If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 90

First Previous

Page

117

Next Last

Frequent Posters

344471

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#891

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

color has an objective reality?!

It doesn't have an objective reality like the way we perceive it, yes, but it does have some objective explanation behind why one perceive it that way, right? I mean, since everyone can see the same colors does it not mean it must have some objective ground? You paint a paper blood red and ask 10 people with proper eye sight what they see - they all will reply the same. If it was subjective we all would have seen different colors. How light reflects in what frequency etc is the objective principle behind color. Yes our perception is different from how the thing actually is, but does it mean it lacks objective reality? Even if it lacks an objective reality, it does have an underlying objective process for which we all perceive it the same way.

Quote

BirdieNumNum

@CuckooCutter7

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#892

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

OK, we will get to "time travel" in time but first answer me this:

Do you think space is expanding? If yes, then into what? More space?

If space can expand into more space (by all observations it is true), why is accepting time travel in time so difficult?

i dont know if it is expanding. For all the theory and suppositions i've read that says it is, i still find it mind-boggling. And i have precisely the questions you have as to what it might be expanding into. I've seen geometrical descriptions of it where it seems as if everything is on the surface of a balloon but that would still not answer the question.

regarding time travel, i'd answer that on 2 levels. First, i think it is illogical for an object to travel "back" in time. That would result in all kinds of retro results and would require us to surpass speed of light, which is a central tenet . Second, how can you travel in a time dimension? What specifically is the rate of change in a time dimension?

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

BirdieNumNum

@CuckooCutter7

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#893

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
if you don't accept that space can expand, then you shouldn't even accept the inflation theory in which case you have to come up with a new theory to explain what happened in the initial moments of the big bang, how an infinitesimal space became all that we see today.

i really dont know what to accept- the theory that has supposedly been proven or the physical reality i perceive. Either way, the questions remain. Perhaps there is some other explanation for the background radiation etc and not necessarily the big bang one. Perhaps we have something else that solves out exactly the same way as the big bang but we dont know. For me, something makes sense if it can explain more than it glosses over. There are just too many questions that remain for me to say one way or the other. I know i am sounding like a layman but that's my honest reaction..

but here's a question- if physicists really understand what they claim to know, how come they cant articulate it clearly? When someone cant articulate something clearly, especially if its in their chosen area of study, i often wonder if they really understand anything.

Quote

Vivacious

@vivacious

Explorer

Posted: 11 years ago

#894

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

and those detectors are observer dependent making color subjective and not objective.

LOL, sir the more I read you, the more you remind me of Prof Gilderoy Lockhart...And your sulking boy tantrum was epic 😛 Reminded me of childhood, when my brother refused to field as soon as he was given out .. 😆

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#895

Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil
It doesn't have an objective reality like the way we perceive it, yes, but it does have some objective explanation behind why one perceive it that way, right? I mean, since everyone can see the same colors does it not mean it must have some objective ground? You paint a paper blood red and ask 10 people with proper eye sight what they see - they all will reply the same. If it was subjective we all would have seen different colors. How light reflects in what frequency etc is the objective principle behind color. Yes our perception is different from how the thing actually is, but does it mean it lacks objective reality? Even if it lacks an objective reality, it does have an underlying objective process for which we all perceive it the same way.

The wavelengths of the light have an objective reality, macroscopically speaking. We as humans have an agreed upon consensus on how to interpret certain wavelengths because we have, in general, three types of cones. Because the visible range and number of cone types differs between species, it makes the concept of color subjective. The word objective has to extend in scope beyond humans. That's all I was saying.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#896

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
but here's a question- if physicists really understand what they claim to know, how come they cant articulate it clearly? When someone cant articulate something clearly, especially if its in their chosen area of study, i often wonder if they really understand anything

The more you put their findings in terms of natural languages such as English, the more it is prone to individual interpretations.

