Einstein or Newton

[Baler]

Originally Posted by bdastomper58 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you get your opinions from a television comedy

moron

I'm a moron because I have more faith in the people that wrote the TV Show?

Have you poured through the numbers yourself?

I rest my case.

[bdastomper58]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm a moron because I have more faith in the people that wrote the TV Show?

Have you poured through the numbers yourself?

I rest my case.

can shared knowledge exist?

lil babbys first flirtation with solipsism

[mgellan]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is insane, you fool. I'm a fool because I have more faith in the saints that wrote the Bible?

Look at the front page of your Bible. It will probably say that the authors are not known. The "saints" didn't write the Bible, no one knows who wrote it. The version you're reading is likely the result of many many people who freely changed things to match their own needs. Read some Bart Ehrman for more info.

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science is a religion.

Science is a tool by which we learn more about the universe. It's a method. It's been proven to be effective. What we create with it are increasingly accurate models of the Universe, that enables us to create technologies based on what we learn. People accept that science works, and can accept the accuracy of what the scientific consensus is because it's a consensus that arises from many people being able to replicate the results. You can have a high level of confidence in science because you have TVs, and computers, and cell phones that are all results of the scientific process. People who are educated understand that you need to apply critical thinking to science just like everything else - one study is not a reason to accept the conclusions. But centuries of tests all confirming that a single hypothesis is accurate means not at least provisionally accepting it is foolish.

Religion is based on faith, which means "the reasons we believe stuff that we can't prove is true." Religion is a mindvirus that propagates through indoctrination, colonialism, and intimidation. It has some benefits to adherents as far as community but they can readily be realized without the dogma. It allows no proof or even refutation, produces no technologies, has no predictive power, and emphasizes anti-intellectualism, frowning on inquiry and questioning.

Science is nothing like a religion.

Regards,
Mg

[Baler]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

faith, which means "the reasons we believe stuff that we can't prove is true."

This is false. I already posted the widely accepted definition of faith amongst people from all walks of life, on any side(s).
But if you've proven it yourself then what I or anyone says shouldn't matter.

[mgellan]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is false. I already posted the widely accepted definition of faith amongst people from all walks of life, on any side(s).
But if you've proven it yourself then what I or anyone says shouldn't matter.

Originally Posted by Baler

Faith -complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

Our definitions of faith are not mutually incompatible because when you say "complete" you infer "even in the face of no evidence or even disconfirming evidence."

The difference is science means accepting things that have evidence, and abandoning positions based on no evidence, or contrary evidence.

Regards,
Mg

[Baler]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

not mutually incompatible

I'm glad you agree with me. (double negative makes a positive).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
"strong belief or trust in someone or something"
This time it says Strong not complete. There is that better?

blame google for defining faith as being complete.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Religion is based on faith, which means "the reasons we believe stuff that we can't prove is true." Religion is a mindvirus that propagates through indoctrination, colonialism, and intimidation.

Faith is just something that can't be seen, or isn't seen, but may be seen. It's like trust. But anyway, show me a quantum particle. Show me the big bang. Show me macro-evolution. Fact is, modern "science" takes lots of faith.

Anyway, Einstein be my answer, he layed the foundation for quantum mechanics. Lets hope "science" doesn't lead us into another dark age, still loooooots to discover. We're still so small.

[Toehammer]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Faith is just something that can't be seen, or isn't seen, but may be seen. It's like trust. But anyway, show me a quantum particle. Show me the big bang. Show me macro-evolution. Fact is, modern "science" takes lots of faith.

Anyway, Einstein be my answer, he layed the foundation for quantum mechanics. Lets hope "science" doesn't lead us into another dark age, still loooooots to discover. We're still so small.

If you are interested in the ability to see a quantum particle, then you might just be in luck. Our "evolved" human eyes are actually very well "created". The threshold of human vision is on the order of 1-10 photons. So actually, you might have in fact seen a single photon. Problem is your neural networking fortunately doesn't register it (again something that evolved so that we don't freak out and go caveman on every single photon flash of light, or retinal rhodopsin speckling randomly). Check this out... intriguing I guarantee: http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=894 it is about the quantum limits of human senses. Ever wonder why frogs are so jumpy? Could it be because they can detect single photons (better than humans)? Perhaps it's because they are cold blooded and their eye cools down to low temperatures and that eliminates most of the rhodopsin noise? I just made a theory about vision/single photons/and cold-blooded creatures! Am I a prophet? No just a disciple with faith in science, who proselytises from time to time. Interestingly, many of the histories humans have faith in come from warm-blooded animals in hot climates, where rhodopsin false alarms will trigger much more than in cold climates. Perhaps this is why the main religions and their prophets come from the mid-east/Asia? Sweet, I just made a theory about the history of faith, based on science.If your definition of faith is strictly about vision (btw a quantum of light, generated between quantum energy levels, refracting through the assembly of quantum molecules in your vitreous fluid), then you are ignoring the increased sensitivity to our senses that science (including quantum mechanics!) has offered us. I've never seen a radio wave. Also, you then eliminate any history before motion pictures and photographs. Although those are really just collections of quantum particles reflecting quanta of light, again, to your quantum mechanical eye/brain atoms.

