Your posts are often too long for me to wade through, but the sentence those phrases came from was totally worth my time.I know. I'm trying to work on that. I think it's a touch of OCD. I'm afraid if I don't completely explain something at least three times the nuance will be lost.
If by explanation you mean a purely physical, mechanistic explanation then you have to explain why you are insisting on that limitation, if Y can only be explained in terms of X yet I will only accept an explanation in terms of Z then clearly there’s going to some difficulties.I get the impression you think science is about what your logical mind can construct.
Your utterances are a fail because you refuse to recognize the ultimate reality of physical matter as an independent thing outside of your “Logic” or the wheels turning inside our heads, producing the fog of consciousness, that is our supernatural mind. You can’t fit complex natural systems into if Y then X then only Z. We do it that way because it’s the best we have.
That stuff is tools, mathematical tools that help scientists understand aspects of material reality. But you are using it as an absolute as if it actually was reality - then to top it off you expect absolute proof, or you feel justified dismissing the entire scientific endeavor, if it can’t produce absolute proof of our creation. You then create those Just-So stories in your head and think that is reality. Thus you really seem to believe a simplistic logical chain is all you need to justify dismissing the efforts of tens of thousands of keen focused minds, over many generations.
For more on the Map v Territory dilemma,e) Map v Territory Problem, Statistical Certainty vs Geophysical Realities
Then you come up with this "supernatural" that of course can't be defined or understood by science, because it's hiding outside the domain of our technically enhanced senses. It's outside of our dimension, but we're supposed to pay attention to it. Is that what you are saying Holmes?
You know, every time I try to give your ideas the benefit of the doubt and follow your trains of logical, they end up in a chaotic mess.
What's this supernatural you believe in?
If you don't like that label, how would you describe it?
How were you convinced to recognize it*?
*What "it" you ask?
I don't know - just trying to make sense of whatever point you are trying to make with this ID and supernatural bandwagon you are on.
What wrong with recognizing Intelligent Design within the domain of philosophy and religion and leaving science to the material world that we can measure?
Please show a little good-faith here, try to explain these things.
thank youCC-v.3 said,What metaphysical truths?
There are indeed some metaphysical truths, but of course they have nothing to do with religion. One of them is the “exponential function”. This excellent lecture by Prof Emeritus Albert Bartlett where he explains one of the least understood mathematical functions and the consequences of remaining ignorant of its inevitable result when applied to anything which experiences a steady growth.
Bartlett regarded the word combination "sustainable growth" as an oxymoron, since even modest annual percentage population increases will inevitably equate to huge exponential growth over sustained periods of time. He therefore regarded human overpopulation as "The Greatest Challenge" facing humanity.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett
This mathematical truth also applies to consumption of fossil fuels, which predicts that the world will run out of oil in about 45 years. Thus anyone under 30 years today will experience a world without oil during their lifetime.
57,868,603 Oil pumped today (barrels) 1,522,561,651,408 Oil left (barrels) 15,878 Days to the end of oil (~44 years)https://www.worldometers.info/
It behoves anyone with even a slight interest in one of the least understood but most important mathematical functions in the universe.
Now that we have an idea of the consequences of steady modest growth, consider the following pojection.
EIA projects nearly 50% increase in world energy usage by 2050, led by growth in Asia.https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433
Do these people even know what they are projecting?
Anyone still opposed to developing renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, or hydro power?
CC-Mathematics deals with PROOFS while Science deals in Probabilities.Nope, both are based on axioms and both prove things on the provision that those axioms are true.
Science is intrinsically provisional, so the word “scientific” in the term “scientific proof” is a qualifier, which means that a proposition has been proved on the provision that the underlying scientific assertions are true.
Mathematics is an expanded form of logic, and is founded on some basic axioms that are not themselves proved, only asserted to be true and agreed upon by convention to be true for the purpose of building a system of logic upon them. A mathematical proof is no more of an absolute proof than a scientific proof, because like science, mathematics rests upon and is derived from axioms, which are not themselves proved.
If the foundation is unproved then the conclusions are unproved outside of that closed system of reasoning, that is, not absolutely proved.
