If you continue to misunderstand me what chance do I have?
Scientific theories are natural and falsifiable. The word "proof" doesn't really apply in science (that's math you're thinking of).
First: I never mentioned proof. Science is not about proof. I know this very well.
Your reasoning of "infinite regression, THERFORE GOD!!" wouldn't even be scientific if the "natural" requirement were removed from the definition of science.
I don't believe I made that assertion. I simply stated my opinion that God may ultimately be responsible. I merely suggest a belief or opinion that if there is to be an end to this chase then it would be with God. I do not claim that this is a scientifically founded conclusion, nor do I say that this conclusion is founded in logic(math, you've heard of it?) Please do not misunderstand me.However, this is outside my main point: For any phenomenon B that causes phenomenon C to exist, we are still able to logically and scientifically postulate the existence of some phenomenon A that caused Phenomenon B, even if A=C.
And that matrix stuff? That's philosophy. High-school philosophy.
If this was as weak an argument as you claim, then perhaps you can show me how this is so without resorting to insults?
I do not claim that the matrix idea is profound. I do use it for a purpose, however. It is used to show that neither logic nor the scientific method can ascertain a truth that is hidden from its processes. I used the idea of a virtual world simply because the internal rules of the virtual environment may not correspond in any meaningful way to the world that is running the virtual simulation. It is not the case here that the scientific method has failed. But the scientific method, in this case, may be blind to the truth.
It is a great shame that the scientists do not match their behavior with the statistical-non-proof nature of science. This failure breeds hatred and bigotry towards those who say, "There might be more in this Universe than what science can ever explain."
As a scientists you must agree with this statement, and respond with, "Perhaps, but the scientific method is the best objective tool we have, so I will proceed conducting science. Furthermore, if such and such does exist but are not observable or allow a falsifiable hypothesis, science has no business with such and such."
Without limitations, the scientific method would fail. It is precisely the limitations of its method that issue its main strengths.
You say you're a scientist. Ok, what level of science degree do you have in which discipline from which school? I am seriously curious.
You demand certifications when you offer none? crass. I will not let your bigotry be re-targeted at my colleagues.
... I understand your point of view. But let me put mine another way. Even if the Big Bang came from something else, I can always ask where that something else came from. If they eventually answer that it is from another phenomenon, then the source of that phenomenon is now open for speculation. Of course we can regressively continue this pattern. If the answer is that we've had a series of Big Bangs e.g. innumerable expansions and collapses, then I will ask the question: What were the origins of this larger system.
There is no end. For me, the end would come with a creator. Yeah I know, where did He come from? But I would suggest that at the end of our quest, the only thing I could not keep seriously asking where it came from is a creator. My reason is simplistic, and I'm sure it can be attacked, but it is this. A creator, for me, is the infinite.
I am a scientist. I understand the scientific method fairly well. But I also understand its limitations. Remember, its quite possible that not all things are knowable, practicalities aside. What I mean can be illustrated by the Matrix movie. If we live in a Matrix, then all we can test are the things within that virtual Universe, and that Virtual Universe can tell us nothing(probably) about the nature of the real Universe outside. Indeed, if we do live in a Matrix of some sort, a matrix whose internal rules do not need to be self-consistent, can have strange and arbitrary phenomenon.
For example, an arbitrary rule could be set up in this proposed matrix: To exit the program requires dying as a Christian in the Matrix.
To the inhabitants of the Matrix, Christianity seems arbitrary. Why not Muslim? Why anything? But those silly programmers..they decided that Christianity is the key to 'winning' the Matrix game.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE!!
Of course it doesn't have to be Christianity. It can be Hinduism. Hell, it can be science, or pooping on your computer screen!
But tell me this: How can the scientific method prove that the internal rules it studies in a Matrix give any useful information about the computer that runs the simulation?
No. I believe in a creator. That simple. Furthermore, my statement was offered as an explanation, but not as a theory.
The interesting thing about questions of where the Universe came from etc. is that a God explanation is just as strong as any other BECAUSE there isn't a testable hypothesis to answer questions of why the universes is here. Please don't say the Big Bang, because I'll simple ask you where the Big Bang came from.
First of all academia is about teaching students. It used to be that the students were advanced enough so that teaching a course actually related to the research work, but this is not true anymore. Today undergrad is like a highschool especially if one considers the development in science and technology.
Perhaps it isn't the students that are worse today.
Perhaps today's cutting-edge research is much more complicated or requires more prior knowledge to understand than it was years ago. This makes sense. We have accumulated a lot of knowledge, and many questions in science today requires knowledge of what yesterday's scientist figured out.
In my own experience as an undergraduate student in psychology at UC Davis, quite a few professors make regular use of actual research papers in place of textbooks. I think it is a great technique since it exposes me to both classic studies and cutting edge research. Furthermore, it allows me to judge the research on its merits. Textbooks to often just cite the results of a research paper, which amounts to a bunch of uncritical fact learning. Another challenge of reading cutting edge research is that a lot of prior knowledge is required to comprehend it.
Ok. Sure. Kerry would have been no better than Bush. Kerry would not have championed privacy, or peace. Democrats are Republicans are Democrats. But its not really about Republicans or Democrats. The voting system itself makes it difficult for people to vote for who they really want. They vote out of fear. There are democratic voting designs that can alleviate this problem.
