Natural Sciences explained, or measured only?

I think reality should be described in terms of the current paradigms, until such time as those paradigms fail to accurately describe reality, at which time new paradigms should be employed.

It doesn't really matter to me what those paradigms are, I just like writing paradigm.

par-a-dig-um

Simply classifying the facts (and sciences) under two headings.

1. What we know
• proof
• applications
2. What we don't know
• possible theories and supporting knowledge
• tests

The biggest problems with science today is that too often, unproven theories are used as fact only because they have not been dis-proven, or are popular. If a theory has passed an un-determined test of time it is often assumed to be fact and resources are wasted in developing applications that won't work.

To know what we don't know is the first step in learning something new. If we cannot differentiate the theories from facts, we will be forever lost in the arguments of different; opinions, views, interpretations, and articulations.

To eliminate either approach would be our loss. We have to improve our understanding in what we know as well as dream up and explore new ideas that may eventually become facts.

By separating the two approaches, we can then make an educated, controlled,and balanced approach as to how much resources can be put towards each direction.

What a strange thing to say "...too often, unproven theories are used as fact...".

Science works by looking at reality, proposing an explanation for what is seen (perhaps based on insights from maths or previous theries), then doing tests or experiments to see if the explanation works, if the theory doesn't hold up then a new one is proposed and tested and so on (continue forever).

Contrast this with how people using other worldviews do it. Holyman/HolyBook gives explanation - It's True (stop, attack unbelievers).

What we call scientific theories are our current best approximations to reality, they are not just wild guesses, but they are subject to change when new evidence or methods come along. So, if you know of something that is wrong, don't complain just create a better theory, test it and if it works better it'll eventually be accepted. You to could join the ranks of Newton, Einstein, Darwin et al. Jeff

I think what your quoted person is talking about is the kind of stuff you can read in astronomy books and articles... For example, before Pioneer Venus, first, best-guess writing on what's on Venus said, it could be a dinosaur planet, then it was thought it might have oceans of crude oil, then it was some other possibility. It wasn't until we got there that we found out what a "hell-hole" it really is.

Another one was a model of how the Sun worked. Problem is it didn't account for the measured neutrino flux from the core.

People want to know stuff, and leading edge scientists are all too willing to put out their ideas. Of course, they're always prefaced by a hardy "As far as we know..."

I don't want to start other discussions here, just inspire thought

but......

How come the "Theory" of evolution is enforced by law. Today, hundreds of species disappear, how many are being created by chance mutations (virtually none)

How come cosmologists try to put a "shape" on the universe. If it is not solid, how can it have a shape?

If E=MC² and we cannot go faster then light, how come these rules are so quickly ignored in the expanding universe theory.

If the universe started with a "big bang" why do some people think it will collapse. Have you ever seen an explosion collapse?

Why do people still assume light travels in a straight line, when we have proven it bends and refracts, and acts the same as sound waves?

Why do we assume that light travels forever, when we know in the physics of a wave that it will only travel a specific distance dependant on the gradual change in its phase?

Why do we use calculus, when there are so many "exceptions" that it is unreliable

Is this really working in reality?

I don't think we are really on the same page here, but.... You say: "If it is not solid, how can it have a shape?". Do smoke rings have a shape? Do gaseous planets have a shape? Do clouds in the sky have a shape? I wouldn't call any of these things "solid". Don't all explosions collapse when the force generating the explosion becomes diluted and the energy is expended? Light travels in a straight line, but sometimes the medium (space-time) in which the light (photons) are traveling gets warped by a strong gravitational field, and thus the light path is "bent". As for light "in the physics of a wave that it will only travel a specific distance...", you are confusing "waves" being propagated by a physical carrier, like air, water, etc, where the energy of the propagating wave is diminished by it's action on the carrier medium, vs. photons traveling thru space, air, etc. Remember that we can "see" light from galaxies and supernova events billions of light years distant. If light deminished, or the "waves" were deadened and deminished, how could we observe "light" waves/photons from that distance? Light does not require any physical medium to "carry" the light "waves". Hope this helps you to visualize a bit better.

Smoke rings or clouds do not have a definite shape, it changes continuously. We call it a ring only because it generally looks like a ring

Explosions do not collapse, the pressure wave goes out and the space behind the pressure wave will have a low pressure area. Particles leave at a determined speed and momentum. The particles will slow down and eventually stop due to friction. Have you ever heard of a bomb reassembling itself? No the parts are spread over a large area.

Space is not empty, light is always travelling through some type of radiation or gravitational field. It is not just gravity that will bend light. Any material density change will effect it. "prism"

The whole cosmological field theorizes space as a specific force that is forcibly expanding space, yet when talking about light, all of a sudden space does not exist. Since when does the consequence of an action become the driving force? (there is no consistency, only bending of the laws of physics to argue a point. The problem being that to specialize in one science, often other specialties are either unknown or ignored.

My point is that we are mixing theories with fact. This is a perfect example of what I have said in my original answer. Until we identify and separate facts from theory we could be arguing forever.

You are absolutely right. We are not on the same page because; we have;

1. different levels of training
2. different generalizations or accuracies
3. different specialties or backgrounds
4. different points of view
5. different goals
6. different experience
7. as in this blog different approaches to science, etc

Over the years, I have found that generally it is not that one person is right and the other wrong, but more often both are partially right and the true answer is the sum of all "facts".

1. Check out the world of microbes, etc.

2. Does a cloud have a shape?

3. .9 % of C does not exceed C.

4. Some folks think gravity may have somthing to do with it.

5. Ever been to the leading edge of a light ray to see if it's slowing down?

6. Got a better method?

John

• cloud shape - no but the droplets of condensed water come close to circular
• .9 % of C if you ignore the expanding universe theory if you include it , it exceeds it
• how strong is gravity at these distances - 0
• yes, look at light going through a a prism. Different coulors are different wavelengths.
• electricity travels about the speed of light. It changes speed depending on the medium.

I doubt that the concept of evolution is being enforced by law in any country. It's the best theory we've got, so it gets taught in schools as science and used in a wide range of fields because it gives useful answers and insights.

Of course, there are other competing ideas (especially about the origins of life) but they aren't part of science. If people want to study or use such ideas in areas such as biology, geology, anatomy etc that's up to them.

The comment about new species being created by chance mutation, means you may not be familiar with modern ideas (ie better approximations to reality) of how evolution works. There are many introductory books on the subject that could help.

Sorry, I am only interested in Facts

Wisconsin law mandates that evolution be taught

"how many are being created by chance mutations (virtually none)"

Falls off chair in dissbelief!

New virus and bacteria strains are mutating all the time. Have you missed the SARS and Bird Flu panics?

Just 'cos they are not cute and furry (like Vermin, or Cat!) doesn't mean they don't count!

This is like those creationists who think flying is some sort of evoutionary holy grail...more things fly than do not! They just happen to be rather small and we wrongly treat them as insignifficant.