Science does scientific proofs, which obligates a rational person to reject the underlying science if one wishes to reject the scientific proof. For example, it has been scientifically proved that the Earth is approximately spherical, and most closely approximates a spheroid, as opposed to a cube or a disc, or a 2 dimensional plane. Some folks still deny this, but such people are then obligated to reject the truth of the science that led to this scientifically proven fact, which they are free to do, but at that point I no longer share a common language of meaningful communication with such people. Theists are like that, but typically in more subtle ways compared to flat Earth kooks.
Write, don’t let me get in the way of whatever response you have for Stardusty.
But I take issue with something different. I don’t think the world will have no oil left in 45 years. Not because I don’t think math works perfectly, but because I think the guy was using some wrong assumptions. I think that the rate of use of oil will stop increasing soon. And I think it will begin decreasing. So if that wasn’t figured in to the math, the conclusion of no oil in 45 yrs would be wrong. Even if our oil resources were closing in on depletion, the cost would go up. The rate of consumption would decline, considering alternative resources would be cheaper. When there, eventually is a complete use of the practically available oil, then there will still be oil that is harder and harder to get to. But that will be so expensive as to find alternatives the best way to go. I think oil will be obsolete before it is all used up.
TimB said, When there, eventually is a complete use of the practically available oil, then there will still be oil that is harder and harder to get to. But that will be so expensive as to find alternatives the best way to go. I think oil will be obsolete before it is all used up.Not if big oil companies have their way. Remember the idiotic proposition of "strength through exhaustion", AKA as "drill baby drill". I agree that we can never use all the oil to the last drop. But that is not necessary given our current rate of consumption. Time will come when supply is insufficient to meet demand, or it would take more oil to extract oil than is practical and cost effective.
In view of the exponential increase in population (1% steady growth) it is inevitable that oil will become unavailable for general use.
<iframe src=“https://data.worldbank.org/share/widget?end=2018&indicators=SP.POP.GROW&start=1960” width=‘450’ height=‘300’ frameBorder=‘0’ scrolling=“no” ></iframe>
Even when zero population growth, the use of oil will not diminish . You heard Bartlett’s comment on the new discoveries of massive oil reserves. At current rate of consumption the new supplies would last but a few weeks or months at most, before production can no longer meet demand. And clearly there is a limit to fracking, using current methods.
Even if we can become so efficient that we can make oil last 70 years instead of 45, that is but one lifetime.
I do agree that hopefully we can master other sources of energy, preferably solar, as we replace oil. The sun is a truly inexhaustible source of energy.
Wind and hydro power may provide excellent stop gaps, but with climate change wind and hydro power will also be affected or become unpredictable.
I am afraid that I have a very bleak outlook of the future and that natural law will inevitably be causal to massive culling of the world’s population.
This is the right hand side of Bartlett’s list of bad things that will relieve the pressures caused by over-population and over-use of resources.
Stardusty Psyche said,Mathematics is an expanded form of logic, and is founded on some basic axioms that are not themselves proved, only asserted to be true and agreed upon by convention to be true for the purpose of building a system of logic upon them. A mathematical proof is no more of an absolute proof than a scientific proof, because like science, mathematics rests upon and is derived from axioms, which are not themselves proved.
IMO, that is an error in the assumption that mathematics are a purely human invention instead of human symbolic representations of existing universal values, functions, and self-ordering mathematical patterns.
IMO, Max Tegmark is correct in positing that the universe does not have “some” mathematical properties, but that it has “only” mathematical properties and that this can be observed and proved by human symbolic representations of universal values and functions.
This perspective is echoed by cosmologists who readily admit that pre-existing universal mathematical patterns are not human inventions but are “discovered” .
A perfect example is the Fibonacci sequence (golden ratio), a self-evident mathematical pattern which is observable throughout the universe and on earth.
Of course the natural expressions of these mathematical potentials can never be perfectly physically expressed in a dynamic environment and are subject to the influence of environmental pressures.
Nevertheless, formative mathematical imperatives are self-evident and testable throughout the universe.
Thus if there is a comprehensive general axiom, it is that “the universe is mathematical in essence”.
The Table of Elements is a fundamental (provable) expression of mathematical self-organization in nature.
Write4U-The Table of Elements is a fundamental (provable) expression of mathematical self-organization in nature.So then science does prove things, there are scientific proofs, on the provisions that human senses are basically reliable and the axioms of logic are true.
