SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
George Hammond
[Hammond]
While arguing with Metaphysics Logicians is a necessary part
of Life, like "giving at the office" and "signing get well
cards", as you know it has no practical significance since
it has been long ago recognized that Metaphysics is simply
the application of logical rules to word definitions. Such,
an activity, like novel mathematics, is KNOWN to produce results
which have no relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality.
Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
"practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
In the first place we have the following facts:
1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
recognize the existence of a "God".
2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
they just say they have no proof of a "God".
3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
4. Therefore, we must now bring this matter before
the "practical scientist" for consideration.
So, here we will give a "practical explanation" of
what "God" is, according to this new discovery, and we
will expressly avoid any "metaphysical ramifications" and
only lay stress on the "practical scientific" facts. In
other words, this is the basic "nuts and bolts" version of
what "God" has been discovered to be in terms of "practical
science".
As a practical scientist, you know that many if not most
scientific discoveries are generally accidents where some
scientist stumbles on an amazing scientific fact.. for instance
the discovery of the constant speed of light, the discovery of
x-rays, the discovery of atoms and electrons etc. etc. Well, the
discovery of the SPOG is no different. In the early 90's Hammond
made just such an amazing scientific discovery in Psychometry.
Psychometry uses computers to investigate psychology theory. In
fact, today, being now 100 years old, it is about the only part
of nonmedical Psychology that is considered actually "scientific".
It produced the IQ test for instance.
Psychometry uses Factor Analysis, which is computerized Linear
Algebra. It's exactly the same type of math that is used in
Quantum Mechanics by the way. It's a simple, and fascinating
principle actually, quite widely known in scientific circles.
The way it originated in Psychology is this. Someone back in
the 1930's suggested that if there was a real "Structure" to
Psychology, then it must have become encoded in the English
language. They proposed that someone go through an unabridged
dictionary and pick out every adjective used to describe anything
"psychological" about someone; words like:
exuberant, solitary, skeptical, tolerant, pugnacious, modest,
impatient, finicky, clever, gentle, precise, lenient, witty,
tempestuous, greedy, irritable, sneaky, aggressive, nonchalant,
resolute, docile, creative, intrusive, obdurate, hidebound,
.......etc.
It turns out there are 4,000 of these in the average dictionary.
The theory was, that if there is anything identifiable psychologically
about people, a word has probably been made up to describe it in
the past thousands of years of language development.
OK, then here is where the Linear Algebra and computer theory
comes in. The first thing they do is get the list down to say
500-1000 adjectives, something manageable by throwing out all the
obscure ones. Then they Xerox copy the list with a scale of -5
to +5 next to each word, and then give it as an "adjective
checklist" to say, 5,000 people. Each person is supposed to check
a number between -5 and +5 as to how well each world describes himself.
OK, then they take the 5,000 tests and they compute the "correlation
coefficient" between each word. This is a simple arithmetic process
whereby if a person gave two words a high score, the "correlation"
between those two words would be high, but if for instance people
checking "mean" -5, also checked "kind" +5, there would be zero
correlation between the two words. Words like "happy" and "glad"
for instance would be apt to have a high correlation. Anyway, what
you wind up with is a 1000x1000 correlation matrix showing the
correlation coefficients between any two words, for the 5,000 people.
Next comes the interesting part. It is well known that all real
symmetric matrices possess eigenvalues and eigenvectors (see any math
text). Using large computers they can extract the eigenvalues and
eigenvectors from the 1000x1000 matrix. And, they can plot the
eigenvectors (which are vectors) as a graphical diagram. The first
thing they discovered is that there are only 13-eigenvectors. This
has been confirmed by decades of research, not only using adjectives,
but using questionnaire tests and experimental data too. And what is
more amazing, is that these 13-eigenvectors, when plotted graphically
in 3D space, actually form a PERFECT CUBE. That's right; a cube is
known of course to have 13 symmetry axes, and would you believe one
eigenvector lies on each of the 13 symmetry axes of a CUBE!
Well, of course this is an amazing discovery. Where is the CUBE
coming from, is the first obvious question?
No one knew where the CUBE came from until HAMMOND published an
amazing paper in 1994:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/cart.html
in the peer reviewed literature, explaining where the cube came from.
His stunning discovery, quite unespected by the way, is that the CUBE
in Psychometry comes from the 3-Axis Cartesian Geometry of the Human
Body and Brain itself. At last the mystery of Psychometry was solved.
This discovery by Hammond, is known as the discovery of the Structural
Model in Psychology by the way. So this is the stunning and amazing
scientific discovery that I mentioned at the beginning. However, this
was not the "accident" that yielded the scientific proof of God (SPOG).
Three years later, Hammond was still investigating this feat of Physics
in the Psychology field, when a historic accident took place. Hammond
was writing another paper detailing how the CUBIC brain structure
explained all of the data in Psychometry, when he noticed that Cattell
had found 4-Factors, not 3, at the third order. He then noticed that the
4th Factor was not a Personality factor like the other 3, but that Cattell
had included "Mental Ability" (IQ) questionnaires as well. BTW, it is
well known that Psychometry is divided into two fields, Intelligence (IQ)
and Personality. The IQ test was developed between 1900 and 1935 using
paper and pencil methods of Factor Analysis. Later, after the invention
of computers, they turned the method on to Personality and discovered the
3 Factors (E,N,P) in Personality, which turn out to be the 3 Normal axes
of the CUBE in Psychometry space.
OK, so what Hammond realized at that moment, is that not only the
3-spacial axes of the brain were involved, but that also the
"time-dimension"
was involved, because IQ (intelligence) is known to be caused by mental
speed.
Now this is of special significance, since Hammond had already discovered
that it was the 3-axes of real space that caused the 3-axis structure of
the human body and brain. Now what he realized is that all 4-dimensions
of spacetime caused the 4 main dimensions of Psychometry. The implications
of this were ASTOUNDING. What it meant is that there was a 4x4 "Metric"
in Psychometry space that was directly CAUSED by the 4x4 Metric of real
spacetime (the Einsteinian spacetime metric). Sure enough, mathematics
immediately confirmed it. There was a single higher order factor of
Cattell's 4x4 Metric, and this, mathematically, was caused by the
higher order factor of the 4x4 spacetime metric, which is well known to
be GRAVITY.
Several things were immediately apparent. First of all, since a 4x4
matrix can only have one higher order factor, it meant the whole of
Psychology came to a screeching halt in a single factor at the 4th order.
What was this factor... that was the $64 dollar question.
Within days,, Hammond discovered (quite easily) that the single 4th
order factor was caused by "percentage of brain growth".. in particular,
by the celebrated SECULAR TREND in human growth which has been known for
50 years.
Hammond, who had been suspicious since the day he discovered that
Psychometry ended in a single factor, immediately realized that the
conclusion was inescapable, the single 4th order factor, the "last factor"
in Psychology, was what we (the human race) has been calling "GOD"
for over 5,000 years. The world's first scientific proof of God (SPOG)
had been discovered. To Hammond's utter amazement, he had discovered
that there REALLY IS A GOD.
Further research since those fateful days in February 1997 have confirmed
beyond all possible doubt that the 4th order factor is real, that it is
the "God" of history and the Bible, and that it is caused by Gravity.
there is a real God, just as real as Gravity.
Well, that's it for the PRACTICAL SCIENTIST. What this all means is that
the human brain is the vehicle that "sees reality", but because the
Secular Trend shows that there is no such thing as a person with a 100%
fully grown brain, therefore no one sees 100% of reality. The actual
figure is probably more like 85%. Moreover, since this percentage is
VARIABLE from person to person, and even varies during one's lifetime,
what we actually see in life is a "variable reality", and this variation
in reality is called "God". There certainly is a God, and "He"
certainly is real. "God" is just this power of the man who can see 100%
of reality, and he is latent in our partially grown brains, and He is
absolutely real, and has absolute power over the human race because he
has the power to control what anyone can see.
In conclusion, the practical scientist can see how this can explain
all of the Metaphysical baloney discussions that we hear about, about
"creation",about "miracles", about "Heaven" etc. etc. It's all TRUE.
But the practical scientist will see immediately that the PRACTICAL result
of
all this is not explaining the mysteries of Metaphysics, what the practical
aspect of it is, is to let 6-Billion inhabitants of this world know for
a FACT that there really is a God, that Religion (including Christianity)
is TRUE, and that all the lectures about being good, honest, fair,
optimistic, non corrupt etc. etc. are actually scientific truth, since it
has now been proven that there is a REAL GOD.
The PRACTICAL IMPACT of this discovery is that it will alter the course
of world social behavior, empower the average man and the masses, force
better less corrupt government to appear, increase the chances of peace
and cooperative human global behavior and enable human progress generally.
I hope you, the practical scientist, will take the time to realize that
something new and practical is about to appear on the scientific scene.
HAMMOND, 7-10-2001, Hyannis
--
Be sure to visit my website below, and please ask your
news service provider to add alt.sci.proof-of-god
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Al
>
> SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
>
That is properly spelled "splooge."
If we assume a wombat is really a hedgehog given affine
transformation and a little wiggle room, then we see that god is
obviously a manifestation of logarithmic response. In this way a
scale of 1-100 covers blades of grass to the entire universe with
room to spare (though there is continuing deep and acrimonious
theological debate about tabanid flies the size of hummingbirds
and sheep sinuses, as with Zwinglian doctrine about
literal/virtual/figurative transubstantiation).
As far as individuals go, we all know what the logarithm of one
is.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
dral...@farside.fr
wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>> SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
>>
>[197-line snip]
>
(drala)
thank you for the "snip", Uncle Al, george's text is much better now,
I just wish he could snip it himself!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mark Fergerson
>
> SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
>
> [Hammond]
> While arguing with Metaphysics Logicians is a necessary part
> of Life, like "giving at the office" and "signing get well
> cards", as you know it has no practical significance since
> it has been long ago recognized that Metaphysics is simply
> the application of logical rules to word definitions. Such,
> an activity, like novel mathematics, is KNOWN to produce results
> which have no relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality.
Yes, rather like your alleged SPOG.
> Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
> results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> In the first place we have the following facts:
>
> 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> recognize the existence of a "God".
Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
> 2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
> they just say they have no proof of a "God".
Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence. A
theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
> 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof, in the
sense that you take certain things to be true, then combine them in
certain ways, then arrive at a conclusion that appears to be
internally consistent. But that's not enough for physics; you must
make testable predictions.
> 4. Therefore, we must now bring this matter before
> the "practical scientist" for consideration.
>
> So, here we will give a "practical explanation" of
> what "God" is, according to this new discovery, and we
> will expressly avoid any "metaphysical ramifications" and
> only lay stress on the "practical scientific" facts. In
> other words, this is the basic "nuts and bolts" version of
> what "God" has been discovered to be in terms of "practical
> science".
Now you're into "technology" (applied sciences). What practical
applications of your incomplete theory can you suggest?
<snip>
Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate fields
and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
assumed point), although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
correct in the first place). Science is about making _testable_
predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
theory is true, or needs revising.
Mark L. Fergerson
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
===========================================================
Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > While arguing with Metaphysics Logicians is a necessary part
> > of Life, like "giving at the office" and "signing get well
> > cards", as you know it has no practical significance since
> > it has been long ago recognized that Metaphysics is simply
> > the application of logical rules to word definitions. Such,
> > an activity, like novel mathematics, is KNOWN to produce results
> > which have no relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality.
>
> Yes, rather like your alleged SPOG.
GH: Unsupported assertion
>
> > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
> > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> > In the first place we have the following facts:
> >
> > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> > recognize the existence of a "God".
>
> Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
GH: SPOG itemizes the testable evidence in detail, all of
which has already been confirmed. Please bear in
mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a hypothesis.
>
> > 2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
> > they just say they have no proof of a "God".
>
> Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
> because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence.
[Hammond]
SPOG does not "describe" or "define" God, it has
"discovered" God.
A
> theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
[Hammond]
You have the program backwards... no one "went looking" for
a proof of God, the proof of God was discovered accidentally,
like just about everything else in the history of science.
>
> > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
>
> Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof,
[Hammond]
No, a "physicist" would call it a proof. It is not a
mathematics proof, it is a "scientific" proof (e.g.
it is experimentally confirmed).
> in the
> sense that you take certain things to be true,
GH: SPOG takes nothing to be true unless it has been proven.
Guess again.
then combine them in
> certain ways, then arrive at a conclusion that appears to be
> internally consistent. But that's not enough for physics; you must
> make testable predictions.
GH: All predictions have already been confirmed by existing
data. Bear in mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a
hypothesis.
>
> > 4. Therefore, we must now bring this matter before
> > the "practical scientist" for consideration.
> >
> > So, here we will give a "practical explanation" of
> > what "God" is, according to this new discovery, and we
> > will expressly avoid any "metaphysical ramifications" and
> > only lay stress on the "practical scientific" facts. In
> > other words, this is the basic "nuts and bolts" version of
> > what "God" has been discovered to be in terms of "practical
> > science".
>
> Now you're into "technology" (applied sciences). What practical
> applications of your incomplete theory can you suggest?
[Hammond]
Those are detailed in the last paragraph which you obviously
didn't bother to read.
>
> <snip>
>
> Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate fields
> and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
> assumed point),
GH: WRONG, the "aha moment" may have nothing to do with an
"assumed point"... it may be, like this one, a totally
unexpected, accidental, and historic discovery.
> although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
> correct in the first place).
GH: Discovery needs no "assumed points". Balboa did not "assume"
there was a Pacific ocean before he discovered. He was
totally shocked when he first saw it.
> Science is about making _testable_
> predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
> theory is true, or needs revising.
GH: The major prediction is that there is a "God", and the
experimental data confirms the truth of that prediction,
and BTW, so does 5,000 years of human history.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
John Creighton
George Hammond wrote:
> A
> > theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> > god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> > have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
>
> [Hammond]
> You have the program backwards... no one "went looking" for
> a proof of God, the proof of God was discovered accidentally,
> like just about everything else in the history of science.
So then SPROG is its own theoretical framework that completely
describes the physical world. In that case the theory is poorly named.
The theory should have its own name. Lets be real, SPROG sounds
almost as dumb as TOE
SPROG! SPROG!
SPROG! SPROG!
Who would want name a theory after part of a foot (Pe yew)
Or in SPROG,s case after a Milk Cap (POG)
It might as well be called washer or Toilet seat cover.
Then again maybe SPROG sounds more like a sound effect for
a POGO stick. Or perhaps a sound effect for a tall person hitting
his head on the top of a door frame.
Oh well, I can think of worse names for your theory.
How about......mental geometry
Try the name:
The Cosmic theory of Mind Wave Geometry
Then there could be:
The GOD proof, or even better......
The Omni Correspondence Consequence
Of course you'll have to ask permission to use the names I suggest.
A condition might be a little less cross posting or cross dressing
Whatever
Good day and and have fun
Spranging the SPROGO stick.
John Creighton
John Creighton wrote:
> Of course you'll have to ask permission to use the names I suggest.
> A condition might be a little less cross posting or cross dressing
Actually I changed my mind.
It's a little less cross posting and a little more cross dressing. I think
a different perspective for mr. Halmod might be good for him.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
===========================================================
John Creighton wrote:
>
Lets be real, SPOG sounds
> almost as dumb as TOE
[Hammond]
Yeah... you sound as dumb as my old shoe too.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
===========================================================
GH: Sure, sure Mr. Crateon
franz heymann
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B4B5736...@mediaone.net...
[Snip the crap]
Hammond, why in the hell did you go to the trouble of setting up
a newsgroup specifically for spouting your crap and yet you keep
polluting *this* ng with it?
I seriously suggest to all readers that in possible future
replies to this man, you delete from the reply newsgroups all
except the ng in which you read the contribution to which you are
replying. That should make such a mess of the threads that it
might, with luck, provoke a fatal paroxysm from the man.
Franz Heymann
Tris
> Mark Fergerson wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > While arguing with Metaphysics Logicians is a necessary part
> > > of Life, like "giving at the office" and "signing get well
> > > cards", as you know it has no practical significance since
> > > it has been long ago recognized that Metaphysics is simply
> > > the application of logical rules to word definitions. Such,
> > > an activity, like novel mathematics, is KNOWN to produce results
> > > which have no relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality.
> >
> > Yes, rather like your alleged SPOG.
>
> GH: Unsupported assertion
LOL! I support his assertion, as does everyone who bothers to reply to your
posts.
>
> >
> > > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> > > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> > > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> > > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
> > > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> > > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> > > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> > > In the first place we have the following facts:
> > >
> > > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> > > recognize the existence of a "God".