These viruses have been around for a while

While they mutate they are not creating new species

It seems rather arbitary that you should limit your evaluation of the theory of evolution by confining it to species...

especially as there is plenty of argument about the definition of 'species'.

You don't look exactly like your parents. Does that make you a new species? We will call it CatManDo

We are getting off topic and arguing theories.

Not arbitrary, when facts contradict theories, I tend to believe facts

Hi techno,

In Del's case, yes! I rather like CatCanDo though.

Just kidding Del.

John

Purrrrrrr...puurrrrrrr

"...limit your evaluation of the theory of evolution by confining it to species..."

Check this out, best described here, as a whole chapter.

Another case of popularity instead of real science

The concept of selection (starting with many, strongest or best survives) is exactly opposite to evolution (started with one and evolved into many)

"The concept of selection (starting with many, strongest or best survives) is exactly opposite to evolution (started with one and evolved into many)"

This assertion makes me gasp and stretch my eyes!

They are both part of the same continuum.

Oh I guess you could be right, or at least you follow the mob of "popular" theories without facts, tests, proof,

But you didn't have to stretch your eyes for me......

http://www.livescience.com/animals/060111_ap_cyclops_cat.html

One more thing... Selection whether natural or not happens. Check this out.

I wouldn't haste myself to such extreme. Selection is an aftermath of the supply of given variability, offered by the ever-working mechanism of mutation. It is the aftermath in the sense that each of these variants is tested for both survival and the ability to replicate.

Evolution may have started with one simple primordial design, but within it was this imperfect replication as the seed for further variability, in the ever changing form of mutation.

Mutation is the key to variability of designs in nature, because it provides the base upon which selection carves the most suitable design to a given environment. But it doesn't stop there: it provides chance for further adaptation of a given design should it's environment change, in the form of continuous mutation, subject to further selection.

This is a dynamic ever-changing mechanism, thanks to which we appeared. True, some very ancient forms remained nearly static because their environment hardly changed, but hey, that's what adaptation is all about, change only when absolutely necessary, no more, no less.

Isn't God's creation amazing?

No, not necessarily necessity, but also improvement. An old fashioned mouse trap still traps mice, but improved methods have also come about. they co-exist, just as life does.

It's more dynamic than you give it credit. What about sudden mass extinction? All of a sudden it isn't very cool to be a dinosaur. Suddenly it's better to be really small with the ability to generate your own body heat (which by the way is different from being warm blooded). A whole new niche is opened for an explosion of new species. Most of which would have been eaten if they mutated while T-Rex was around.

(By the way, T-Rex was a scavenger.) Now watch the fur fly!!!

I agree totally with your premise, but I believe that a major issue with "scientific facts " at present is that science is done by consensus and by the media beating the drum rather than by rational thought and testing of hypotheses. Until we remove the media and politics from science we cannot effect good science. After all, how many politicians ever earned a degree in science or engineering.

Bravo!!!

The media... Look, people want to here stuff about progress, either in the knowledge of a specific subject or perhaps what's on the horizon concerning medical treatments, etc.. The "media" is just giving them what they want. Typically, these people have little to do with scientific research, they're just curious. Also, take into account that by the time the public hears about a scientific theory, years have past since the initial work was started. Black holes are a good example - How far back would you say the scientific community was starting to look at black holes? Try the 30s and 40s! I think most of us were introduced to the subject somewhere around the early 70s?

If today someone found a proof that completely disproved black holes, I'm guessing that after peer review, publishing in journals, test and re-testing, grant applications, etc., some AP science editor might get wind of it as a story, but I'll bet he didn't get wind of it before a number of years have past since the initial discovery.

Agree, And think of the resistance. After years of it being ingrained in the "Popular" culture, he would probably be laughed off the planet. Everyone would 'know' the details of the old theory and would have transposed those details into fact.

A good job for a computer. People, though, need a gridwork of understanding BEFORE they can begin to grasp the "meaning of life"

I hope you are happy when you find a doctor to cure your hypercholestero;emia by letting it out through a leach or a drain.

RichH

I don't really think it's that black-or-white. Say you're taking a bunch of measurements on the Las Vegas strip: depth of asphalt, composition of concrete, intensity of light, etc.. Then, you wander into a casino. You start measuring the thickness of the carpet the amount of alcohol in the drinks, the length of women's legs, but then suddenly, you come across a roulette wheel. So, hmmm? How do I describe this thing? It's wood and brass, and it has all these numbers printed on felt around it. But then the ball drops. You are determined to stand there and record the results. However, each time the ball drops you find the results not very deterministic. In order to explain the behavior of the wheel you find yourself needing to rely on the mathematics of probabilities, from which you derive a fairly good explanation of what happens when the wheel spins.

Now, considering you've made friends with the owner, and he likes you enough to let you take a hammer and a screwdriver to the roulette wheel. You may find out that there actually is a certain amount of determinism behind all those random numbers you've collected. By measuring bearings, bushings, weight distribution (I'm talking this wheel ain't gonna be in working order ever again), and so on, you begin to see a little determinism biasing the probability.

I just don't think it has to be Newton or Feynman or nothing.

Bravo!

Dr. Feynman's commencement address, "Cargo Cult Science" is a useful corrective.

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

Intellectual honesty is at least as important as accurate measurements.

I mentioned Classical, Newtonian mechanics on one extreme end as an example of a deterministic frame of thought "Give me enough measurements, and I'll accurately predict ant point in the future" - Descartes, as opposed to the 1930's Quantum mechanics non-deterministic frame of thought. "If you ask me weather the electron is a wave of potential or a solid substance, I don't know, and I don't care, as long as I can measure it's behaviour accurately enough to prove something else" - de Broglie.

The quotes, meant as a typifying marker to indicate two opposite approaches to scientific frame of mind.

Not that those change anything in scientific research, proposal, proof, or antithesis methodologies.

Hi Vermin,

Did you ever consider writing as a career? You're definitely talented!

I would prefer to stay with alcohol and women's legs measurements as they are pretty deterministic - as Einstein taught us so well...

Ah, yes. Love is a relative passion.

RichH

Hi Yuval,

You ask 3 seemingly important questions which I find hard to understand. Generally, understanding what is asked is a good prerequisite for attempting an answer.

In the first 2 questions your operative word is 'should'. This implies an obligatory system of behaviour. Who or what forces you (or me) to 'measure accurately' or to 'explain in a deeply contextual manner'? Also, what is a 'predictive deterministic frame of mind'?

The usual way of practicing science now is probably not a product of philosophers' arguments about 'should' and 'detrministic frames of mind'. It is an imperfect product of trial and error where you try to measure - try to explain discrepancies - try to improve your measurement techniques - find some more discrepancies.......

As you know very well, a few 20th Century theories made heroic attempts to state a formula that defines the above mentioned rather haphazard processes. Paradigms come to mind, disproving instead of proving etc. Some of these ideas even managed to have some inflluence on how science is actually practiced (or at least on how scientific papers are written).

I don't think that even these heroic attempts dared to include 'shoulds' and 'definitions of reality'.

