No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

[James_S_Saint]

@monad

If I want to understand Relativity, Quantum Theory, etc I can’t make up my own rules or proceed on the premise of “Nullius in Verba”.

That is true. If you want to learn what someone else has invented, you have to accept what they say long enough to see how, when, and if it fits your concerns. You cannot prejudge.

@monad

I’m not opposed to independent thought which is indispensable especially in science but that too is based on what has already been assumed, discovered or proven.

Most commonly based on what has already been accepted, but not always.

@monad

The principle of “Nullius in Verba” is both valid and necessary to a point but never absolute and overriding. It wouldn’t make sense if used in that way…not to me anyways.

It makes sense to the philosopher who is attempting to see if even the most fundamental presumptions concerning existence are valid. But that is not you. You are, apparently, wanting to learn of what specific others have put together, which is fine by me. What you don’t seem to realize is that ALL of those “others” started off with nothing more than “metaphysical hypotheses”.

@monad

Instead of Affectance Ontology as a philosophic precondition “to explain literally all physical existence”, I subscribe to the methodology of first inquiring into the layers, subsets and substructures of nature because they all have different rules. Go to another lower layer and the rules change often becoming more abstract and counter intuitive. As these layers get more defined and understood the closer you come to a “Unified Theory”.

Until you know for certain what all of the rules are, how do you really know that the rules are different? The “rules” are merely the principles built upon an understanding. Different understandings (different ontologies) produce different rules and they can all be correct even though very different.

I started, not by assuming a bunch of rules, but rather by choosing a definition of what it means to exist - the very fundamental level of concern. But having done that, with a little math, I can already deduce many things that have no option but to exist regardless of what anyone has ever said or thought they saw.

Start at the very bottom of the complexity where you can know something with absolute certainty and then work your way up to where everyone else has been making assumptions and see how much fits together;

I was surprised to discover exactly how and why sub-atomic particles form. There isn’t any question to be had about it. And I didn’t have to use a single microscope or know anything at all about any physics. And that is because I started with what is necessarily true, primarily: “To exist means to have affect” and that “absolute zero difference in affect cannot ever happen”. From there, it is merely graphing the consequences. The entire universe of physics comes to light… not a single microscope was required… except to verify that what I deduced was also what they see.

@monad

You know it yourself in how Quantum Mechanics is the support structure for Classical Physics. The Parts must be discovered before the Whole can be understood. As such it is the probability of something being true based on theory and experiment which mostly sums it up for me.

That is the “top down approach”: “I can see this, so let me see a little closer/deeper”. That is how it has been done. But they have already discovered problems with that approach even though it helped a lot at first. They eventually find that nothing they have been “seeing” really is what they thought and some of their thoughts simply don’t work out. They find paradoxes, because they didn’t start with what is necessarily true, but rather what they saw. Observations are tricky. That is what magicians teach you.

Seeing might be believing, but believing isn’t knowing.

@monad

It’s just that some things, no matter how impersonal, feels like a wasp crawling up one’s rear.

It is very easy on the internet to sense an offense when there really wasn’t one there. It is easy to presume that anyone you are talking to doesn’t know much more than you. It is common for people to say, “no one knows…”. People think in terms of this single data base of all human knowledge that everyone has access to. But think about that. Who could ever really claim that no one knows about something? What you see and hear about isn’t even 1/1000th of what is known by others. And Wiki is not told of very many things. But it is true that usually, you don’t meet anyone on the internet who knows much more than yourself. So it is tempting to get defensive about what you already believed to be true.

On that other thread, I proposed a situation for Relativity to explain. But Relativity can’t explain it. And in fact, Relativity can’t even predict an answer for it. It is a paradox for Relativity. But I can explain the truth of it and predict the exact answer, but trying to use Relativity. When you understand things from the ground up (rather than from what you see, down), there are no paradoxes.

[idioticidioms]

@monad

@idioticidioms

@Mark090480

What would be an example of a belief that science promotes that is incorrect?

Also, many people thought Newton was right and he was at “normal speeds”, yet as we approach the speed of light he was incorrect. So, in this respect science promoted Newton as correct although he was not but when Einstein came along they changed their opinion. They now promote Einstein as correct, is he? Most likely not as Relativity breaks down at the quantum level but I guess it is the best we have. When the next genius comes along, I highly doubt science will not update itself and that is a fundamental difference from religion.

Science carries with it the stench of unmistakability.

This may be true for religion and even philosophy to a degree but not in ANY book or articles on science I ever read.