> >
> > Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
>
> GH: SPOG itemizes the testable evidence in detail, all of
> which has already been confirmed. Please bear in
> mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a hypothesis.
But science can't PROVE anything...
> >
> > > 2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
> > > they just say they have no proof of a "God".
> >
> > Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
> > because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence.
>
> [Hammond]
> SPOG does not "describe" or "define" God, it has
> "discovered" God.
If you haven't defined what you've discovered, how can you know what it is?
> A
> > theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> > god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> > have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
>
> [Hammond]
> You have the program backwards... no one "went looking" for
> a proof of God, the proof of God was discovered accidentally,
> like just about everything else in the history of science.
Gross over-generalisation.
> > > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> > > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> > > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
> >
> > Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof,
>
> [Hammond]
> No, a "physicist" would call it a proof. It is not a
> mathematics proof, it is a "scientific" proof (e.g.
> it is experimentally confirmed).
No-one has experimentally confirmed your 'proof'. They may have
experimentally confirmed the disparate things that make up your 'proof', but
that is all.
"what the practical
aspect of it is, is to let 6-Billion inhabitants of this world know for
a FACT that there really is a God, that Religion (including Christianity)
is TRUE, and that all the lectures about being good, honest, fair,
optimistic, non corrupt etc. etc. are actually scientific truth, since it
has now been proven that there is a REAL GOD.
The PRACTICAL IMPACT of this discovery is that it will alter the course
of world social behavior, empower the average man and the masses, force
better less corrupt government to appear, increase the chances of peace
and cooperative human global behavior and enable human progress generally."
Sadly it won't.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate fields
> > and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
> > assumed point),
>
> GH: WRONG, the "aha moment" may have nothing to do with an
> "assumed point"... it may be, like this one, a totally
> unexpected, accidental, and historic discovery.
>
>
> > although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
> > correct in the first place).
>
> GH: Discovery needs no "assumed points". Balboa did not "assume"
> there was a Pacific ocean before he discovered. He was
> totally shocked when he first saw it.
The same could be said of those who discovered the world isn't flat.
However, the world is real.
>
> > Science is about making _testable_
> > predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
> > theory is true, or needs revising.
>
> GH: The major prediction is that there is a "God", and the
> experimental data confirms the truth of that prediction,
> and BTW, so does 5,000 years of human history.
Science can't confirm the existence of 'God', unless you define 'God' as an
apple or another everyday household object.
jmfb...@aol.com
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote:
>
>George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>news:3B4B5736...@mediaone.net...
>[Snip the crap]
>
>Hammond, why in the hell did you go to the trouble of setting up
>a newsgroup specifically for spouting your crap and yet you keep
>polluting *this* ng with it?
I can answer that question. He doesn't know how to reprogram
his 'bot.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
John Creighton
Tris wrote:
> Gross over-generalisation.
>
> > > > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> > > > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> > > > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
> > >
> > > Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof,
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > No, a "physicist" would call it a proof. It is not a
> > mathematics proof, it is a "scientific" proof (e.g.
> > it is experimentally confirmed).
>
> No-one has experimentally confirmed your 'proof'. They may have
> experimentally confirmed the disparate things that make up your 'proof', but
> that is all.
That is an interesting point. In fact I was thinking that point yesterday. Even
if Hammond came up with a theorticall framework that was completly consistent
with the observable would, his theory would not neciessarly be a good one? By
that I mean,
could an equally consistent set of axioums be found that is more consice. We
don't
observe a God. We only ovserve things like light and sound. We can atribuite a
bunch of observable properties to a God, but does it really improve our theory
or does it only intoduce a conept that is completly uncessary to make physical
pridictions about the world.
Tris
Unfortunately what Hammond apparently fails to comprehend is that he has
(perhaps) found something, but he's just stuck a label on it -'God'. Using
circular argument and every logical fallacy I know of, he attempts to prove
that this thing he thinks he's discovered is identical with every idea of
God there has ever been. He doesn't even appear to realise that one need
only disprove any one part of a 'proof' to render the whole a 'non-proof' -
and that is something almost every poster who replied to him has done.
Furthermore, his replies sometimes contradict each other.
He thinks that any critic must have a list of academic qualifications and
published work in various disparate fields, and no doubt a great deal of
experience in numerology, to be able to critique his proof. A PhD in
Relativity would be insufficient, as one also needs experience in the fields
of Psychometry and Factor Analysis!
I honestly think he may be a troll with far too much time on his hands - I
can't believe anyone is so stupid and stubborn and irrational! But then,
sadly, he is a 'former' schizophrenic...
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=schizophrenia
http://www.graylab.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?schizophrenia
Finally to your question, AFAIK the only way you could 'prove' there was a
God identical with the Christian idea of God, would be to arrange for that
God to show Himself and perform 'miracles'.
John Creighton
franz heymann wrote:
interesting..........
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
===========================================================
Tris wrote:
>
> <snip spam>
>
> > Mark Fergerson wrote:
> > >
> > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > >
> > > > SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > While arguing with Metaphysics Logicians is a necessary part
> > > > of Life, like "giving at the office" and "signing get well
> > > > cards", as you know it has no practical significance since
> > > > it has been long ago recognized that Metaphysics is simply
> > > > the application of logical rules to word definitions. Such,
> > > > an activity, like novel mathematics, is KNOWN to produce results
> > > > which have no relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality.
> > >
> > > Yes, rather like your alleged SPOG.
> >
> > GH: Unsupported assertion
>
> LOL! I support his assertion, as does everyone who bothers to reply to your
> posts.
[Hammond]
Your CV and his, and the rest of the people you refer to
show without any qualification that none of you are academically
or professionally qualified to evaluate the theory, much as you
would like to think you are.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> > > > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> > > > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> > > > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
> > > > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> > > > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> > > > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> > > > In the first place we have the following facts:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> > > > recognize the existence of a "God".
> > >
> > > Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
> >
> > GH: SPOG itemizes the testable evidence in detail, all of
> > which has already been confirmed. Please bear in
> > mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a hypothesis.
>
> But science can't PROVE anything...
[Hammond]
Oh sure, nothing means anything, there are no rule, everything
is arbitrary, nothing can be proved, so therefore you are not
a nit wit nobody, actually you are king of the world. Get
outta here kook.
>
> > >
> > > > 2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
> > > > they just say they have no proof of a "God".
> > >
> > > Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
> > > because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > SPOG does not "describe" or "define" God, it has
> > "discovered" God.
>
> If you haven't defined what you've discovered, how can you know what it is?
GH: Nonsensical statement.
>
> > A
> > > theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> > > god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> > > have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You have the program backwards... no one "went looking" for
> > a proof of God, the proof of God was discovered accidentally,
> > like just about everything else in the history of science.
>
> Gross over-generalisation.
GH: Unsupported assertion.
>
> > > > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> > > > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> > > > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
> > >
> > > Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof,
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > No, a "physicist" would call it a proof. It is not a
> > mathematics proof, it is a "scientific" proof (e.g.
> > it is experimentally confirmed).
>
> No-one has experimentally confirmed your 'proof'. They may have
> experimentally confirmed the disparate things that make up your 'proof', but
> that is all.
GH: Illogical statement.
GH; Unsupported assertion.
>
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate fields
> > > and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
> > > assumed point),
> >
> > GH: WRONG, the "aha moment" may have nothing to do with an
> > "assumed point"... it may be, like this one, a totally
> > unexpected, accidental, and historic discovery.
> >
> >
> > > although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
> > > correct in the first place).
> >
> > GH: Discovery needs no "assumed points". Balboa did not "assume"
> > there was a Pacific ocean before he discovered. He was
> > totally shocked when he first saw it.
>
> The same could be said of those who discovered the world isn't flat.
> However, the world is real.
GH: Unsupported implied statement.
>
> >
> > > Science is about making _testable_
> > > predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
> > > theory is true, or needs revising.
> >
> > GH: The major prediction is that there is a "God", and the
> > experimental data confirms the truth of that prediction,
> > and BTW, so does 5,000 years of human history.
>
> Science can't confirm the existence of 'God', unless you define 'God' as an
> apple or another everyday household object.
GH: Facts need not "definition" how many times do I have to
tell you that? Only "arbitrary conventions' need definitions.
God is a discovered an proven fact, not an arbitrary convention,
therefore it has no "definition", it only has a scientific
explanation and proof... what's wrong with you?
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
===========================================================
[Hammond]
What a laugh... as if "uneducated metaphysics nuts" could say anything
to disprove a scientific theory that is over their head academically.
Baaahhhh hahahahahah ahhaaa
> Furthermore, his replies sometimes contradict each other.
GH: Never, just "different strokes for different folks".
>
> He thinks that any critic must have a list of academic qualifications and
> published work in various disparate fields,
[Hammond]
Gee, that puts me in the same category as the universities,
employers, public opinion, the government and everybody else
who has a brain in their head.
snip
> Finally to your question, AFAIK the only way you could 'prove' there was a
> God identical with the Christian idea of God, would be to arrange for that
> God to show Himself and perform 'miracles'.
[Hammond]
Yeah we know all about it... someone's ben there done that
2,000 years ago.... now you got a hard scientific proof
which is kicking the pedants in the ass.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
===========================================================
[Hammond]
By Jove Creighton you are a decent fellow and an original
thinker. Any pursuit of the above program will, I can
assure you, result in the inevitable conclusion that
there IS NO other rational conclusion but that the phenomena
Hammond has discovered is in fact, absolutely IRREFUTABLY "God".
To review the 100 years of Psychometry, Biology, Neurology
and Relativity evidence that the discovery and identification
of the single 4th order factor (eigenvector) rests on, and to
claim that yes it exists but it is "something else" besides "God"
would be something that would produce howls and storms of laughter
in any competent scientific forum. It would be about like saying,
yes there is a curvature of spacetime due to ponderable mass,
but it does not cause "Gravity", it actually causes something
that looks like gravity, is the same magnitude and direction
as Gravity, but is not actually gravity... it could be a
"5th Force" that merely looks like Gravity but actually
isn't. John, do you know how long such a hypothesis would
last in a competent scientific forum.... about 2 -seconds before
it was howled off the dais with people rolling in the aisles with
their sides acheing with laughter. The same with SPOG.... anyone
claiming to show that G4 is not God, but is actually a "6th Sense"..
... would get laughed right out of town.
I got to hand it to you... you've got a real knack and a keen sense
of humor when it comes to shearding these pedants around... maybe
somebody will atually try it... it sounds like something right up
their alley.... Baaah ahahahhah ahhh ahhaahahhaha. You've given
me the first good laugh I've had in 24 hours. ROFL
Tris
> >
> > LOL! I support his assertion, as does everyone who bothers to reply to
your
> > posts.
>
> [Hammond]
> Your CV and his, and the rest of the people you refer to
> show without any qualification that none of you are academically
> or professionally qualified to evaluate the theory, much as you
> would like to think you are.
Unsupported assertion. You are saying that none of the people who reply to
your posts are academically qualified in any one subject?
> > > > > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> > > > > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> > > > > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> > > > > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical
utilitarian
> > > > > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> > > > > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> > > > > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> > > > > In the first place we have the following facts:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> > > > > recognize the existence of a "God".
> > > >
> > > > Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
> > >
> > > GH: SPOG itemizes the testable evidence in detail, all of
> > > which has already been confirmed. Please bear in
> > > mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a hypothesis.
> >
> > But science can't PROVE anything...
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Oh sure, nothing means anything, there are no rule, everything
> is arbitrary, nothing can be proved, so therefore you are not
> a nit wit nobody, actually you are king of the world. Get
> outta here kook.
ROFLMAO! You don't even understand science.... ...listen nutcase,
experiment can only confirm predictions - it does not prove anything.
And hey, aren't you the guy who says 'reality is variable'?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=reality+is+variable&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=2&
ic=1&selm=93o5uh%24cej%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
> > > > > 2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
> > > > > they just say they have no proof of a "God".
> > > >
> > > > Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
> > > > because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > SPOG does not "describe" or "define" God, it has
> > > "discovered" God.
> >
> > If you haven't defined what you've discovered, how can you know what it
is?
>
> GH: Nonsensical statement.
That's ironic.
> > > A
> > > > theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> > > > god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> > > > have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > You have the program backwards... no one "went looking" for
> > > a proof of God, the proof of God was discovered accidentally,
> > > like just about everything else in the history of science.
> >
> > Gross over-generalisation.
>
> GH: Unsupported assertion.
In addition to being a gross over-generalisation? You're right, thanks for
pointing out your mistake.
> > > > > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> > > > > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> > > > > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
> > > >
> > > > Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof,
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > No, a "physicist" would call it a proof. It is not a
> > > mathematics proof, it is a "scientific" proof (e.g.
> > > it is experimentally confirmed).
> >
> > No-one has experimentally confirmed your 'proof'. They may have
> > experimentally confirmed the disparate things that make up your 'proof',
but
> > that is all.
>
> GH: Illogical statement.
Hardly. You haven't made any testable predictions, therefore no-one can
confirm your 'proof'.
Then refute it with supporting evidence. You are the person making the
extraordinary claim - you are the person who needs to back it up.
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate
fields
> > > > and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
> > > > assumed point),
> > >
> > > GH: WRONG, the "aha moment" may have nothing to do with an
> > > "assumed point"... it may be, like this one, a totally
> > > unexpected, accidental, and historic discovery.
> > >
> > >
> > > > although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
> > > > correct in the first place).
> > >
> > > GH: Discovery needs no "assumed points". Balboa did not "assume"
> > > there was a Pacific ocean before he discovered. He was
> > > totally shocked when he first saw it.
> >
> > The same could be said of those who discovered the world isn't flat.
> > However, the world is real.
>
> GH: Unsupported implied statement.
Eh?
> > > > Science is about making _testable_
> > > > predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
> > > > theory is true, or needs revising.
> > >
> > > GH: The major prediction is that there is a "God", and the
> > > experimental data confirms the truth of that prediction,
> > > and BTW, so does 5,000 years of human history.
> >
> > Science can't confirm the existence of 'God', unless you define 'God' as
an
> > apple or another everyday household object.
>
> GH: Facts need not "definition" how many times do I have to
> tell you that? Only "arbitrary conventions' need definitions.
> God is a discovered an proven fact, not an arbitrary convention,
> therefore it has no "definition", it only has a scientific
> explanation and proof... what's wrong with you?
What is wrong with me? I am sane.
You have 'discovered' something and labelled it God. It is not God as any
Christian defines God, let alone anyone else apart from you. You can say it
is why we think there is a God, but it is not God. The two are not
identical.
Mark Fergerson
>
> ===========================================================
> NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
> seen at:
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
> ===========================================================
>
> Mark Fergerson wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > While arguing with Metaphysics Logicians is a necessary part
> > > of Life, like "giving at the office" and "signing get well
> > > cards", as you know it has no practical significance since
> > > it has been long ago recognized that Metaphysics is simply
> > > the application of logical rules to word definitions. Such,
> > > an activity, like novel mathematics, is KNOWN to produce results
> > > which have no relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality.
> >
> > Yes, rather like your alleged SPOG.
>
> GH: Unsupported assertion
What specific "relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality" does
your "proof" have? None, as you say, merely wild speculations about
social upheaval, etc.
> > > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> > > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> > > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> > > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
> > > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> > > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> > > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> > > In the first place we have the following facts:
> > >
> > > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> > > recognize the existence of a "God".
> >
> > Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
>
> GH: SPOG itemizes the testable evidence in detail, all of
> which has already been confirmed. Please bear in
> mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a hypothesis.
No George. In real science, a theory must provide testable
predictions that _aren't_ part of the body of data used to construct
the theory. Most people mistakenly label the comparison process as
"confirmation or refutation", but the scientific term is "prove" as in
"test".
> > > 2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
> > > they just say they have no proof of a "God".
> >
> > Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
> > because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence.
>
> [Hammond]
> SPOG does not "describe" or "define" God, it has
> "discovered" God.
George, god(s) have been "described" and "defined" for millenia (in
wildly differing ways) and _all_ of those descriptions and definitions
assume a priori that you can't physically test for their existence,
hence the term "faith". That's why an experimental physicist won't
bother looking for any.
Your alleged SPOG is merely a collection of data points that
collectively (scientifically) prove nothing.
> A
> > theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> > god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> > have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
>
> [Hammond]
> You have the program backwards... no one "went looking" for
> a proof of God, the proof of God was discovered accidentally,
> like just about everything else in the history of science.
BS George. You're a born, to-the-bone theist, despite your previous
claim of temporary atheism. Your "SPOG" is a polemic. Admit it.
> > > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> > > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> > > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
> >
> > Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof,
>
> [Hammond]
> No, a "physicist" would call it a proof. It is not a
> mathematics proof, it is a "scientific" proof (e.g.
> it is experimentally confirmed).
No scientist has called it a proof, because it isn't one. Make a
testable prediction that isn't part of the body of data you used to
construct your "SPOG".
> > in the
> > sense that you take certain things to be true,
>
> GH: SPOG takes nothing to be true unless it has been proven.
> Guess again.
You assume the Xtian trinity to be true, then use it to support your
"SPOG".
> then combine them in
> > certain ways, then arrive at a conclusion that appears to be
> > internally consistent. But that's not enough for physics; you must
> > make testable predictions.
>
> GH: All predictions have already been confirmed by existing
> data. Bear in mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a
> hypothesis.
Make a testable prediction that isn't part of the body of data you
used to construct your "SPOG".
> > > 4. Therefore, we must now bring this matter before
> > > the "practical scientist" for consideration.
> > >
> > > So, here we will give a "practical explanation" of
> > > what "God" is, according to this new discovery, and we
> > > will expressly avoid any "metaphysical ramifications" and
> > > only lay stress on the "practical scientific" facts. In
> > > other words, this is the basic "nuts and bolts" version of
> > > what "God" has been discovered to be in terms of "practical
> > > science".
> >
> > Now you're into "technology" (applied sciences). What practical
> > applications of your incomplete theory can you suggest?
>
> [Hammond]
> Those are detailed in the last paragraph which you obviously
> didn't bother to read.
Oh, but I did. No practical application, just typical theistic
speculations about social upheaval (that will result in your being
crowned Pope, no doubt).
> > Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate fields
> > and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
> > assumed point),
>
> GH: WRONG, the "aha moment" may have nothing to do with an
> "assumed point"... it may be, like this one, a totally
> unexpected, accidental, and historic discovery.
>
> > although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
> > correct in the first place).
>
> GH: Discovery needs no "assumed points". Balboa did not "assume"
> there was a Pacific ocean before he discovered. He was
> totally shocked when he first saw it.
Yup. He expected to find it much earlier. So what?
> > Science is about making _testable_
> > predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
> > theory is true, or needs revising.
>
> GH: The major prediction is that there is a "God", and the
> experimental data confirms the truth of that prediction,
No, that's called a "polemic".
> and BTW, so does 5,000 years of human history.
No such thing. That time period contains many data points, but few
proofs in the scientific sense.
Mark L. Fergerson
Mark Fergerson
>
> George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3B4B5736...@mediaone.net...
> [Snip the crap]
>
> Hammond, why in the hell did you go to the trouble of setting up
> a newsgroup specifically for spouting your crap and yet you keep
> polluting *this* ng with it?
He's managed to convince himself that his "SPOG" and science have
something to do with each other.
> I seriously suggest to all readers that in possible future
> replies to this man, you delete from the reply newsgroups all
> except the ng in which you read the contribution to which you are
> replying. That should make such a mess of the threads that it
> might, with luck, provoke a fatal paroxysm from the man.
Won't work. He'll just continue to (cross)post here, and it's our
duty to point out the flaws. That's how _real_ science works, no?
Mark L. Fergerson
David Evens
Yes, but you are preteding that you have a proof, not demonstrating
that it isn't one.
>> Furthermore, his replies sometimes contradict each other.
>
>GH: Never, just "different strokes for different folks".
So, you are now claiming DID as well as schizophrenia?
>> He thinks that any critic must have a list of academic qualifications and
>> published work in various disparate fields,
>
>[Hammond]
>Gee, that puts me in the same category as the universities,
>employers, public opinion, the government and everybody else
>who has a brain in their head.
Why do you pretend that anyone with a brain in their head is as
irrational as you are, despite the observation that NONE of the
organisations you cite make the mistake you pretend they do?
>> Finally to your question, AFAIK the only way you could 'prove' there was a
>> God identical with the Christian idea of God, would be to arrange for that
>> God to show Himself and perform 'miracles'.
>
>[Hammond]
>Yeah we know all about it... someone's ben there done that
>2,000 years ago.... now you got a hard scientific proof
>which is kicking the pedants in the ass.
You forgotr to mention your proof. All you have is your deranged
ravings.
David Evens
Sop you admit that you are, by your own 'standards', unqualified to
evaluate your 'theory', as you have no qualifications of any kind.
And no, nothing you have done since 1969 qualifies, since you aren't
sane.
>> > > > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
>> > > > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
>> > > > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
>> > > > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
>> > > > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
>> > > > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
>> > > > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
>> > > > In the first place we have the following facts:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
>> > > > recognize the existence of a "God".
>> > >
>> > > Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
>> >
>> > GH: SPOG itemizes the testable evidence in detail, all of
>> > which has already been confirmed. Please bear in
>> > mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a hypothesis.
>>
>> But science can't PROVE anything...
>
>
>[Hammond]
>Oh sure, nothing means anything, there are no rule, everything
>is arbitrary, nothing can be proved, so therefore you are not
>a nit wit nobody, actually you are king of the world. Get
>outta here kook.
Why does dealing with reality make him a kook?
>> > > > 2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
>> > > > they just say they have no proof of a "God".
>> > >
>> > > Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
>> > > because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence.
>> >
>> > [Hammond]
>> > SPOG does not "describe" or "define" God, it has
>> > "discovered" God.
>>
>> If you haven't defined what you've discovered, how can you know what it is?
>
>GH: Nonsensical statement.
Yes, your claim IS a nonsensical statement. Are you meds kicking in?
>> > A
>> > > theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
>> > > god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
>> > > have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
>> >
>> > [Hammond]
>> > You have the program backwards... no one "went looking" for
>> > a proof of God, the proof of God was discovered accidentally,
>> > like just about everything else in the history of science.
>>
>> Gross over-generalisation.
>
>GH: Unsupported assertion.
Indeed your clainm that you have a proof of God IS an unsupported
assertion.
>> > > > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
>> > > > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
>> > > > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
>> > >
>> > > Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof,
>> >
>> > [Hammond]
>> > No, a "physicist" would call it a proof. It is not a
>> > mathematics proof, it is a "scientific" proof (e.g.
>> > it is experimentally confirmed).
>>
>> No-one has experimentally confirmed your 'proof'. They may have
>> experimentally confirmed the disparate things that make up your 'proof', but
>> that is all.
>
>GH: Illogical statement.
Indeed, your claim that you have a proof from experimental
confirmation IS illogical.
Indeed your claim that you have a proof of God IS an unsupported
assertion.
>> > > <snip>
>> > >
>> > > Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate fields
>> > > and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
>> > > assumed point),
>> >
>> > GH: WRONG, the "aha moment" may have nothing to do with an
>> > "assumed point"... it may be, like this one, a totally
>> > unexpected, accidental, and historic discovery.
>> >
>> >
>> > > although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
>> > > correct in the first place).
>> >
>> > GH: Discovery needs no "assumed points". Balboa did not "assume"
>> > there was a Pacific ocean before he discovered. He was
>> > totally shocked when he first saw it.
>>
>> The same could be said of those who discovered the world isn't flat.
>> However, the world is real.
>
>GH: Unsupported implied statement.
Indeed your implied claim that you have not assumed your conclusion
because the Paciofic Ocean was not assume is an unsupported
implication.
>> > > Science is about making _testable_
>> > > predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
>> > > theory is true, or needs revising.
>> >
>> > GH: The major prediction is that there is a "God", and the
>> > experimental data confirms the truth of that prediction,
>> > and BTW, so does 5,000 years of human history.
>>
>> Science can't confirm the existence of 'God', unless you define 'God' as an
>> apple or another everyday household object.
>
>GH: Facts need not "definition" how many times do I have to
> tell you that? Only "arbitrary conventions' need definitions.
> God is a discovered an proven fact, not an arbitrary convention,
> therefore it has no "definition", it only has a scientific
> explanation and proof... what's wrong with you?
Why are you ignoring what you are pretending to be able to do THIS
time?
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > ===========================================================
> > NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
> > seen at:
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
> > ===========================================================
> >
> > Mark Fergerson wrote:
> > >
> > > George Hammond wrote:
> > > >
> > > > SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > While arguing with Metaphysics Logicians is a necessary part
> > > > of Life, like "giving at the office" and "signing get well
> > > > cards", as you know it has no practical significance since
> > > > it has been long ago recognized that Metaphysics is simply
> > > > the application of logical rules to word definitions. Such,
> > > > an activity, like novel mathematics, is KNOWN to produce results
> > > > which have no relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality.
> > >
> > > Yes, rather like your alleged SPOG.
> >
> > GH: Unsupported assertion
>
> What specific "relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality" does
> your "proof" have? None, as you say, merely wild speculations about
> social upheaval, etc.
[Hammond]
No sane person has to defend the significance of discovering
a "scientific proof of God", every major scientist in history
from Aristotle to newton and DesCartes have searched for it.
the significance of such a thing is prima facie and well known
to world history... whaddaru a jerk?
>
> > > > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> > > > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> > > > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> > > > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
> > > > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> > > > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> > > > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> > > > In the first place we have the following facts:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> > > > recognize the existence of a "God".
> > >
> > > Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
> >
> > GH: SPOG itemizes the testable evidence in detail, all of
> > which has already been confirmed. Please bear in
> > mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a hypothesis.
>
> No George. In real science, a theory must provide testable
> predictions that _aren't_ part of the body of data used to construct
> the theory.
[Hammond]
Wrong... it is sufficient for a major theory to explain all
previously unexplained data. Which in this case is historic
and astronomical. Naturally, this discovery is only the
tip of the iceberg, but the rest of the iceberg is work
for future generations.
Most people mistakenly label the comparison process as
> "confirmation or refutation", but the scientific term is "prove" as in
> "test".
GH; Were not dealing with a case of "to prove" here,
we are dealing with a case of "proven". look for
another canard.
>
> > > > 2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
> > > > they just say they have no proof of a "God".
> > >
> > > Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
> > > because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > SPOG does not "describe" or "define" God, it has
> > "discovered" God.
>
> George, god(s) have been "described" and "defined" for millenia (in
> wildly differing ways) and _all_ of those descriptions and definitions
> assume a priori that you can't physically test for their existence,
GH: Did you say "assume"... lets assume that they "assumed"
wrong.
> hence the term "faith". That's why an experimental physicist won't
> bother looking for any.
GH: I'm not concerned with what line professional assholes
will bother with.
>
> Your alleged SPOG is merely a collection of data points that
> collectively (scientifically) prove nothing.
GH: Unsupported assertion
>
> > A
> > > theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> > > god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> > > have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You have the program backwards... no one "went looking" for
> > a proof of God, the proof of God was discovered accidentally,
> > like just about everything else in the history of science.
>
> BS George. You're a born, to-the-bone theist, despite your previous
> claim of temporary atheism. Your "SPOG" is a polemic. Admit it.
GH: Unsupported assertion
>
> > > > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> > > > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> > > > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
> > >
> > > Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof,
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > No, a "physicist" would call it a proof. It is not a
> > mathematics proof, it is a "scientific" proof (e.g.
> > it is experimentally confirmed).
>
> No scientist has called it a proof,
GH: No competent scientist has ever seen it.
because it isn't one.
GH: Unsupported assertion
Make a
> testable prediction that isn't part of the body of data you used to
> construct your "SPOG".
GH: The theory is already proven. That's all I'm concerned
with. The predictions it makes are so obvious that they
can be investigated by the ordinary business of science.
My job was to prove it, which I have. I don't need to
bother with anything else. The major prediction of the theory is
that it will alter world history and move us into a new
age, that is testable.
>
> > > in the
> > > sense that you take certain things to be true,
> >
> > GH: SPOG takes nothing to be true unless it has been proven.
> > Guess again.
>
> You assume the Xtian trinity to be true, then use it to support your
> "SPOG".
GH: LIAR. the Trinity is not needed for the SPOG.
It's just one of those boring predictions which
the ordinary business of science can work on.
>
> > then combine them in
> > > certain ways, then arrive at a conclusion that appears to be
> > > internally consistent. But that's not enough for physics; you must
> > > make testable predictions.
> >
> > GH: All predictions have already been confirmed by existing
> > data. Bear in mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a
> > hypothesis.
>
> Make a testable prediction that isn't part of the body of data you
> used to construct your "SPOG".
GH: Not necessary, the theory is already proven. All the
"predictions of the theory" have already been tested,
and confirmed. Been there done that.
>
> > > > 4. Therefore, we must now bring this matter before
> > > > the "practical scientist" for consideration.
> > > >
> > > > So, here we will give a "practical explanation" of
> > > > what "God" is, according to this new discovery, and we
> > > > will expressly avoid any "metaphysical ramifications" and
> > > > only lay stress on the "practical scientific" facts. In
> > > > other words, this is the basic "nuts and bolts" version of
> > > > what "God" has been discovered to be in terms of "practical
> > > > science".
> > >
> > > Now you're into "technology" (applied sciences). What practical
> > > applications of your incomplete theory can you suggest?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Those are detailed in the last paragraph which you obviously
> > didn't bother to read.
>
> Oh, but I did. No practical application, just typical theistic
> speculations about social upheaval (that will result in your being
> crowned Pope, no doubt).
GH: No, will result in you being put back in
you're place though, no doubt. You and the rest
of the bigmouth pedants walking around like they
know it all.
>
> > > Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate fields
> > > and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
> > > assumed point),
> >
> > GH: WRONG, the "aha moment" may have nothing to do with an
> > "assumed point"... it may be, like this one, a totally
> > unexpected, accidental, and historic discovery.
> >
> > > although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
> > > correct in the first place).
> >
> > GH: Discovery needs no "assumed points". Balboa did not "assume"
> > there was a Pacific ocean before he discovered. He was
> > totally shocked when he first saw it.
>
> Yup. He expected to find it much earlier. So what?
GH: Unsupported assertion. Why don't you spend your time
investigating Balboa... seems like something at your
mental level.
>
> > > Science is about making _testable_
> > > predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
> > > theory is true, or needs revising.
> >
> > GH: The major prediction is that there is a "God", and the
> > experimental data confirms the truth of that prediction,
>
> No, that's called a "polemic".
GH: That's called a lie.
>
> > and BTW, so does 5,000 years of human history.
>
> No such thing. That time period contains many data points, but few
> proofs in the scientific sense.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
===========================================================
[Hammond]
right... why don't you point out the flaws in this one
if you can read it:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/MeasureGod.html
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
===========================================================
Tris wrote:
>
> > > > GH: Unsupported assertion
> > >
> > > LOL! I support his assertion, as does everyone who bothers to reply to
> your
> > > posts.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Your CV and his, and the rest of the people you refer to
> > show without any qualification that none of you are academically
> > or professionally qualified to evaluate the theory, much as you
> > would like to think you are.
>
> Unsupported assertion. You are saying that none of the people who reply to
> your posts are academically qualified in any one subject?
[Hammond]
Nope... I'm saying that qualifications in one subject does not
qualify one to refute the theory, especially since they can't
even refute the theory in their own field of expertise.
[Hammond]
Reality is variable, not reversible.
[Hammond]
There are no mistakes in the SPOG
>
> > > > > > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> > > > > > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> > > > > > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof,
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > No, a "physicist" would call it a proof. It is not a
> > > > mathematics proof, it is a "scientific" proof (e.g.
> > > > it is experimentally confirmed).
> > >
> > > No-one has experimentally confirmed your 'proof'. They may have
> > > experimentally confirmed the disparate things that make up your 'proof',
> but
> > > that is all.
> >
> > GH: Illogical statement.
>
> Hardly. You haven't made any testable predictions, therefore no-one can
> confirm your 'proof'.
[Hammond]
The proof has already been proven. Predictions are irrelevant
as to whether the theory is proven or not.
[Hammond]
The significance of a "scientific proof of God' has been
recognized since the time of Aristotle, and every great
scientist in history has looked for it including Newton,
and DesCartes. No one in his right mind would even
question the significance of a "proof of God"... whaddau nuts?
>
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate
> fields
> > > > > and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
> > > > > assumed point),
> > > >
> > > > GH: WRONG, the "aha moment" may have nothing to do with an
> > > > "assumed point"... it may be, like this one, a totally
> > > > unexpected, accidental, and historic discovery.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
> > > > > correct in the first place).
> > > >
> > > > GH: Discovery needs no "assumed points". Balboa did not "assume"
> > > > there was a Pacific ocean before he discovered. He was
> > > > totally shocked when he first saw it.
> > >
> > > The same could be said of those who discovered the world isn't flat.
> > > However, the world is real.
> >
> > GH: Unsupported implied statement.