As they say: "Keep It Simple, Sir"!

Hallo Yuval and others,

we are working with relativity and quantum mechanics although nobody (?) really is understanding these.

Our thinking is more or less limited to the threedimensional world that our ancestors experienced at the time when evolution formed our brain.

Nearly the same is true with deterministic, statistics and probability, especially if rarely occuring events are discussed.

Most of the world can be described by deterministic oldfashioned science, but as soon as wheather or even more complicated as living systems or thinking systems, humans, peoples, states, neighbours, friends and enemies are incorporated there is no longer any deterministic action.

If we educate the next generation in a critical sense that they sharpen their arguments against anybody who is coming as a new prophet we have made one step towards longterm stability.

If we make the situation for the youngsters difficult and hard to come through (and not at all easy and smooth) we have made a second pace towards a strong and thoughtful poulation.

If we make them marry not only with local others but with 20 ? % probability partners from abroad we make shure that more abilities will existing in the future: mixed peoples have more intelligent - in the broadest sense - members! Think about the hungarian pysics, musics and chess playing men and women!

So I am convinced that most of our world is explainable with deterministic and probabilistic methods and only a very small part needs quantum and relativity and uncertainty. But we shall tell and educate the next generation to understand depply what is going on: in natural sciences, in social behaviour, in politics.

We shall tell them when and why societies failed and when and why societies were fruitful and blooming - not really understood nor known today.

We shall tell them how to live in a world where some companies only want to rob them.

We shall protect the children but not overprotect them, (Kociorski ? formulated the rights of children but nobody wants to look at these.) In developed countries we let the youngsters grow up to become a weak and not a strong population in the underdeveloped nations the contrary is normally existing: so they are much stronger so they will take over the power after some generations.

Unless we learn from these facts all western states will be descending towards what situation? And some others will be the dominat societies of the 22nd century.

This was the situation since the existence of mankind in organised societies , since approximately 200,000 years.

Do you think we can change this?

Rhabe

Hi Rhabe,

I think you put your argument across very well.

We have a situation in the UK where the government has encoureged multiculturalism rather than intigration with (some of) the resulting minorities becoming dissafected and marginalised. We have seen the results of some of these extremists resorting to terror as in 7/7. Taking this to its extreme results in too much inbreeding with obvious results so your point about taking partners from abroad is relevant but the masses take some convincing of the need. We have spawned an underclass of poorly educated but highly fecund ,take all you can get from the state without responsibility, society and I dread the consequences for my own children and grandson.

You ask, Do you think we can change this? If we cannot we are heading for extinction. We have to change societies thinking (through governments that look beyond the next election) as well as tackle the global warming issue.

I am not too confident that those in control at present could manage either let alone both.

"We have spawned an underclass of poorly educated but highly fecund ,take all you can get from the state without responsibility, society..."

History has shown that once these social dymanics are established they will grow and become dominant. In other words the pendulum swings both ways. At one time in the USA nearly everyone was productive or they starved. Now we pay an entire economic class to remain unemployed and breed.

Look at the Katrina hurricane survivors, hours of images of women and children alone without the husbands and fathers. Why? because the welfare system now in it's seventh generation has failed to emphasize the family values of education, marriage, responsibility, and the necessity to climb out of the depths of poverty.

It is so ironic that others can immigrate to this country and within a few years become wealthy and not even speak the language. Yet welfare recipients as Hydro Scot so duly noted, want to expand and increase the welfare system to become even more immersed in its deceptive waters.

The pendulum is swinging toward total support of the incompetent, lazy, disadvantage (whether real or imagined) and we will continue to fund more generations of state dependent "underclass" individuals until they become the dominant class and find it impossible to fund themselves. At that point the pendulum will have swung its course toward total destruction of this country.

Well I guess we can all imagine what you do on a Saturday night with a bottle of MD 20/20 and a dear rifle.

Yeah, my rifle is "dear" to me too. Wouldn't keep in the same room with my MD20/20 though.

The creationists believe about 5 to 8,000 years. The anthropologists believe that Homo Sapiens have been around for just about 40,000 years, tops. Neanderthals died out about 20,000 years ago. 200,000 years ago, we weren't even a twinkle in a sub-human eye.

I think the earliest "civilization" of hunter-gatherers into a village was about 8,000 years ago.

RichH

Don't disagree, however, the same dating methods also proved that a live pig was a couple of thousand years old.

(It is kind of questionable whether the dating methods are accurate)

We need to be a bit more discriminating in what we quote

What about Bigfoot (Sasquach)

http://groups.msn.com/BigfootHunter/bigfootpicturesampvideos.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/BigfootHunter/shoebox.msnw

"...Homo Sapiens have been around for just about 40,000 years, tops..."

Cro Magnon and Neanderthal co-habitated the Middle Eeast and Europe for 120,000 and apart (Neanderthal extinct) for the last 40,000, although Wiki limits this to 40,000. Both found in overlapping sites in the Middle East and Spain, dated at some 60 to 80 thousand years.

But Homo is older than those two. If you take it to Homo Habilis, it's older than two million years, and if you take it further to Australopithecus it's some 4 millions at least. "Lucy", (A. Afarensis) found by Johnson in Ethiopia was 4.1 million.

Family hunter groups were not civilized to the extent of communities. Agriculture created communities, about 8,000 years ago.

Right, but scavenged as a communicating group to ward off predators froth their kill for some 2 million years according to rapid meat-scraping tools found associated to skeletal remains.

Yuval.

Great question.

From a Humean supervenience point of view, there are facts.

These facts interact. as these facts interact, more facts appear or are able to be seen, based on the foundation of the prior facts arrangement. Quantum facts supervene Newtonian facts, but Newtonian facts still apply in Newtonian scales.

As more facts are identified, more facts will become discoverable. or as Heinlien wrote in the voice of Lazarus Long ""The more you love, the more you can love--and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just." Except apply it to facts.

Its how we build a campfire. Intellectually.

The joy of being inheritor of western civilization traditions is we've already had our transition from heierarchical theologic fundamentalism control into modernity (well mostly) not so in Islam. They are going throught what Christianity underwent in the middle ages.

We burned quite a few at the stake as we made the turn...

Have you read the book the ghost map yet?

Great tale of the first time logic beat 'opinion'

"what would your preferred method be, for future advance and insemination, endowing, proliferation of knowledge?"

Follow Sgt Joe Friday's lead: "Get the facts"

milo

". . .not so in Islam. They are going throught what Christianity underwent in the middle ages.

We burned quite a few at the stake as we made the turn..."

Holy COW! I never thought of it that way. Thanks.

-A-

"...not so in Islam. They are going through what Christianity underwent in the middle ages..."

In known historical aspect, both Islam and Christianity had Classical Greek scriptures translated debated and applied for scientific research throughout the middle ages.

Islam introduced many important foundations into MA emerging "modern" science, such as the decimal system adopted from the conquest in India, The Algebra, invented by Kawarizmi, the Astrolabe system for accurate navigation, and some of the more important "modern" notions of medicine discovered and developed by Ibn-Sina.

