Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

A Proof that Faith is Valid

Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 5:06:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because of space limitations I had to abbreviate the title, it should have been "A Proof that Faith in a Transcendent Reality is Valid".

A lot of people talk about "proof" as it relates to "faith" here, there is a tendency to say something like "You shouldn't believe in anything without proof". As inane as this sounds, those who make such assertions also tend to implicitly represent logic and science as providing a complete and comprehensive accounting of reality in all its fullness while trying to represent themselves as more logical, rational, and scientific than those of faith.

Yet, there is a "proof" that stands logically in support of faith in a transcendent reality.

Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is analytically perfect and rigidly deductive and therefore it is conclusive as far as logic and science are concerned. It states categorically that no axiomatic system is, or can be, complete without reference to a higher system in which that system must be embedded. Mathematically, Godel proved that even an axiomatic system as simple as arithmetic cannot be internally consistent and logically complete without reference to a transcending system in which it must be embedded.

Logic and science are indeed axiomatic systems, therefore logic and science themselves have proven that they are not complete without reference to a transcendent system. Godel proved that the ideal of science is therefore impossible, which is to say that it is logically and scientifically impossible to devise a set of axioms from which all the phenomena of the external world can be deduced.

It's fine to recognize the differences between logic and faith, they are indeed two different things, but any representation of logic and science as somehow complete systems, or statements that contend that logic and/or science constitute comprehensive representations of reality have been proven to be logically and scientifically incorrect. As far as Science and Logic are concerned, faith in a transcendent reality is more true to reality than logic and science can be.

Faith is essentially belief in a higher system, it postulates a transcendent reality in which we live and move and have our being. Kurt Godel provided a proof that the act of having faith in a greater reality in which the normal world of logic and science is embedded is a more logical and scientifically, a more true representation of reality.

Granted, uncertainty isn't a very agreeable state, but certainty has been proved to be a ridiculous one logically and scientifically speaking. Werner Heisenberg confirmed that uncertainty is a feature of reality with his own proof in the physical sciences. Each and every unified theory, which is to say every scientific attempt at unifying and completing physical theory, postulates other dimensions in which this reality is embedded, every one of them, as and perhaps because, Kurt Godel logically proved that they must.

It follows that the common assertion that you can't believe in a non-physical existence or a transcendent reality without proof has been "proven" by Kurt Godel to be illogical and unscientific, it's OK to do it, but it should be recognized as a faith based assertion rather than a logical, rational, or scientific premise, and when it is done with certainty, it is more of a faith based religious belief than anything resembling a logical or scientific premise.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 1:11:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can't find anything that says Godel's theorem has to do with proving something above a system. Unless you're talking about the second theorem.

G"del's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Informally, G"del's incompleteness theorem states that all consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions

A statement sometimes known as G"del's second incompleteness theorem states that if number theory is consistent, then a proof of this fact does not exist using the methods of first-order predicate calculus.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com...

The second one kind of sounds like what you're talking about, but it only means some proof beyond calculus. Not transcendent of the world.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 7:53:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree with Magic. However, please note that "Godel" is incorrect. It should be o-diaeresis. But I think the rendering system of debate.org is...odd. So, please write it as "Goedel" instead of "Godel" or "G"del". Thanks!
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 6:20:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?

By proof, I mean anything that can be measured. In the case of extra dimensions, this would probably take the form of indirect proof (I am no particle physicist, but according to string theory, the other dimensions are too small to observe directly). Something like the extra dimension exerting a force on a particle (perhaps by altering its path during a collision in the LHC) or emitting a particle that otherwise shouldn't be there. Even then, that isn't technically proof as much as it is evidence towards a proof.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 7:18:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 6:20:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?

By proof, I mean anything that can be measured. In the case of extra dimensions, this would probably take the form of indirect proof (I am no particle physicist, but according to string theory, the other dimensions are too small to observe directly). Something like the extra dimension exerting a force on a particle (perhaps by altering its path during a collision in the LHC) or emitting a particle that otherwise shouldn't be there. Even then, that isn't technically proof as much as it is evidence towards a proof.

That would be inferential at best and that certainly would not make it experiential.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 7:20:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 7:18:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:20:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?