I have seen atoms (quantum particles) in a high res transmission electron microscope; this could be described as a religious experience [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]. What though is your definition of a quantum particle? Atoms are quantum particles, insofar as they obey the laws of quantum mechanics. I hope this doesn't turn into a definition debate, as my last victim is still MIA, RIP alarti (kill shot: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=220)

Science humbly admits to doing the best job it can with available technology and data. Faith in science is gained through experience, repetition, sweat, and precision measurments. I earned my faith. Religion's faith is completely different. We shouldn't even define it next to science. Religion's faith is based explicitly on not seeing, experiencing, measuring, or verifying.

Now if you want to argue that we can't see things like quantum mechanical wave functions or electric fields, you are correct. Those are linear operators that we add/substract. We have to square them (quadratic/bilinear combination of the wave function/field) to get physically observable measurements. Scientists are so clever, and exercise such a minimal blind faith, that they even define the electric field energy density units as a square root of a joule per cubic meter and the wave function's units as a square root of an inverse cubic meter. They are such abstract concepts and don't exist in nature that we define them as irrational units. Nobody can measure the square root of a cubic meter... this is all explained in the Freeman Dyson article I linked above. It really is a good read.

Faith is a cool thing if it is constantly tested. That is science's strongest leg to stand on and religion's shakiest. It is cool to see a good, honest, caring human have faith in either science or religion.

You mentioned you hoped science doesn't lead us into another dark age... that is impossible. Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.

Why do you say also we are so small. Do you realize you are made of dead stars? Also, when you look at us as dead stars (essentially evolved hydrogen) you understand hydrogen in the universe (since possibly the big bang?) has evolved to the point where it can make accurate theories/predicitions about itself to ~12 decimal points. Pretty big stuff to me. We are huge...

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you are interested in the ability to see a quantum particle, then you might just be in luck. Our "evolved" human eyes are actually very well "created". The threshold of human vision is on the order of 1-10 photons. So actually, you might have in fact seen a single photon. Problem is your neural networking fortunately doesn't register it (again something that evolved so that we don't freak out and go caveman on every single photon flash of light, or retinal rhodopsin speckling randomly). Check this out... intriguing I guarantee: http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=894 it is about the quantum limits of human senses. Ever wonder why frogs are so jumpy? Could it be because they can detect single photons (better than humans)? Perhaps it's because they are cold blooded and their eye cools down to low temperatures and that eliminates most of the rhodopsin noise? I just made a theory about vision/single photons/and cold-blooded creatures! Am I a prophet? No just a disciple with faith in science, who proselytises from time to time. Interestingly, many of the histories humans have faith in come from warm-blooded animals in hot climates, where rhodopsin false alarms will trigger much more than in cold climates. Perhaps this is why the main religions and their prophets come from the mid-east/Asia? Sweet, I just made a theory about the history of faith, based on science.If your definition of faith is strictly about vision (btw a quantum of light, generated between quantum energy levels, refracting through the assembly of quantum molecules in your vitreous fluid), then you are ignoring the increased sensitivity to our senses that science (including quantum mechanics!) has offered us. I've never seen a radio wave. Also, you then eliminate any history before motion pictures and photographs. Although those are really just collections of quantum particles reflecting quanta of light, again, to your quantum mechanical eye/brain atoms.

I have seen atoms (quantum particles) in a high res transmission electron microscope; this could be described as a religious experience [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]. What though is your definition of a quantum particle? Atoms are quantum particles, insofar as they obey the laws of quantum mechanics. I hope this doesn't turn into a definition debate, as my last victim is still MIA, RIP alarti (kill shot: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=220)

Science humbly admits to doing the best job it can with available technology and data. Faith in science is gained through experience, repetition, sweat, and precision measurments. I earned my faith. Religion's faith is completely different. We shouldn't even define it next to science. Religion's faith is based explicitly on not seeing, experiencing, measuring, or verifying.