Also, it should be noted that both civilisations exchanged knowledge and scientific values during some 500 years of war, by permitting scholars from both sides to cross over, and spread their knowledge. It may look somewhat odd in view of today's notions of industrial espionage, but then it was a matter of scientific acclaim each civilisation wanted to crown itself with, by showing some extravagant generosity towards it's foe.

Hi Yuval,

Sigrid Hunke has written the story of early european learning from arabian scientists:

"Le soleil d'Allah brille sur l'Occident" or in original german language

"Allah's Sonne über dem Abendland"

There was no European science at that time as Christian fundamentalists tryed to wipe out anything that did not comply with their thoughts.

Fortunately christian and jewish scientists were allowed to live and learn in the arabic countries of that time, these countries were (most times) open to dispute and the only place where science flourished.

Around the year 800 the most powerful king that ruled over most of todays France and Germany had his center of power in Aachen with 8000inhabitants at that time, no university in Europe for 500 more years, not knowing how to write nor read, only the monks carried this ability. At the same time Bagdad had mor than 1million inhabitants many bibliothekes and universities - same later with southern Spain.

This ended by the spanish "reconquista" thus christianising all Iberia and driving out arabic and jewish scientists (ben Maimon).

At the same time in the east survived the byzantinian kingdom that was later wiped out by the crusaders and the turkish invasion.

But there too any christian action was to wipe out science and to introduce believing and I doubt if crusaders and turkish invaders were better or would have preserved or brought in new learning of science.

So if the Arabs would not have told us I assume that we would be today similar to same central african tribal community.

The most important question is remaining: how was it possible to come out of the unknown development in the desert into this importance in such a short time? and: can we learn from this development to duplicate it?

(More to your original questions below).

RHABE

Hi Yuval,

When we answer which method we choose we use philosophy, by default, in describing why we made such a choice. What is truth? Contextually, in our minds, it is the method we chose. Without philosophy we are left with only barren equations that will ultimately become meaningless to humanity. Philosophy (which includes all the world's religions) is what gives science its depth, its color, its substance, its soul. You can argue this point until the cows come home, but without it all science would fall by the wayside because no one would care.

"- Do you think natural phenomena should just be described as measured accurately, or explained, in a deep contextual manner?"

If we believe in determinism and attempt to accurately measure this phenomena, or that one, we will, at some point, progress to the quantum realm and there will come a point where accurate measurement fails and Heisenberg takes over, thus we are then left with deep contextual explanations about what we think the phenomena is, or may be doing, and then hypothesizing some new and, as yet, undiscovered form of measurement or philosophizing as to whether we can, in fact, measure anything at all. Thus we eventually come to a crossroads on the issue. Overlap is ultimately unavoidable.

"- Do you think science should base itself on predicted, deterministic, frame of mind?"

Being philosophical as a scientist, when you come down to it, is unavoidable, it's part and parcel of the human condition. It's where the passion comes from to measure and remeasure and recalculate until we approach the limits of incomprehensibility (is that a word?). Determinism may have its place as the antithesis of probability but, I really don't believe it plays, nor should it, any appreciable role in the realm of science. However, you can argue, I suppose, that all equations (the tools we use) are contingent on all the equations that preceded them.. So I guess that is a little deterministic.

"- Do you think reality is an open book in which reality writes itself as it goes, viable to change re-definition?"

Yes, absolutely. Reality is a perception we have. There's individual reality and then there's group reality, For the majority of us it allows us to perceive things in more, or less, the same way. I'm not talking about philosophical realities, but basic things such as 2+2=4, etc. However, I do believe reality is a dynamic entity even though I have no way of proving it. Reality is what it is- at this moment. When you think about it though, the same reality can be perceived in quite different ways. For example, I could say that I'm 99.9% sure of this. But if I'm more critical I might say I'm 99.999% sure, or 99.99999% sure... You could argue, correctly, that the degree of certainty that I attach to my sureness is not necessarily a measurable phenomena but it doesn't really matter. All I'm saying is that my perception of a physical reality may be different from yours even though we're considering the same reality. And we're both correct. Einstein proved it with time and its perception by different observers. The example I gave concerning differing percentages only points out that after so many decimal places nobody gives a damn. Still the same thing though (except in certain cases).

Regards,

John

I would concur to the point of "...Without philosophy we are left with only barren equations that will ultimately become meaningless to humanity..." in the sense that, yes, we need some sort of scientific integrity, or methods, to answer some of our existential questions, and coherent philosophy is a sound foundation to base it on.

PhD in any field, is a remnant of eighteenth century science, in which an approved scientist was considered a philosopher.

Wonder why.

The thing is, that in our days, as Einstein was called "the last deterministic physicist" by quantum pioneers, for his reluctance to accept the consequence of the 1930's-on wave-particle duality, made famous in his phrase "I cannot accept a world in which God plays with dice" to become a marker to a whole way of thought:

On one hand you have the premise that the physical reality is made like clockwork in the sense that the laws of physics are the blueprint, the emergence of matter fits into it with zero consequential variability, meaning that matter, according to physics laws, can only behave one way, if it is, to so tightly fit the laws. Once the ground rules layed, there is only one route to determine the exact future, and that depends on it's initial setting as the spring was wound, and the hammer cocked, so to speak. Once the hammer released, only one single consequence is possible.

On the other hand, you have those that came up and said: Not always so. In the micro-world of particle interactions, there are many instances accurately sighted and measured to suggest otherwise. Hence, Heisenberg's uncertainty, de Broglie and Schroedinger's wave-particle duality, the electron's boundary-clouds dimensions, and many other such instances. Such a school of thought relies on the premise that reality is multi-faceted, that our measurement influences the object measured state, that in short, the physical reality has no such thing a a single consequence, even when given exact same initial setting. Hence, the Chaos theory, The Butterfly-Effect for complex hydrodynamic equilibriums, etc.

Both ways are powerful, seemingly contradictional to each other, but surprisingly share the same dwelling in today's accepted, agreed common sense: None negates the existing scientific methodologies, and each to it's own realm: the deterministic to the macro scale, and the chaotic to the micro and universal scales.

My question was assuming that each of us has an intuition of their own, therefore was: What's your intuitive inclination to visualise natural Phenomena?

It doesn't tag anyone. It's about their intuitive type of grasp.

It's like saying, one has photographic memory, the other kinetic or tactile memory. Another may have pattern memory yet another has audible memory. No biggy.

I for one, like to visualise the physical matter, starting with the vague micro world of particles as entities made of a haze, a cloud of fundamental force-fields, interacting. Interacting force-fields. The bigger the dimensions, the less chaotic and more rigid it becomes, yet remembering that it's all mostly space, vacuum, containing hazy force-fields. crossing over from macro-material like chairs, to mountains to planets to star systems, it again shows, displays, demonstrates chaotic behaviour, and galaxies and clusters are back to soup-like hydrodynamic entities.

