|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 27, 2011 9:52:24 GMT 1
Looks as if God is having a bit of fun at the expense of physicists searching for the hypothetical Higgs bosun. Sometimes they think they might just about be there, then the leads they are following disappear or end in blanks
Can't blame God really. These ego-driven theoretical physicists that tell us they will soon know the mind of God, or that they know 99% of what there is to know about matter and the source of the universe (How can they know that what they do not know is 1% of what can be known, for to have that knowledge they must surely know what they do not know?!) must be irritating at times. I mean they do go on so, claiming knowledge and insights that they have obviously just invented on some blackboard somewhere and cannot possibly explain because it is so complicated and you need to be really clever just like them in order to understand!
God is saying borrocks to science I think!
|
|
|
|
Post by adamadamant on Oct 27, 2011 10:17:50 GMT 1
I do not think proper scientists would say they want to know the mind of God. There is lots of stuff we do not know about the universe and we are just starting to find out. What you don't seem to understand is science takes measurements and based on these comes up with reasonable theories to explain them and maths comes into it to a large degree because maths is a way of describing something abstractedly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 27, 2011 10:20:40 GMT 1
What you don't seem to understand is science takes measurements ..... No I did not understand that, thank you foir enlightening me! |
|
|
|
Post by adamadamant on Oct 27, 2011 10:25:48 GMT 1
What you don't seem to understand is science takes measurements ..... No I did not understand that, thank you foir enlightening me! Yes the point being, measuring things is what science does, not speculating about what God thinks. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 27, 2011 12:29:16 GMT 1
No I did not understand that, thank you foir enlightening me! Yes the point being, measuring things is what science does, not speculating about what God thinks. Oh, then perhaps you can tell me what they measure when they say that time started when the Universe was created Or perhaps what they measure when they tell me that the Universe was created from nothing Or what they are measuring when they tell me that no particle can travel faster than light Or what do they measure when they tell me that there is an infinite stength gravitational field at the surface of a black hole Or what they measure when they tell that the Universe is expanding at >c Or what they measure when they tell me that there are multiverses Or what they measure when they tell me that particles are 'strings' Or what they measure when they tell me that energy cannot be destroyed or created (Thermodynmaic 1st Law) Or what do they measure when the tell me that life evolved from everyday chemicals? Is it not true much of modern theoretical physics is in fact totally divorced from measurement? What is the difference betwen science speculating about things that cannot be measured and speculating about God Are they not both hypotheses? |
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 27, 2011 13:52:31 GMT 1
If you are going to make wild accusations try providing some evidence. Until you do I'm taking this for one of your usual anti-science diatribes.
In fact of all the various human disciplines scientists are probably the most modest. All scientific theories are provisional until something better comes along and scientists recognise this. Not for them the certainties of, for instance, religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamadamant on Oct 27, 2011 15:31:33 GMT 1
naymissus you seem to be confusing theoretical speculations with scientific theories which have been measured again and again and proved to be correct.
For example the idea about strings is one approach to a theory of everything but not all scientists agree with it, proffering other solutions. When science is in a position to make repeated measurements to support a theory we accept it as correct. That's all there is to it. Nobody knows if the universe started from nothing - it depends on how you define nothing, but it looks to me you think scientists make definitive statements when they actually don't because there might be something around the corner that might upset everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 27, 2011 16:08:22 GMT 1
If you are going to make wild accusations try providing some evidence. Until you do I'm taking this for one of your usual anti-science diatribes. In fact of all the various human disciplines scientists are probably the most modest. All scientific theories are provisional until something better comes along and scientists recognise this. Not for them the certainties of, for instance, religion. 'Knowing The Mind Of God' - Hawkings 'Brief History Of Time 'We know 99% about matter and the source of the Universe' Dawkins TV interview I am not anti-science nor ant-metaphysics but anti metaphysics-posing-as-science |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 27, 2011 16:17:08 GMT 1
naymissus you seem to be confusing theoretical speculations with scientific theories which have been measured again and again and proved to be correct. Those theoretical speculations are called theoretical science and the people that indulge in such speculations are called theoretical scientists. Science is the key word Note that some is called science even though in principle it cannot be measured or ever verified or falsified. In fact such speculations are a belief system and indeed science is a belief system with a continual search to falsify the belief. But even beliefs that are not verifiable or falsifiable are still called science - I have given you some examples Some scientist profess to know. And sceintists most certainly do make definitive statements. Take Hawkings whose riposte to time and the origin of the Universe is 'do not ask if time existed before the universe was created - it is a meaningles question' - that rather closes the subject down doesn't it? Sounds quite sort of definitive to me |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 27, 2011 19:37:02 GMT 1
I don't think it's accurate to say hypothetical concepts about certain aspects of science is a belief system in the way a religious belief system is. Take the Higgs boson. This a a hypothesized particle which has been deduced to exist based on what is known up till now. The maths can be made to allow for the Higgs boson but that doesn't necessarily mean it actually exists. The best you can say about it is it's at best just an educated guess and until the theory can be tested by measurement (using the LHC in Cern) we cannot know for certain. It may not be found to exist, in which case the boffins will have to go back to the drawing board.
It is true that some of the more speculative theories about nature, such as string theory for example, cannot be tested in the lab. but it is still important to think about the possible way reality is because successive generations will be able to take up the mantle and hopefully make progress based on the ideas of earlier thinkers. This has happened in the history of scientific thought over and over again. Had not the Greeks and others made philosophical speculations about the nature of matter science would not be as developed as it is today. It has to start somewhere.
Scientists are very skeptical creatures and until a theory can be repeatedly tested and become predictive they do not jump to the conclusion that it is correct. Even then, as in the current controversy about the the faster than light neutrino, there could arise data that questions current ideas. So, I think what all this shows is that we Homo Sapiens are in a constant endeavour to understand our universe but it is understanding based on the scientific method, not a belief system.
I think you have to take this with a pinch of salt because despite the brilliance of Hawking he knows no more than anyone else. In fact, although Stephen Hawking is an celebrated physicist there are other physicists who have done brilliant work in their own field who you don't get to hear about outside the physics community. No one person can know it all else we wouldn't need to conduct experiments.
|
|
