On knowledge, observation, and differing modes

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Just want to re-derail things and get back to the laws of science. I believe science was not created by god, as god was once a man like us, who had all the experiences we are having now. We have the ability to ascend and inherit knowledge and power and create universes as he has. As far as as anyone knows, the laws of science have no beginning and no end. God is bound by the law no less then the rest of us. If his power seems magic, it's not, he only has a greater knowledge of the law.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

This is for everyone talking about following natural laws:

The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. We know how objects in nature typically behave, when we can simplify this sufficiently, we create a type of description called a law.

A putative supernatural being would not need to act like a natural thing, and therefore would not need to follow natural laws, but there own descriptions of how supernatural things behave (supernatural laws?).

Like I said in my post if a god like person acts like he is all powerful it's becuse he has a greater knowledge but still following the law as everyone else. If a caveman traveled to our time and saw a car or airplane he would perceive it as magic, and us as gods.

 

[Tarkanian]

The religion of science was something else at the beginning of the 20. century, let me remind you.
It is all fluctuating,
Tomorrow can we see the rebuttal of today's solid scientific facts!

Religion on the other hand cannot (by definition) have the "scientific" claim.
It is all personal, emotional etc.
Even though those experiences like visions are real, we don't know if they are really a recurring pattern.

Each individual experience could be different and we may not get/perceive that.
But we know at what degree water shall boil (under normal circumstances).

 

[babe]

Even though I am a materialist, I hope it is clear from post #22 that I do not agree with those points.

If this is true, as you say, I think what Niels Bohr said applies to you. . . . . you have not understood QM.

IMO, just the belief in path-dependent time is proof a person has not understood QM's impact on classical beliefs and philosophy.

Following from my understanding of QM, whatever the apparent observations may be under whatever circumstances an observer may be influenced or affected by, I say "time" is not path-, nor velocity-, dependent, and the wild fantasy of the Whovians, the "Tardus", is just that. . . . fantasy. . . . .

Probably Albert Einstein did not understand it.

Probably, Newton did understand it. Poor bumbling Neanderthal ignoramus lost in his web of religious faith/fantasies that he was, he at least had a correct view of "time".

 

[babe]

Just want to re-derail things and get back to the laws of science. I believe science was not created by god, as god was once a man like us, who had all the experiences we are having now. We have the ability to ascend and inherit knowledge and power and create universes as he has. As far as as anyone knows, the laws of science have no beginning and no end. God is bound by the law no less then the rest of us. If his power seems magic, it's not, he only has a greater knowledge of the law.

This is the "necessary axiom" of Mormonism, and the essential core of teachings of Jesus. In saying to his believers that following his precepts would lead them to be, when they came to the presence of God the Father, "like him", clearly places man in the same class of living things as "The Father". Saying "whosoever has seen me has seen he Father" is not an "identity equation" as understood by most Christians since Constantine, that says "one is one", but an achievement equation, that says something about the observer measured on a scale of understanding. . . . .

Understanding that a Son has followed the necessary principles that the Father has led in following, it is a statement that those who believe in Jesus and who live by those principles will become like both Jesus and His Father. . . . .

 

[babe]

This is for everyone talking about following natural laws:

The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. We know how objects in nature typically behave, when we can simplify this sufficiently, we create a type of description called a law.

A putative supernatural being would not need to act like a natural thing, and therefore would not need to follow natural laws, but there own descriptions of how supernatural things behave (supernatural laws?).

While what you say here is logically consistent, it is not the assertion of Mormonism. . . . or the Bible. . . . that God is "supernatural".

To the Hebrews, their God was unique because he was principled, and because he was principled he was worthy of respect, and could command his people on that basis. His people had the duty of obedience because He, God was Holy, that is to say, virtuous. That is to say, also, law-abiding.

 

[One Brow]

Tomorrow can we see the rebuttal of today's solid scientific facts!

Facts never get rebutted. They just exist.

Generally, by the time something rises to the level of theory, it also does not get rebutted. It is just extended and altered. The theory of Relativity did nto rebut Newton's theories, but extended them to places Newton could never measure.

 

[One Brow]

If this is true, as you say, I think what Niels Bohr said applies to you. . . . . you have not understood QM.

IMO, just the belief in path-dependent time is proof a person has not understood QM's impact on classical beliefs and philosophy.

Following from my understanding of QM, whatever the apparent observations may be under whatever circumstances an observer may be influenced or affected by, I say "time" is not path-, nor velocity-, dependent, and the wild fantasy of the Whovians, the "Tardus", is just that. . . . fantasy. . . . .

Probably Albert Einstein did not understand it.

Probably, Newton did understand it. Poor bumbling Neanderthal ignoramus lost in his web of religious faith/fantasies that he was, he at least had a correct view of "time".

1) I have no idea how yougot from post #22 to quantum mechanics.
2) This depends on whether you discuss time as something experienced, or as a measurement tool by a single observer.

 

[Tarkanian]

Facts never get rebutted. They just exist.

Generally, by the time something rises to the level of theory, it also does not get rebutted. It is just extended and altered. The theory of Relativity did nto rebut Newton's theories, but extended them to places Newton could never measure.

of course they do!
well, at least those claimed by science as "facts" get rebutted pretty frequently.
Like the planet Pluto

hope you get the memo, science is not as solid as one believes.
Once there were Ptolameic facts (!) which were then crushed by Copernicus.
Just saying, science isnot as solid one thinks. I guess this makes me a sceptic, which I really am not.
Just hate the arrogance of the "believers" of the church of science, given science's well-veiled true nature.

Science evolves my friend.
Newton's theories work under strict assumptions BTW. It is still in use for it has some operational value in engineering and stuff.
Otherwise, it is a theory left behind by the advance of human's knowledge as regards the universe created by God. (GAOTU)

PS: underlined part is my trolling attempt

 

[One Brow]

Like the planet Pluto

A definition is not a fact. They changed the definition of what it meant to be planet, and Pluto didn't fit the new definition, but none of the facts about Pluto changed.

hope you get the memo, science is not as solid as one believes.
Once there were Ptolameic facts (!) which were then crushed by Copernicus.

Ptolemaic theory was supplanted by Keplerian theory as new facts came to light, but none of the facts Ptolemy used were altered.

Just saying, science isnot as solid one thinks. I guess this makes me a sceptic, which I really am not.

I think the strength of science is its fluidity, not solidity.

Science evolves my friend.
Newton's theories work under strict assumptions BTW. It is still in use for it has some operational value in engineering and stuff.

Of course.

Otherwise, it is a theory left behind by the advance of human's knowledge as regards the universe created by God. (GAOTU)

PS: underlined part is my trolling attempt

I can't tell the difference between your trolling and your non-trolling.

 

[PearlWatson]

1) I have no idea how yougot from post #22 to quantum mechanics.

He read post #23 and then #24

 

[LogGrad98]

Facts never get rebutted. They just exist.

Generally, by the time something rises to the level of theory, it also does not get rebutted. It is just extended and altered. The theory of Relativity did nto rebut Newton's theories, but extended them to places Newton could never measure.

By extension, could it be said that if a fact can be rebutted then it is indeed not a fact?