It comes down to this. The American People are being attacked from all sides, but they do not collectively do something about it. Americans, for some reason, are stagnant. A major factor, I believe, is entertainment. People spend so much of their time consuming entertainment that they cannot devote themselves to civic duties. We only have so many hours a day, and we use them up doing nothing but consuming entertainment.
Don't vote for anyone in the Democratic or Republican party. You know there were quite a few people running for president that weren't talked about by the media. Why do we let them tell us who we should consider?
The natural and artificial distinction was made when scientists believed we were not animals. NO artificial would mean, anything made by man. Natural means: Anything made by anything but man.
So humans are a natural product. But anything we make is artificial.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe I made that assertion. I simply stated my opinion that God may ultimately be responsible. I merely suggest a belief or opinion that if there is to be an end to this chase then it would be with God. I do not claim that this is a scientifically founded conclusion, nor do I say that this conclusion is founded in logic(math, you've heard of it?) Please do not misunderstand me.However, this is outside my main point: For any phenomenon B that causes phenomenon C to exist, we are still able to logically and scientifically postulate the existence of some phenomenon A that caused Phenomenon B, even if A=C.
If this was as weak an argument as you claim, then perhaps you can show me how this is so without resorting to insults?
I do not claim that the matrix idea is profound. I do use it for a purpose, however. It is used to show that neither logic nor the scientific method can ascertain a truth that is hidden from its processes. I used the idea of a virtual world simply because the internal rules of the virtual environment may not correspond in any meaningful way to the world that is running the virtual simulation. It is not the case here that the scientific method has failed. But the scientific method, in this case, may be blind to the truth.
It is a great shame that the scientists do not match their behavior with the statistical-non-proof nature of science. This failure breeds hatred and bigotry towards those who say, "There might be more in this Universe than what science can ever explain."
As a scientists you must agree with this statement, and respond with, "Perhaps, but the scientific method is the best objective tool we have, so I will proceed conducting science. Furthermore, if such and such does exist but are not observable or allow a falsifiable hypothesis, science has no business with such and such."
Without limitations, the scientific method would fail. It is precisely the limitations of its method that issue its main strengths.
You demand certifications when you offer none? crass. I will not let your bigotry be re-targeted at my colleagues.
No. The idea in college is for people to learn how to teach themselves. THis is critical. We can't baby people for ever.
"I AM." A most delightful definition/name of God.
You made me laugh.
There is no end. For me, the end would come with a creator. Yeah I know, where did He come from? But I would suggest that at the end of our quest, the only thing I could not keep seriously asking where it came from is a creator. My reason is simplistic, and I'm sure it can be attacked, but it is this. A creator, for me, is the infinite.
I am a scientist. I understand the scientific method fairly well. But I also understand its limitations. Remember, its quite possible that not all things are knowable, practicalities aside. What I mean can be illustrated by the Matrix movie. If we live in a Matrix, then all we can test are the things within that virtual Universe, and that Virtual Universe can tell us nothing(probably) about the nature of the real Universe outside. Indeed, if we do live in a Matrix of some sort, a matrix whose internal rules do not need to be self-consistent, can have strange and arbitrary phenomenon.
For example, an arbitrary rule could be set up in this proposed matrix: To exit the program requires dying as a Christian in the Matrix.
To the inhabitants of the Matrix, Christianity seems arbitrary. Why not Muslim? Why anything? But those silly programmers..they decided that Christianity is the key to 'winning' the Matrix game.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE SENSE!!
Of course it doesn't have to be Christianity. It can be Hinduism. Hell, it can be science, or pooping on your computer screen!
But tell me this: How can the scientific method prove that the internal rules it studies in a Matrix give any useful information about the computer that runs the simulation?
Build another mAtrix within that matrix?
Maybe you should look at the website.. I think there is a terrible joke in all this.
Might not fix it, but I'd be satisfied if we answered that one.
The interesting thing about questions of where the Universe came from etc. is that a God explanation is just as strong as any other BECAUSE there isn't a testable hypothesis to answer questions of why the universes is here. Please don't say the Big Bang, because I'll simple ask you where the Big Bang came from.
Explanation.--Not theory.
Thjat would have been quite funny. :)
2 things.: 1.Likely this is unconstitutional. 2. Social Networking = democracy at work.
I see your point and raise it one counterpoint. ~~ Touches!
My apologies. It was just in jest.
4:00 AM and I will not look up the article.
God.
No, don't feed bad humans.
Oops, the last line of parent's block-quote was mine.
In my own experience as an undergraduate student in psychology at UC Davis, quite a few professors make regular use of actual research papers in place of textbooks. I think it is a great technique since it exposes me to both classic studies and cutting edge research. Furthermore, it allows me to judge the research on its merits. Textbooks to often just cite the results of a research paper, which amounts to a bunch of uncritical fact learning. Another challenge of reading cutting edge research is that a lot of prior knowledge is required to comprehend it.
+1 Bravo.
rephrase
It comes down to this. The American People are being attacked from all sides, but they do not collectively do something about it. Americans, for some reason, are stagnant. A major factor, I believe, is entertainment. People spend so much of their time consuming entertainment that they cannot devote themselves to civic duties. We only have so many hours a day, and we use them up doing nothing but consuming entertainment.
What's funny about this is that the White House wants to keep their activities private, but not ours. Did I say funny? Scary.
Don't vote for anyone in the Democratic or Republican party. You know there were quite a few people running for president that weren't talked about by the media. Why do we let them tell us who we should consider?
Excuse me. I'm the son of an Okie. And I live in California.
So humans are a natural product. But anything we make is artificial.