The motivated Assupmtion

The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions. Ultimately this means that all knowledge is based in a belief or faith.

Given that with today 's thinking an ET arrival is impossible. What if those objections could be over come? Below is a link to a site that approaches the exploration of the galaxy very differently. Granted the author is a little over zealous, but after you read it you'll get the point as to why it was done that way.

http://luvinspoon.tripod.com

So given a new approach, what does that do to the assumption criteria for new theories? Can a belief based on scientific speculation be equivalent to a religious belief?

Bruno

[Liamo]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions.

Bruno,

Could you expand on this and provide examples?

Thanks,

Liam

[FutileJester]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Given that with today 's thinking an ET arrival is impossible.

I don't think this is at all the scientific consensus (if that's what you mean by "today's thinking"). It is absolutely possible. It could be fairly said, however, that there is no good evidence that they have been here in the past or that they are doing so now.

Quote:

So given a new approach, what does that do to the assumption criteria for new theories? Can a belief based on scientific speculation be equivalent to a religious belief?

What new approach? What assumption criteria for new theories? Can you expand on this a bit?

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions. Ultimately this means that all knowledge is based in a belief or faith.

Others are asking you for more info, but I'd like to say that if you're going to try the old, tired "belief based on piles and piles of evidence is no better than belief based on faith" bit, I've heard it all before, there is no merit to that argument, and I have better things to do with my time, like clip my toenails.

[espritch]

Quote:

So given a new approach, what does that do to the assumption criteria for new theories? Can a belief based on scientific speculation be equivalent to a religious belief?

There is really no such thing as scientific speculation. There is only speculation. A scientist may speculate on some observed phenomena (i.e. form a hypothesis), but the hypothesis does not become science until it is subjected to the process of science – accumulation of evidence, testing, and peer review. Wackos like to claim science is just another religion. They do so mainly because they know their own hypothesis will fail the test of science, so they must declare the process of science to be faulty or subjective. Once they have gone down this path, they are essentially in the realm of religion where a thing is taken to be true because they believe it to be true.

From the site:

Quote:

While you may challenge my claims lack evidence, you can not deny the plausibility of my arguments on the basis of the science that I use to describe ET.

So he’s going to use science to describe an ET for which he lacks evidence? Without evidence, there is no science.

Quote:

Originally posted by espritch
So he’s going to use science to describe an ET for which he lacks evidence? Without evidence, there is no science.

Sure there is, it's called a hypothesis.

Bruno

[Denise]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar



Sure there is, it's called a hypothesis.

Bruno

A hypothesis is an eductated guess. You have to have some sort of evidence for that, or else it's not educated.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Denise,

Quote:

A hypothesis is an educated guess. You have to have some sort of evidence for that, or else it's not educated.

An excellent point.

The purpose of s scientific hypothesis is to provide an explanation for a set of observations. With respect to the existence of ETs, the observation that needs to be explained is the observation that all accounts of encounters with ETs are extremely unreliable. The hypothesis that this is because we have never actually been visited by ETs does a pretty good job of explaining this observation. It also has the nice property of being falsifiable.

If we want to answer the question of whether extraterrestrial life exists or not, we need to start with the hypothesis that it does not, and proceed by actively attempting to falsify it. It is exactly what things like the SETI project are attempting to do.

What we should not be doing, is constructing elaborate conspiracy theories and fanciful scenarios, in order to try to reconcile the available evidence (or lack thereof) with whatever preconceived notions we may have about the subject.

As for the original claim in this thread:

Quote:

The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions. Ultimately this means that all knowledge is based in a belief or faith.

This ignores the fact that theories do not equal knowledge. Our theories become knowledge only by verifying them with reliable evidence. If we simply made up theories, and then accepted them as true (as religions do), then that would be faith. But that is not how science works.

Even the fundamental principles of science are based on solid supporting evidence. Sure, they cannot be logically proven to be valid. No statement about reality can be logically proven to be true. All that means is that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge.

if you want absolute certainty of something, that is when you have to have faith. You might as well just call it wishful thinking, though, because that is really all it is.

Dr. Stupid

Quote:

Originally posted by Denise
A hypothesis is an eductated guess. You have to have some sort of evidence for that, or else it's not educated.