By proof, I mean anything that can be measured. In the case of extra dimensions, this would probably take the form of indirect proof (I am no particle physicist, but according to string theory, the other dimensions are too small to observe directly). Something like the extra dimension exerting a force on a particle (perhaps by altering its path during a collision in the LHC) or emitting a particle that otherwise shouldn't be there. Even then, that isn't technically proof as much as it is evidence towards a proof.

That would be inferential at best and that certainly would not make it experiential.

Correct, which would mean that a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical, as it can't be proven, and therefore can't be experienced.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:07:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 7:20:45 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:18:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:20:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?

By proof, I mean anything that can be measured. In the case of extra dimensions, this would probably take the form of indirect proof (I am no particle physicist, but according to string theory, the other dimensions are too small to observe directly). Something like the extra dimension exerting a force on a particle (perhaps by altering its path during a collision in the LHC) or emitting a particle that otherwise shouldn't be there. Even then, that isn't technically proof as much as it is evidence towards a proof.

That would be inferential at best and that certainly would not make it experiential.

Correct, which would mean that a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical, as it can't be proven, and therefore can't be experienced.

No, it doesn't mean that at all, that is a bare assertion that is simply incorrect,

Kurt Godel proved that faith in a reality that transcends the normal world of logic and science is more logical and scientifically, has a higher degree of correspondence to the truth about reality.

As I already pointed out, you can certainly believe that as an axiom of your faith, but it isn't supported by logic or science.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 2:16:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:07:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:20:45 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:18:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:20:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?

By proof, I mean anything that can be measured. In the case of extra dimensions, this would probably take the form of indirect proof (I am no particle physicist, but according to string theory, the other dimensions are too small to observe directly). Something like the extra dimension exerting a force on a particle (perhaps by altering its path during a collision in the LHC) or emitting a particle that otherwise shouldn't be there. Even then, that isn't technically proof as much as it is evidence towards a proof.

That would be inferential at best and that certainly would not make it experiential.

Correct, which would mean that a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical, as it can't be proven, and therefore can't be experienced.

No, it doesn't mean that at all, that is a bare assertion that is simply incorrect,

Kurt Godel proved that faith in a reality that transcends the normal world of logic and science is more logical and scientifically, has a higher degree of correspondence to the truth about reality.

As I already pointed out, you can certainly believe that as an axiom of your faith, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

-Kurt Godel proves faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and has a higher degree of scientific correspondence.
-You can believe the above, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

Don't those contradict each other? The former states that faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and scientifically valid, but the latter states that it isn't supported by any logic or science.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 7:31:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 2:16:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:07:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:20:45 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:18:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:20:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?

By proof, I mean anything that can be measured. In the case of extra dimensions, this would probably take the form of indirect proof (I am no particle physicist, but according to string theory, the other dimensions are too small to observe directly). Something like the extra dimension exerting a force on a particle (perhaps by altering its path during a collision in the LHC) or emitting a particle that otherwise shouldn't be there. Even then, that isn't technically proof as much as it is evidence towards a proof.

That would be inferential at best and that certainly would not make it experiential.

Correct, which would mean that a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical, as it can't be proven, and therefore can't be experienced.

No, it doesn't mean that at all, that is a bare assertion that is simply incorrect,

Kurt Godel proved that faith in a reality that transcends the normal world of logic and science is more logical and scientifically, has a higher degree of correspondence to the truth about reality.

As I already pointed out, you can certainly believe that as an axiom of your faith, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

-Kurt Godel proves faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and has a higher degree of scientific correspondence.
-You can believe the above, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

No, I meant you can certainly believe your statement that "a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical", but it isn't supported by logic or science.

Don't those contradict each other? The former states that faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and scientifically valid, but the latter states that it isn't supported by any logic or science.

I was referring to your statement being an axiom of faith.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 7:56:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 5:06:49 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is analytically perfect and rigidly deductive and therefore it is conclusive as far as logic and science are concerned. It states categorically that no axiomatic system is, or can be, complete without reference to a higher system in which that system must be embedded.

It categorically states no such thing.