>
> Eh?
[Hammond]
Aiyuh, aiyuh, aiyuh....
>
> > > > > Science is about making _testable_
> > > > > predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
> > > > > theory is true, or needs revising.
> > > >
> > > > GH: The major prediction is that there is a "God", and the
> > > > experimental data confirms the truth of that prediction,
> > > > and BTW, so does 5,000 years of human history.
> > >
> > > Science can't confirm the existence of 'God', unless you define 'God' as
> an
> > > apple or another everyday household object.
> >
> > GH: Facts need not "definition" how many times do I have to
> > tell you that? Only "arbitrary conventions' need definitions.
> > God is a discovered an proven fact, not an arbitrary convention,
> > therefore it has no "definition", it only has a scientific
> > explanation and proof... what's wrong with you?
>
> What is wrong with me? I am sane.
GH: Of course not... anybody with as big and insolent a mouth
as you has to be mentally disturbed.
>
> You have 'discovered' something and labelled it God. It is not God as any
> Christian defines God, let alone anyone else apart from you. You can say it
> is why we think there is a God, but it is not God. The two are not
> identical.
GH: Unsupported assertion.
--
Be sure to visit my website below, and please ask your
news service provider to add alt.sci.proof-of-god
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
===========================================================
GH: Unsupported assertion.
>
> >> > > > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> >> > > > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> >> > > > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> >> > > > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
> >> > > > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> >> > > > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> >> > > > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> >> > > > In the first place we have the following facts:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> >> > > > recognize the existence of a "God".
> >> > >
> >> > > Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
> >> >
> >> > GH: SPOG itemizes the testable evidence in detail, all of
> >> > which has already been confirmed. Please bear in
> >> > mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a hypothesis.
> >>
> >> But science can't PROVE anything...
> >
> >
> >[Hammond]
> >Oh sure, nothing means anything, there are no rule, everything
> >is arbitrary, nothing can be proved, so therefore you are not
> >a nit wit nobody, actually you are king of the world. Get
> >outta here kook.
>
> Why does dealing with reality make him a kook?
GH: Unsupported premise
>
> >> > > > 2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
> >> > > > they just say they have no proof of a "God".
> >> > >
> >> > > Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
> >> > > because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence.
> >> >
> >> > [Hammond]
> >> > SPOG does not "describe" or "define" God, it has
> >> > "discovered" God.
> >>
> >> If you haven't defined what you've discovered, how can you know what it is?
> >
> >GH: Nonsensical statement.
>
> Yes, your claim IS a nonsensical statement. Are you meds kicking in?
GH: sick fuck
>
> >> > A
> >> > > theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> >> > > god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> >> > > have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
> >> >
> >> > [Hammond]
> >> > You have the program backwards... no one "went looking" for
> >> > a proof of God, the proof of God was discovered accidentally,
> >> > like just about everything else in the history of science.
> >>
> >> Gross over-generalisation.
> >
> >GH: Unsupported assertion.
>
> Indeed your clainm that you have a proof of God IS an unsupported
> assertion.
GH: LOL
>
> >> > > > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> >> > > > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> >> > > > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
> >> > >
> >> > > Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof,
> >> >
> >> > [Hammond]
> >> > No, a "physicist" would call it a proof. It is not a
> >> > mathematics proof, it is a "scientific" proof (e.g.
> >> > it is experimentally confirmed).
> >>
> >> No-one has experimentally confirmed your 'proof'. They may have
> >> experimentally confirmed the disparate things that make up your 'proof', but
> >> that is all.
> >
> >GH: Illogical statement.
>
> Indeed, your claim that you have a proof from experimental
> confirmation IS illogical.
GH: Unsupported assertion
GH: LOL
>
> >> > > <snip>
> >> > >
> >> > > Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate fields
> >> > > and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
> >> > > assumed point),
> >> >
> >> > GH: WRONG, the "aha moment" may have nothing to do with an
> >> > "assumed point"... it may be, like this one, a totally
> >> > unexpected, accidental, and historic discovery.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
> >> > > correct in the first place).
> >> >
> >> > GH: Discovery needs no "assumed points". Balboa did not "assume"
> >> > there was a Pacific ocean before he discovered. He was
> >> > totally shocked when he first saw it.
> >>
> >> The same could be said of those who discovered the world isn't flat.
> >> However, the world is real.
> >
> >GH: Unsupported implied statement.
>
> Indeed your implied claim that you have not assumed your conclusion
> because the Paciofic Ocean was not assume is an unsupported
> implication.
GH: LOL
>
> >> > > Science is about making _testable_
> >> > > predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
> >> > > theory is true, or needs revising.
> >> >
> >> > GH: The major prediction is that there is a "God", and the
> >> > experimental data confirms the truth of that prediction,
> >> > and BTW, so does 5,000 years of human history.
> >>
> >> Science can't confirm the existence of 'God', unless you define 'God' as an
> >> apple or another everyday household object.
> >
> >GH: Facts need not "definition" how many times do I have to
> > tell you that? Only "arbitrary conventions' need definitions.
> > God is a discovered an proven fact, not an arbitrary convention,
> > therefore it has no "definition", it only has a scientific
> > explanation and proof... what's wrong with you?
>
> Why are you ignoring what you are pretending to be able to do THIS
> time?
GH: LOL
--
Be sure to visit my website below, and please ask your
news service provider to add alt.sci.proof-of-god
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
franz heymann
[Snip]
A reminder:
To hamper gammon's spamming, I recommend any reader who replies
to his postings to limit their replies to only the ng in which
you read the piece to which you are replying. This should keep
him on his toes.
Franz Heymann
Tris
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:3b4d69b1$0$8514$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
But ALL MUST read my WORDS!
John Creighton
George Hammond wrote:
> It would be about like saying,
> yes there is a curvature of spacetime due to ponderable mass,
> but it does not cause "Gravity", it actually causes something
> that looks like gravity, is the same magnitude and direction
> as Gravity, but is not actually gravity...
When Gallio wrote his book the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres
there was a preface that said that the earth doesn't actually go around
the sun but if we treat it as so it will greatly simplify our calculations.
Later as physics developed we decide that the question of if the sun
goes around the earth or the earth goes around the sun is simply a matter
of perspective. They are two equally valid coordinate systems or
frames of reference.
Physics does not say what exists and what doesn't
exist. That is the Job of philosophy and theology. Physics merrily identifies
patterns that help help us to understand what we should observe and
what we shouldn't. In order to observe these patterns we create theoretical
frameworks. These frameworks are nothing more then an abstraction. It is
not important to physics whether they exist or not. What is important is if
the abstraction is useful for the problem we are trying to solve.
The Archbishop
> [Hammond]
> There are no mistakes in the SPOG
Aside from the entire premise upon which it is based, that is. Anyone -
fuck, any *child* - looking at your 'proof' can see it's entirely
circular. I now await your 'you aren't qualified to criticise me'
boilerplate with a degree of tedium only matched by a Genesis album.
The Archbishop
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
===========================================================
John Creighton wrote:
>
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > It would be about like saying,
> > yes there is a curvature of spacetime due to ponderable mass,
> > but it does not cause "Gravity", it actually causes something
> > that looks like gravity, is the same magnitude and direction
> > as Gravity, but is not actually gravity...
>
> When Gallio wrote his book the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres
> there was a preface that said that the earth doesn't actually go around
> the sun but if we treat it as so it will greatly simplify our calculations.
[Hammond]
Obviously he was lying, I'm not.
>
> Later as physics developed we decide that the question of if the sun
> goes around the earth or the earth goes around the sun is simply a matter
> of perspective. They are two equally valid coordinate systems or
> frames of reference.
[Hammond]
Wrong. If you and I see each other moving around us in a circle,
we can tell which one is actually moving and which one is not,
since the one moving will feel a centrifugal force and the one
who is not will not.
>
> Physics does not say what exists and what doesn't
> exist.
[Hammond]
Physics assumes that anything detected by the human sensory
system is "real".
That is the Job of philosophy and theology. Physics merrily identifies
> patterns that help help us to understand what we should observe and
> what we shouldn't. In order to observe these patterns we create theoretical
> frameworks. These frameworks are nothing more then an abstraction. It is
> not important to physics whether they exist or not. What is important is if
> the abstraction is useful for the problem we are trying to solve.
[Hammond]
Don't waste your time tediously codifying old
theories. An ounce of new knowlege is worth a
pound of elaboration of old knowlege. Study SPOG.
--
Be sure to visit my website below, and please ask your
news service provider to add alt.sci.proof-of-god
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Creighton
theory you would skip all the BS and tell us exactly how to use SPROG
to make measurable predictions about the world.
So let's begin:
What are the observable in SPROG?
How do you perform a measurement of an observable?
How does SPROG predict the change of an observable
with respect to time?
P.S. You had previously said GOD was an eignvector. Since you have
discovered GOD and you recognized god is an eign vector you should
be able to define the structure of GOD.
P.S. I assume by engn value you mean a solution to
AX=EX where A is some operator and X is some
mathematical object. And E is a scalar.
So for what operators A is god an eign vector of?
For this operator what eign Values give eign vectors
which are GOD? How do you define these eign Vectors?
Can we measure the eign values?
What kind of mathematical space are these eign Vectors found in?
Are they found in a Hilbert Space? Can we measure the components
of the eign Vectors? What eign Vectors are equivalent to GOD?
In what sense are they equivalent to GOD?
I do think there is something suspicion about calling god an eign vector.
That is kind of like saying I am one. The number one exists therefore
I exist. Mathematical objects are not physical objects. They are aproximatly
equivalent
to physical objects in the following sense:
Let f:(A)->(A')
where A is an object in the real world.
and A' is a mathematical representation of that object.
Then if g:A->B is a physical process then there exists
an equivalent mapping h:A'->b'+(some error term)
Where h is some transformation between mathematical objects.
George Hammond
>
> If you were were really interested in the practical significance of this
> theory you would skip all the BS and tell us exactly how to use SPROG
> to make measurable predictions about the world.
[Hammond]
If you were really interested in the practical significance of SPOG
you would study my website and my posts instead of trying to get a
major scientist like me to wastetime spoonfeeding a tutorial to an
insignificant nobody like you.
>
> So let's begin:
> What are the observable in SPROG?
> How do you perform a measurement of an observable?
> How does SPROG predict the change of an observable
> with respect to time?
>
> P.S. You had previously said GOD was an eignvector. Since you have
> discovered GOD and you recognized god is an eign vector you should
> be able to define the structure of GOD.
>
> P.S. I assume by engn value you mean a solution to
> AX=EX where A is some operator and X is some
> mathematical object. And E is a scalar.
[Hammond]
An eigenvector is a symmetry axis in this problem. In
particular a symmetry axis of the brain.
>
> So for what operators A is god an eign vector of?
> For this operator what eign Values give eign vectors
> which are GOD? How do you define these eign Vectors?
> Can we measure the eign values?
> What kind of mathematical space are these eign Vectors found in?
> Are they found in a Hilbert Space? Can we measure the components
> of the eign Vectors? What eign Vectors are equivalent to GOD?
> In what sense are they equivalent to GOD?
>
> I do think there is something suspicion about calling god an eign vector.
> That is kind of like saying I am one. The number one exists therefore
> I exist. Mathematical objects are not physical objects. They are aproximatly
> equivalent
> to physical objects in the following sense:
>
> Let f:(A)->(A')
> where A is an object in the real world.
> and A' is a mathematical representation of that object.
>
> Then if g:A->B is a physical process then there exists
> an equivalent mapping h:A'->b'+(some error term)
>
> Where h is some transformation between mathematical objects.
[Hammond]
It may be too late to teach an old dog new tricks,
Creighton. You may be too set in your ways to learn
anything new... we may simply have to waqnder in the desert
for 40 years until you die of old age, and we will be
free at last.
John Creighton
George Hammond wrote:
> John Creighton wrote:
> >
> > If you were were really interested in the practical significance of this
> > theory you would skip all the BS and tell us exactly how to use SPROG
> > to make measurable predictions about the world.
>
> [Hammond]
> If you were really interested in the practical significance of SPOG
> you would study my website and my posts instead of trying to get a
> major scientist like me to wastetime spoonfeeding a tutorial to an
> insignificant nobody like you.
Don't you think it would be more productive listening to the questions other
people have and the answering them as opposed to writing endless pages of
B.S. You claim you would be wasting your time to "spoonfeed" a tutorial to
me but it is your job as the presenter to make your theory clear and concise.
The best way to get other people to learn what you have to teach them is
listen to their questions and try to answer them. If one person has a question
it is likely that someone else will have the same question. I would think
you should take this as a hint on how best to present your work.
> [Hammond]
> It may be too late to teach an old dog new tricks,
> Creighton. You may be too set in your ways to learn
> anything new... we may simply have to waqnder in the desert
> for 40 years until you die of old age, and we will be
> free at last.
On the contory, I am always learning new things.
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > John Creighton wrote:
> > >
> > > If you were were really interested in the practical significance of this
> > > theory you would skip all the BS and tell us exactly how to use SPROG
> > > to make measurable predictions about the world.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > If you were really interested in the practical significance of SPOG
> > you would study my website and my posts instead of trying to get a
> > major scientist like me to wastetime spoonfeeding a tutorial to an
> > insignificant nobody like you.
>
> Don't you think it would be more productive listening to the questions other
> people have and the answering them as opposed to writing endless pages of
> B.S. You claim you would be wasting your time to "spoonfeed" a tutorial to
> me but it is your job as the presenter to make your theory clear and concise.
> The best way to get other people to learn what you have to teach them is
> listen to their questions and try to answer them. If one person has a question
> it is likely that someone else will have the same question. I would think
> you should take this as a hint on how best to present your work.
>
[Hammond]
Look, it took me 25 years to figure out what General Relativity is.
And after I figured it out, I realized that Pauli, or Wheeler, or
Feynman could have explained it to me in 25 minutes. Poor and
underprivileged people don't have the generations of inherited savvy
the upper middle classes have and it can take one of them a lifetime
to get an education on his own so that HE can solve the desperate
problems of humanity. I've done that. And now you expect me to
drop everything and had it over to you in a personal tutorial.
Problem is, there are 6-Billion people just like you waiting in line,
waiting in line to find out what God is and how there could be a
absolute scientific proof of God's existence.... which they desperately
need to enable them to take control of their governments and their
societies and to save themselves. It is they who have sent me to do
this, and the only way I can deliver it to 6-Billion people is to
write web pages, corssposts, FAQ's and books. I can't stop to talk to
anyone for any significant length of time. I'm looking for people like
Disciple and others who are part of the solution and not part of the
problem. Someone who has obviously made a halfway effort to actually
comprehend the SPOG.... and realizes why it's important. He realizes
it's real and scary and big.... you don't. You think it's just another
academic production. He knows who I am and you don't.
> > [Hammond]
> > It may be too late to teach an old dog new tricks,
> > Creighton. You may be too set in your ways to learn
> > anything new... we may simply have to waqnder in the desert
> > for 40 years until you die of old age, and we will be
> > free at last.
>
> On the contory, I am always learning new things.
[Hammond]
You may not want to learn this one... for some people there's
such a thing as knowing too much.
Bilge
>
>[Hammond]
> Look, it took me 25 years to figure out what General Relativity is.
newsgroups?
>And after I figured it out, I realized that Pauli, or Wheeler, or
>Feynman could have explained it to me in 25 minutes. Poor and
>underprivileged people don't have the generations of inherited savvy
>the upper middle classes have and it can take one of them a lifetime
>to get an education on his own so that HE can solve the desperate
>problems of humanity. I've done that.
Last I checked, humanity still had one or two problems that were
resisting your assault.
> And now you expect me to
>drop everything and had it over to you in a personal tutorial.
>Problem is, there are 6-Billion people just like you waiting in line,
Make that 6 billion less 1, though I'm sure I'm not an isolated
heretic against the SPam Of God provided through your usenet ministry.
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
===========================================================
Bilge wrote:
>
> George Hammond said some stuff about
> >
> >[Hammond]
> > Look, it took me 25 years to figure out what General Relativity is.
>
> So you've decided to become the Spam Prophet Of God and "bless" the
> newsgroups?
>
> >And after I figured it out, I realized that Pauli, or Wheeler, or
> >Feynman could have explained it to me in 25 minutes. Poor and
> >underprivileged people don't have the generations of inherited savvy
> >the upper middle classes have and it can take one of them a lifetime
> >to get an education on his own so that HE can solve the desperate
> >problems of humanity. I've done that.
>
> Last I checked, humanity still had one or two problems that were
> resisting your assault.
[Hammond]
God IS the number one problem of Man. Everything else
takes second place to that.