I think you fail to see what observations can be used. For instance, Carl Sagan speculated that life on other worlds could exist. He based his hypothesis on life here on earth. If we apply the Drake equation, another hypothesis, to the possibility of intelligent life, we can conservatively get 2400 civilizations with a sophisticated technology. The Drake equation's flaw is time; it doesn't factor when civilizations can exist. So we're looking at a time period of some 300 million years! It also doesn't factor how many times a species or how many different species on a single world can attempt developing sophisticated technology.

So now that I have given you the observations by which the hypothesis is based on, you can understand the next step. The next step is developing a conceivable method by which an ET can use to actually get here. Once a method is developed, a means of explaining how an ET could find us needs to be developed. The site offers both an explanation of how to reach and find earth or the slew of earth like planets in our galaxy.

So the hypothesis is based on evidence, but it is indirect evidence and is based on the probability of such events as the creation and evolution of life happening else where in the universe. So the statement on the site is scientifically accurate:

"It is inevitable that an ET would visit earth. It is inevitable if in our galaxy there is an intelligence that can produce a sophisticated enough technology and has a desire to explore the cosmos. If this contingency is met, then earth has been visited, is being visited or will be visited."

Note it doesn't say it has to be here, only that the potential of an ET reaching us is inevitable some time in earth’s existence.

Bruno

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Given that with today 's thinking an ET arrival is impossible. What if those objections could be over come? Below is a link to a site that approaches the exploration of the galaxy very differently. Granted the author is a little over zealous, but after you read it you'll get the point as to why it was done that way.

http://luvinspoon.tripod.com

The guy's read 2010 :-)

von Neumann spaceprobes: fine, but not EPR communications. Yes, the spooky channel communicates 'instantly' but to actually transmit useful information then you have to send information along conventional channels too. EPR allows secure communications, but not FTL. Remember that if information can be propagated faster than light, it can also be sent back in time.

[BillyJoe]

Anyone know what sort of optical illusion those cigar shaped objects represent?

[IMG]Edited to delete a free advertisement[IMG]

Quote:

Originally posted by phobos


The guy's read 2010 :-)

von Neumann spaceprobes: fine, but not EPR communications. Yes, the spooky channel communicates 'instantly' but to actually transmit useful information then you have to send information along conventional channels too. EPR allows secure communications, but not FTL. Remember that if information can be propagated faster than light, it can also be sent back in time.

I think you're confusing the modulation of the channel with actually using the causality effects to send information. In effect you can use quantum-computing techniques to perform qu bit operations on an entangled particle. This measure of the particle would then effect the partnered particle. So information can be sent FTL.

AS far as FTL going back in time, you have a very poor understanding of time. Time has a very definitive nature; it is cause and effect, why relativity was able to predict time dilation. Time dilation is due to the increased path that reactions (cause and effects) would take under motion or gravitational fields. Why time is entropic in nature. Many people confuse time dilation with being able to travel back in time, thinking if it slows down it could then even reverse. Any abstraction using relativity to demonstrate backward travel in time, describes time as being similar to a spatial dimension, which is inappropriate. So FTL simply realizes zero time, as does the speed of light.


Bruno

[FutileJester]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
I think you fail to see what observations can be used. For instance, Carl Sagan speculated that life on other worlds could exist. He based his hypothesis on life here on earth. If we apply the Drake equation, another hypothesis, to the possibility of intelligent life, we can conservatively get 2400 civilizations with a sophisticated technology. The Drake equation's flaw is time; it doesn't factor when civilizations can exist. So we're looking at a time period of some 300 million years! It also doesn't factor how many times a species or how many different species on a single world can attempt developing sophisticated technology.

This is still speculation, not evidence. And besides, I don't think anyone here is questioning that ET life is possible, even probable. They are questioning 'hypotheses' about specific modes of ET space travel based on, apparently, nothing.

Quote:

So now that I have given you the observations by which the hypothesis is based on, you can understand the next step. The next step is developing a conceivable method by which an ET can use to actually get here. Once a method is developed, a means of explaining how an ET could find us needs to be developed. The site offers both an explanation of how to reach and find earth or the slew of earth like planets in our galaxy.

I don't see how unfounded speculation is ever the 'next step'. We cannot possibly sit here on earth and just think about ET's and come up with what they 'must' be like. We need to observe them. As a sci fi fan, I'm all for wild speculation, but let's keep it where it belongs. A good story does not make good science.

Have you ever read any Sagan? You should be aware that he thought SETI was the 'next step'. Why? To collect hard data for a testable hypothesis.