Our physical world is continuous. It's us who differentiate one particle from another. One object from another. We define objects, systems.

The second thermodynamics law enforces us to apply it to a given, defined system, defined arbitrarily by us. We define it's boundaries, when we apply the law. It's not given by some divinity, presented to us, on-a-plate.

So, our intuitive type of visualisation is at the base of my question here. examples such as i have just given here, may enlighten the subject even better for those with types of grasp, other than yours, that is to say, any one here, on this thread.

Yuval,

This is brilliant,

From a microcosmic concept, if I have grasped any of the thread, i would relate to the TV (UK) advert for Guiness where a man in a pub lifts his pint and the camera focuses down onto the bubbles ad infinitum until a view of the nucleus reveals the same (parallel?) man doing exactly what our Earthly drinker is doing (same environment, different scale) and of course this could continue ad finitum.

AAAAA.....h

The Ultimate....

A Guinness that never needs refilling

Hi to all,

the situation is much worse than was debated here also if we neglect uncertainty and relativity and quantum mechanics:

if you take a single droplet of water in air falling down as rain we will never be able to calculate its path:

we know the laws of motion, of condensation and evaporation of heating and cooling by mass and energy transfer, we know laminar and (a little bit) turbulence but not really the region inbetween,

so to calculate what will happen we have to have myriads of input data we will never have totally nor with sufficient accuracy.

(Who has an explanation about the ice ages being roughly periodic since 1 to 2million years and a gap before -only warm- nearly 20million years?)

It is worse in biological systems: we are told not to drink coffee in the evening in order to have some sleep at night. But my mother did take very strong coffee all the day and night to get some sleep - without coffee no sleep at all.

So in biological system the answer to an input can be ambiguous. Think about allergic reactions existing in one person and not in the next.

Or technical items: I am designing airbearings and other high precision bearings, and after 50 years of hundreds of qualified engineers working on this topic these calculations are far from being complete. Stress and temperature is changing the shape: very predictable if engineered with high quality but most times beyond calculation.

Simply spoken: the systems are too complicated.

Very often we see the results as quasi statistical results but this is only the working of the central limit theorem that the result will be a gaussian distribution if there are enough disturbances of nearly equal amplitudes.

So we will never have a complete calculation: we have to make best possible guesses, this is a mixture of science and engineering and art.

We should introduce this into politics, but how?

RHABE

Your illustrated example of the immense complexity of hydrodynamic calculus, has indeed shown it's many facets in metrology, star layered convection, galaxy composition, oceanic currents measurement, and many other such areas.

Some known mathematical systems were devised to tackle this, but the immense complexity requires awesome computing power, mostly not available yet, for practical requirement, and as you stated, we may have to settle for some degree of approximation.

This indeed shows that chaotic systems may be present in the macro range, and the drop of water is an excellent example of this.

Does't this just reinforce the idea that determinism can NOT be used as a basis for what is, for reality?

Or maybe we're just not yet technologically advanced enough.

John

I cannot tell either way. For one, I don't think my understanding of nature is fundamental enough to be absolutely conclusive. Then I have that "Chinese-Box" problem of not being sure that our whole notion of "laws of nature" is not anthropocentric in the same sense that time is a concept made by people, for people, and there is no such thing in reality, only apparent processes, or movement and distances applied.

But, yes, my intuition inclines me to follow the notion that reality is not a deterministic act, just a collection of objects interacting...

But see, here is the catch, that last sentence reminded me that there are pre determined laws dictating... etc, etc

"I have that "Chinese-Box" problem of not being sure that our whole notion of "laws of nature" is not anthropocentric "

I think, by necessity, we must be. We're quite selfish in that way you know.

I think you're dead on with the time analysis. We utilize it as a concept that we have created. Although it is considered to be the fourth dimension it is a dimension which we cannot envision (awright now, I'm not talking about beautiful sunrises and sunsets). We measure it and plan our daily activities on those measured quantities but when we try to explain it we always end up describing it in terms of itself. Other than that we have no idea what time actually is! In other words we cannot conceptualize time as a physical quantity just like we cannot conceptualize any dimension above the third. I know time is another topic (I think a recent forum covered it) but it's still a fascinating item for discussion and debate. As you said, we made it, we use it, but I doublt we'll ever know what is it.

Back to the matter at hand... I guess a LIMITED form of determinism is unavoidable. I think I might have said that earlier. Only at the Newtonian level though and even then with qualifications.

John

The problem is in the poster's question. To limit the view of anything is to limit the understanding of that thing. simply logic. science limits its view according to the results desired. results desired are almost always directly tied to money and funding, and if not, to feed ego. If specified and required results are taken out of the equation, then true understanding is what is sought. this is rarely the case, therefore, modern science doesn't actually seek true understanding, just money and recognition.

As for time and dimensions, here is my take: Everything in the entire universe is made from an infinite number of 1 thing. yes, just 1 thing. call it HB, call it whatever. this one thing is the basic building block for everything. As this thing travels throughout the universe, it degenerates. it loses energy. the rate of degeneration is directly related to the rate it travels throughout the universe. the faster it travels, the more electromagnetic (friction) energy it absorbs, the less it degenerates, (relativity). Time is the rate of degeneration of this "thing". eventually it is recycled through a black hole and becomes filled with energy again (hawking radiation or whatever) to repeat its life again.

Time is not a dimension. It is a factor of dimensions though. In one dimension it could be shown as a line. Two dimensions could be shown as two perpendicular lines. The third dimension has an additional line, perpendicular to the other two. In the fourth dimension, a point can exist simultaneously on multiple points on one line. In the fifth dimension, a point can do the same on two lines, and in the sixth a point can exist simultaneously on three seperate lines, (or planes if you will). In the seventh dimension, a point does exist on all planes, simultaneously. GOD

No, I don't believe that a great many laws of physics are absolute. We simply don't understand the workings of the universe yet.

Hi David,

"In the fourth dimension, a point can exist simultaneously on multiple points on one line. In the fifth dimension, a point can do the same on two lines, and in the sixth a point can exist simultaneously on three seperate lines, (or planes if you will). In the seventh dimension, a point does exist on all planes, simultaneously. GOD"

But can you describe these dimensions in such a way that I, or some average, reasonable person, can visualize? Betcha can't!

The problem with these so called "extra" dimensions is that they're not intuitive! Not to say they don't exist but we cannot intuitively conceptualize them like we can depth, width and height. Even though we can't see time, we instinctively perceive some event to to be separated in the sense of "before" and "after". We are hardwired that way. We still can't see it like items in an X, Y, or Z plane. In other words, time has no physical substance and that's what makes it unruly. That's what makes it such a contrary villain!

Regards,

John

Sorry Yuval,

Didn't mean to stretch this thread into another dimension (topic).

John

O.k by me. It's the admins you have to refer to.

For me, it all interweaves.

Added dimensions can be conceptualized (by me, at least) through a mental outward "zoom" to the point where I can see a (limited) 3D space from outside it, and even then picture the expansion of that space to some boundry-less extent. Infinity is easier viewed from an additional outside dimension.