The article that said scientific proofs are a lie is itself an uninformed misunderstanding of epistemology, what a proof is, and what science is.
Stardusty Psyche said,So then science does prove things, there are scientific proofs, on the provisions that human senses are basically reliable and the axioms of logic are true.
I agree that human senses are not necessarily reliable. Optical illusions are but one example of erroneous “best guesses” by the brain.
However, where we are not able to use our senses for reliable observation, the repeated testing by means of mechanical instruments will assure that we do gather unadulterated information, which is reliable by all required standards of scientific observation.
One such example was the proof of Einstein’s hypothesis that gravity affects light and thereby correcting Newtonian gravity.
According to Newtonian gravity, light is not affected by gravity, as light is massless. Einstein's law E = mc 2 , immediately suggests that light is affected by gravity. This is indeed the case and has experimentally been observed via gravitational lensing and other effects.https://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae661.cfm
I admit that the outlook for bringing oil consumption to a virtual halt, is bleak, indeed, today. But I also think that all is not yet lost. Driving home the real cost of continued oil consumption, could result in a natural turning away from the fossil fuels. The real cost of renewable energies is less than the current cost of depending on fossil fuels. I believe that the real cost can change the equation. It’s capitalism without the corruption.
Stardusty Psyche said,The article that said scientific proofs are a lie is itself an uninformed misunderstanding of epistemology, what a proof is, and what science is.
On further research, I ran across this which I believe is just misleading and maybe the cause for confusion about the terms "proof’ and “theorem” based on “evidence”.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.Notwithstanding the strict definition of the binary nature of "proof", in reality any proof is subject to correction just as any statement of "evidence", which also has a binary aspect to it. A proven theorem is subject to correction and modification as any descriptive theorem of evidence.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.
IMO, proofs themselves are provisional and are subject to the laws of relativity. We can prove that a theorem is true under some conditions and false under different conditions. Both proofs and theorems are mathematical “functional equations”. Newtons gravity is false, but is proven true for most puposes. So…?
Perhaps I am too forgiving about terminology, but terminology itself is but a symbolic representation of mathematical values and functions.
IMO, only a handfull of universal constants are proven to be true. That why Tegmark posits that the entire universe can be described with 32 relative mathematical values and a handful of constant mathematical functions. That simplifies matters considerably and can account for most of the relative “qualifiers”.
At Planck scale, or at certain temperatures all theorems and proofs break down anyway. I’d welcome any corrections.
TimB said,It’s capitalism without the corruption.
And sound long term planning as China is doing by buying all oil futures so that when the crunch comes, they have a larger window.
p.s. Have you seen the efforts China is putting into alternative energy sources? It is truly an example of long term planning.
How China is leading the renewable energy revolution
At the start of 2017, China announced that it would invest $360 billion in renewable energy by 2020 and scrap plans to build 85 coal-fired power plants. In March, Chinese authorities reported that the country was already exceeding official targets for energy efficiency, carbon intensity, and the share of clean energy sources. And just last month, China’s energy regulator, the National Energy Administration, rolled out new measures to reduce the country’s dependence on coal.These are just the latest indicators that China is at the center of a global energy transformation, which is being driven by technological change and the falling cost of renewables. But China is not just investing in renewables and phasing out coal. It also accounts for a growing share of global energy demand, meaning that its economy’s continuing shift toward service- and consumption-led growth will reshape the resource sector worldwide.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/how-china-is-leading-the-renewable-energy-revolution
I’d welcome any corrections.No correction here, though I believe Isaac Asimov did a masterful essay on this question.
The Relativity of Wrong By Isaac AsimovThe Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44
I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)
It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.
I didn’t go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What’s more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.
These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.
The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern “knowledge” is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. “If I am the wisest man,” said Socrates, “it is because I alone know that I know nothing.” the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.
My answer to him was, “John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”
The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that “right” and “wrong” are absolute; that everything that isn’t perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong. …
that’s about a 1/5 of the essay, check it out: https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
W4U - long term planning.
We had long term planning happening in this country too. Then the Republicans took over
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/11/jimmy-carters-solar-panels/https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-white-house-solar-panels-3322255
Ain’t that America, little pink houses for you and me, and a boob tube in every room.
The T rump admin has rolled back 85 Climate Protection measures, already.
Abandon Hope all ye who enter in to a 2nd T rump term.