You’re just not getting the fucking picture, dude. The problem isn’t with getting the message across to people who want to learn; it’s getting the message across to those who don’t want to fucking learn. That has always been the problem. Why put in books what people who don’t read those books will never see? You’re reaching a very niche crowd of people that don’t really need to hear that as much as every single person does equally.

Do you honestly think that the ignorant masses are being given a picture of science as a vessel that makes mistakes and errs? No. That’s some concrete fucking shit, there; while religion gets torn down and thrown through the mud just because ignorant people don’t want to look at all that is there while they say that religion doesn’t allow for mistakes. You know what? It’s actually the reverse with religion, because it’s obvious for anyone to see when they look at religion that it can make mistakes and yet everyone who is a part of it seems blind as fucking Hell to everyone outside of it. Do you see the problem?

Nobody gives a shit about your false premises. The simple fact of the matter is that none of what you do matters in the fucking slightest, because as long as people are happy doing whatever they want to do, they won’t cause other people undue harm. The problem with that is that some people are perfectly happy causing undue harm to others which clashes with somes moral prerogatives. Peace becomes impossible, except by finding peace in whatever situation you find yourself in.

And frankly, when you get right down to it; there are quite a few differences between science and religion, but very few fundamental distinctions. Ignorant jackass.

[monad]

@James S Saint

When you understand things from the ground up (rather than from what you see, down), there are no paradoxes.

By “down” I mean to more fundamental particles, forces or whatever whether or not it incorporates what WE call paradox. Within nature itself, there is no such thing as paradox. For example you have to understand atoms before you get to know quarks. If it turns out that even they consist of lower level particles then you first have to know what a quark is and so on. This is not discovered by metaphysics though at some point I wouldn’t be surprised if metaphysics becomes necessary. Within Particle Physics or the Quantum Physics domain realities appear encapsulated as if nested one within the other…which sounds strangely metaphysical in itself.

There are a few other things that could have been mentioned but I think you will agree, it’s best we go our separate ways on the subject. Perhaps the only way we can see eye to eye is somewhere in the middle but that doesn’t seem likely.

…about getting defensive, human nature it seems. I’m not the only one am I!

[James_S_Saint]

@monad

By “down” I mean to more fundamental particles, forces or whatever whether or not it incorporates what WE call paradox. Within nature itself, there is no such thing as paradox.

True, thus if we run into one, we know that we aren’t thinking right.

@monad

For example you have to understand atoms before you get to know quarks. If it turns out that even they consist of lower level particles then you first have to know what a quark is and so on.

That is how they did it. “We have seen this. Let’s look closer.”

@monad

This is not discovered by metaphysics though at some point I wouldn’t be surprised if metaphysics becomes necessary.

Not true. Metaphysics can (and in my case has) discovered the fundamental particles and of what they are made, before understanding for certain the atom and why it forms.

@monad

Within Particle Physics or the Quantum Physics domain realities appear encapsulated as if nested one within the other…which sounds strangely metaphysical in itself.

Quantum Mechanics is merely statistics. Quantum Physics is pure Fantasy Physics, even beyond the senselessness of the superstitious form of metaphysics. QP is pure literal superstition, 100%.

There are a few other things that could have been mentioned but I think you will agree, it’s best we go our separate ways on the subject. Perhaps the only way we can see eye to eye is somewhere in the middle but that doesn’t seem likely.

…about getting defensive, human nature it seems. I’m not the only one am I!
[/quote]

[James_S_Saint]

@James S Saint

Just to show you how religious sciencism has become, yet another “science” forum has refused any discussion of this paradox whatsoever. They discuss the Twins Paradox and a couple of others, because those can be resolved, but not the Stopped Clock Paradox. The report excusing the forbidding of the topic was simply, “It was denied because it’s just more relativity-denialist pseudoscience/flamebait.”

All hail to the Holy Word of Sciencism!!
“Speak no evil”.

Sciencism today is everything they accuse the older religions of being and worse.

[Peachy_Nietzsche]

@monad

Re: the God-Hypothesis
by zinnat13 » Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:59 pm

Philosophy is the mother of all knowledge and science and religion are its two equal branches. Science is meant for the verifications of physics while religions are for metaphysics. [u]Both have to report their observations back to philosophy to enable it to draw conclusions.[/u] The problem arises when either scientists or religious scholars try to play philosophers on their own.

As data arrives from the LHC to what philosophy department would scientists send it to enable them there philosophers to draw their conclusions?

It can be argued that early 20th century quantum physics was derived from 18th and 19th century metaphysics. Einstein for example was inspired by Schopenhauer.