Quote:

So the hypothesis is based on evidence, but it is indirect evidence and is based on the probability of such events as the creation and evolution of life happening else where in the universe. So the statement on the site is scientifically accurate:

"It is inevitable that an ET would visit earth. It is inevitable if in our galaxy there is an intelligence that can produce a sophisticated enough technology and has a desire to explore the cosmos. If this contingency is met, then earth has been visited, is being visited or will be visited."

No, it is not scientifically accurate. I doubt one could ever say that something which has never been observed before is inevitable. Even if we assume ET life is inevitable, it is possible that time and distance constraints ultimately deny an actual encounter. Making this kind of absolute statement about the unknown future is an act of faith, not science.

Quote:

Note it doesn't say it has to be here, only that the potential of an ET reaching us is inevitable some time in earth’s existence.

Hmmm... To take a random example from the site you linked:

Quote:

So how can ET get here and solve all the technical, economic and sociological problems? ET is the master of nano-technology, ET’s spacecraft do not carry living occupants, ET’s spacecraft are no larger than a pea! ET has made billions of these ships to explore billions of stars. Each star is sent several small ships so as to insure a successful mission in case one ship should fail for whatever reason. The nano-ships do not contain any miniature rocket engines or fuel. The small ships can be accelerated with far less energy than what would be required for any Star Trek ship. A solar sail propels the pea size ship. The sail is super thin much like an insect’s wings only thinner! The ship tacks around ET’s sun to accelerate to 30 percent the speed of light. It journeys to its star where it tacks to decelerate. It uses infrared and optical sensors to detect planets with the greatest probability of sustaining life. The ship detaches from its sail once it determines it will land.

This sounds a lot more specific than 'it should happen eventually'. What in the world are these ideas based on?

And that's the crux of the matter. You're making some huge leaps to make a belief sound like science. Sagan speculated on ET life, so they must use nanotech and solar sails. Drake wrote an equation full of unknown coefficients, so there are 2400 technological civilizations.

Speculation is fine. Speculation dressed up to sound like science is not. You say this is a hypothesis? A scientific hypothesis must be, in principle, falsifiable. What experiment could you design to attempt to falisfy this hypothesis? If no conceivable experiment could, then it's not science.

[Martin]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
I think you're confusing the modulation of the channel with actually using the causality effects to send information. In effect you can use quantum-computing techniques to perform qu bit operations on an entangled particle. This measure of the particle would then effect the partnered particle. So information can be sent FTL

That's news to me. Last I heard to make any sense of any message sent by entanglement, th receiver requried the results of a measurement made by the sender. These results, of course, would have to be sent by other means, and so there is no FTL messaging here. Am I out of date?

Quote:

AS far as FTL going back in time, you have a very poor understanding of time

No, he's entirely correct.

Quote:

Many people confuse time dilation with being able to travel back in time, thinking if it slows down it could then even reverse. Any abstraction using relativity to demonstrate backward travel in time, describes time as being similar to a spatial dimension, which is inappropriate. So FTL simply realizes zero time, as does the speed of light

Completely false. Light can be used to divide spacetime into three regions. Suppose we fire out a single burst of photons in all directions. They will describe a sphere expanding in time. Viewed in the geometry of spacetime, they will describe a cone. This is the future lightcone. We can define the past lightcone in the obvious way.



Now - the separation between us and:

any point within our lightcone is timelike,

any point outwith our lightcone is spacelike

any point on the lightcone is null.

Timelike intervals preserve causality - if two events are separated by a timelike interval, there is no frame of reference in which the events are simultaneous or reversed in time. Spacelike intervals, on the other hand, do not share this property. In fact, for any two events separated by a spacelike interval one can always choose to transform to a different frame of reference in which the order is reversed. By definition, any two points connected by a FTL signal must be separated by a spacelike interval. Thus one can always choose a frame of reference in which the signal is seen to propogate backwards in time.

Quote:

Originally posted by FutileJester

This sounds a lot more specific than 'it should happen eventually'. What in the world are these ideas based on?

And that's the crux of the matter. You're making some huge leaps to make a belief sound like science. Sagan speculated on ET life, so they must use nanotech and solar sails. Drake wrote an equation full of unknown coefficients, so there are 2400 technological civilizations.

Speculation is fine. Speculation dressed up to sound like science is not. You say this is a hypothesis? A scientific hypothesis must be, in principle, falsifiable. What experiment could you design to attempt to falisfy this hypothesis? If no conceivable experiment could, then it's not science.

