Science and Randomness

[Mark 13:13]

I am not apprehensive about science oddly enough its my favourite subject and even more odd I love the physics even though I can't understand half the stuff as my knowledge of physics and maths wont do.

I'm going to stop you right there. I don't listen to a sermon I don't understand and think "wow this preacher really knows his stuff", nor do I do it - or should I do it - with science. There's no point in expressing a For or Against POV for something which you fail to understand. I'm not saying I fully understand physics - of course I don't - but what interests me, and what I find interesting and fascinating is the things I research and understand, not the things that nobody understands or the things that "I don't understand". I hope that makes my point clear.

But present day physics is going so deep into things and the more they find the more wonder I find in the Universe; i can now have a sense of wonder in what I can't see from earth. But in my mind science and religion are not mutually exclusive at least not for me and I would make an educated guess not for a large amount of Christians.

Most Xians - in fact most people and even most scientists aren't interested in physics to begin with, so it makes no difference to them. In the same way that I, personally, am really not all that interested in biology.

But if Athiests claim that they arrive at or hold their position based on logic and science it would be kind of dumb for me not to explore that to see what it is they find compelling there and see if I can at least challenge that in time but even if I can't at least I will have a better understanding than I did before about their position. As well as that Just because they have some good cards in this end of the debate doesn't mean we don't either and if i don't look how can I find.

Some of the top scientists are Christians - one of the world's top astrophysicists is a regular attending member of my church as I pointed out in a previous thread. Atheists and scientists in general don't appreciate theists who reject theories of science, like say evolution, on the basis that it conflicts with their religion (their world-view).

WHY are you criticising me for explaining me to you like the comments about myself are some how criticising you. Why are you telling me obvious stuff that if you read my threads you would know I already know.

You are really confusing me, wierding me out trying to make sense of it.

[Aractus]

Not strictly speaking accurate amigo. Newtonian physics dropped our probes on Mars. In fact, an accepted "theory" is a body of work so well attested that future discoveries would seem to be more likely to modify, rather than replace them (or make them obsolete).

Not just mars, all our probes are sent using it - to the moon, in to orbit, etc, we only really use general relativity for GPS. But that's not the same as saying you believe the world works the way that Newton's world-view was, it's simply saying his calculations are relevant and usable despite the theory long being obsolete.

[Mark 13:13]

Science - ie Physics - is about theory and not about truth. To say we understand the points we have theories on is a stretch, because scientists are constantly working on new theories that will totally obsolete the old ones.

Not strictly speaking accurate amigo. Newtonian physics dropped our probes on Mars. In fact, an accepted "theory" is a body of work so well attested that future discoveries would seem to be more likely to modify, rather than replace them (or make them obsolete).

Now, Mark...

But in my mind science and religion are not mutually exclusive at least not for me and I would make an educated guess not for a large amount of Christians.

Can you remember a time in which the contents of your mind did not actually match the contents of the world outside of your mind? That you and many others might believe that your faith doesn't continually beat its head against a wall doesn't actually mean that it doesn't.

As well as that Just because they have some good cards in this end of the debate doesn't mean we don't either and if i don't look how can I find.

It's not an issue of who holds better cards, but rather who is holding any cards. If you (or, to be blunt, magical thinking as a whole) held any cards whatsoever, they would have long since been on the table.

Smuggling in magic mmh where could I put it as it doesn't exist in my philosophy any more than yours.

A bold faced lie, though admittedly, you may have sold yourself on this whopper long before you ever tried it out on me. It's only your reasonable distaste for the subject of magic that leads you to attempt to distance yourself from it. Your magic, as we so often hear, is not magic.

If you want magic wait till we get into the mathematical magic of Infinity, I believe even science may be trying to get into magic also by producing something out of nothing didn't Hawkins say something like that. Or is there a risk of double standards with some athiests about who they will accept magial claims from unquestioned and without proof and who they wont?

Play with this .. explain to me what 2 is.

[Aractus]

WHY are you criticising me for explaining me to you like the comments about myself are some how criticising you. Why are you telling me obvious stuff that if you read my threads you would know I already know.

You are really confusing me, wierding me out trying to make sense of it.

Why don't you re-read this part of your reply:

• I am not apprehensive about science oddly enough its my favourite subject and even more odd I love the physics even though I can't understand half the stuff as my knowledge of physics and maths wont do.

[Mark 13:13]

WHY are you criticising me for explaining me to you like the comments about myself are some how criticising you. Why are you telling me obvious stuff that if you read my threads you would know I already know.

You are really confusing me, wierding me out trying to make sense of it.

Why don't you re-read this part of your reply:

• I am not apprehensive about science oddly enough its my favourite subject and even more odd I love the physics even though I can't understand half the stuff as my knowledge of physics and maths wont do.

good night

[The Grand Nudger]

If you want magic wait till we get into the mathematical magic of Infinity,

I wasn't aware that infinity as a concept of computation was magical, perhaps you could explain why you feel this to be the case?

I believe even science may be trying to get into magic also by producing something out of nothing didn't Hawkins say something like that.

At what point did this happen? When has science tried to produce something from nothing? Let's explore this experiment.

Or is there a risk of double standards with some athiests about who they will accept magial claims from unquestioned and without proof and who they wont?

Who knows, couldn't speak for all atheists, but personally, I treat magic in uniformly rough manner, regardless of the magician. Nothing in atheism precludes magic, of course, an atheist might believe wholeheartedly in magic and remain an atheist, I'm just not one of those atheists.

Play with this .. explain to me what 2 is.

A description of a quantity, commonly.

[Mark 13:13]

Play with this .. explain to me what 2 is.

A description of a quantity, commonly.

how does it describe the quantity?

[Zen Badger]

Can a true Scientist ever accept that at some point there will be a limit to their ability to use science to understand the mechanism of a particular event and that, that event or those events be deemed as random and from then on science will be the exploration of the patterns and laws the result from these random process." beyond this point there be monsters"

One day they might find the limit but fuck knows what it will be.

I always thought we'd never be able to look back past the big bang.

But then Rodger Penrose goes and does this....

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...GDPq2asSTA

Yes, I know, it's still not confirmed, but.......

[The Grand Nudger]

how does it describe the quantity?

In the same way that all descriptive words achieve their function.
(Non-questions deserve non-answers)

[Mark 13:13]

how does it describe the quantity?

In the same way that all descriptive words achieve their function.
(Non-questions deserve non-answers)

where did it come from did it always exist?