>
> > And now you expect me to
> >drop everything and had it over to you in a personal tutorial.
> >Problem is, there are 6-Billion people just like you waiting in line,
>
> Make that 6 billion less 1, though I'm sure I'm not an isolated
> heretic against the SPam Of God provided through your usenet ministry.
--
Be sure to visit my website below, and please ask your
news service provider to add alt.sci.proof-of-god
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
dral...@farside.fr
<gham...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>===========================================================
>NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
> seen at:
>http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
>===========================================================
>
>Bilge wrote:
>>
>> George Hammond said some stuff about
>> >
>> >[Hammond]
>> > Look, it took me 25 years to figure out what General Relativity is.
>>
>> So you've decided to become the Spam Prophet Of God and "bless" the
>> newsgroups?
>>
>> >And after I figured it out, I realized that Pauli, or Wheeler, or
>> >Feynman could have explained it to me in 25 minutes. Poor and
>> >underprivileged people don't have the generations of inherited savvy
>> >the upper middle classes have and it can take one of them a lifetime
>> >to get an education on his own so that HE can solve the desperate
>> >problems of humanity. I've done that.
>>
>> Last I checked, humanity still had one or two problems that were
>> resisting your assault.
>
>[Hammond]
>God IS the number one problem of Man. Everything else
>takes second place to that.
>
(drala)
yes, god is really a problem: bigots like you and your creationnists
friends have cause most wars and murders in history, but I don't why
I'm telling you this: your previous posts show that you have no
knowledge in history...
>>
>> > And now you expect me to
>> >drop everything and had it over to you in a personal tutorial.
>> >Problem is, there are 6-Billion people just like you waiting in line,
>>
>> Make that 6 billion less 1, though I'm sure I'm not an isolated
>> heretic against the SPam Of God provided through your usenet ministry.
>
Disciple
> ===========================================================
> NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
> seen at:
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
> ===========================================================
>
> Bilge wrote:
> >
> > George Hammond said some stuff about
> > >
> > >[Hammond]
> > > Look, it took me 25 years to figure out what General Relativity is.
> >
> > So you've decided to become the Spam Prophet Of God and "bless"
the
> > newsgroups?
> >
> > >And after I figured it out, I realized that Pauli, or Wheeler, or
> > >Feynman could have explained it to me in 25 minutes. Poor and
> > >underprivileged people don't have the generations of inherited savvy
> > >the upper middle classes have and it can take one of them a lifetime
> > >to get an education on his own so that HE can solve the desperate
> > >problems of humanity. I've done that.
> >
> > Last I checked, humanity still had one or two problems that were
> > resisting your assault.
>
> [Hammond]
> God IS the number one problem of Man. Everything else
> takes second place to that.
Correction, God is the solution, not the problem.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Aaron Agassi
"Mark Fergerson" <mferg...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B4B7592...@home.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > While arguing with Metaphysics Logicians is a necessary part
> > of Life, like "giving at the office" and "signing get well
> > cards", as you know it has no practical significance since
> > it has been long ago recognized that Metaphysics is simply
> > the application of logical rules to word definitions.
Bullshit.
>Such,
> > an activity, like novel mathematics, is KNOWN to produce results
> > which have no relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality.
>
> Yes, rather like your alleged SPOG.
>
> > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
> > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> > In the first place we have the following facts:
> >
> > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> > recognize the existence of a "God".
>
> Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
>
> > 2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
> > they just say they have no proof of a "God".
>
> Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
> because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence. A
> theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
>
> > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
>
> Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof, in the
> sense that you take certain things to be true, then combine them in
> certain ways, then arrive at a conclusion that appears to be
> internally consistent.
Does he? How astomishing!
>But that's not enough for physics; you must
> make testable predictions.
>
Quite so!
> > 4. Therefore, we must now bring this matter before
> > the "practical scientist" for consideration.
> >
> > So, here we will give a "practical explanation" of
> > what "God" is, according to this new discovery, and we
> > will expressly avoid any "metaphysical ramifications" and
> > only lay stress on the "practical scientific" facts. In
> > other words, this is the basic "nuts and bolts" version of
> > what "God" has been discovered to be in terms of "practical
> > science".
>
> Now you're into "technology" (applied sciences). What practical
> applications of your incomplete theory can you suggest?
>
> <snip>
>
> Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate fields
> and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
> assumed point), although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
> correct in the first place). Science is about making _testable_
> predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
> theory is true, or needs revising.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
Aaron Agassi
> ===========================================================
> NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
> seen at:
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
> ===========================================================
>
> >
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > While arguing with Metaphysics Logicians is a necessary part
> > > of Life, like "giving at the office" and "signing get well
> > > cards", as you know it has no practical significance since
> > > it has been long ago recognized that Metaphysics is simply
> > > an activity, like novel mathematics, is KNOWN to produce results
> > > which have no relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality.
> >
> > Yes, rather like your alleged SPOG.
>
>
> >
> > > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> > > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> > > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> > > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
> > > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> > > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> > > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> > > In the first place we have the following facts:
> > >
> > > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> > > recognize the existence of a "God".
> >
> > Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
>
> which has already been confirmed. Please bear in
> mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a hypothesis.
>
>
>
> >
> > > they just say they have no proof of a "God".
> >
> > Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
> > because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence.
>
> SPOG does not "describe" or "define" God, it has
> "discovered" God.
>
discover it to someone. And, Hammond, your prose is unreadable, rendering
your ideas entirely private.
> A
> > theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> > god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> > have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
>
> [Hammond]
> You have the program backwards... no one "went looking" for
> a proof of God, the proof of God was discovered accidentally,
> like just about everything else in the history of science.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> > > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> > > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
> >
> > Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof,
>
> [Hammond]
> No, a "physicist" would call it a proof.
Never, because proof exists only in Logic and Mathematics.
>It is not a
> mathematics proof, it is a "scientific" proof (e.g.
> it is experimentally confirmed).
>
Experiments do not provide proof, only, at best, evidentiary support. And,
besides, what SPoG experiments? And are they duplicable?
>
>
> > in the
> > sense that you take certain things to be true,
>
> GH: SPOG takes nothing to be true unless it has been proven.
> Guess again.
>
> then combine them in
> > certain ways, then arrive at a conclusion that appears to be
> > internally consistent. But that's not enough for physics; you must
> > make testable predictions.
>
> GH: All predictions have already been confirmed by existing
> data. Bear in mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a
> hypothesis.
>
But how well to competing hypotheses account for the same results?
>
>
> >
> > > 4. Therefore, we must now bring this matter before
> > > the "practical scientist" for consideration.
> > >
> > > So, here we will give a "practical explanation" of
> > > what "God" is, according to this new discovery, and we
> > > will expressly avoid any "metaphysical ramifications" and
> > > only lay stress on the "practical scientific" facts. In
> > > other words, this is the basic "nuts and bolts" version of
> > > what "God" has been discovered to be in terms of "practical
> > > science".
> >
> > Now you're into "technology" (applied sciences). What practical
> > applications of your incomplete theory can you suggest?
>
> [Hammond]
> Those are detailed in the last paragraph which you obviously
> didn't bother to read.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate fields
> > and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
> > assumed point),
>
> GH: WRONG, the "aha moment" may have nothing to do with an
> "assumed point"... it may be, like this one, a totally
> unexpected, accidental, and historic discovery.
>
>
> > although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
> > correct in the first place).
>
> GH: Discovery needs no "assumed points". Balboa did not "assume"
> there was a Pacific ocean before he discovered. He was
> totally shocked when he first saw it.
>
>
> > Science is about making _testable_
> > predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
> > theory is true, or needs revising.
>
> GH: The major prediction is that there is a "God", and the
> experimental data confirms the truth of that prediction,
> and BTW, so does 5,000 years of human history.
>
> >
> > Mark L. Fergerson
Aaron Agassi
"John Creighton" <JohnCre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B4DCC27...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > It would be about like saying,
> > yes there is a curvature of spacetime due to ponderable mass,
> > but it does not cause "Gravity", it actually causes something
> > that looks like gravity, is the same magnitude and direction
> > as Gravity, but is not actually gravity...
>
> When Gallio wrote his book the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres
> there was a preface that said that the earth doesn't actually go around
> the sun but if we treat it as so it will greatly simplify our
calculations.
>
> Later as physics developed we decide that the question of if the sun
> goes around the earth or the earth goes around the sun is simply a matter
> of perspective. They are two equally valid coordinate systems or
> frames of reference.
>
> Physics does not say what exists and what doesn't
> exist. That is the Job of philosophy and theology. Physics merrily
identifies
> patterns that help help us to understand what we should observe and
> what we shouldn't.
By what criterion? I might have expected you to say that Physics is the
search for patterns that we can use to derive procedures that are best for
getting results, or such "Pragmatist" silliness.
>In order to observe these patterns we create theoretical
> frameworks. These frameworks are nothing more then an abstraction. It is
> not important to physics whether they exist or not. What is important is
if
> the abstraction is useful for the problem we are trying to solve.
>
Actually, there is also the contrary hypothesis about Science that the most
elegant framework is likeliest to be true (corespondent to reality). And
that the improvement of frameworks is Science, the pursuit of truth.
Indeed, dance around it as you will, but without the pursuit of truth,
Science is rudderless.
Aaron Agassi
"The Archbishop" <the-arc...@fuck-god.com> wrote in message
news:CheetahPRO_v...@fuck-god.com...
> In article <3B4D5865...@mediaone.net> gham...@mediaone.net wrote...
>
> > [Hammond]
> > There are no mistakes in the SPOG
>
> Aside from the entire premise upon which it is based, that is. Anyone -
> fuck, any *child* - looking at your 'proof' can see it's entirely
> circular.
What? You mean it makes that much sense?
Aaron Agassi
> >
> > > > > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> > > > > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> > > > > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> > > > > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical
utilitarian
> > > > > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> > > > > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> > > > > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> > > > > In the first place we have the following facts:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> > > > > recognize the existence of a "God".
> > > >
> > > > Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
> > >
> > > GH: SPOG itemizes the testable evidence in detail, all of
> > > which has already been confirmed. Please bear in
> > > mind this is a PROVEN theory, not a hypothesis.
> >
> > No George. In real science, a theory must provide testable
> > predictions that _aren't_ part of the body of data used to construct
> > the theory.
>
> [Hammond]
> Wrong... it is sufficient for a major theory to explain all
> previously unexplained data.
Sufficient for what purpose? In order to meet Critical Preference, an
hypothesis must explain more elegantly than competing hypotheses. Which you
have not even argued or addressed at all, Hammond, much less demonstrated.
>Which in this case is historic
> and astronomical. Naturally, this discovery is only the
> tip of the iceberg, but the rest of the iceberg is work
> for future generations.
>
Sterile and fruitless, I predict. For I see no reason to imagine otherwise.
So, what new thing do they bring to light?
>
> >
> > > A
> > > > theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> > > > god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> > > > have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > You have the program backwards... no one "went looking" for
> > > a proof of God, the proof of God was discovered accidentally,
> > > like just about everything else in the history of science.
> >
> > BS George. You're a born, to-the-bone theist, despite your previous
> > claim of temporary atheism. Your "SPOG" is a polemic. Admit it.
>
>
> GH: Unsupported assertion
>
No, a biographical conclusion.
Aaron Agassi
the entire goal of Science is the same as that of the writing craft, namely,
transparency. Intersubjectivity through communication, and not the private,
irreproducible Zen moment.
Hammond, in giving up on transparency, you have abandoned the ideals that
have thus far defined Science. In your scorn of Pedagogy and recruitment of
disciples, you have taken refuge in the Insider/Outsider Dilemma. And how
can that ever be Science?
Aaron Agassi
"Disciple" <disc...@disciplesofchrist.net> wrote in message
news:3b57ab3d$1...@Usenet.com...
George Hammond
Note: The simplest and shortest summary of what the
scientific proof of God (SPOG) is all about has
been written into a short FAQ which may be seen at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/SPOGFAQ.html
For more compete details, see my website, URL at bottom
==========================================================
Aaron Agassi wrote:
>
> "Mark Fergerson" <mferg...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3B4B7592...@home.com...
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > SPOG FOR THE PRACTICAL MAN OF SCIENCE
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > While arguing with Metaphysics Logicians is a necessary part
> > > of Life, like "giving at the office" and "signing get well
> > > cards", as you know it has no practical significance since
> > > it has been long ago recognized that Metaphysics is simply
> > > the application of logical rules to word definitions.
>
> Bullshit.
[Hammond]
Known fact.
>
> >Such,
> > > an activity, like novel mathematics, is KNOWN to produce results
> > > which have no relevance whatsoever to actual physical reality.
> >
> > Yes, rather like your alleged SPOG.
> >
> > > Therefore, I would like to take time out and talk to the
> > > "practical scientist" for a minute, where the practical scientist
> > > is taken to be the person who agrees that theories must be
> > > amenable to experimental test and must produce practical utilitarian
> > > results, otherwise they are of no interest to the great body of of
> > > the human race. OK, what I am saying is that the SPOG (scientific
> > > proof of God) is in fact a matter for the practical scientist.
> > > In the first place we have the following facts:
> > >
> > > 1. Modern Science (Physics) does not
> > > recognize the existence of a "God".
> >
> > Or anything else for which there is no testable evidence.
[Hammond]
The evidence has already been found. Quit your loudmouth
geuessing game pedant.
> >
> > > 2. Physics does not say there isn't a God,
> > > they just say they have no proof of a "God".
> >
> > Um, no. An experimental physicist won't bother looking for a god
> > because as described, there's no way to _test_ for existence. A
> > theoretical physicist won't bother speculating on the existence of a
> > god because there's no _consistent_ set of characteristics a god can
> > have, and thus no _coherent_ theory of god(s) is possible.
> >
> > > 3. Hammond (1994, 97) has advanced that Physics is
> > > now WRONG, that in fact a scientific (Physics)
> > > proof, and explanation, of "God" has been found.
> >
> > Currently, you have what a mathematician might call a proof, in the
> > sense that you take certain things to be true, then combine them in
> > certain ways, then arrive at a conclusion that appears to be
> > internally consistent.
>
> Does he? How astomishing!
[Hammond]
More pedant crap. SPOG is a "scientific proof" not
a mathematical proof.
>
> >But that's not enough for physics; you must
> > make testable predictions.
> >
> Quite so!
[Hammond]
Both of you are horses asses, "hypotheses" have to be
falsifiable, we are not talking about a hypothesis, we
are talking about a "proven theory". Proven theories cannot
be falsified, just like QED, EM, Relatvity, and Bingo
cannot be "falsified" because they have already been proven
to be true... get your horseshit pedant game theory the fuck
outta here and tak Kuhn and Popper with you. This is hard
science, not soft science.
>
> > > 4. Therefore, we must now bring this matter before
> > > the "practical scientist" for consideration.
> > >
> > > So, here we will give a "practical explanation" of
> > > what "God" is, according to this new discovery, and we
> > > will expressly avoid any "metaphysical ramifications" and
> > > only lay stress on the "practical scientific" facts. In
> > > other words, this is the basic "nuts and bolts" version of
> > > what "God" has been discovered to be in terms of "practical
> > > science".
> >
> > Now you're into "technology" (applied sciences). What practical
> > applications of your incomplete theory can you suggest?
[Hammond]
What a fuckin asshole... the guy whants to know what practical
application a scientific proof of God would have.... you'll
know it when 5 billion religious believers armed with a
scientific proof of God kick you and George Bush's ass out on
the street... there's a practical application.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Science isn't about tying together observations in disparate fields
> > and having an "aha!" moment (or using those observations to prove an
> > assumed point), although sometimes it helps (_if_ the assumed point is
> > correct in the first place). Science is about making _testable_
> > predictions, so that others can see for themselves if a scientific
> > theory is true, or needs revising.
> >
> > Mark L. Fergerson
--
John Creighton
Aaron Agassi wrote:
Why not. This way physics exists regardless of any metaphysical perspective.
I think this is desirable because our metaphysical ideas constantly change.
> >In order to observe these patterns we create theoretical
> > frameworks. These frameworks are nothing more then an abstraction. It is
> > not important to physics whether they exist or not. What is important is
> if
> > the abstraction is useful for the problem we are trying to solve.
> >
> Actually, there is also the contrary hypothesis about Science that the most
> elegant framework is likeliest to be true (corespondent to reality). And
> that the improvement of frameworks is Science, the pursuit of truth.
>
> Indeed, dance around it as you will, but without the pursuit of truth,
> Science is rudderless.