The idea that you’re quoting is based on a very simple principle of mass to energy ratio. A large star ship, as in Star Trek, takes a lot more energy than a much smaller ship. We see such examples in nature; insects can walk on ceilings as easily as walking on the ground, why? Gravity is not much of a burden due to its small size. And so with a small Star Ship, solar sails can propel such small ships to a higher percentage of the speed of light than could nuclear powered Star Trek ships! Can we falsify this idea? It already has been, count less times, with Newton’s second law of motion, F= MA.


Bruno

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinm
That's news to me. Last I heard to make any sense of any message sent by entanglement, th receiver requried the results of a measurement made by the sender. These results, of course, would have to be sent by other means, and so there is no FTL messaging here. Am I out of date?

You are incorrect in your understanding of entanglement. The entangled particles affect each other upon measurement of one of the particles.

Quote:

Completely false. Light can be used to divide spacetime into three regions. Suppose we fire out a single burst of photons in all directions. They will describe a sphere expanding in time. Viewed in the geometry of spacetime, they will describe a cone. This is the future lightcone. We can define the past lightcone in the obvious way.

You are, as all the others, inappropriately describing time as a spatial like dimension. Time is cause and effect. Time dilation works by a very specific process. Motion and gravity lengthen the distance between any two points as compared to either a frame moving slower or in less gravity. So any reaction will take longer in comparison to other frames that are in different environments. Time described as a cone is not accurate, time is, once again, cause and effect, not a future time line, or a past time line. There is no preservation of any reaction in terms of causes. The only memories of the reaction are the effects.


Bruno

[Martin]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
You are incorrect in your understanding of entanglement. The entangled particles affect each other upon measurement of one of the particles

I'm well aware of that. That is why I said 'to make any sense of any message sent by entanglement'.

Quote:

You are, as all the others

By 'all the others', I assume you mean physicists? This is pretty elementary stuff.

Quote:

Time is cause and effect

And, as I explained, the ordering of two events connected by a FTL signal is dependent on frame of reference.

Quote:

Irrelevancies snipped

Have you actually performed an experiment which disproves relativity? Or are you just making this up as you go?

[RichardR]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
You are incorrect in your understanding of entanglement. The entangled particles affect each other upon measurement of one of the particles.

That is according to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Of course, it may well not behave like that.

And even if it does, (as Martin pointed out), you cannot signal anything at faster than light speed. For any meaningful information to be passed, the receiver must have the results of a measurement made by the sender.

[FutileJester]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
The idea that you’re quoting is based on a very simple principle of mass to energy ratio. A large star ship, as in Star Trek, takes a lot more energy than a much smaller ship. We see such examples in nature; insects can walk on ceilings as easily as walking on the ground, why? Gravity is not much of a burden due to its small size. And so with a small Star Ship, solar sails can propel such small ships to a higher percentage of the speed of light than could nuclear powered Star Trek ships!

And I'll say it again: this is speculation. Interstellar travel may happen as described. Some reasons are presented as to why it is plausible that interstellar travel may happen as described. But to say that this is how interstellar travel must happen is ludicrous. We don't even have a grand unified theory of physics yet; how can we possibly say with absolute certainty what an advanced alien technology will resemble? That's just arrogance. We don't know.

Quote:

Can we falsify this idea? It already has been, count less times, with Newton’s second law of motion, F= MA.

Uh, right. Want to explain the incredible leap by which classical mechanics proves the inevitability of solar-sail nanoships?

And you obviously don't understand falsification. If the hypothesis is 'interstellar travel must happen by these means', then a falsification would be to observe interstellar travel by some other means. Until we get a detailed view of actual interstellar travel, or achieve it ourselves, the hypothesis cannot be falsified. We have to be content with ambiguity in the face of knowledge we simply don't have yet.

Quote:

Originally posted by FutileJester

And I'll say it again: this is speculation. Interstellar travel may happen as described. Some reasons are presented as to why it is plausible that interstellar travel may happen as described. But to say that this is how interstellar travel must happen is ludicrous.

One thing I will say is that of all the proposed approaches to interstellar travel, this one is the most cost-effective. The author of the webpage in question has misunderstood EPR and he is perhaps excessively optimistic about the potential of nanotechnology, but there's nothing outright absurd in his model of interstellar travel. If you don't mind the fact that the meat never leaves home, it's great. He's definitely the brightest ufologist I've ever heard of (although that's somewhat faint praise...)

