Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 11. (Read 6507 times)

...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.

In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.

"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).

"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."

The idea follows the observation that nature is full of patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence, a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. The flowering of an artichoke follows this sequence, for example, with the distance between each petal and the next matching the ratio of the numbers in the sequence.

The nonliving worldalso behaves in a mathematical way. If you throw a baseball in the air, it follows a roughly parabolic trajectory. Planets and other astrophysical bodies follow elliptical orbits.

"There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," said Tegmark, who loves math so much he has framed pictures of famous equations in his living room.

One consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.

Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.

Don't assume that the universe is logical, prove it to yourself.

Think about singularities, black holes, birth and death of stars, streching of space time by the dark energy and pulling it all together by the dark matter, all uneven across the observable universe. Carnage caused when galaxies colide etc. All natural processes, but not logical in a sense as in intelligently designed by a sentient being.

Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.

As for religions, well, I see wealthy religions and poor worshippers.

The idea that a sentient being created all the mess that we observe and that being is somehow interested in us, it just does not compute with me.

I see the world as is not as it could be.

Life started thanks to supernovae.

Without them there would be no atoms to create the first amino acids.

PS. Discover magazine (November 2018, page 26) has a good article on the subject of superstitions and how to overcome them.  Read it, it might help you.

Your welcome af_newbie.

I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.

We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.

These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.

I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.

The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.

Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted.  He uses a lot of word salads.  As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...

As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths.  Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.

@af_newbie

We agree that if the fundamental tenets of a society are false then over time, as people become more educated, you will have fewer believers and the societal foundations will crumble. False fundamental tenets thus ultimately limit how developed a society can become before it turns on its own foundations and collapses.

We disagree that political or patriotic dogmas hold longer than religious one. History in fact argues for the opposite conclusion with religions that have far outlasted any empire. Perhaps this will change in the future but I am skeptical.

You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w  

Finally we agree that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. We simply disagree on what is necessary for science to exist. Science is dependent on a supporting structure of culture which in turn rest on a foundation of apriori axioms aka religion. Science is something like the window in a skyscraper penthouse providing an unprecedented view over vast distances. The culture that enables science the steel support beams holding the building aloft and the shared aprior truths are the bedrock on which the entire edifice rests.

every people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?
I will use an example from medical science.  Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye.  After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually.  Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.

Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost.  Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel.  It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations.  All the science would return one step at a time.

Physics would return the same if lost.  The force of gravity would be the same.  We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity.  All this would return exactly the same as before.

Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form.  Religions today are nothing like ancient time.

At the time of the Great Flood, there were only 8 people who still accepted God... Noah and hs family. When you consider the potential for reproduction back then, there were probably easily over a billion other people who didn't accept God. Who won?

They're just trolls who get paid to mouth off. Anger management doesn't work on cold, political science trolling.

Science has investigated emotions, mind, etc... Science has concluded that these are chemical reactions taking place in the body...

Can you precisely explain how is God is an explanation for any of this?

The data starts with a person's emotions, his mind, and his drive. These are in great evidence all over the place all the time.

Why do you keep on asking for destruction? You know He loves you, and will, out of love, give you what you ask for. But, I guess that's okay. After all, nobody, especially God, would take your freedom to self-destruct away from you.

And Coincube. Don't feel so bad about af_newbie. This life is short. We'll be out of here in relatively short order. We won't even remember af_newbie in Heaven. Just be patient a little while longer, and we will be in joy forevermore.

There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.

They do not exist.

No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...