What is truth? The only truth we can speak about is our memory of observations
which are abstractions created by our own senses. Any other truth relies on
metaphysical assumptions. I believe there is direction without the "Search for
truth".
This direction is to search for the most concise set of Laws which give the
best description of our observations. I believe the idea of existence is
something
intangible. What does it mean for something to exist in the real world. Some
religions believe that this world is the illusion and when you dream is the
real world.
I think that maybe I am slightly off. Thoughts must exist, otherwise how could
I
be hear. Decartes, "I think therefore I am". But what are thoughts. Thoughts
are
a process from one state of mind to another. The state of the mind is only
meaningful
in conjunction with the process. Maybe then the existence of a rock is not
necessarily
dependent on a mind to see it but it is dependent upon a framework to interpret
it
is a rock.
Aaron Agassi
Is that less an oxymoron for being in quotes?
>not
> a mathematical proof.
>
>
> >
> > >But that's not enough for physics; you must
> > > make testable predictions.
> > >
> > Quite so!
>
> [Hammond]
> Both of you are horses asses, "hypotheses" have to be
> falsifiable, we are not talking about a hypothesis, we
> are talking about a "proven theory". Proven theories cannot
> be falsified, just like QED, EM, Relatvity, and Bingo
> cannot be "falsified" because they have already been proven
> to be true...
You are making a fundamental mistake, Hammond. Relativity is considered
falsifiable, because, even hypothetically, one can say what might be
observable where it not true. Whether any falsification can be framed and
the experimentally accomplished is another question.
>get your horseshit pedant game theory the fuck
> outta here and tak Kuhn and Popper with you. This is hard
> science, not soft science.
>
SPoG is no Science at all.
> >
> > > > 4. Therefore, we must now bring this matter before
> > > > the "practical scientist" for consideration.
> > > >
> > > > So, here we will give a "practical explanation" of
> > > > what "God" is, according to this new discovery, and we
> > > > will expressly avoid any "metaphysical ramifications" and
> > > > only lay stress on the "practical scientific" facts. In
> > > > other words, this is the basic "nuts and bolts" version of
> > > > what "God" has been discovered to be in terms of "practical
> > > > science".
> > >
> > > Now you're into "technology" (applied sciences). What practical
> > > applications of your incomplete theory can you suggest?
>
> [Hammond]
> What a fuckin asshole... the guy whants to know what practical
> application a scientific proof of God would have.... you'll
> know it when 5 billion religious believers armed with a
> scientific proof of God kick you and George Bush's ass out on
> the street... there's a practical application.
>
No, that would not be. That would merely be political propaganda
application. Quite another matter entirely.
Aaron Agassi
> > >In order to observe these patterns we create theoretical
> > > frameworks. These frameworks are nothing more then an abstraction. It
is
> > > not important to physics whether they exist or not. What is important
is
> > if
> > > the abstraction is useful for the problem we are trying to solve.
> > >
> > Actually, there is also the contrary hypothesis about Science that the
most
> > elegant framework is likeliest to be true (corespondent to reality). And
> > that the improvement of frameworks is Science, the pursuit of truth.
> >
> > Indeed, dance around it as you will, but without the pursuit of truth,
> > Science is rudderless.
>
> What is truth?
Again:
Truth is coorespondance to reality (in assertions). And, BTW, distinct from
knowledge (of truth) and also from objective reality itself.
>The only truth we can speak about is our memory of observations
How is that truth?
> which are abstractions created by our own senses. Any other truth relies
on
> metaphysical assumptions.
Other than definition of truth as coorespondance to reality in assertions?
>I believe there is direction without the "Search for
> truth".
> This direction is to search for the most concise set of Laws which give
the
> best description of our observations. I believe the idea of existence is
> something
> intangible. What does it mean for something to exist in the real world.
Some
> religions believe that this world is the illusion and when you dream is
the
> real world.
And what does that do for consistancy? And how promising a direction is
Solopsism?
>
> I think that maybe I am slightly off. Thoughts must exist, otherwise how
could
> I
> be hear. Decartes, "I think therefore I am". But what are thoughts.
Thoughts
> are
> a process from one state of mind to another. The state of the mind is only
> meaningful
> in conjunction with the process. Maybe then the existence of a rock is not
> necessarily
> dependent on a mind to see it but it is dependent upon a framework to
interpret
> it
> is a rock.
>
Certainly. And that entails bias. Which is why error checking comes post
priori.
>
>
Tom Trotter
'reality', 'existence', etc. aren't used in physicists' attempts to
talk about our experience in ever more precise and accurate ways. The
ambiguity of certain terms renders them practically useless as
communicative tools.
Does science need a metaphysical foundation? That all depends on what
one 'means' by this. If we can agree on what 'metaphysical
foundation' refers to, then it's either a part of 'science' or it
isn't. If we can't agree on the meaning of the question, then the
question is meaningless.
"Aaron Agassi" <aga...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<9jc22h$g2h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
Aaron Agassi
"Tom Trotter" <tom...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:29df3039.0107...@posting.google.com...
> The contents of this thread demonstrate why words like 'truth',
> 'reality', 'existence', etc. aren't used in physicists' attempts to
> talk about our experience in ever more precise and accurate ways. The
> ambiguity of certain terms renders them practically useless as
> communicative tools.
>
> Does science need a metaphysical foundation? That all depends on what
> one 'means' by this. If we can agree on what 'metaphysical
> foundation' refers to, then it's either a part of 'science' or it
> isn't. If we can't agree on the meaning of the question, then the
> question is meaningless.
>
problem here? Or should I simply advance an definition of Metaphysics as
Scientific component/foundation?
Tom Trotter
> "Tom Trotter" <tom...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:29df3039.0107...@posting.google.com...
> > The contents of this thread demonstrate why words like 'truth',
> > 'reality', 'existence', etc. aren't used in physicists' attempts to
> > talk about our experience in ever more precise and accurate ways. The
> > ambiguity of certain terms renders them practically useless as
> > communicative tools.
> >
> > Does science need a metaphysical foundation? That all depends on what
> > one 'means' by this. If we can agree on what 'metaphysical
> > foundation' refers to, then it's either a part of 'science' or it
> > isn't. If we can't agree on the meaning of the question, then the
> > question is meaningless.
> >
> Here you are correct, a priori. But could you expand upon the particular
> problem here? Or should I simply advance an definition of Metaphysics as
> Scientific component/foundation?
The 'foundation' of everything is our sensory experience. The goal of
science is, in effect, to explain (describe more precisely and
accurately) its foundation. The axioms of science's formal systems,
born from our experience, are necessarily less precise than specific
quantitative statements of observations of the world arising from
those axioms. But, the axiomatic foundation of science isn't, in any
sense that I can think of, metaphysical.
The sort of terms and statements that you seem to be considering are
distinguished primarily by their ambiguity. They aren't very good
communicative conventions. Physicists, as far as I know, don't use
them much.
It would, I think, be incorrect to say that science has, or needs, a
metaphysical foundation. It would, I think, be incorrect to say that
anything has a metaphysical foundation - even metaphysics. (--:
Robert J. Kolker
Tom Trotter wrote:
>
> Does science need a metaphysical foundation? That all depends on what
> one 'means' by this. If we can agree on what 'metaphysical
> foundation' refers to, then it's either a part of 'science' or it
> isn't. If we can't agree on the meaning of the question, then the
> question is meaningless.
There is an implicit ontological foundation for the physical
sciences. It is naive realism, i.e. the assumption that there
is an out there Out There which exists independently of
observers, and which has attributes that can become
at least partly known by intelligent observers. In short,
physics is not about hallucinations.
This being said, * what * we observe is an interaction
between the means of observation and that which is
observed. A simple case: finding the temperature of
a kettle of soup. We insert a thermometer into the
soup, simmering away on the stove top. We we
observe is (objectively) the equilibrium temperature
of the theremometer and the soup.
If we use a radically different thermometer (perhaps
one that is very massive and has a great heat
capacity) we would get a different reading from that
given by a smaller thermometer.
Bob Kolker
Disciple
James Hunter
Tom Trotter wrote:
> "Aaron Agassi" <aga...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<9jcpr1$7m0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > "Tom Trotter" <tom...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > news:29df3039.0107...@posting.google.com...
> > > The contents of this thread demonstrate why words like 'truth',
> > > 'reality', 'existence', etc. aren't used in physicists' attempts to
> > > talk about our experience in ever more precise and accurate ways. The
> > > ambiguity of certain terms renders them practically useless as
> > > communicative tools.
>
>
> The sort of terms and statements that you seem to be considering are
> distinguished primarily by their ambiguity. They aren't very good
> communicative conventions. Physicists, as far as I know, don't use
> them much.
>
> It would, I think, be incorrect to say that science has, or needs, a
> metaphysical foundation. It would, I think, be incorrect to say that
> anything has a metaphysical foundation - even metaphysics. (--:
When "science" was worth a crap, it did have a metaphysical foundation.
Now that it has a *metamath* foundation, it is 100% useless,
which is why robots will take over for "physicists".
Aaron Agassi
"Tom Trotter" <tom...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:29df3039.0107...@posting.google.com...
> "Aaron Agassi" <aga...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:<9jcpr1$7m0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > "Tom Trotter" <tom...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > news:29df3039.0107...@posting.google.com...
> > > The contents of this thread demonstrate why words like 'truth',
> > > 'reality', 'existence', etc. aren't used in physicists' attempts to
> > > talk about our experience in ever more precise and accurate ways. The
> > > ambiguity of certain terms renders them practically useless as
> > > communicative tools.
> > >
> > > Does science need a metaphysical foundation? That all depends on what
> > > one 'means' by this. If we can agree on what 'metaphysical
> > > foundation' refers to, then it's either a part of 'science' or it
> > > isn't. If we can't agree on the meaning of the question, then the
> > > question is meaningless.
> > >
> > Here you are correct, a priori. But could you expand upon the particular
> > problem here? Or should I simply advance an definition of Metaphysics as
> > Scientific component/foundation?
>
Scientific component/foundation, nor do you frame a problem, so far as I can
see.
Aaron Agassi
Tom Trotter
> There is an implicit ontological foundation for the physical
> sciences. It is naive realism, i.e. the assumption that there
> is an out there Out There which exists independently of
> observers, and which has attributes that can become
> at least partly known by intelligent observers.
The foundation of the physical sciences is shared experience
(objective experience). It's the starting point, and the arbiter of
disputes about whether one way of talking about our experience is
better than another.
Using 'metaphysical' constructions to talk about physics is a bit
backward, in my view.
Aaron Agassi
Then, perhaps you are not up to speed.
Patrick Reany
Tom Trotter wrote:
Correct on both counts. Naive realism is called naive because it is!
People who take a year or two to learn the philosophy of science
with an open mind (no easy thing to do), find out how really
non-real the abstract foundation of science really is. It's all human
invention. There is no certainty or truth in it. Hypotheses can be
invented by computers which have no intuition about "reality" or
metaphysics. Whether there is a "reality" out there or not is NOT
a scientific question but a philosophical question. The problem is
that people are told falsehoods about what science really is when
they are young students and it is virtually impossible to disabuse
themselves later of their misconceptions. Those seekers of Truth
should first seek the Truth about the nature of science itself. I
suppose the biggest problem is that people are so ignorant of
philosophy. Or should I say hostile toward it.
Unfortunately some people with little philosophical education
will merely dismiss me as a "positivist" (which I am not!) and
be done with it.
Patrick
Ilja Schmelzer
> The contents of this thread demonstrate why words like 'truth',
> 'reality', 'existence', etc. aren't used in physicists' attempts to
> talk about our experience in ever more precise and accurate ways.
Unfortunately for your claim they are used. For example by EPR and
Bell. And this has given the most interesting precise and accurate
ways to argue about reality: the violation of Bell's inequality.
> Does science need a metaphysical foundation?
Of course. Else, how to distinguish the scientific method from
following other methods like reading Holy Scripts?
> That all depends on what one 'means' by this. If we can agree on
> what 'metaphysical foundation' refers to, then it's either a part of
> 'science' or it isn't. If we can't agree on the meaning of the
> question, then the question is meaningless.
No. Not every meaningful question can be solved by science.
> [fullquote]
Please learn to quote.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Ilja Schmelzer
> The foundation of the physical sciences is shared experience
> (objective experience).
I disagree that objective experience has anything to do with shared
experience.
Tom Clarke
> tom...@juno.com (Tom Trotter) writes:
> > The foundation of the physical sciences is shared experience
> > (objective experience).
>
> I disagree that objective experience has anything to do with shared
> experience.
An interesting comment.
Can you elaborate?
I tend to agree with Tom Trotter. Since there are enormous
difficulties in defining the term "objective experience",
basing science on "shared experience" is a good foundation.
More precisely, "shared experience" means the
shared experience of reproduced experimental results.
Tom Clarke
Ilja Schmelzer
> > > The foundation of the physical sciences is shared experience
> > > (objective experience).
> >
> > I disagree that objective experience has anything to do with shared
> > experience.
>
> An interesting comment.
> Can you elaborate?
>
> I tend to agree with Tom Trotter. Since there are enormous
> difficulties in defining the term "objective experience",
> basing science on "shared experience" is a good foundation.
There is one group of notions (objectivity, truth, reality) which
relates to the real world, or the correspondence between our
ideas to this real world.
There is another group of notions related to public opinion about
something - acceptance by a community, shared experience and so on.
It is quite clear that we have no criterion of truth. We can believe
in something which is true, but we can never be sure. But we don't
need to be sure to talk about it.
For example, truth has some properties - for example it doesn't
change, while my opinions can and do change. If Jesus was killed 33
or not is something we don't know for sure. But if this claim is true
or not does not depend on time. Instead, public opinion about this
may as well change.
Therefore, these two groups of notions show completely different
behaviour. They cannot be identified.
Of course, to ask others is a quite reasonable and very important way
to improve the truth content of our personal beliefs. But that's only
a method, and there is no warranty that this method helps. Instead,
there are lots of examples where this method fails.
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> > > > The foundation of the physical sciences is shared experience
> > > > (objective experience).
>
> > > I disagree that objective experience has anything to do with shared
> > > experience.
>
> > An interesting comment.
> > Can you elaborate?
> >
> > I tend to agree with Tom Trotter. Since there are enormous
> > difficulties in defining the term "objective experience",
> > basing science on "shared experience" is a good foundation.
>
> There is one group of notions (objectivity, truth, reality) which
> relates to the real world, or the correspondence between our
> ideas to this real world.
>
> There is another group of notions related to public opinion about
> something - acceptance by a community, shared experience and so on.
>
> It is quite clear that we have no criterion of truth. We can believe
> in something which is true, but we can never be sure. But we don't
> need to be sure to talk about it.
If it's OK not to talk about it, is it then OK for me to say that
"the ether does not exist" or
"the ether is unobservable"? <grin>
> For example, truth has some properties - for example it doesn't
> change, while my opinions can and do change. If Jesus was killed 33
> or not is something we don't know for sure. But if this claim is true
> or not does not depend on time. Instead, public opinion about this
> may as well change.
But apparently no individual can be sure about this truth?
> Therefore, these two groups of notions show completely different
> behaviour. They cannot be identified.
But there is no way to define (objectivity, truth, reality),
whereas there are most definitely ways to define
(acceptance by a community/shared experience).
Furthermore science ever since the invention of the
scientific journal has been based on
(acceptance by a community/shared experience)
and has done quite well, much better than when
pre-scientific philosophers were trying to base things
on (objectivity, truth, reality).
> Of course, to ask others is a quite reasonable and very important way
> to improve the truth content of our personal beliefs. But that's only
> a method, and there is no warranty that this method helps. Instead,
> there are lots of examples where this method fails.
Can you elucidate these examples?
Tom Clarke
orangie
schmelzer.net>:
>There is one group of notions (objectivity, truth, reality) which
>relates to the real world, or the correspondence between our
>ideas to this real world.
>
>There is another group of notions related to public opinion about
>something - acceptance by a community, shared experience and so on.
>
>It is quite clear that we have no criterion of truth. We can believe
>in something which is true, but we can never be sure. But we don't
>need to be sure to talk about it.
>
what do you mean by "relates"? this word works in some causual newsgroup,
but in sci.meta it should be a working multilevel term. i don't see that it
can have any but a referential meaning... and what, as a universal, could
"relates" mean?
mike
Tom Trotter
That's probably true. (--: In any case, my answer to the topic of
this thread is no, science doesn't need a metaphysical foundation.
This should clear up the questions you had about one of my previous
posts.
Tom Trotter
> tom...@juno.com (Tom Trotter) writes:
> > The contents of this thread demonstrate why words like 'truth',
> > 'reality', 'existence', etc. aren't used in physicists' attempts to
> > talk about our experience in ever more precise and accurate ways.