"Mathematically, Godel proved that even an axiomatic system as simple as arithmetic cannot be internally consistent and logically complete without reference to a transcending system in which it must be embedded.

That's not the entire truth; he proved that first order arithmetic has that problem. There are second order solutions that do not have the incompleteness problem. As I understand it, it only applies to systems that are too 'simple'; it is not that things 'even as simple as' arithmetic suffer the problem, but that only things as simple as some kinds of arithmetic have the problem. It is essentially an observation that it is impossible to use certain frameworks for certain tasks; in other words, if you use the wrong tools then you cannot complete the job at hand.

Logic and science are indeed axiomatic systems, therefore logic and science themselves have proven that they are not complete without reference to a transcendent system.

Except for when they do. It doesn't take long to find examples of proven theorems that overcome the incompleteness problem.

Godel proved that the ideal of science is therefore impossible, which is to say that it is logically and scientifically impossible to devise a set of axioms from which all the phenomena of the external world can be deduced.

... unless you describe it using different terms, in which case it is perfectly possible, such as when using second order analysis.

It's fine to recognize the differences between logic and faith, they are indeed two different things, but any representation of logic and science as somehow complete systems, or statements that contend that logic and/or science constitute comprehensive representations of reality have been proven to be logically and scientifically incorrect.

Except when they aren't.

Faith is essentially belief in a higher system, it postulates a transcendent reality in which we live and move and have our being.

No, that's what faith in those things postulates is. 'Faith' in general is just trusting something despite having no evidence giving reason to do so and regardless of any evidence giving reason not to.

It follows that the common assertion that you can't believe in a non-physical existence or a transcendent reality without proof has been "proven" by Kurt Godel to be illogical and unscientific.

So no, that does not follow at all.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 9:02:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If an axiomatic system could be embedded into and justified within a more complex one, that would no longer be an axiom, because it would no longer be assumed; and the more complex one would become the axiom, leading to an infinite regress. Therefore all you've argued is that there are certain aspects of reality which are not understood - and then justified this by redefining faith as 'belief in a higher system.' A higher system in this case just meaning 'reality' being inclusive of but not limited to our understanding. However that is not contrary to logic, in fact it is an implication of logic that parts of the system we're in are not understood.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 9:44:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 9:09:22 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
http://www.philosophybro.com...

I wish that blog was still being updated.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 9:49:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 9:44:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 9:09:22 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
http://www.philosophybro.com...

I wish that blog was still being updated.

Same here, Same here.

His twitter might be though.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 11:17:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 7:31:24 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:16:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:07:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:20:45 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:18:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:20:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?

By proof, I mean anything that can be measured. In the case of extra dimensions, this would probably take the form of indirect proof (I am no particle physicist, but according to string theory, the other dimensions are too small to observe directly). Something like the extra dimension exerting a force on a particle (perhaps by altering its path during a collision in the LHC) or emitting a particle that otherwise shouldn't be there. Even then, that isn't technically proof as much as it is evidence towards a proof.

That would be inferential at best and that certainly would not make it experiential.

Correct, which would mean that a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical, as it can't be proven, and therefore can't be experienced.

No, it doesn't mean that at all, that is a bare assertion that is simply incorrect,

Kurt Godel proved that faith in a reality that transcends the normal world of logic and science is more logical and scientifically, has a higher degree of correspondence to the truth about reality.

As I already pointed out, you can certainly believe that as an axiom of your faith, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

-Kurt Godel proves faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and has a higher degree of scientific correspondence.
-You can believe the above, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

No, I meant you can certainly believe your statement that "a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical", but it isn't supported by logic or science.

Don't those contradict each other? The former states that faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and scientifically valid, but the latter states that it isn't supported by any logic or science.

I was referring to your statement being an axiom of faith.

Why isn't it supported by logic or science? I have already attacked the definition of transcendence and showed how (with you agreeing) that things that are technically transcendent can't be proven to exist, so how can you assert that someone proved something if you haven't refuted my assertion?

You seem to be saying that I am wrong because Godel proved it even though I already asserted that by the definition of transcendence you can't prove it, and you even agreed with me.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 6:42:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 11:17:09 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:31:24 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:16:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:07:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:20:45 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:18:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:20:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?

