Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (918)	9/15/2006 11:29:30 AM
From: JeffA	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10087

I think that the failure to differentiate between scientific theorizing and faith is a distortion and perhaps a cop out, to boot. I think you give scientists too much credit on some of the theories associated with how the universe was created. They guess at a date based on present data worked backwards, then determine when the big even occurred, the they say things happened, 10 to the -43 power, seconds after the big bang. If that ain't faith, I don't know what is...... You could call it a WAG or a SWAG and I'd agree too.

To: Lane3 who wrote (918)	9/15/2006 11:35:07 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

”Gaps are not filled in by faith. Faith has no basis but faith. Scientific gaps are filled in by extrapolation or probability and are subject to change based on evidence or other new and better understanding. That is not faith.” Well anyway the true believing lab cloak clerics would agree with that statement. The evidence you are referring to is bound in a closed system of thought, one that does not account for the existence of very real paradox and alternative explanations. It is also based on an instrumental scientific view of the universe (Observation and measurement instruments). Much of it is based on presumptions that ignore the plausibilities of other explanations. It is actually quite practical from the instrumental point of view. The fact, however, is that scientific endeavor is an open system, as much a product of creative consciousness as it is the use of instruments. The universe is rife with paradox and possibilities. Our experience in the universe is full of these little nodes or gaps. They are like dots in our awareness of existence. They aren't just experiments waiting their turn, they are connected in a separate way. Once you start to connect the dots your perspective begins to change. It's humbling. You believe the evidence presented by classical materialists is good enough for your belief system. That is faith. Open minds might consider the following: 1) Proof in the classical sense requires the ability to observe and replicate for the sake of validity. It also requires the ability to dismiss other plausible explanations having proven the null. 2) The models you are following involve a great deal of purely complex mathematical treatments. The mathematician Kurt Godel has proven that any attempt to produce a paradox free mathematical system is bound to fail. Also... "Computers, paradoxes and the Foundations of Mathematics Some great thinkers of the 20th century have shown that even in the austere world of mathematics, incompleteness and randomness are rife. Gregory J. Chaitin Some of the great intellects of the 20th century attempted to set mathematics on a sound logical footing, only to discover the inherent limitations of formal axiomatic systems. The author gives a sweeping description of this evolution of thought and summarizes his own contribution to the modern understanding of mathematics, which, like quantum physics, contains elements of randomness at the most fundamental level." siliconinvestor.com. 3) Even the most simple paradox can be dismissed when we involve human beings and conscious awareness. Zeno's paradox of dividing distance and time into infinite number of intervals making movement from one finite point to another, confounds the computer but falls apart when we make the observation of a real circumstance, because we are aware that in real nature we can divide time anyway we want... as a limited segment or infinite number of times. 4) Not that the work isn't practical and useful but classic materialism skips over a bunch of gaps and paradoxes that involve life, consciousness, and awareness to explain a mechanistic universe prepped with a pile of "Ifs". One being the whole notion of real time existing out of the present mode of our awareness in the first place.