>
> Unfortunately for your claim they are used. For example by EPR and
> Bell. And this has given the most interesting precise and accurate
> ways to argue about reality: the violation of Bell's inequality.
>
1964-66 papers, I think that they obscure, rather than clarify the
issue of how best to talk about the relationship between what's
presumabley happening on the quantum scale and our detections of it.
> > Does science need a metaphysical foundation?
>
> Of course. Else, how to distinguish the scientific method from
> following other methods like reading Holy Scripts?
>
How do you think we decide which statements are better than others in
describing our experience?
> > That all depends on what one 'means' by this. If we can agree on
> > what 'metaphysical foundation' refers to, then it's either a part of
> > 'science' or it isn't. If we can't agree on the meaning of the
> > question, then the question is meaningless.
>
> No. Not every meaningful question can be solved by science.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Give me an example.
fbmcgalliard
Proof is left as an exercise to the student.
I thought Science had a pretty clear metaphysical foundation. It only deals
with issues that can be formulated into experimentally provable statements.
It assumes that the simplest statement of theory that yields the most
correct answers is the best "truth" that we can obtain. It assumes that a
properly designed experiment will perform predictably (allowing for the
errors and prejudices of the technicians), and that the desires of the
experimenter will have no direct effect on the data. This almost, but not
quite, rules out the presumption of psychokenetic phenomena. It does rule
out the idea that any experimental result will change if the experimenter
wants a particular result, or if a result is illogical, or does not make any
sense. What happens happens, deal with it.
"Tom Trotter" <tom...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:29df3039.01072...@posting.google.com...
...
> > > Does science need a metaphysical foundation?
> >
> > Of course
...
Beacon
"fbmcgalliard" <fbmcga...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GGy6E...@news.boeing.com...
Here is my stab at this thread. I would like to see an FAQ developed on this
theme. I am not a philosopher and am involved in science education and
awareness. The first thing I think I should do is to define my terms. I
predict that while the philosophers will "gnit-pick the nitty-gritty," the
scientists will advance the debate. I am interested mainly in astronomy so
the examples I give are from this. Much is culled from a thesis so I am not
typing most of this as I think about it. Otherwise the spelling would be
much worse.
I am not sure if sci.physics.* are ng's for this discussion but some
physicists may be interested in what philosophers mean by "relativist" as
opposed to their own foundations in Mach's Principle or in the Principle of
superposition for example.
Also many creationist/proof of God ng may be interested on what underlies
many arguments and terminologies they encounter. By the way, I just heard on
BBC Radio 4 a promo for Thursday 9am and 9:40 Pm "Devout Sceptics". That's
GMT for time zones by the way or UT if you happen to be a
physicist/astronomer.
Positivism
Positivism does not speculate on what cannot be measured nor are positivists
concerned, as scientists, with speculating on anything, which lies outside
science. Possibly, the closest to a single statement definition of
Positivism could be attributed to Bertrand Russell who is credited with
saying, "What science cannot discover mankind cannot know."
Positivism is humanist and rational and underlies many contemporary
non-theistic movements that see scientific reason as the only basis for
society. These movements also see social development based on science and
technology as progressive, unstoppable, inevitable, irreversible and
beneficial for society.
That is not to say anyone on this thread is one.
Logical Positivism
The 20th century saw a development of earlier positivist ideas by the Vienna
Circle a group of philosophers, who developed logical positivism. The
logical element was involved as it was both a theory of meaning of language
and a theory believed to be logically derived from positivism. To logical
positivists, all meaningful statements were either true by definition
(tautologies) or empirically verifiable. This was called the Verification
Principle. Problems with the logic of this principle arise when we subject
the Verification Principle to be verified by its own rules. Either it
becomes a definition of the meaning of words, or a metaphysical statement,
which is not empirically verifiable. Indeed being metaphysical it lies
outside and should be of no concern to positivists.
Relativism
Relativism could be stated as "there are no absolute truths." Again like
positivism, when subjected to its own principle that there are no absolute
truths, the statement that "there are no absolute truths" either ceases to
an absolute principle or is a principle and becomes a logical contradiction,
as the statement is in itself an absolute definition of relativism.
Relativism, traces its historical roots to George Berkeley. In 1710 in
Principles of Human Knowledge Berkeley contended that "being is to be
perceived". One can enter a 'philosophical maze' when we consider the
implications of what sense data is and whether reality as we know it exists.
As I am not a philosopher, I do not intend to discuss such debates in
detail, save to say that Berkeley believed that existence was related to
perception.
Conceptual Relativism
One particular development of relativism, called conceptual relativism
contends that concepts are socially negotiated and determine the world in
which we live. The genetic fallacy based on the idea that the origin of a
belief has some effect on the validity of the belief is a consequence of
confusing the grounds or evidence for belief and the causes or subjective
and social factors involved in a belief. This fallacy can be related to
conceptual relativism. The origins or genesis of an idea or belief and the
belief itself become identified as being the same entity. Whether or not a
belief can be tested by scientific reason is within the realm of the
philosophy of science. When a belief originated or when a particular
discovery was made is another matter altogether, and falls within the
subject of the history of science.
Constructivism and the positivist/relativist debate
Constructivism has a similar relationship to relativism as logical
positivism to positivism. Indeed some researchers go so far as to define
"constructivism" as diametrically opposing logical positivism in terms of
students' understanding of science
Constructivism, as it is relativist, could trace its origins to George
Berkeley's New theory of Vision (1709/1972) in which he outlined his
principle of human knowledge. The "being" of things to Berkeley amounted to
their being perceived. Central to Berkley's philosophy was the
impossibility of anything existing independently of perception:
"Sensible things are all immediately perceivable; and those things that are
immediately perceivable, are ideas; and those exist only in the mind "
One element of Berkeley's philosophy is that statements like the above
belong firmly in the domain of metaphysics which may prompt philosophical
speculation but cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny as these
statements lie in the realm of the philosophy of science and outside of
science per se.
"Psychological constructivism" is based on Piaget's account on children
learning as a process of personal, individual and intellectual construction.
This further sub-divides along the lines of von Glaserfeld's "radical
constructivism" and Vygotsky's "social constructivism."
The other main school "Sociological constructivism" can be defined as
"knowledge is socially constructed and vindicated" . This opens into another
corridor in the 'semantic maze' in that where some commentators may refer to
"sociological constructivism" others refer to "conceptual relativism".
Kuhn, echoing relativist statements of Berkeley about perception being
intertwined with existence, has used a similar argument about the
relationship between ontology, epistemology and scientific development:
"Observation and experience can and must drastically restrict the range of
admissible scientific belief, else there would be no science" (Kuhn, The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago press,
1970, p.4).
The relativist/positivist debate includes radical constructivists like von
Glaserfeld, who maintain that there is no such thing as an absolute reality
and that all depends on perception. Still, other philosophers, such as
Russell and the logical positivists, would say that science is about making
deductions based on experimental data. Many viewpoints can be represented
within these extremes. Chalmers for instance (1999, What is this thing
called Science? Buckingham: Open University Press pp. 16-17.) indicates that
what is considered to be an "observed fact" can be updated.
One observation which would support Copernicanism over Aristotelianism is
the observation that the apparent angular size that the disk that Mars or
Venus presents to the eye should change from time to time in the course of
as year. The planets were not observed to do so. When Copernicus' book On
the revolutions of Celestial Spheres was published in 1543, Copernicus was
challenging an "observed fact." It remained to Galileo more than a half
century later to show how the eye was undependable regarding such
measurements and that the use of a new technology - the telescope -
redefined what an "observed fact" was. This was not an isolated challenge -
the apparent movement of distant stars or parallax is suggested by
Copernicanism, and could not be measured, even by technologies available to
Galileo, and it was not until the measurement of annular stellar parallax by
Friedrich Bessel in 1838 that the "observed fact" that the distant stars did
not move was updated.
Chalmers (1999) maintains that perception does matter; that there is an
ultimate reality but we have separate perceptions of it; and that some
"unmeasurable" things exist.
Instrumentalism/realism
Closely related to the relativist/positivist debate is the
instrumentalist/realist debate. Instrumentalists say that scientific theory
is an instrument for describing something, as Osiander did in the preface to
Copernicus's book . The instrumentalist, like the logical positivist,
contends that to speculate on the ultimate nature of what is being measured
does not lie within the domain of science: the map is what works best but it
is not the territory.
Scientific realists, on the other hand, would believe that there are
ultimately real things in the world irrespective of whether theory is
correct. A realist believes that science should concern itself with trying
to find out about the nature of reality. The best scientific theories are
those, which get closest to or actually describe the phenomena being
measured. Science to them is a type of exploration of an undiscovered
terrain, some of which will maybe always remain unexplored. Scientific
realists do however believe that the entities they propose actually exist
e.g. atoms or genes. Instrumentalists on the other hand would see entities
they construct as convenient to describe what is seen or predict what might
happen but do not claim that their descriptions are what is really there.
Others such as Chalmers (1999, pp. 16-17) do not see the argument as a
choice between two explanations. Chalmers indicates that what is considered
to be an "observed fact" can be updated.
Chalmers does however state that he does not claim that "observed facts" can
be interpreted as we wish. At the same time, the state of observers does
not usually effect the representation to a great degree. Despite the claims
that might be made by relativists the "fact" that there is an actual "real
thing" to be observed is not questioned.
In one relativist sense of the term a "fact" is socially negotiated or an
idealised concept. In another sense, a "fact" is measured. To suggest that
one must subscribe to either one or the other philosophy may be subscribing
to the fallacy of the excluded middle. As in the case of Galileo and
Kepler, astronomers in the past have jumped from subscribing to one
philosophical extreme to the other, sometimes to neither, sometimes to both
Astronomy and Instrumentalism/realism
Ironically, Galileo was originally urged by the some elements of the Roman
Catholic Church to adopt what was interpreted as Copernicus' position,
though it is extremely doubtful that the instrumentalist preface added to
Copernicus' book was endorsed by Copernicus. This instrumentalist position
detailed the heliocentric theory but suggested the theory was an instrument
for accurately measuring the cosmos and making predictions rather than what
was really the case.
Demonstrativism and fallibilism
Fallibism leans towards relativism in that it contends that scientific
theories are constantly revised, improved or falsified and cannot be
regarded as being unconditionally correct. In contrast to this is
demonstrativism, which contends that any scientific theory must be supplied
with a valid and conclusive proof
Demonstrativism and fallibilism though not compatible with each other, are
technically both compatible with both realism and instrumentalism.
Where do we go from here?
Some astronomers in history can be seen as employing realist, empiricist or
instrumentalist philosophies at different times in their lives. Schools of
philosophy also can and do "borrow" scientific and philosophical "greats" to
champion their particular cause. In particular the history and philosophy of
astromnomy offers some insight into the seemingly mutually exclusive
positivist and relativist philosophies.
Regards,
Bart
Ilja Schmelzer
> I stand corrected. However, having read the EPR paper and Bell's
> 1964-66 papers, I think that they obscure, rather than clarify the
> issue of how best to talk about the relationship between what's
> presumabley happening on the quantum scale and our detections of it.
I'm not. IMHO these are the clearest writings about QM foundations I
have ever seen. Even compared with Feynman.
>>> Does science need a metaphysical foundation?
>>
>> Of course. Else, how to distinguish the scientific method from
>> following other methods like reading Holy Scripts?
> How do you think we decide which statements are better than others in
> describing our experience?
IMHO the best explanation you can find in Popper's writings.
>>> That all depends on what one 'means' by this. If we can agree on
>>> what 'metaphysical foundation' refers to, then it's either a part of
>>> 'science' or it isn't. If we can't agree on the meaning of the
>>> question, then the question is meaningless.
>> No. Not every meaningful question can be solved by science.
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Give me an example.
Questions about the scientific method itself are, of course,
meaningful. I don't see how science itself can solve them - it would
be circular reasoning somewhere.
Aaron Agassi
Epistemological Methodology, a component of Metaphysics? Should we also
discard Algebra from Mathematics?
Ilja Schmelzer
> >There is one group of notions (objectivity, truth, reality) which
> >relates to the real world, or the correspondence between our
> >ideas to this real world.
> >
> >There is another group of notions related to public opinion about
> >something - acceptance by a community, shared experience and so on.
> >
> >It is quite clear that we have no criterion of truth. We can believe
> >in something which is true, but we can never be sure. But we don't
> >need to be sure to talk about it.
>
> what do you mean by "relates"? this word works in some causual newsgroup,
I'm posting from sci.physics.relativity. Moreover I'm not a native
English speaker.
> but in sci.meta it should be a working multilevel term. i don't see that it
> can have any but a referential meaning... and what, as a universal, could
> "relates" mean?
"referential meaning" sounds ok.
Ilja Schmelzer
> ... is it then OK for me to say that
> "the ether does not exist" or
> "the ether is unobservable"? <grin>
It is if you specify the theory you use.
In my statements, I use Popper's philosophy as the background.
>> For example, truth has some properties - for example it doesn't
>> change, while my opinions can and do change. If Jesus was killed 33
>> or not is something we don't know for sure. But if this claim is true
>> or not does not depend on time. Instead, public opinion about this
>> may as well change.
>
> But apparently no individual can be sure about this truth?
Indeed. But the individual can be sure that the fact, the truth of
the statement itself, doesn't change in future (assuming very little
from common sense about causality and time).
>> Therefore, these two groups of notions show completely different
>> behaviour. They cannot be identified.
> But there is no way to define (objectivity, truth, reality), whereas
> there are most definitely ways to define (acceptance by a
> community/shared experience).
Yes. But the claims about objectivity, truth, reality are much more
important. If I want to decide if I can eat something or not, it is
important for me if it is poisoned in reality, not in the opinion of
the community.
> Furthermore science ever since the invention of the scientific
> journal has been based on (acceptance by a community/shared
> experience) and has done quite well, much better than when
> pre-scientific philosophers were trying to base things on
> (objectivity, truth, reality).
That's certainly false. Community opinion cannot be the base - the
base is what causes the opinion(s) of the scientists.
If you base your opinion on the community you are not a scientist.
You may be a journalist writing about science, a reviewer, or an
engineer applying the results of science. A scientist is only
somebody who makes own judgements at least in one domain.
>> Of course, to ask others is a quite reasonable and very important way
>> to improve the truth content of our personal beliefs. But that's only
>> a method, and there is no warranty that this method helps. Instead,
>> there are lots of examples where this method fails.
> Can you elucidate these examples?
Beliefs about harm related with masturbation around 1900.
Interesting Ian
| > > frameworks. These frameworks are nothing more then an
abstraction. It is
| > > not important to physics whether they exist or not. What is
important is
| > if
| > > the abstraction is useful for the problem we are trying to
solve.
| > >
| > Actually, there is also the contrary hypothesis about Science that
the most
| > elegant framework is likeliest to be true (corespondent to
reality). And
| > that the improvement of frameworks is Science, the pursuit of
truth.
| >
| > Indeed, dance around it as you will, but without the pursuit of
truth,
| > Science is rudderless.
|
observations
| which are abstractions created by our own senses. Any other truth
relies on
"Search for
| truth".
| This direction is to search for the most concise set of Laws which
give the
| best description of our observations. I believe the idea of
existence is
| something
| intangible. What does it mean for something to exist in the real
world. Some
| religions believe that this world is the illusion and when you dream
is the
| real world.
|
how could
| I
| be hear. Decartes, "I think therefore I am". But what are thoughts.
Thoughts
| are
| a process from one state of mind to another. The state of the mind
is only
| meaningful
| in conjunction with the process. Maybe then the existence of a rock
is not
| necessarily
| dependent on a mind to see it but it is dependent upon a framework
to interpret
| it
| is a rock.
|
I agree *entirely* with everything you say, and trust me it is very
rare that I agree with anyone!
Interesting Ian ICQ 76975385
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ian.wardell/index.htm
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3B57468A...@mediaone.net...
> > ===========================================================
> > NOTE: The original post to which this thread refers may be
> > seen at:
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/PracticalSPOG.html
> > ===========================================================
> >
> > Bilge wrote:
> > >
> > > George Hammond said some stuff about
> > > >
> > > >[Hammond]
> > > > Look, it took me 25 years to figure out what General Relativity is.
> > >
[Bilge]
> > > So you've decided to become the Spam Prophet Of God and "bless"
> the newsgroups?
[Hammond]
Why don't you get your fuckin spam off MY fuckin newsgroup asshole?
[Hammond]
> > [Hammond]
> > God IS the number one problem of Man. Everything else
> > takes second place to that.