By proof, I mean anything that can be measured. In the case of extra dimensions, this would probably take the form of indirect proof (I am no particle physicist, but according to string theory, the other dimensions are too small to observe directly). Something like the extra dimension exerting a force on a particle (perhaps by altering its path during a collision in the LHC) or emitting a particle that otherwise shouldn't be there. Even then, that isn't technically proof as much as it is evidence towards a proof.

That would be inferential at best and that certainly would not make it experiential.

Correct, which would mean that a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical, as it can't be proven, and therefore can't be experienced.

No, it doesn't mean that at all, that is a bare assertion that is simply incorrect,

Kurt Godel proved that faith in a reality that transcends the normal world of logic and science is more logical and scientifically, has a higher degree of correspondence to the truth about reality.

As I already pointed out, you can certainly believe that as an axiom of your faith, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

-Kurt Godel proves faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and has a higher degree of scientific correspondence.
-You can believe the above, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

No, I meant you can certainly believe your statement that "a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical", but it isn't supported by logic or science.

Don't those contradict each other? The former states that faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and scientifically valid, but the latter states that it isn't supported by any logic or science.

I was referring to your statement being an axiom of faith.

Why isn't it supported by logic or science? I have already attacked the definition of transcendence and showed how (with you agreeing) that things that are technically transcendent can't be proven to exist,

No you didn't, all we discussed was that things that are transcendent can't be experienced directly, that has nothing to do with whether or not they can be proven to exist, G"del did in fact prove that something transcends.

so how can you assert that someone proved something if you haven't refuted my assertion?

Because G"del proved it, and your assertion doesn't change that.

You seem to be saying that I am wrong because Godel proved it even though I already asserted that by the definition of transcendence you can't prove it, and you even agreed with me.

Nope you only asserted that it can't be experienced, that has nothing to do with proving it.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 6:45:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 6:42:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:17:09 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:31:24 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:16:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:07:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:20:45 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:18:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:20:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?

By proof, I mean anything that can be measured. In the case of extra dimensions, this would probably take the form of indirect proof (I am no particle physicist, but according to string theory, the other dimensions are too small to observe directly). Something like the extra dimension exerting a force on a particle (perhaps by altering its path during a collision in the LHC) or emitting a particle that otherwise shouldn't be there. Even then, that isn't technically proof as much as it is evidence towards a proof.

That would be inferential at best and that certainly would not make it experiential.

Correct, which would mean that a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical, as it can't be proven, and therefore can't be experienced.

No, it doesn't mean that at all, that is a bare assertion that is simply incorrect,

Kurt Godel proved that faith in a reality that transcends the normal world of logic and science is more logical and scientifically, has a higher degree of correspondence to the truth about reality.

As I already pointed out, you can certainly believe that as an axiom of your faith, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

-Kurt Godel proves faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and has a higher degree of scientific correspondence.
-You can believe the above, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

No, I meant you can certainly believe your statement that "a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical", but it isn't supported by logic or science.

Don't those contradict each other? The former states that faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and scientifically valid, but the latter states that it isn't supported by any logic or science.

I was referring to your statement being an axiom of faith.

Why isn't it supported by logic or science? I have already attacked the definition of transcendence and showed how (with you agreeing) that things that are technically transcendent can't be proven to exist,

No you didn't, all we discussed was that things that are transcendent can't be experienced directly, that has nothing to do with whether or not they can be proven to exist, G"del did in fact prove that something transcends.

so how can you assert that someone proved something if you haven't refuted my assertion?

Because G"del proved it, and your assertion doesn't change that.

You seem to be saying that I am wrong because Godel proved it even though I already asserted that by the definition of transcendence you can't prove it, and you even agreed with me.

Nope you only asserted that it can't be experienced, that has nothing to do with proving it.

Then how so did he prove it? How does one prove that which cannot be experienced without therefore experiencing it?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 2:35:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 6:45:51 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:42:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:17:09 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:31:24 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:16:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:07:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:20:45 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:18:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:20:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?