However, without FTL communication over EPR channels, there's no possibility of telepresence. The probes have to be fully automatic. I'd want them to be able to enter a star system, replicate themselves a few times, refuel and move on entirely without consulting base. And I wouldn't want the replication to be entirely perfect - I'd quite like these things to evolve. It would be interesting to see, once they've covered the whole galaxy, what variants have arisen along the way.

Philosophically, is this any different from more traditional giant crewed starships? The important thing is that our descendants spread out and cover the galaxy; but need they be our biological, DNA descendants? Why not our electronic successors?

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardR
And even if it does, (as Martin pointed out), you cannot signal anything at faster than light speed. For any meaningful information to be passed, the receiver must have the results of a measurement made by the sender.

Not necessarily, the spin states of electrons can cause its magnetic field to increase or decrease, such a change can be detected and the sender would not have to send the result to the receiver, because the particles are always in opposite states of one another.

Bruno

[Walter Wayne]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar


Not necessarily, the spin states of electrons can cause its magnetic field to increase or decrease, such a change can be detected and the sender would not have to send the result to the receiver.

Bruno

The magnetic field travels at the speed of light. It is transmitted via photons.

Walt

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinm
By 'all the others', I assume you mean physicists? This is pretty elementary stuff.

Physicists trying to sell books! It's time to grow up Martinm...there is no such thing as backward time travel; relativity does not predict it. I've explained how time dilation works. I can't any simpler than that. You can draw all the diagrams you want; you just call the spatial configuration space-time and then think that time is some how integrated with space...No! Time is cause and effect, not space, not space-time, space is not a cause or an effect; no reactions no time. It's that simple.

Bruno

Quote:

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
The magnetic field travels at the speed of light. It is transmitted via photons.Walt

Did you not get it? At the recieving end! The particle is affected FTL. So as soon as the spin state is detected at the reciever, based on the changing magentic field, we know what the senders state was.

Bruno

[Jethro]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
there is no such thing as backward time travel; relativity does not predict it.

You are right, there is no such thing as backwards time travel, but there is also no such thing as travel or communication at faster than the speed of light. If one of these things existed, then relativity states that the other also exists.

[Walter Wayne]

Bruno, are you familiar with the no cloning theorum. Or why Martinm and RichardR state that you require information from the sender.

Try google. You'll find a mess of scientific papers mixed in with remote viewing and the like. If you read the scientific pages, you will understand that the measurement of the sender is done to determine "if" information was passed.

Walt

Quote:

Originally posted by Jethro
You are right, there is no such thing as backwards time travel, but there is also no such thing as travel or communication at faster than the speed of light. If one of these things existed, then relativity states that the other also exists.

How entanglement work's is not known, but using a propagating electromagnetic wave runs into coherence problems. The fact that you can know what both particle states are by just measuring one is information. That relationship between two particles can be used to communicate. The ability to use EPR as a communications system requires that one can store a particle indefinitely, and measure the particle without destroying it or loosing it.


And no relativity does not state that FTL realizes in backward time travel, that is your misunderstanding. Once more, time dilation is due to the increased distance between any two points due to "curved space" or motion. In FTL the distance between two points would only get larger than it already could be at the speed of light. So time just drops to zero, FTL doesn't make time go backward. It's simple trigonometry, I don’t see why so many people have such a hard time understanding time dilation!


Bruno

Quote:

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Bruno, are you familiar with the no cloning theorum. Or why Martinm and RichardR state that you require information from the sender.
Walt

Using a technique that uses qu bit operations on the sender's particle, would not require the sender to send any information to the receiver classically. The sending particle can change states based on qu bit operations performed on it. The receiver would sense any change imparted to the sending particle; since each particle is always in the opposite state of the other.

Bruno

[fishbob]

Quote:

The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions.

Absolutely false. And therefore, the arguments that follow from this statement are also absolutely false. ( Sorry, I was a little late getting here.)

Quote:

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Bruno, are you familiar with the no cloning theorum.
Walt

The no cloning issue is not what’s happening in EPR! The quantum states are not cloned; this is the paradox of EPR. Entangling particles is not cloning quantum states. The two particles affect each other, and affect each other in a manner that always realizes in the exact opposite state of the other. Prior to measurement neither particle has a defined state. Only when the particles are measured is the state defined. So entangle communications is not cloning quantum states.