If the universal language to communicate in is Math, there wouldn't be any ambiguities.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#897

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
i dont know if it is expanding. For all the theory and suppositions i've read that says it is, i still find it mind-boggling. And i have precisely the questions you have as to what it might be expanding into. I've seen geometrical descriptions of it where it seems as if everything is on the surface of a balloon but that would still not answer the question.

regarding time travel, i'd answer that on 2 levels. First, i think it is illogical for an object to travel "back" in time. That would result in all kinds of retro results and would require us to surpass speed of light, which is a central tenet . Second, how can you travel in a time dimension? What specifically is the rate of change in a time dimension?

Which is why we should never look at space and time as two different entities. They are too interlinked and intertwined.

As for rate of change in a time dimension, it's a tricky question. if Higgs field is the means by which other elementary particles acquire their mass, how does Higgs field itself get it's mass? Some concepts are fundamental and till we know how to break them down further, they would remain fundamental. Time and space are fundamental (at least till gravitons could be found :)

Edited by K.Universe. - 11 years ago

Quote

BirdieNumNum

@CuckooCutter7

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#898

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

The more you put their findings in terms of natural languages such as English, the more it is prone to individual interpretations.

If the universal language to communicate in is Math, there wouldn't be any ambiguities.

as an aside- i've known folks who could explain complex differential equations, stochastic calculus, esoteric option pricing models or a semiconductor equation or a Stokes theorem in a way a newbie could understand. That's brilliance for me.

but ok, maybe not everyone brilliant is articulate. And i do understand the need to be precise, math being one such language. Important however to ensure we dont lose realism in attempts to get too precise, or at least to acknowledge the assumptions. Of course, we have lawyers who also claim they are being precise, yet it doesnt stop people from suing each other over interpretation.

now just because we express something in math does not mean we really understand much. We've got vectors, arrows, magnitudes and such to go with Newton's universal law of gravitation, but that does not mean we understand gravity, does it?

in the case of GR, we have field equations which when solved can lead to different interpretations. So much for precision in interpretation. Almost sounds like what lawyers come up with.😆

Edited by BirdieNumNum - 11 years ago

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#899

Speaking of natural languages, I wish Sanskrit garnered more worldwide support in terms of the language of choice for knowledge representation, right next to Math. But I digress.

So, here we are on page #117 and God is still indeterminate... right? Are there any specific questions that we are addressing or is the thread proceeding in a rudderless manner at this point in time?

Quote

BirdieNumNum

@CuckooCutter7

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#900

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
Speaking of natural languages, I wish Sanskrit garnered more worldwide support in terms of the language of choice for knowledge representation, right next to Math. But I digress.

So, here we are on page #117 and God is still indeterminate... right? Are there any specific questions that we are addressing or is the thread proceeding in a rudderless manner at this point in time?

i think a lot of people here have brought out aspects that are very interesting, if only we did not insist on finding all kinds of proof. They've come at it from different perspectives and i personally learned something from them. Speaking of which, if anyone thinks someone will be able to present proof, then one of them should be getting the nobel prize of the millinenia for brilliance and the other a nobel prize for looney-tunes.

some 20 odd pages ago, i think i'd suggested that a lot of what's going the science rounds today is actually blind speculation. Think of it. There's GR and a few other theories that have stood the test of time (again, GR as great math that has been verified in a lot of ways). But we've also had all kinds of "speculations" that have mushroomed around those theories, each with their own band of committed followers and couched in scientific terms. We dont even know how to test many of them, but they are considered scientific. Now if we can call ideas that others can come up with as untestable and blind speculation, then what's so holy about "untestable physics". Let's be fair. Let's not insist on requiring everyone to adhere to a strict format where it can only be talk of physics/ math. We'd be better off making it multidisciplinary and more inclusive because there's something to be gained from other ideas.

personally i'm all for awarding someone here who can come up with the best hypothesis that would tie everything together. I dont care if its not testable, because i dont think too many things are.

so if it were my thread to "incite", i'd say bring on the philosophy, the science, the fantasies. Anything that can sound comprehensive and reasonable.

Quote

1 ... 88 89 90 91 92 ... 117

Top