By proof, I mean anything that can be measured. In the case of extra dimensions, this would probably take the form of indirect proof (I am no particle physicist, but according to string theory, the other dimensions are too small to observe directly). Something like the extra dimension exerting a force on a particle (perhaps by altering its path during a collision in the LHC) or emitting a particle that otherwise shouldn't be there. Even then, that isn't technically proof as much as it is evidence towards a proof.

That would be inferential at best and that certainly would not make it experiential.

Correct, which would mean that a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical, as it can't be proven, and therefore can't be experienced.

No, it doesn't mean that at all, that is a bare assertion that is simply incorrect,

Kurt Godel proved that faith in a reality that transcends the normal world of logic and science is more logical and scientifically, has a higher degree of correspondence to the truth about reality.

As I already pointed out, you can certainly believe that as an axiom of your faith, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

-Kurt Godel proves faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and has a higher degree of scientific correspondence.
-You can believe the above, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

No, I meant you can certainly believe your statement that "a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical", but it isn't supported by logic or science.

Don't those contradict each other? The former states that faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and scientifically valid, but the latter states that it isn't supported by any logic or science.

I was referring to your statement being an axiom of faith.

Why isn't it supported by logic or science? I have already attacked the definition of transcendence and showed how (with you agreeing) that things that are technically transcendent can't be proven to exist,

No you didn't, all we discussed was that things that are transcendent can't be experienced directly, that has nothing to do with whether or not they can be proven to exist, G"del did in fact prove that something transcends.

so how can you assert that someone proved something if you haven't refuted my assertion?

Because G"del proved it, and your assertion doesn't change that.

You seem to be saying that I am wrong because Godel proved it even though I already asserted that by the definition of transcendence you can't prove it, and you even agreed with me.

Nope you only asserted that it can't be experienced, that has nothing to do with proving it.

Then how so did he prove it? How does one prove that which cannot be experienced without therefore experiencing it?

The same way science and logic prove most things, by inference. Do you believe that quarks exist, hadrons, mesons, electrons, protons, neutrons, and the like? They have never been experienced, and never will be, we only know they exist via inferential evidence.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 2:51:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 2:35:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:45:51 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/5/2013 6:42:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/4/2013 11:17:09 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:31:24 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:16:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 2:07:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:20:45 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/3/2013 7:18:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:20:13 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:05:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:44:34 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/2/2013 6:44:35 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/31/2013 4:41:15 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"Transcendent: Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience."

Going off that definition, could one not assert that if one can prove (as the proof states, by citing what I assume to be things like string theory which involve >4 dimensions) that upon discovering such a transcendent existence, it therefore becomes non-transcendent, because it is now within the range of human experience?

No, the range of human experience is our four dimensional reality, postulating other dimensions does not make those other dimensions experiential, they are postulated as transcending our four dimensional frame of reference. They are by definition, unobserved and unobservable.

I understand that postulating them doesn't lead to experience, but I asserted that if you could <u>prove</u> them they would be experiential.

I'm not sure what would constitute proof, but either way, why would proof of the existence of other dimensions make them experiential?

By proof, I mean anything that can be measured. In the case of extra dimensions, this would probably take the form of indirect proof (I am no particle physicist, but according to string theory, the other dimensions are too small to observe directly). Something like the extra dimension exerting a force on a particle (perhaps by altering its path during a collision in the LHC) or emitting a particle that otherwise shouldn't be there. Even then, that isn't technically proof as much as it is evidence towards a proof.

That would be inferential at best and that certainly would not make it experiential.

Correct, which would mean that a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical, as it can't be proven, and therefore can't be experienced.

No, it doesn't mean that at all, that is a bare assertion that is simply incorrect,

Kurt Godel proved that faith in a reality that transcends the normal world of logic and science is more logical and scientifically, has a higher degree of correspondence to the truth about reality.

As I already pointed out, you can certainly believe that as an axiom of your faith, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

-Kurt Godel proves faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and has a higher degree of scientific correspondence.
-You can believe the above, but it isn't supported by logic or science.

No, I meant you can certainly believe your statement that "a belief in that which is transcendent is illogical", but it isn't supported by logic or science.

Don't those contradict each other? The former states that faith in a transcendent reality is more logical and scientifically valid, but the latter states that it isn't supported by any logic or science.