Most of the ‘shots in the dark’ (the various string theories, “many worlds” interpretation, etc) taken by physicists are almost purely philosophical (that’s not to say that they are definitely wrong; General Relativity was entirely on paper for years before it ever had any experimental evidence backing it).

Also Going back to pre-Enlightment era Europe, I think a person would find it difficult to distinguish between philosophers and scientists. The line gets very, very blurry. Isaac Newton for example wrote about twice as much on esoteric subjects (alchemy, sacred geometry, etc) than he did about what we now consider science.

“…you say you dicscoverd the Higgs? All I see is a scratch on a graph.”

“Back to the nine billion dollar drawing board boys. The next time you approach us make sure you have the Higgs in hand.”

Funny

[Peachy_Nietzsche]

@James S Saint

@monad

This is not discovered by metaphysics though at some point I wouldn’t be surprised if metaphysics becomes necessary.

Not true. Metaphysics can (and in my case has) discovered the fundamental particles and of what they are made, before understanding for certain the atom and why it forms.

I think your argument and everyone reading it would benefit a lot if you gave references. I do not disagree though, it always seemed to me that a lot of ancient religions (which were much more centered on metaphysics and cosmogony instead of morality) can have many parallels drawn between them and modern physics.

Quantum Physics is pure Fantasy Physics, even beyond the senselessness of the superstitious form of metaphysics. QP is pure literal superstition, 100%.

It’s not though; the results of the double-slit experiment can’t be explained by classical means unless we gives subatomic particles certain attributes. Hence, “quantization”.

[James_S_Saint]

@Peachy Nietzsche

Quantum Physics is pure Fantasy Physics, even beyond the senselessness of the superstitious form of metaphysics. QP is pure literal superstition, 100%.

It’s not though; the results of the double-slit experiment can’t be explained by classical means unless we gives subatomic particles certain attributes. Hence, “quantization”.

That is exactly what “superstition” is.
When something is happening and you can’t explain it with your current understanding, you are tempting to just make up magical forces doing magical things. And that is exactly what QP is entirely about.

But don’t confuse Quantum Mechanics with Quantum Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a statistical study presuming quantization, so that they can use statistical math. QM is fine because it is honest. QP is pure speculative superstition inventing properties because they can’t figure out how to make their other theories fit into the data. QP tries to explain WHY. QM doesn’t care why (“The School of Shut Up and Calculate”).

In reality, there is no fixed quantum of anything but actual physical particles, atoms, and the molecules they form. Quantumizing is like digitizing. Just because it makes things easier to calculate doesn’t mean that the universe is made of digits.

[Peachy_Nietzsche]

@James S Saint

@Peachy Nietzsche

Quantum Physics is pure Fantasy Physics, even beyond the senselessness of the superstitious form of metaphysics. QP is pure literal superstition, 100%.

It’s not though; the results of the double-slit experiment can’t be explained by classical means unless we gives subatomic particles certain attributes. Hence, “quantization”.

That is exactly what “superstition” is.
When something is happening and you can’t explain it with your current understanding, you are tempting to just make up magical forces doing magical things. And that is exactly what QP is entirely about.

your current understanding of everything is built off of ‘magical forces doing magical things’; microwaves, light-bulbs, pharmaceuticals, etc… You surely know that those things exist, but you’ve had to assume processes at play which you can’t see.

But don’t confuse Quantum Mechanics with Quantum Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a statistical study presuming quantization, so that they can use statistical math.

I’m not sure it’s entirely ‘just statistics’; the results of the double slit experiment has no other explanation to it. If how we ‘see things’ and ascribe ‘location’ to them is determined by electromagnetism, then ‘where things actually are’ could be different depending on which forces are influencing them at that moment and to what extent.

QM is fine because it is honest. QP is pure speculative superstition inventing properties because they can’t figure out how to make their other theories fit into the data. QP tries to explain WHY. QM doesn’t care why ("The School of Shut Up and Calculate

Where are you getting this difference between quantum mechanics and quantum physics?

In reality, there is no fixed quantum of anything but actual physical particles, atoms, and the molecules they form. Quantumizing is like digitizing. Just because it makes things easier to calculate doesn’t mean that the universe is made of digits.

If you attribute ‘charge’ to particles, then you have already accepted quantizing them.

[James_S_Saint]

@Peachy Nietzsche

@James S Saint

@Peachy Nietzsche

It’s not though; the results of the double-slit experiment can’t be explained by classical means unless we gives subatomic particles certain attributes. Hence, “quantization”.