I also wonder if time might not be a dimension farther out than the fourth. Like maybe the fifth or sixth. That leaves us like 2 2D planes, parallel, but near. You need the third dimension to connect them. Maybe we need to find one more before we see time.

RichH

No, I don't believe that a great many laws of physics are absolute. We simply don't understand the workings of the universe yet.

Hi D,

only this sentence of your comment can be acknowledged as scientific.

May be we have the wrong systems for a good description of the reality of the universe.

May be we are (much) too stupid to understand the reality.

But to postulate n more dimensions without an idea how a proof of this hypothesis can be made is not enough - else I could post my nightmare or other dreams as reality.

RHABE

You need to go back to high school to the days of plane geometry. Axioms are few, theorems and postulates are more. Theorems need to be proved, but you need the theorem to PROVE before you have anything to do. The proof comes after much work.

Without theorems (theories) one has nowhere to progress, little to learn.

One needs to learn to crawl before one walks. Those that learn to walk without learning to crawl first, suffer substantial problems in there life. Maybe more of use need to stop and learn to crawl, so that our minds can rise up beyond the concrete.

Hi NoSciFi,

the days of Euklid have passed since some time and emerged has a physical world that very often can predict expectet and unexpected results of experiments (manmade or natural). If unexpected it is mostly our not at all perfect thinking with existing theories.

So if you propose a totally new construct of dimensions there is no basis except your thoughts or dreams.

These can be sold as SciFi or at disneyland but reality needs some more hard work.

New concepts need to fit to existing knowledge of experiments.

Einsteins was able to start with relativity only after Michelson had measured that the speed of light was independent of the speed of earth around the sun.

Schroedinger was able to postulate quantum states only after discrete spectral lines were known.

etc.

To explain these - with conventional theories unexplainable - measurements the new theories were invented.

The same you would have to do:

Either invent something that explains one of the today unexplainable measurements, make a proof if the same theory can explain other experiments that come later than your theory. Everything else is fantasy (that may sell).

Highly recommended is reading the Feynman note linked above.

RHABE

Cargo Cult Science?

Hi RHABE,

In your post #58 you said:"May be we are (much) too stupid to understand the reality."

It's not that we're (much) too stupid it's just we just have a lot of ignorance to overcome. It is true though, that man's scientific knowledge is increasing exponentially and little by little a lot of this ignorance falls by the wayside. However, in many areas we are, unfortuntely, doomed to be forever ignorant (not the same as stupid though).

"So if you propose a totally new construct of dimensions there is no basis except your thoughts or dreams."

Not quite true. Cutting edge physics, i.e., super string theory equations do not balance without the inclusion of extra dimensions (up to eleven of them, I believe, are required to make things work). So this goes (far) beyond just thoughts and dreams.

All I was trying to point out in this thread is that "time", if it is in fact a dimension, is, from man's perspective a totally strange and different animal from our easily envisioned three spacial dimensions.

"These can be sold as SciFi or at disneyland"

Nope. Disneyland told the salesman: NoSciFi.

Cheers,

John

Hi Johnjohn,

"we just have a lot of ignorance to overcome"

I agree totally with your above statement.

But how do you know that our brain is really able to understand the universe or able to generate some theory for its total explanation?

"man's scientific knowledge is increasing exponentially"

This too is ok, but only in total. Individual knowledge is splitting up into indefinite different specialists.

To create something like the great unified theory we will need universalists and not specialists - in other fields too.

If we are forever ignorant, where is the difference from being stupid?

Cutting edge physics??? This is a theory that is not proven and cannot explain a lot of known problems. So we will see or not if it can be modified or altered or replaced by a better one. But the mere existence of a theory - irrespective how good the designers are - will not give them a place in the hall of fame.

You are right with time that this is something very different. We can measure time with oscillators and radioactive decay but nobody really knows to explain time.

We cannot grasp and understand time because we do know since early times of evolution only the aspects of days and months and years .

As I expect that any other extraterrestrial intelligence will have the same limitations - being a living creature very likely based on carbon chemistry and very likely on the same base sequenced DNA but with a totally different genetic code and machinery- they too will be limited in this sense.

But may be one of these ET cultures have undertaken the way of adding more evolution and has done this with sound and longtime goals then may be some other creature that can better understand the "nature" may be existing.

There are many ways how evolution may fail but there can be successful ways.

We still do not know why and when our ancestors deviated from the african apes so we too do not know what will happen if somebody tries to evolve into a -to be defined- superman (or superwoman).

RHABE

Hi RHABE,

An uneducated person is, by definition, ignorant but not necessarily stupid.

"But how do you know that our brain is really able to understand the universe or able to generate some theory for its total explanation?"

I don't. We believe we understand bits and pieces of our "local" universe. It is local in the sense that its limit, or boundary, restricts all that we can ever know about. Within this locality our knowledge can continue to grow but there is an upper limit. The ability of our brain to comprehend is limited by a paradox: the boundaries of our universe, which, to us, is infinite. Thus the paradox; a boundary which is infinite. To know all there is to know, to have a total explanation, would require us to be able to view our universe externally. That is absurd, of course, for that's God's realm and we are forever barred from it (in this life anyway, if one is a believer in an afterlife). The area beyond our locality is where we are confined to being forever ignorant. There's no way we can ever know is there's a larger universe in which ours is only one among many.

When I said in my previous post (#72): "in many areas we are, unfortunately, doomed to be forever ignorant". What I meant by that comment was ignorance in the realm of social justice, man's inhumanity to man, etc., not necessarily in the field of science.

"To create something like the great unified theory we will need universalists and not specialists - in other fields too."

I do believe that man will eventually produce the GUT but even with that we're still stuck here on Main Street. A parallel universe? Who knows? Even if we confirm its existence I still think we're forever barred from it. The GUT may just result from a serendipitous insight by some up and coming Einstein.

"But the mere existence of a theory - irrespective how good the designers are - will not give them a place in the hall of fame."

As NoSciFi said: "without theories one has nowhere to progress..." etc.

"As I expect that any other extraterrestrial intelligence will have the same limitations - being a living creature very likely based on carbon chemistry and very likely on the same base sequenced DNA but with a totally different genetic code and machinery- they too will be limited in this sense."

Take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_chauvinism

"We still do not know why and when our ancestors deviated from the african apes so we too do not know what will happen if somebody tries to evolve into a -to be defined- superman (or superwoman)."

Who said we evolved from an African ape anyway?

Cheers,

John

The Nightmare Scenerio...

In the jungles of the Congo, a chimpanzee rests in the limb of a tree. High overhead he spots a bright, silver object, shaped like a bird. However, this bird is traveling very fast and very high. The chimpanzee scratches his chin and wonders, "How is that done?" Unfortunately, no matter how many books on analytic geometry and aerodynamics you bring to the Congo, the chimpanzee will never understand how a jet flies.