I was referring to your statement being an axiom of faith.

Why isn't it supported by logic or science? I have already attacked the definition of transcendence and showed how (with you agreeing) that things that are technically transcendent can't be proven to exist,

No you didn't, all we discussed was that things that are transcendent can't be experienced directly, that has nothing to do with whether or not they can be proven to exist, G"del did in fact prove that something transcends.

so how can you assert that someone proved something if you haven't refuted my assertion?

Because G"del proved it, and your assertion doesn't change that.

You seem to be saying that I am wrong because Godel proved it even though I already asserted that by the definition of transcendence you can't prove it, and you even agreed with me.

Nope you only asserted that it can't be experienced, that has nothing to do with proving it.

Then how so did he prove it? How does one prove that which cannot be experienced without therefore experiencing it?

The same way science and logic prove most things, by inference. Do you believe that quarks exist, hadrons, mesons, electrons, protons, neutrons, and the like? They have never been experienced, and never will be, we only know they exist via inferential evidence.

Electrons have been experienced through things like cathode ray tubes. The history of the discovery of the other things has either been done through older experiments with atoms, or in the LHC, whereby the paths of particles are detected. If you look at something like the Higgs Boson, it was inferred that it SHOULD exist through mathematics, but nobody declared that it did exist (scientifically speaking) until the LHC found it enough times that it was considered to exist.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 7:31:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 2:51:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:35:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

The same way science and logic prove most things, by inference. Do you believe that quarks exist, hadrons, mesons, electrons, protons, neutrons, and the like? They have never been experienced, and never will be, we only know they exist via inferential evidence.

Electrons have been experienced through things like cathode ray tubes. The history of the discovery of the other things has either been done through older experiments with atoms, or in the LHC, whereby the paths of particles are detected. If you look at something like the Higgs Boson, it was inferred that it SHOULD exist through mathematics, but nobody declared that it did exist (scientifically speaking) until the LHC found it enough times that it was considered to exist.

Nonsense, these things are nor "experienced" through these technologies, they are only inferred.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 7:43:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 7:31:35 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:51:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:35:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

The same way science and logic prove most things, by inference. Do you believe that quarks exist, hadrons, mesons, electrons, protons, neutrons, and the like? They have never been experienced, and never will be, we only know they exist via inferential evidence.

Electrons have been experienced through things like cathode ray tubes. The history of the discovery of the other things has either been done through older experiments with atoms, or in the LHC, whereby the paths of particles are detected. If you look at something like the Higgs Boson, it was inferred that it SHOULD exist through mathematics, but nobody declared that it did exist (scientifically speaking) until the LHC found it enough times that it was considered to exist.

Nonsense, these things are nor "experienced" through these technologies, they are only inferred.

Note how at 1:20 the person uses a magnet to alter the path of the electrons in the tube. You, watching the video, are experiencing the effects of a magnetic field on a stream of electrons in a noble gas. It's in essence how neon sign work. Such use of the senses to note changes in something would fall under the definition of physical experience. I would imagine that if you stuck your hand in that tube, you would experience the electrons much more directly.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 8:11:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 7:43:33 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:31:35 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:51:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:35:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

The same way science and logic prove most things, by inference. Do you believe that quarks exist, hadrons, mesons, electrons, protons, neutrons, and the like? They have never been experienced, and never will be, we only know they exist via inferential evidence.

Electrons have been experienced through things like cathode ray tubes. The history of the discovery of the other things has either been done through older experiments with atoms, or in the LHC, whereby the paths of particles are detected. If you look at something like the Higgs Boson, it was inferred that it SHOULD exist through mathematics, but nobody declared that it did exist (scientifically speaking) until the LHC found it enough times that it was considered to exist.

Nonsense, these things are nor "experienced" through these technologies, they are only inferred.



Note how at 1:20 the person uses a magnet to alter the path of the electrons in the tube. You, watching the video, are experiencing the effects of a magnetic field on a stream of electrons in a noble gas. It's in essence how neon sign work. Such use of the senses to note changes in something would fall under the definition of physical experience. I would imagine that if you stuck your hand in that tube, you would experience the electrons much more directly.

OK, you're right, G"del was an idiot.