>
> Correction, God is the solution, not the problem.
[Hammond]
That's what I said parrot asshole.
--
Be sure to visit my website below, and please ask your
news service provider to add alt.sci.proof-of-god
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
The Archbishop
> [Hammond]
> Why don't you get your fuckin spam off MY fuckin newsgroup asshole?
Since *exactly when* did you 'own' this (or any other) newsgroup and
just exactly how do you acquire this ownership?
The Archbishop
Disciple
Are you calling me a parrot? I mean, I know I may be an asshole sometimes,
but I certainly am not a parrot.
Patrick Reany
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> > > > The foundation of the physical sciences is shared experience
> > > > (objective experience).
> > >
> > > I disagree that objective experience has anything to do with shared
> > > experience.
> >
> > An interesting comment.
> > Can you elaborate?
> >
> > I tend to agree with Tom Trotter. Since there are enormous
> > difficulties in defining the term "objective experience",
> > basing science on "shared experience" is a good foundation.
>
> There is one group of notions (objectivity, truth, reality) which
> relates to the real world, or the correspondence between our
> ideas to this real world.
>
But science doesn't deal with the real, true world. Next best
thing: science deals with our perceptions of the real world
and does so through shared experience and invented models.
Science produces physical laws which are anthropomorphic
inventions -- not the details, of course, but the form they
have to adhere to. In modern physics, relativity is part
of the definition of a general physical law, and
because of its success over the last four centuries,
rightly so!
Patrick
The Archbishop
> > > Correction, God is the solution, not the problem.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > That's what I said parrot asshole.
>
> Are you calling me a parrot? I mean, I know I may be an asshole sometimes,
> but I certainly am not a parrot.
Does this mean that the Hammond/Disciple honeymoon is over, and George
must go back to banging children whilst Vogel goes back to banging small
islands?
The Archbishop
Claudia
"The Archbishop" <the-arc...@fuck-god.com> wrote in message
news:CheetahPRO_v...@fuck-god.com...
That's what happens on these "fix-up" dates. You think they'll have
everything in common, but it just doesn't work out.
The Archbishop
> > Does this mean that the Hammond/Disciple honeymoon is over, and George
> > must go back to banging children whilst Vogel goes back to banging small
> > islands?
>
> That's what happens on these "fix-up" dates. You think they'll have
> everything in common, but it just doesn't work out.
Please tell me someone Photoshopped that picture of her with the
'dilate' filter. Please. She reminds me of the Bond Baddie at the end
of 'Live and Let Die' that gets inflated to death.
The Archbishop
Cardinal Feng
god.com says...
> In article <9jvj9m$lic$0...@dosa.alt.net> Jee...@hatesyou.com wrote...
>
> > > Does this mean that the Hammond/Disciple honeymoon is over, and George
> > > must go back to banging children whilst Vogel goes back to banging small
> > > islands?
> >
> > That's what happens on these "fix-up" dates. You think they'll have
> > everything in common, but it just doesn't work out.
>
> Please tell me someone Photoshopped that picture of her with the
> 'dilate' filter.
If only.
Vogel's going to have to save his tithing money for *years* to afford to
have the floor in his house reinforced.
Presbyter Coxcomb
ego:
> > > > Does this mean that the Hammond/Disciple honeymoon is over, and George
> > > > must go back to banging children whilst Vogel goes back to banging small
> > > > islands?
> > >
> > > That's what happens on these "fix-up" dates. You think they'll have
> > > everything in common, but it just doesn't work out.
> >
> > Please tell me someone Photoshopped that picture of her with the
> > 'dilate' filter.
>
> Vogel's going to have to save his tithing money for *years* to afford to
> have the floor in his house reinforced.
Vogel would rake-in the money if he made her wear a rubber boiler-suit and
linked her ass to the state power board. All you'd need to do is put a bucket of
KFC about 20 metres in front of her and watch as each step made generates 50
gigawatts of static electricity.
Just think of the energy potential if you put the bucket on a slow-moving
remote-controlled jet-hopper.
--
Presbyter Coxcomb
Head of AFJC Janitorial Services
Cardinal Feng
su...@churchofmango.com says...
> Using primitive linguistics, Cardinal Feng attempted 'first-contact' with my
> ego:
>
> > > > > Does this mean that the Hammond/Disciple honeymoon is over, and George
> > > > > must go back to banging children whilst Vogel goes back to banging small
> > > > > islands?
> > > >
> > > > That's what happens on these "fix-up" dates. You think they'll have
> > > > everything in common, but it just doesn't work out.
> > >
> > > Please tell me someone Photoshopped that picture of her with the
> > > 'dilate' filter.
> >
> > Vogel's going to have to save his tithing money for *years* to afford to
> > have the floor in his house reinforced.
>
> Vogel would rake-in the money if he made her wear a rubber boiler-suit and
> linked her ass to the state power board. All you'd need to do is put a bucket of
> KFC about 20 metres in front of her and watch as each step made generates 50
> gigawatts of static electricity.
Or give her all the Taco Bell offal she can eat, and use the vast
quantities of methane from her ass to boil water for a series of steam
turbines.
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
Liposuction her hips and sell the exudate to Texaco, thus also sparing
ANWR from desecration.
Presbyter Coxcomb
contact' with my ego:
> > > > Vogel's going to have to save his tithing money for *years* to afford to
> > > > have the floor in his house reinforced.
> > >
> > > Vogel would rake-in the money if he made her wear a rubber boiler-suit and
> > > linked her ass to the state power board. All you'd need to do is put a bucket of
> > > KFC about 20 metres in front of her and watch as each step made generates 50
> > > gigawatts of static electricity.
> >
> > Or give her all the Taco Bell offal she can eat, and use the vast
> > quantities of methane from her ass to boil water for a series of steam
> > turbines.
>
> Liposuction her hips and sell the exudate to Texaco, thus also sparing
> ANWR from desecration.
You've just inspired me to write a short story about future generations using
liposuctioned fat to power their cars and home appliances, thus solving the
fossil-fuel shortage.
Who said AFJC wasn't educational?
The Archbishop
> > Liposuction her hips and sell the exudate to Texaco, thus also sparing
> > ANWR from desecration.
>
> You've just inspired me to write a short story about future generations using
> liposuctioned fat to power their cars and home appliances, thus solving the
> fossil-fuel shortage.
Fuck the liposuction. Just throw her into a meat grinder. Vogel as well.
And Hammond.
In fact, especially Hammond.
The Archbishop
dlh
the cited author.]
In article <MPG.15cfb2fd2...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
su...@churchofmango.com says...
It's easier than that. The most efficient vehicle in the world runs on fat.
It's called the bicycle. Although many people may prefer a surgical
procedure to remove the fat rather than the exercise it would take to do it
naturally
D. Haas
Claudia
"Presbyter Coxcomb" <su...@churchofmango.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15cfb2fd2...@news.ozemail.com.au...
Hold up there, Pres. Just heard a news story in the U.S. on a new process
designed to generate power from processed-poultry waste (i.e.: chicken
guts). Your future may be closer than you think.
Paul Hanley
realist. In addition, I subscribe to what I would call an
"ideological theory of cognition" which might be thought of as a
modified form of perspectivism (Perspectivism: "the view that the
external world is to be interpreted through different alternative
systems of concepts and beliefs and that there is no authoritative
independent criterion for determining that one such system is more
valid than another", from _A Dictionary of Philosophy_ by Anthony
Flew). The modifications would be that, firstly, instead of "is to be
interpreted" (as a prescriptive statement), I would substitute "is
interpreted" (as a descriptive statement); secondly, it is assumed (or
believed in) that scientific realism (or naturalism), while not
absolutely authoritative based on independent criteria, is
nevertheless the closest approximation to reality that we have. In
other words, there's a faith element involved that the world that
science reveals to us is a pretty close approximation to actual
reality, and that scientific method is a pretty good way of
discovering that reality. This can't itself be proven absolutely,
however, and therefore the faith element is an integral part of it.
Radical skeptics would not be satisfied by this, but I imagine most
practicing scientists would be.
An ideological theory of cognition, as an epistemological framework,
involves the notion that people's beliefs are natural phenomena and
can be studied scientifically, just like anything else, and, as a
theory, is an attempt to make sense of and describe the phenomena of
beliefs scientifically.
Paul
Paul Hanley
<fbmcga...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"There is nothing better than a cool beer on the back porch in summer."
>Proof is left as an exercise to the student.
>
>I thought Science had a pretty clear metaphysical foundation. It only deals
>with issues that can be formulated into experimentally provable statements.
>It assumes that the simplest statement of theory that yields the most
>correct answers is the best "truth" that we can obtain. It assumes that a
>properly designed experiment will perform predictably (allowing for the
>errors and prejudices of the technicians), and that the desires of the
>experimenter will have no direct effect on the data. This almost, but not
>quite, rules out the presumption of psychokenetic phenomena. It does rule
>out the idea that any experimental result will change if the experimenter
>wants a particular result, or if a result is illogical, or does not make any
>sense. What happens happens, deal with it.
I agree with this, but I myself would call this more the epistemology
of science rather than the metaphysics of science. I'm not sure I
would speak of a metaphysics of science, since science as it is
actually practiced is compatible with a variety of metaphysical
foundations. Methodologically, science is naturalistic, but there is
a distinction recognized (in my view) between methodological
naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I would speak of the
metaphysics of naturalism (as a philosophical system), and the
principles underlying methodological naturalism as found in science,
but not necessarily of the metaphysics of science. To me, then, the
epistemology of science would involve these ideas about experimentally
provable statements that you mentioned above, insofar as they apply to
methodological naturalism (as I understand it). And any assumptions
about the underlying nature of the universe which would lead our
experimentally provable statements to correspond to or approximate the
way things really are I would classify as the metaphysics of
naturalism as a philosophical system, rather than the metaphysics of
science itself--since, like I said above, I believe that science is
compatible with a number of different metaphysical foundations (as
long as these foundations don't intrude into scientific methodology,
that is).
Paul
Paul Hanley
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> wrote:
I think this may be a false dichotomy. The consensus of the community
of scientists is important in establishing hypotheses and theories,
and each scientist makes their own judgments within their relevant
field, and what causes these judgments to be made is an integral part
of this process. You can't separate it out. Perhaps the problem is
in the use of the word "base". It can be argued that science is
"based" on a number of different things. Science is a complex
phenomena. To say it is "based" on any one thing is, I think, an
oversimplification.
Paul
sam
science is supposed to be based on 'evidence' of a sort
not peer consultation and approval
but of course
i am no scientist
orangie
<3B660B13...@NOSPAM.prodigy.net>:
>> oversimplification.
>>
>> Paul
>
>science is supposed to be based on 'evidence' of a sort
>not peer consultation and approval
>but of course
>i am no scientist
>
>
>
peer review is what determines if evidence-for-science is actually
evidence.
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D., P.A.
We're talking Vogel's significant other. We're talking ductile failure of all
known framebuilding alloys, including those used by Chinese circus acrobats.
Patrick Reany
Beacon wrote:
> "fbmcgalliard" <fbmcga...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GGy6E...@news.boeing.com...
> > "There is nothing better than a cool beer on the back porch in summer."
> > Proof is left as an exercise to the student.
> >
> > I thought Science had a pretty clear metaphysical foundation. It only
> deals
> > with issues that can be formulated into experimentally provable
> statements.
> > It assumes that the simplest statement of theory that yields the most
> > correct answers is the best "truth" that we can obtain. It assumes that a
> > properly designed experiment will perform predictably (allowing for the
> > errors and prejudices of the technicians), and that the desires of the
> > experimenter will have no direct effect on the data. This almost, but not
> > quite, rules out the presumption of psychokenetic phenomena. It does rule
> > out the idea that any experimental result will change if the experimenter
> > wants a particular result, or if a result is illogical, or does not make
> any
> > sense. What happens happens, deal with it.
> >
> > "Tom Trotter" <tom...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > news:29df3039.01072...@posting.google.com...
> > ...
> > > > > Does science need a metaphysical foundation?
> > > >
> > > > Of course
> > ...
> > > > No. Not every meaningful question can be solved by science.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by this. Give me an example.
>
> Here is my stab at this thread. I would like to see an FAQ developed on this
> theme. I am not a philosopher and am involved in science education and
> awareness. The first thing I think I should do is to define my terms. I
> predict that while the philosophers will "gnit-pick the nitty-gritty," the
> scientists will advance the debate. I am interested mainly in astronomy so
> the examples I give are from this. Much is culled from a thesis so I am not
> typing most of this as I think about it. Otherwise the spelling would be
> much worse.
>
> I am not sure if sci.physics.* are ng's for this discussion but some
> physicists may be interested in what philosophers mean by "relativist" as
> opposed to their own foundations in Mach's Principle or in the Principle of
> superposition for example.
This NG is sure as heck the right place for this.
Physics without philosophy is just engineering.
And, since the cranks on this NG are determined
to keep any actual relativistic physics off this
NG and since their arguments are so
profoundly philosophical anyway, let's
talk philosophy!
[snip]
>
> Positivism
> Positivism does not speculate on what cannot be measured nor are positivists
> concerned, as scientists, with speculating on anything, which lies outside
> science. Possibly, the closest to a single statement definition of
> Positivism could be attributed to Bertrand Russell who is credited with
> saying, "What science cannot discover mankind cannot know."
Positivism is the most ambiguous and useless term
in philosophy, principally because it means something
different to each person. If you want to piss off
someone, just call him or her a "positivist," even if
they are.
> [snip]
>
> Relativism
> Relativism could be stated as "there are no absolute truths."
This is possibly true for non-physics applications
of the term, but not for physics "relativism." In physics
the purpose of relativism is to push the envelop
of just how far the notion of physical law can be
taken without any explicit or implicit use of so-called
absolute coordinates and velocities and accelerations.
The historical origin is in the ultimate meaning that
Galilean/Newtonian physics made of invisible
space. If Newtonian acceleration was a law of
nature, did that imply that absolute space acts
as a Descartian substrate? In physics, relativism
is all about the relationship of reference frame to
the meaning of "physical law," and the relation
of "physical law" to relative measures of all
kinematical variables. This is a highly nontrivial
and under appreciated foundation to physics.
It is not something that can be left till we have
more time to get around to it.
> [snip]
>
> Instrumentalism/realism
> Closely related to the relativist/positivist debate is the
> instrumentalist/realist debate. Instrumentalists say that scientific theory
> is an instrument for describing something, as Osiander did in the preface to
> Copernicus's book . The instrumentalist, like the logical positivist,
> contends that to speculate on the ultimate nature of what is being measured
> does not lie within the domain of science: the map is what works best but it
> is not the territory.
Yes, but instrumentalists have a lot more creative
freedom than the positivist.
> Scientific realists, on the other hand, would believe that there are
> ultimately real things in the world irrespective of whether theory is
> correct.
An instrumentalist can believe this too, yet maintain
that this belief has no formal role in science. There
really must be a separation between science and
metaphysics. One should not pretend to be the
other.
> A realist believes that science should concern itself with trying
> to find out about the nature of reality.
It's hard to get a realist to define what he or she
means by "reality".
> The best scientific theories are
> those, which get closest to or actually describe the phenomena being
> measured.
There is a problem with this description because
"phenomena" is associated with appearances, not
things in themselves (noumena). Instrumentalism
requires theories to be as close as possible to
measurement too. That's what I mean by
"theories that work."
> Science to them is a type of exploration of an undiscovered
> terrain, some of which will maybe always remain unexplored. Scientific
> realists do however believe that the entities they propose actually exist
> e.g. atoms or genes.
I often ask realists if they believe that macroscopic
matter is continuous, but I never get a reply from
them. Science just creates theories that work.
And the models within those theories are
free creations of the human mind.
> Instrumentalists on the other hand would see entities
> they construct as convenient to describe what is seen or predict what might
> happen but do not claim that their descriptions are what is really there.
> Others such as Chalmers (1999, pp. 16-17) do not see the argument as a
> choice between two explanations. Chalmers indicates that what is considered
> to be an "observed fact" can be updated.
> Chalmers does however state that he does not claim that "observed facts" can
> be interpreted as we wish. At the same time, the state of observers does
> not usually effect the representation to a great degree. Despite the claims
> that might be made by relativists the "fact" that there is an actual "real
> thing" to be observed is not questioned.
The great advantage of the instrumentalist philosophy of
science is that it tries to stay out of arguments by being
ontologically impartial. Ironically, however, the realists
prefer to argue anyway since they can't understand how
anyone would want to keep ontological dogmatism
out of science.
Patrick
David Evens
wrote:
Anyone else remember the campy SF movie about a future where the US
economy is powered by chicken shit?