Bruno

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbob
Absolutely false. And therefore, the arguments that follow from this statement are also absolutely false. ( Sorry, I was a little late getting here.)

Not so, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem would say other wise.

Bruno

[DrChinese]

First, the ET site referenced is ridiculous. Just a bunch of speculation, doctored photos and jumbled ideas. (What does quantum entanglement have to do with Drake's Equation? The site actually claims faster than light communication has been demonstrated by scientists.)

Second, that actually makes it a good proving ground for this thread. Our "motivated assumption" being how to tell something which is ridiculous from something which is not.

Third, all theories are NOT created equal. And this is the key point. The theory about UFOs is completely ad hoc. Most of all, it has no utility. Utility is an important component of a theory. And it is a way to compare theories. (For example, if the theory had utility, it would become the basis for new types of aircraft.)

The underpinning of the UFO article is that there is a new and previously unknown science at work. I have no problem with that IF and WHEN it is ever discovered and demonstrated to the public. Such is not the case here. We may as well be discussing (since it is St. Patrick's Day) leprechauns.

A theory is not based on faith. There is a difference. Theory is know to be consistent with certain patterns, which are described by the theory. Faith is something which is believed regardless of the evidence pro or con.

Theory may be disproved by counterexample. Faith is not. For a theory to withstand the rigorous tests of scientific method - that is an accomplishment.

[RichardR]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
Not necessarily, the spin states of electrons can cause its magnetic field to increase or decrease, such a change can be detected and the sender would not have to send the result to the receiver, because the particles are always in opposite states of one another.

So what message could be sent? Can you give us an example?

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardR
So what message could be sent? Can you give us an example?

A one or zero.

Bruno

Quote:

Originally posted by DrChinese
What does quantum entanglement have to do with Drake's Equation?

The site does not correlate the two. How you managed to come to that conclusion is suspicious.

Quote:

A theory is not based on faith. There is a difference. Theory is know to be consistent with certain patterns, which are described by the theory. Faith is something which is believed regardless of the evidence pro or con.

Like the theory of backward time travel, cone diagrams depicting the future and the past! LOL

Quote:

Theory may be disproved by counterexample. Faith is not. For a theory to withstand the rigorous tests of scientific method - that is an accomplishment.

Well Gödel's incompleteness theorem leaves us with a unsettling conclusion. It is all ultimately based on faith.



Bruno

[FutileJester]

Quote:

Originally posted by BrunosStar
[DrChinese]
A theory is not based on faith. There is a difference. Theory is know to be consistent with certain patterns, which are described by the theory. Faith is something which is believed regardless of the evidence pro or con.

Like the theory of backward time travel, cone diagrams depicting the future and the past! LOL

Why are these statements of faith? Because you find them inconvenient? I say the linked web site is a statement of faith because there are no data, no clear hypotheses, no testable predictions. The things you laugh at have all of these in plenty. They are concrete ideas that have survived the rigors of replication and peer review because they continue to make predictions more accurately than the alternatives. For me to discard the work of decades of science, I'll need something a bit more persuasive than you walking in and lauging knowingly.

Do you honestly think that there is no difference at all between a theory which has been carefully tested and challenged and reviewed and replicated, and a 'theory' based on someone thinking about things?

Quote:

Well Gödel's incompleteness theorem leaves us with a unsettling conclusion. It is all ultimately based on faith.

It does not leave us with that conclusion at all. It does tell us that provability is a weaker concept than truth. Tell me, if Godel reached the conclusion that 'it's all based on faith', why did he continue to do mathematics? Why didn't math end right there as undecidable nonsense? If Godel did not, in fact, reach this conclusion from his theorem (which in fact he did not), then I have to ask why you are willing to use Godel's theorem to support your conclusion, but are not willing to accept Godel's own conclusion?

You've done this with Sagan too. Any argument from authority is weak, but to use an authority to support a position that the authority themself would not support is particularly weak.

Quote:

Originally posted by FutileJester
Why are these statements of faith? Because you find them inconvenient? I say the linked web site is a statement of faith because there are no data, no clear hypotheses, no testable predictions. The things you laugh at have all of these in plenty. They are concrete ideas that have survived the rigors of replication and peer review because they continue to make predictions more accurately than the alternatives. For me to discard the work of decades of science, I'll need something a bit more persuasive than you walking in and lauging knowingly.