Thousands of miles away, a man standing in a field in Nebraska, suddenly sees a bright, silver object, shaped like a sphere. However, this sphere seemed to appear out of nowhere, and is hovering above him. The man scratches his chin and wonders, "How is that done?"

That guy in Omaha was cousin Bob. He's always "outstanding" in his field.

Hi Johnjohn,

"A parallel universe? Who knows?"

You are right, nobody knows. But without a hint that there may be something it is useless to speculate. I think it likely that we have so much to explain and invent thatour time is not sufficient to proceed to GUT.

I think that we will destry ourselves similar to other cultures that failed very likely before we are able to furmulate a GUT.

"Carbon Chauvinism", no not Chauvinism but some chemical knowledge and reading about interplanetary and interstellar and intergalactic molecules detected by infrared techniques.

Also the aminoacids (chemical not biological origin proved by racemic mixture) that were found as two sidebands to the cretacean-tertiary boundary layer in geologic deposits brought to us by the big asteroid that hit in Yucatan 65million years ago.

So I think it very likely that we will find carbon based life if we ever can send a probe, but I think it very unlikely- yet not totally impossible- that we will find totally other life-chemistry.

"Who said we evolved from an African ape anyway?"

The findings of the first upright walking apes or humans in Olduvai and other African places around 6 to 4 million years old. Much later (1 to 2 million years old) the first big brains also in Africa.

At the same time many families of primate apes in Europe and Asia but none of these evolving towards upright walking and big brain!

Later (200,000years ago) - mitochondrial analysis has proved this- the "Eve" woman

from which all modern humans descendet - also in Africa.

Any older tribes that colonised Europe and Asia being wiped out at the arriving of the modern men.

Why Africa? Let us speculate.

RHABE

So Michaelson-Morley probed nothing like what they expected. If they had not theorized and designed an experiment to verify their theory, there would have never been a measurement to prove anything. Again, without a theory, right or wrong, you can never discover a damned thing.

The Pope is the only one I know of who is satisfied never having to think of a theory, believes in the "mystery", and is dead sure he is always right. I wonder if they've ever forgiven Gregory?

RichH

"...If they had not theorized and designed an experiment to verify their theory, there would have never been a measurement to prove anything..."

Not quite. A latent agenda was there to test the possible existence of Aether. This 19th century concept of the medium to hold space, could potentially wreck havoc in Einstein's sum of ideas, because it was supposed to be infinitely rigid, which could not allow it to bent around and by masses, for example.

Once Michelson-Morley came up with their results, Einstein was quoted to have said: "Now, I can take it (Aether) out of consideration".

Not exactly a medium to hold space, but rather a medium which occupied all of space and through which electromagnetic wave could travel. Kind of like water, only not so wet.

Then there is the third type, those who say: "...There are two types of people, those who say there are two types of people and those that don't...."

And if they had not had erroneous theory, why would the experiment have been done? They tried to prove the then-current standard model. The conflicts encapsulated by that theory prevented progress on another couple of theories, Special and General Relativity. The failure to prove a theory allowed the development of the next giant step for mankind, even without a small step for a man.

You know, now that I see your point of view, your theory makes perfect sense. No theory that can't be proven is of any value whatsoever. In all honesty, that is not said snidely. It is only an expression of a paradox.

RichH

Heck, I know you're not Snidely Whiplash. The belief in the æther was not so much a theory as a given, that many many new scientists were chaffing up against. Albert Michelson and Edward Morley (a bread of new scientists) simply (I say simply! Woof!) designed an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of the æther once and for all. And considering the possibility that there might not be anything through which electromagnetic waves propagated, it was probably really scary to the old-school physicists!

Anytime science reaches an "Well is there or isn't there?" point. Someone usually appears with an answer... Is that what the new Super Collider at CERN is all about?!

The "given" in HEP that adding energy to a particle of unit weight will result in a particle of 10 or 100 or 1000 units weight might just be a misinterpretation of the equivalence principle. If Super-Cern could could take an alpha particle (4 AMU), boost it's speed to 0.99999 C, with a determined mass of 120(?) AMU, and add energy in the reverse direction to the particle slowing it down to 0.009 C, and have it demonstrate a weight of 200(?) AMU rather than GEV or TEV., then there is no difference between mass and energy. Equivalence is not identity. Converting energy to matter requires more than just adding energy, even if it acts as, relativistically.

I'm not sure we've figured that one out, yet. My dumb, unfounded, unsupported thought, certainly not a theory.

RichH

I concur (and so did Einstein). Something on the subatomic level happens that converts mass to energy and visa versa. CERN just gets particles going fast enough to overcome the electromagnetic force and let the strong nuclear force do its thing.

KABOOM!!!

"...now that I see your point of view, your theory makes perfect sense. No theory that can't be proven is of any value whatsoever..."

This wouldn't be my theory. Should I say: "go ahead and say that Alpha Centaury is made of blue-cheese, just because there is no way to positively confirm it on the spot?"

No.

What I would say instead, is something like: "go ahead and say that Alpha Centaury is made of blue-cheese, but then you'd have to provide the rest of the universe explained, accordingly"

This is to say: "By all means, you can come up with any wacky idea of your most arbitrary whim, but either it should neatly fit the rest of what we all know, or, at least, you should provide all that, alternatively".

You cannot have both ends of the stick, to the effect of: "I have a wacky idea, and you should take it on faith, because you cannot positively disapprove it".

This wouldn't wash, because it's not the accused saying: "You should prove I did it, not I should prove I didn't"

Think about who you're talking about... 19th Century scientists that to whom all wave motion needed a medium to propagate through. I'm sure that the æther theory was at least as old as Newton. How could something that "absolutely" was a wave, propagate through empty space? In their view, empty space = nothing!!! It's only logical that the æther was adopted. I think there was a period of time that passed before scientific instruments were accurate enough to test this theory; and people waited with anticipation for the results. The same may be true for our time.

I believe we have seen examples of this. It has been reported by physicists that they found one thing at two different points, at exactly the same time!

btw, everything begins with a thought.

I have applied my understanding of the universe, (yes, my own gut), to everything I can think of and it fits. Light, time, gravity, life, heaven, string theory, wave theory, esp (yes, even the paranormal), everything! absolutely everything. Yes, I can easily conceptualize 7 dimensions. Yes, I can conceptualize a multi-verse. Yes, I can conceptualize heaven. I absolutely believe heaven is a real and tangible part of the universe. I believe it exists fully in the 6th dimension. I believe the universe (all of them) is infinately large and growing to infinity.

does that make me crazy for postulating a physical understanding of what most of the rest of the world believes in but don't really think exists? call me crazy then.

Why is it that science believes in it's math, yet dismisses what it doesn't understand, even if the math shows it. Mathmatics say that anything going into a black hole would become infinately smaller, yet that is dismissed as impossible! I believe it is possible. It isn't absolute, yet possible. on and on and on.

sorry, to explain it all is way too much for a thread.

Well, Yeah!!! It does make you crazy... So, like, what's your point?

