is not a substitute for the rest unless it too can make a testable prediction.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2015

Share This Page