Do you honestly think that there is no difference at all between a theory which has been carefully tested and challenged and reviewed and replicated, and a 'theory' based on someone thinking about things?

How many times do I have to go through the mechanics of time dilation? Get a grip man; you're doing what the religious do, acting on faith! Relativity does not predict backward time travel, Einstein never said it was possible. You meld the good science that has proven relativity as Einstein defined it, with the misinterpretations of unemployed physicists, that have turned Einstein's theory into a whore for the gullible and movie producers. And for the one thousandth time...time is cause and effect, not space, not space time! It is not a line or a path, it is not what allows events to happen, but is the actual event itself, cause and effect…. Why it’s entropic, get it?


Bruno

[Stimpson J. Cat]

BrunoStar,

Quote:

Theory may be disproved by counterexample. Faith is not. For a theory to withstand the rigorous tests of scientific method - that is an accomplishment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Gödel's incompleteness theorem leaves us with a unsettling conclusion. It is all ultimately based on faith.

I think you are misinterpreting the connotations that Goedel's incompleteness theorem has on the scientific method.

First of all, the incompleteness theorem has nothing to do with the fact that all logical systems must be based on assumptions which are not provable within the system. That is a fundamental rule of logic. My previous post (which you did not respond to) addresses why this does not constitute "taking it on faith". I'll repeat the important point here.

Quote:

Even the fundamental principles of science are based on solid supporting evidence. Sure, they cannot be logically proven to be valid. No statement about reality can be logically proven to be true. All that means is that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge.

The axioms of science cannot be logically proven. Nothing about reality can be logically proven. But like any scientific theory, those axioms are not taken on faith. They are accepted only because they have substantial reliable supporting evidence.

That said, what Goedel's incompleteness theorem tells us is that it is possible to construct statements within a formal logical framework, whose truth value cannot be derived from the axioms of that framework. An example is the question of whether there are infinite cardinalities between aleph-null (the cardinality of the set of natural numbers), and c (the cardinality of the set of real numbers). The answer to this question cannot be derived from the axioms of arithmetic.

What this means for science is that no matter how much we know, there will always be we can ask whose answers cannot be logically derived from what we already know. I fail to see how this has anything to do with faith. In fact, to take an answer to any of those questions on faith, would be very unscientific. There are many questions which can be asked about the physical World, whose answers cannot be logically derived from what we already know. That is one of the reasons why we do scientific research. It would, of course, be nonsensical to simply pick a possible answer, and then accept it on faith, rather than attempting to empirically verify it.

Dr. Stupid

Quote:

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
It would, of course, be nonsensical to simply pick a possible answer, and then accept it on faith, rather than attempting to empirically verify it.
Dr. Stupid

I think we're dealing with whether or not you're willing to believe with what's being claimed on the site. If the site claimed something ordinary like being barked at by dog, there wouldn't be any problem. So if something really usual were to happen to some one, despite that they can describe it to you, right down to the science that was used, you'd find it hard to believe. But despite your faith that it didn't happen, because that's all you have to rely on, since you have no more evidence of what happened to the individual than the individual has, we can not prove one way or another as to what actually happened.


Bruno

[Stimpson J. Cat]

BrunoStar,

Quote:

I think we're dealing with whether or not you're willing to believe with what's being claimed on the site.

I don't believe any claim without reliable evidence. That doesn't mean that without reliable evidence, I automatically believe the claim is false.

Quote:

If the site claimed something ordinary like being barked at by dog, there wouldn't be any problem.

How do you mean? If you tell me you barked at by a dog yesterday, I am not going to claim that you are lying, but neither am I going to automatically reject the possibility that you are. As always, I will make a probabilistic assessment based on the available evidence.

Quote:

So if something really usual were to happen to some one, despite that they can describe it to you, right down to the science that was used, you'd find it hard to believe.

I would assign a low probability to it.

Quote:

But despite your faith that it didn't happen, because that's all you have to rely on, since you have no more evidence of what happened to the individual than the individual has, we can not prove one way or another as to what actually happened.

I have no faith that it did not happen. That would be irrational. If the evidence indicates that it is very likely that it happened, then I will believe it happened. If the evidence indicates that it is very unlikely that it happened, then I will believe that it did not. If the evidence is not overwhelmingly pointing towards one or the other, then I simply say that I do not know.

Faith never enters into it. Faith is irrational.

Dr. Stupid