Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
What about this one: Contradiction - Wikipedia
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's wrong with physics?
- Thread starter Native
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Please explain how you can measure something, which is unknown?
What about it?
I don't see a question I can address.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Maybe the point is that physics as a model in toto doesn't add up and leads to a contradiction.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Which observation? And WHY was this stupid idea invented?
At least she is honest
Would you have the grace to admit the same too?
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
You can in fact address the entire standing "scientific method" if you dig into the context.
I don't know if the linked article about a priori systems even
applies to a posteriori systems, ie, the material world.
I don't know what that means.
But the scientific method (or methods) is still useful.
Contradictions in some constructed systems looks
like no problem.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
And off to lala-land we are. So where do a priori systems exist? Well, not in the material world , so you have proven the supernatural, right. Well, no, you haven't. You are just at the limit of general human understanding for which we enter the negatives of variants of this can't be understood.
Sometimes the correct answer to a question is that it can't be explained.
In other words, it is not given that the universe is coherent in human terms as far as our ability to make cognitive models of it.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
I can measure the impact of an unknown agent to a known agent. We call that process of discovering and exploring the unknown from its effect on an known source deduction.
Which observation? And WHY was this stupid idea invented?
At least she is honest
I have posted a link, don't tell me you haven't even read it...
The name was invented because observation showed the something that explains observed phenomena but also could be measured. Its effects did not suddenly start happening when the name was invented. No, the data from the effects was not observed until thousands, millions and billions of light years.
I were crazy, yes i would most certainly admit, admitting such is the only way to obtain correct treatment.
Currently I can't see which video that is, but I think I watched that a few weeks ago. What she's saying is that research funds should probably go towards areas of science other than bigger linear accelerators. The belief that beauty is a guide to what should be researched next is to her not scientific. She has a point. Just because the current standard model seems 'Ugly' does not substantiate directing funds towards bigger particle accelerators.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So it is not unknown.
I'm not proving anything here.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Where do a priori systems exist?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And why are you assuming it is "stupid"?
epronovost
Well-Known Member
Of cours it's still unknown. You need quite more than a dead body. a weapon and a few prints to know who the killer is. You know there is a killer, but the killer is very much unknown until you can find more clues.
Since they aren't material things,
they exist as mental constructs.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Einstein came up with his theory of general relativity almost a century ago. In the beginning Einstein was almost angry at the Hubble observation, but later he conceded to it because "that's humility". A true scientific person in my opinion is humble, and that humility is the fundamental that brings a reverse engineering and bottom-up approach in an analytical mind. So that's what we need today, not absolutism, ridicule and dogmatism.
Through time science will identify quantum properties, though Einstein didnt. And it is I believe known since the 60's that the special theory and the classical gravitational theories are not consistent, thus the need for a modified theory of gravity. I think what this lady is doing is basically reiterating facts that a lot of people are not willing to accept.
I find it a strange phenomena.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes, and I think this is why no one has come up with a Theory of Everything that works. I think the problem with merging the two is that subatomic particles behave quite differently than does mega-matter. My understanding is that it takes over a dozen formulas to merge the two.