I'm done with this conversation now, going to go have a glass of quarks to celebrate.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 8:14:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 8:11:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:43:33 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:31:35 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:51:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:35:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

The same way science and logic prove most things, by inference. Do you believe that quarks exist, hadrons, mesons, electrons, protons, neutrons, and the like? They have never been experienced, and never will be, we only know they exist via inferential evidence.

Electrons have been experienced through things like cathode ray tubes. The history of the discovery of the other things has either been done through older experiments with atoms, or in the LHC, whereby the paths of particles are detected. If you look at something like the Higgs Boson, it was inferred that it SHOULD exist through mathematics, but nobody declared that it did exist (scientifically speaking) until the LHC found it enough times that it was considered to exist.

Nonsense, these things are nor "experienced" through these technologies, they are only inferred.



Note how at 1:20 the person uses a magnet to alter the path of the electrons in the tube. You, watching the video, are experiencing the effects of a magnetic field on a stream of electrons in a noble gas. It's in essence how neon sign work. Such use of the senses to note changes in something would fall under the definition of physical experience. I would imagine that if you stuck your hand in that tube, you would experience the electrons much more directly.

OK, you're right, G"del was an idiot.

I'm done with this conversation now, going to go have a glass of quarks to celebrate.

Gee, now you've got me wondering what a glass of quarks would actually look like if you could actually capture them in such quantities.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 11:47:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 8:14:48 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:11:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:43:33 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:31:35 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:51:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:35:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

The same way science and logic prove most things, by inference. Do you believe that quarks exist, hadrons, mesons, electrons, protons, neutrons, and the like? They have never been experienced, and never will be, we only know they exist via inferential evidence.

Electrons have been experienced through things like cathode ray tubes. The history of the discovery of the other things has either been done through older experiments with atoms, or in the LHC, whereby the paths of particles are detected. If you look at something like the Higgs Boson, it was inferred that it SHOULD exist through mathematics, but nobody declared that it did exist (scientifically speaking) until the LHC found it enough times that it was considered to exist.

Nonsense, these things are nor "experienced" through these technologies, they are only inferred.



Note how at 1:20 the person uses a magnet to alter the path of the electrons in the tube. You, watching the video, are experiencing the effects of a magnetic field on a stream of electrons in a noble gas. It's in essence how neon sign work. Such use of the senses to note changes in something would fall under the definition of physical experience. I would imagine that if you stuck your hand in that tube, you would experience the electrons much more directly.

OK, you're right, G"del was an idiot.

I'm done with this conversation now, going to go have a glass of quarks to celebrate.

Gee, now you've got me wondering what a glass of quarks would actually look like if you could actually capture them in such quantities.

It would look like whatever you put in the glass, it's always going to be quarks.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 11:52:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 11:47:23 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:14:48 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:11:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:43:33 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 7:31:35 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:51:52 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:35:09 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

The same way science and logic prove most things, by inference. Do you believe that quarks exist, hadrons, mesons, electrons, protons, neutrons, and the like? They have never been experienced, and never will be, we only know they exist via inferential evidence.

Electrons have been experienced through things like cathode ray tubes. The history of the discovery of the other things has either been done through older experiments with atoms, or in the LHC, whereby the paths of particles are detected. If you look at something like the Higgs Boson, it was inferred that it SHOULD exist through mathematics, but nobody declared that it did exist (scientifically speaking) until the LHC found it enough times that it was considered to exist.

Nonsense, these things are nor "experienced" through these technologies, they are only inferred.



Note how at 1:20 the person uses a magnet to alter the path of the electrons in the tube. You, watching the video, are experiencing the effects of a magnetic field on a stream of electrons in a noble gas. It's in essence how neon sign work. Such use of the senses to note changes in something would fall under the definition of physical experience. I would imagine that if you stuck your hand in that tube, you would experience the electrons much more directly.

OK, you're right, G"del was an idiot.

I'm done with this conversation now, going to go have a glass of quarks to celebrate.

Gee, now you've got me wondering what a glass of quarks would actually look like if you could actually capture them in such quantities.

It would look like whatever you put in the glass, it's always going to be quarks.

So Scotch, then?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!