That is exactly what “superstition” is.
When something is happening and you can’t explain it with your current understanding, you are tempting to just make up magical forces doing magical things. And that is exactly what QP is entirely about.

your current understanding of everything is built off of ‘magical forces doing magical things’; microwaves, light-bulbs, pharmaceuticals, etc… You surely know that those things exist, but you’ve had to assume processes at play which you can’t see.

Obviously you don’t know me.
I CAN explain the Double-slit experiment without using magical properties or quantization.

But yeah, it has been that way for the majority of the population from day one and hasn’t changed a bit.

@Peachy Nietzsche

But don’t confuse Quantum Mechanics with Quantum Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a statistical study presuming quantization, so that they can use statistical math.

I’m not sure it’s entirely ‘just statistics’; the results of the double slit experiment has no other explanation to it.

Oh. So if we don’t know how life was formed, then the only explanation is that God did it?

You might want to consider what “the only explanation” always entails - “Presumption and Hubris”.

@Peachy Nietzsche

Where are you getting this difference between quantum mechanics and quantum physics?

From the reality of what they do, not from what the sciencism preachers and quantum magi say.

@Peachy Nietzsche

If you attribute ‘charge’ to particles, then you have already accepted quantizing them.

What?!??
…nonsense.

[Arminius]

@James S. Saint

I CAN explain the Double-slit experiment without using magical properties or quantization.

Would you mind explaining the Double-slit experiment without using magical properties or quantization?

[Peachy_Nietzsche]

@James S Saint

@Peachy Nietzsche

@James S Saint

That is exactly what “superstition” is.
When something is happening and you can’t explain it with your current understanding, you are tempting to just make up magical forces doing magical things. And that is exactly what QP is entirely about.

your current understanding of everything is built off of ‘magical forces doing magical things’; microwaves, light-bulbs, pharmaceuticals, etc… You surely know that those things exist, but you’ve had to assume processes at play which you can’t see.

Obviously you don’t know me.
I CAN explain the Double-slit experiment without using magical properties or quantization.

Please explain it to us then

@Peachy Nietzsche

But don’t confuse Quantum Mechanics with Quantum Physics. Quantum Mechanics is a statistical study presuming quantization, so that they can use statistical math.

I’m not sure it’s entirely ‘just statistics’; the results of the double slit experiment has no other explanation to it.

Oh. So if we don’t know how life was formed, then the only explanation is that God did it?

You might want to consider what “the only explanation” always entails - “Presumption and Hubris”.

I don’t even know why that got brought up, I’m just going to ignore that section of your post.

@Peachy Nietzsche

If you attribute ‘charge’ to particles, then you have already accepted quantizing them.

What?!??
…nonsense.

The quantization of particles in physics ascribes numerical values to them like “charge” or “spin” to explain their behavior. If you believe in “charge”, you already believe in quantum mechanics.

[idioticidioms]

If you can, don’t just say that you can and leave it at that. Don’t hold yourself up just to be a showman unless it’s unintentional.

the double slit experiment is easily explained: Particles act differently when watched than when not watched, the same as people do. Some would enjoy being watched while others would take offense to it. Certainly we act differently when we feel we’re not being watched than when we’re around others unless we’re truly comfortable in our own skin while being watched or while perceiving that we’re being watched.

I dunno why people have to use words such as quantization to explain it. If you want the particles to work as they should, you just have to trust them to do so. When you watch and observe them and try to quantify their movements, then they are bound by that because they’re not busy breaking the rules you claim are impossible to break. These particles are not stupid. They know what happens when man sees or hears something he doesn’t like and too many magical things have already been destroyed by our species temper tantrums, to the point where they are afraid of showing man their true side while man seems determined to find it even though he knows he’s not going to like the uncomfortable questions it raises.

It parallels our own psychology as we seek answers we constantly deny while trying to rationalize that it was never that at all and that the answer must still be out there. Such abject denial only having one possible outcome as everything tries to repress itself for the sake of such immature and ignorant brutes.

[Peachy_Nietzsche]

@idioticidioms

the double slit experiment is easily explained: Particles act differently when watched than when not watched, the same as people do. Some would enjoy being watched while others would take offense to it. Certainly we act differently when we feel we’re not being watched than when we’re around others unless we’re truly comfortable in our own skin while being watched or while perceiving that we’re being watched.