Well, I guess that's anybody's guess.

Seriously though, "believing in something that you don't believe".

Is that what religion is?

Science does it also!

In order to understand everything, you have to include everything. Science does not do this. Go tell an immanent suicide bomber that god, heaven and the sixty whatever virgins are not real!

Any attempt of true understanding must include absolutely everything.

So, what, like, you would suggest that natural sciences should attempt to weigh, measure, time, scale, or document the Holy Spirit, or plot vectors on the route to Heaven?

Each to it's proper medium. You cannot seriously suggest to measure the Immeasurable, or weigh the Divine.

It was many times suggested that scientifc methodology is like a belief-system, but really, think of it: Do you really have to believe in a system which requires repeatable, coherent, consistent measurement for each phenomenon in turn?

What for? Enough to trust it. No need for faith, not in the system and not in a measurement. You may have to have faith in the people who measure and their personal integrity, but then again, they are all under observation and scrutinizing eyes of millions.

Some still dare to Fake. I know. How Do I know? They were caught faking.

Did God himself tell you that he and heaven were immeasurable? If not God, then whom? Yes, I do suggest that we can and someday just might. We just don't know how yet. We may never know how, but that does not make it impossible. If it is real, then it exists, if it exists it CAN be quantified and qualified! Is God and heaven REAL?

What mankind understands from science is limited to just that, what mankind understands from science. We are only the bacteria on a speck of sand in a sand storm. What do we really know?

"It was many times suggested that scientifc methodology is like a belief-system, but really, think of it: Do you really have to believe in a system which requires repeatable, coherent, consistent measurement for each phenomenon in turn?"

Do you mean "faith" in a system. I believe in science. I believe in the known, measurable, quantifiable, qualifiable, Faith has nothing to do with it. I believe in God, the good, the evil, the love etc., Faith has nothing to do with it. I believe in the yin and yang, the balance of all things, Faith has nothing to do with it. I Understand it, I know it, I live it. Faith is for the blind who are unable to understand.

"...Did God himself tell you that he and heaven were immeasurable? If not God, then whom?..."

Did God himself tell you anything at all?

I'm not sure I'm one of those told anything by God. Himself as you say.

"...Is God and heaven REAL?..."

Why ask me? Didn't God himself tell you? I'm but a humble creature, trying to survive and in the process figure out where is it that I'm trying to survive in. I have no pretension of trying to measure or scale the heaven, let alone try to convince others it's possible when throughout in history it has never been done, otherwise we would have heard of it, don't you think?

True, as you say: "...science is limited to just that..." only science never attempted to measure heaven, just like it has never attempted to calibrate hell or vector the flight-pattern of angels and daemons.

It's simply out-of-context.

Was it your expectation that science measure fictional entities from the realms of faith? Would you at least suggest a method to do it besides taking something on faith?

"...I believe in God, the good, the evil, the love etc., Faith has nothing to do with it. I believe in the yin and yang, the balance of all things, Faith has nothing to do with it..."

Please explain the difference you see between believing in something and having faith in it, and where understanding or trust fits in all that.

1. I can't explain everything to you because I don't think you posses the capability to understand. Just to say, if you don't know or understand the paranormal, (esp, visions, etc.) then you absolutely cannot understand my true answer to your first question.

2. just because no one has ever even postulated that it could actually be possible, doesn't me it can't be done.

3. right, no one has ever actually tired, at least as far as I know.

4. "fictional entities from realms of faith"? I don't see anyone killing each other because spiderman told them to. You obviously don't quite understand the conviction in which the world operates with respect to religion (again, the thing most believe in but don't actually believe exists!) Yes, I expect science to one day employ experiments to actually find heaven. Yes, I do believe I know where to look and how to look. I also believe that we are in the infant stage of finding it. the beginning of understanding heaven has begun. Mathmatical equations which will direct us there have been proposed by much greater mathmaticians than perhaps you and I.

5. Belief: confidence in something without absolute proof.

Faith: confidence in something without proof.

belief requires some level of understanding.

faith only requires trust.

I don't believe in magic. either it is real or it isn't. I believe i understand it, that God and heaven are real, and I have a scientific explanation for it. one that fits everything else as well. yes, just one answer that fits everything! Not an infinate number of answers for an infinate number of questions. Just one thing explains it all and I KNOW THE ANSWER! Quantum mechanics, string theory, wave theory, monopole theory, heaven, light, time, life, body and soul, esp, standard model of the universe, dark energy and matter, solid-liquid-gas-plasma-? (can't reveal that one yet), YES, I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND HOW IT ALL HAPPENS! And it doesn't involve faith, magic or contradictory theories, it involves science, religion and philosophy.

I don't have a clue what in the world you said. I certainly don't possess the cabability to understand what seems to be gibberish.

"I don't believe in magic. either it is real or it isn't. "

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

"Just one thing explains it all and I KNOW THE ANSWER!"

Please tell us what the ANSWER is! Everyone wants to know.

"YES, I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND HOW IT ALL HAPPENS! "

That one dumbfounds me!

Science does one thing: it searches for the truth.

John

"...4. "fictional entities from realms of faith"? I don't see anyone killing each other because spiderman told them to..."

When this Australian farmer sued God in court for damages by lightning, the court dismissed it because "The accused could have not materialised to appear for testimony"

Fictional in my book, is not about something to exist in imaginary form of anyone's. If it's there, there it exists.

Fictional is about the unrepeatability and incoherency and inconsistency in controlled sightings. Controlled sightings. Controlled. Properly documented for posterity. Multiple witnessing to collaborate. Expected and coherent repeatability in sightings.

Are we talking the same language here?

It's not about you thinking or believing something to exist.

This is your uncontested privilege.

It's about your ability to show it. Repeatedly. Coherently. To everyone. Not just tell them "it exists". This is about the difference between science and folklore.

I do not contest your right to believe in folklore.

I contest your attempt to call it science.

You want to call it scientific? Welcome! Prove it's existence, by all means. Then I'll follow your notions. Only once it's proven to exist. Reliably. So that I can trust instead of believe.

That's all. No biggie.

"...I believe i understand it, that God and heaven are real, and I have a scientific explanation for it..."

(the bold underline above, mine)

Would you please enlighten me on this?

By all means, and humbly asking, give me a fair chance to hear your scientific explanation as to the existence of God and the heavens, and how it may fit agreed scientific knowledge.

I wished there were an easy way to do so in short order, but there is not. The answer is as simple as simple can be, yet can become as complicated as the universe itself. When I get all the information together in a simple and coherent package, I will share it with you. I have a few experiments that I have done and others I am working on, and in conjuction with the knowledge and results from known and reliable scientific research entities, I am gathering the proof I need to be considered seriously. In the mean time, if you are ever in the Los Angeles area, send me an e-mail and I will buy you lunch. It would take at least 3 to 4 hours to give you a basic understanding, but I assure you that if you have an open mind to new understandings, you will be amazed.

This has become a fruitless personal argument about the validity of the metaphysics of metaphysics.