The Limits of Science (?)

[skakos]

@James S Saint

@skakos

Is time based on “change” or vice versa?

Time is the measure of the change.
The change isn’t a measure of the time.

Really?

Would you “know” that time “passes” if nothing changed?

[skakos]

@James S Saint

@skakos

Do you think one can have such an authority so as to persuade others on the correctness of his personal opinions?

That is what is good about Logic. It doesn’t care who is speaking or wanting to persuade anyone.

So you have found a mistake in Godel’s logical proof for the existence of God?
Or maybe a mistake in his logical proof of the non-existence of time?

Or do you just BELIEVE he was wrong?

[James_S_Saint]

@skakos

@James S Saint

@skakos

Do you think one can have such an authority so as to persuade others on the correctness of his personal opinions?

That is what is good about Logic. It doesn’t care who is speaking or wanting to persuade anyone.

So you have found a mistake in Godel’s logical proof for the existence of God?
Or maybe a mistake in his logical proof of the non-existence of time?

Or do you just BELIEVE he was wrong?

I believe only in logic. And I haven’t heard of Godel “proof for God existence” nor his “proof for the non-existence of time”.
But in either case, I can already deduce that either he was entirely incorrect, or is merely being reported fallaciously (as often occurs regarding Science issues).

[Mr_Reasonable]

@skakos

@Smears

We should be rigorous in determining and testing our beliefs whatever they are.

True. Some interesting questions to start the discussion:

Isn’t the belief that the Universe has a Cause logical? Can it be “tested”?

Is the belief of the existence of parallel universe “testable”?

I think that you’re asking science to respond to philosophical questions. You remember when you were like 5 years old in elementary school and the teacher told you, “correlation isn’t causation”? At the time no one knew what that meant because we were all 5 years old or something. Now we get it so we don’t ask why science can’t answer the problem of first cause.

A parallel universe? That sounds like poorly defined hokey kind of term that doesn’t really mean anything. Like totally ripe for equivocation. I’d avoid it.

The closest thing I can think of in philosophy would be possible worlds. In the case of those, like many things in philosophy it doesn’t come down to whether or not one can demonstrate them observably but instead whether or not they can be refuted. I think there’s some pretty tricky arguments for possible worlds that are very hard to understand, and even harder to refute. Most people fail to understand them and then assume they’ve refuted their own strawman version. It’s all good.

[skakos]

@James S Saint

I believe only in logic. And I haven’t heard of Godel “proof for God existence” nor his “proof for the non-existence of time”.
But in either case, I can already deduce that either he was entirely incorrect, or is merely being reported fallaciously (as often occurs regarding Science issues).

How can you deduce such a thing withouth even knowing him or what he said?!?!?
Isn’t that entirely illogical?

[skakos]

@Smears

I think that you’re asking science to respond to philosophical questions. You remember when you were like 5 years old in elementary school and the teacher told you, “correlation isn’t causation”? At the time no one knew what that meant because we were all 5 years old or something. Now we get it so we don’t ask why science can’t answer the problem of first cause.

A parallel universe? That sounds like poorly defined hokey kind of term that doesn’t really mean anything. Like totally ripe for equivocation. I’d avoid it.

The closest thing I can think of in philosophy would be possible worlds. In the case of those, like many things in philosophy it doesn’t come down to whether or not one can demonstrate them observably but instead whether or not they can be refuted. I think there’s some pretty tricky arguments for possible worlds that are very hard to understand, and even harder to refute. Most people fail to understand them and then assume they’ve refuted their own strawman version. It’s all good.

It is modern science which claims that it can answer philosophical questions. I too agree that it cannot.
Science is based on specific axioms. These axioms are generated by philosophy. And you cannot question your foundations so easily.

However the existence of a “First Cause” can be explored through Logic. Cause and effect are notions which can be explored in theoretical level even if you do not have immediate experience of them.