I dunno why people have to use words such as quantization to explain it. If you want the particles to work as they should, you just have to trust them to do so. When you watch and observe them and try to quantify their movements, then they are bound by that because they’re not busy breaking the rules you claim are impossible to break. These particles are not stupid. They know what happens when man sees or hears something he doesn’t like and too many magical things have already been destroyed by our species temper tantrums, to the point where they are afraid of showing man their true side while man seems determined to find it even though he knows he’s not going to like the uncomfortable questions it raises.

Are you trolling?

[idioticidioms]

@Peachy Nietzsche

@idioticidioms

the double slit experiment is easily explained: Particles act differently when watched than when not watched, the same as people do. Some would enjoy being watched while others would take offense to it. Certainly we act differently when we feel we’re not being watched than when we’re around others unless we’re truly comfortable in our own skin while being watched or while perceiving that we’re being watched.

I dunno why people have to use words such as quantization to explain it. If you want the particles to work as they should, you just have to trust them to do so. When you watch and observe them and try to quantify their movements, then they are bound by that because they’re not busy breaking the rules you claim are impossible to break. These particles are not stupid. They know what happens when man sees or hears something he doesn’t like and too many magical things have already been destroyed by our species temper tantrums, to the point where they are afraid of showing man their true side while man seems determined to find it even though he knows he’s not going to like the uncomfortable questions it raises.

Are you trolling?

I don’t believe so. I’m just applying psychology and religion to math for a better understanding. With that quote in your signature, I figured you would understand:

Lateral Thinking - To think about something from an arbitrary angle; taking an unorthodox direction as a creative means of problem solving.

You can get into all the technical mumbo-jumbo you assholes have made for it all, all I did was simplify it and make it easier to understand for other people.

[James_S_Saint]

@Peachy Nietzsche

The quantization of particles in physics ascribes numerical values to them like “charge” or “spin” to explain their behavior. If you believe in “charge”, you already believe in quantum mechanics.

Oh give me a break. They were testing charge long before they ever even thought of any kind of quantization. It is like saying that America invented Democracy… kids…

[idioticidioms]

I mean, have you even fucking considered that they’re self-aware and have their own consciousness, or are you bastards too caught up in the moment of discovery that these particles will get in their own way and certain ones will act just the same as other ones even though being assumed as completely different. Didn’t that set off a few Clarion Bells for you guys? Too busy assigning artificial properties to them and making them jump through hoops all so you can diagnose them and figure them out.

Humans are a bunch of dipshits.

[Peachy_Nietzsche]

@James S Saint

@Peachy Nietzsche

The quantization of particles in physics ascribes numerical values to them like “charge” or “spin” to explain their behavior. If you believe in “charge”, you already believe in quantum mechanics.

Oh give me a break. They were testing charge long before they ever even thought of any kind of quantization. It is like saying that America invented Democracy… kids…

“quantization” is literally “giving discrete values”; ascribing “charge” to particles is quantization by definition. There is no clear point in history when classical physics became quantum mechanics. Study of electromagnetism just sort of seamlessly merged into what became known as quantum mechanics.

[idioticidioms]

@Peachy Nietzsche

@James S Saint

@Peachy Nietzsche

The quantization of particles in physics ascribes numerical values to them like “charge” or “spin” to explain their behavior. If you believe in “charge”, you already believe in quantum mechanics.

Oh give me a break. They were testing charge long before they ever even thought of any kind of quantization. It is like saying that America invented Democracy… kids…

“quantization” is literally “giving discrete values”; ascribing “charge” to particles is quantization by definition. There is no clear point in history when classical physics became quantum mechanics. Study of electromagnetism just sort of seamlessly merged into what became known as quantum mechanics.

yeah, I do have to agree on that. Things haven’t really changed, we’ve just learned more about them. It’s like how we no longer consider Pluto a planet and zero is a number. We weren’t taught those things when I was growing up; pluto was still a planet and zero was never a number. It’s hard to reconcile those differences some times.

The fact is that quantization is the constraining of a continuous set of values to a relatively small and discrete set. To give a charge is much the same, you have to move from real numbers to variable integers. These particles act in much the same way.

[Peachy_Nietzsche]

Alright, here you go you guys, the double slit experiment explained:
As an electron propagates, it is emitting its electromagnetic field which travels at the speed of light. As the electron passes through one of the slits, the electromagnetic field it was emitting before it entered the slit is still propagating away from its point of emission at the speed of light in all directions as a wave, so the electron’s electromagnetic field passes through both slits while the electron itself only passes through one. As the electron leaves the slit, it interacts with its own electromagnetic field which it emitted earlier. Hence, the interference pattern.