Now if you want to argue that we can't see things like quantum mechanical wave functions or electric fields, you are correct. Those are linear operators that we add/substract. We have to square them (quadratic/bilinear combination of the wave function/field) to get physically observable measurements. Scientists are so clever, and exercise such a minimal blind faith, that they even define the electric field energy density units as a square root of a joule per cubic meter and the wave function's units as a square root of an inverse cubic meter. They are such abstract concepts and don't exist in nature that we define them as irrational units. Nobody can measure the square root of a cubic meter... this is all explained in the Freeman Dyson article I linked above. It really is a good read.

Faith is a cool thing if it is constantly tested. That is science's strongest leg to stand on and religion's shakiest. It is cool to see a good, honest, caring human have faith in either science or religion.

You mentioned you hoped science doesn't lead us into another dark age... that is impossible. Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.

Why do you say also we are so small. Do you realize you are made of dead stars? Also, when you look at us as dead stars (essentially evolved hydrogen) you understand hydrogen in the universe (since possibly the big bang?) has evolved to the point where it can make accurate theories/predicitions about itself to ~12 decimal points. Pretty big stuff to me. We are huge...

That's why they call me Star lord bro

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you are interested in the ability to see a quantum particle, then you might just be in luck. Our "evolved" human eyes are actually very well "created". The threshold of human vision is on the order of 1-10 photons. So actually, you might have in fact seen a single photon. Problem is your neural networking fortunately doesn't register it (again something that evolved so that we don't freak out and go caveman on every single photon flash of light, or retinal rhodopsin speckling randomly). Check this out... intriguing I guarantee: http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=894 it is about the quantum limits of human senses. Ever wonder why frogs are so jumpy? Could it be because they can detect single photons (better than humans)? Perhaps it's because they are cold blooded and their eye cools down to low temperatures and that eliminates most of the rhodopsin noise? I just made a theory about vision/single photons/and cold-blooded creatures! Am I a prophet? No just a disciple with faith in science, who proselytises from time to time. Interestingly, many of the histories humans have faith in come from warm-blooded animals in hot climates, where rhodopsin false alarms will trigger much more than in cold climates. Perhaps this is why the main religions and their prophets come from the mid-east/Asia? Sweet, I just made a theory about the history of faith, based on science.If your definition of faith is strictly about vision (btw a quantum of light, generated between quantum energy levels, refracting through the assembly of quantum molecules in your vitreous fluid), then you are ignoring the increased sensitivity to our senses that science (including quantum mechanics!) has offered us. I've never seen a radio wave. Also, you then eliminate any history before motion pictures and photographs. Although those are really just collections of quantum particles reflecting quanta of light, again, to your quantum mechanical eye/brain atoms.

I have seen atoms (quantum particles) in a high res transmission electron microscope; this could be described as a religious experience [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]. What though is your definition of a quantum particle? Atoms are quantum particles, insofar as they obey the laws of quantum mechanics. I hope this doesn't turn into a definition debate, as my last victim is still MIA, RIP alarti (kill shot: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=220)

Science humbly admits to doing the best job it can with available technology and data. Faith in science is gained through experience, repetition, sweat, and precision measurments. I earned my faith. Religion's faith is completely different. We shouldn't even define it next to science. Religion's faith is based explicitly on not seeing, experiencing, measuring, or verifying.

Now if you want to argue that we can't see things like quantum mechanical wave functions or electric fields, you are correct. Those are linear operators that we add/substract. We have to square them (quadratic/bilinear combination of the wave function/field) to get physically observable measurements. Scientists are so clever, and exercise such a minimal blind faith, that they even define the electric field energy density units as a square root of a joule per cubic meter and the wave function's units as a square root of an inverse cubic meter. They are such abstract concepts and don't exist in nature that we define them as irrational units. Nobody can measure the square root of a cubic meter... this is all explained in the Freeman Dyson article I linked above. It really is a good read.

Faith is a cool thing if it is constantly tested. That is science's strongest leg to stand on and religion's shakiest. It is cool to see a good, honest, caring human have faith in either science or religion.

You mentioned you hoped science doesn't lead us into another dark age... that is impossible. Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.

Why do you say also we are so small. Do you realize you are made of dead stars? Also, when you look at us as dead stars (essentially evolved hydrogen) you understand hydrogen in the universe (since possibly the big bang?) has evolved to the point where it can make accurate theories/predicitions about itself to ~12 decimal points. Pretty big stuff to me. We are huge...

Another woke post. This guy is a monster. The forums aren't ready for him.