Einstein or Newton

[Daywolf]

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

That's not irony, and Vedics predate the Roman empire. I'm curious how you're going to interpret very defined history to frame your argument. Read Pythagoras?

You are not looking far enough back. I really mean ancient history. The Roman empire, the Greek empire, much of their belief is just repackaged. Maybe go back to the Babylonian empire, but then most of it I think predates even that. Like when I said in that other thread, the AJ thread, when I jokingly said JewFO (a Jew in a UFO). I'm eluding to the big picture, in that much of the world belief is not based on mans invention but out of something that predates our human history, and these beings of influence zip around in those contraptions, i.e. those aren't jews flying around in those UFO thingys. The new boss is the old boss.

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...

I still don't know what to make of this ... Wat??
When I say quantum, I'm clearly not speaking of the atomic level, not the atom. Have you ever heard of the subatomic? Even in my second paragraph, I mentioned it again with quantum physics. You're trying to convince me that an atom is on the quantum level??? Bro, are you like a time traveler from the 1950's? Einstein only laid the foundation for quantum physics, but his study was on the atomic level.

You say we are made up of star dust, but can you even explain the atom?? Though we know the atom exists, and daaaang the amount of energy contained in just one, but explain to me how the atom is almost all empty space yet matter can be solid? And really, when you start to look into quantum theory, your looking into a whole universe of things within an atom, maybe even around it. You can see that with your human vision??? What do we need CERN for then? hehe. And even CERN is like a plastic toy hand shovel in a sandbox. Shoot I think it was a type two civilization can build a sphere around a star and capture it's energy (Dyson sphere), and there are 5 theorized levels of civilization. We're not even at 1.

And you kinda throw around the word evolution, maybe you didn't understand my meaning of macro-evolution? We've never witnessed macro-evolution, only micro-evolution. They are not the same thing, nor both contained in the word evolution as some generic term. It's all just neo-darwinism, as much as a matter of faith to science as it is to the jehovah witnesses faith (which is facepalm too). But don't say the wrong thing in science circles, you might get excommunicated. Wow, science operates like a modern religion too, or more like a cult.

Oh and yes, dark ages. Most certainly. Geez, how can you not recognize that potential. No time in known history were we able to do soooo much damage than we are today. And not just from releasing the energy from atoms, but as well releasing genetic mutations never seen on Earth to this day, all emerging from a lab. Dark Age is an understatement, really. Humanity has lost it's mind.

=======================

what else?...
Oh @ entruil. No, Newton wasn't full preterist. At most he was a partial preterist. He definitely had some futurist beliefs. There have been a lot of partial preterists. Not so many full preterists, especially not today.

And someone said Einstein was atheist, that's incorrect, he was ~gnostic (his awakening was of science). He believed in a god, but an impersonal one which has no concern for humanity. However you want to tag him, he was a theist, not an atheist. He was raised jewish, and I guess lived his life at the equivalence of a jewish sadducee (agnostic).

[Ravager]

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.

Try arguing this same point without using the words "faith", "belief", "trust" and any of their synonyms. Replace those words with what you really mean by those words, for instance if by "faith" you mean accepting something as true without verifying it yourself by testing it, then you're right about the layman taking things on "faith" in their scientific beliefs, but not the scientists who do the work and research. If you mean something else by "faith" say specifically what you mean. If you do this, you'll find that there really is no argument that you're making, because one side says they're using "faith" to mean one thing, the other side another thing and it's just a bunch of noise.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? One guy says yes, because it makes sound waves, the other says no because nobody can experience the sound where if both just said what they meant, there'd be no argument at all: If a tree falls in the woods it makes acoustic waves but not auditory experiences, there's no conflicting ideas here.

I lifted this example from lesswrong.com, but if you want to learn more about how the words you use to argue really matter, read the essays on that site, it'll save you a lot of pointless arguing.

[mgellan]

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.

It's not like trust. I trust the sun will rise every day because all previous tests of that hypothesis has resulted in positive results. Faith would mean that I trust something will happen despite never having seen any evidence it has happened before. Big difference.

Regards,
Mg

[Baler]

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

Difference is, with science one can determine the veracity of claims if they like :/

Except most people don't prove it themselves. They go on about their life and accept what they're told based on beliefs they never determined to be true or false. They're raised by other people who tell them it's true. Till the day that they die.

Sounds like a faith and belief system to me. One that kinders up to a higher power which they don't understand themselves.

Einstein said his religion was science.

[maskedmelon]

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

Except most people don't prove it themselves. They go on about their life and accept what they're told based on beliefs they never determined to be true or false. They're raised by other people who tell them it's true. Till the day that they die.

Sounds like a faith and belief system to me. One that kinders up to a higher power which they don't understand themselves.

If you are arguing that in general people are incapable of original thought irrespective of dogmatic allegiances, I would agree. Most adopt an ideology to expedite menial decision making that their faculties might be better spent on deciding what's for dinner or which Netflix series will earn their attention for the evening.

However the nature of the average person alters neither the nature of science nor of faith.

But to your question, no, I do not think faith makes one any less intelligent. You are right that many people treat science as others treat religion. That is not what science is though.

[maskedmelon]

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

Einstein said his religion was science.

Yeah, and mine is skepticism.

Neither has anything to do with faith ^^

[Baler]

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

Yeah, and mine is skepticism.

Neither has anything to do with faith ^^

You've taken the time to prove it's true. You don't just take the words of people you've never met and believe it on faith.

My whole point was that most people believe what they're told. They don't go out and try to prove it themselves. That's all.

Faith -complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

[Angushjalmur]

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

You've taken the time to prove it's true. You don't just take the words of people you've never met and believe it on faith.

My whole point was that most people believe what they're told. They don't go out and try to prove it themselves. That's all.

I'm busy building a large hadron collider in my back yard because dinosaur bones were put here by the devil to trick us

[maskedmelon]

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

You've taken the time to prove it's true. You don't just take the words of people you've never met and believe it on faith.

My whole point was that most people believe what they're told. They don't go out and try to prove it themselves. That's all.

Yeah and I think we in agreement on that part ^^

Faith -complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Yep^^ and aside from a basic acceptance of reality allowing us to operate within it, that is always a dangerous thing.

[Angushjalmur]

Tesla