his theory of gravity says that matter pulls things towards it because "space-time" warps/bends. however, space and time does not consist of something, so they can't warp. thus, the theory is wrong.
Are you convinced?
- Thread starter Itseemstome
- Start date
his theory of gravity says that matter pulls things towards it because "space-time" warps/bends. however, space and time does not consist of something, so they can't warp. thus, the theory is wrong.
Your logic is based on the assumption that space and time do not consist of anything. If they don't consist of anything, then how can bodies be embedded in space or events in time?
We need to assume space and time as a medium on which events and bodies are placed (or at least a co-ordinate system).
Once this is assumed, it is clear THROUGH PHYSICAL experimentation that space is curved by forces like gravity.
Well I think the last few threads say a lot about certain members of sciforums. They think they can disprove geniuses like Einstein and Darwin wrong simply by use of their ignorance. This is the bad theistic reputation I keep talking about. The bad reputation of theists is an under-rated theme on these forums, and people should start bringing it up on religion vs science debates.
I do believe that space consists of something ("ethers", consciousness) and time consists of thoughts (it's a concept), but the thing is that scientists don't believe that space consists of substance.
I think according to Einstein gravity is not a force, it's just spacetime curvature. Objects have weight because time bends and space warps. How illogical is that? Seriously, the earth attracts things because it loves them and wants to unite with them. As simple as that. Gravity (magnetism) is the currents of ethers.
Fire said:
Einstein and Darwin are like the gods and prophets of atheism. So it's hard for an atheist to believe that they could be wrong.
Last edited:
Yes, I quite agree with that self assessment.
That says nothing about the nature of free will, since a layered complexity depends on its foundation, in this case the push/pull forces of electrons .
Its not clear how your answer gives free will the opportunity to be beyond push /pull forces.
(And if you want to advocate that there is no free will you give us a picture of reality that you would be very reluctant to participate in.)
My shoelaces are untied.
the problems are refferred to here (a few posts down from your reply)
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1193633&postcount=67
Lg,
Non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. The issue is the layers leading up to the ability to have free will and not the initial layer that is far removed from the end result.
The answer is in the layers that you are trying to conveniently avoid, because (1) it doesn’t fit your erroneous perceptions of reality, and (2) you refuse to read appropriate books that explain how complexity arises from simplicity. Your erroneous conclusions are exactly what I expected and why I told you to study the issue before wasting our time.
Sure. Everything is the result of cause and effect. If we knew absolutely everything about the universe then we could see every cause and be able to perfectly predict every action. In this sense there can be no free will since every action you take is the direct result of immediately preceding causes, ad infinitum. However, there is sufficient indirection in these “cause and effect” trails that we cannot easily detect them such that we erroneously perceive that our actions are free. That we are unaware that our actions are deterministic means we can live happy lives in ignorance.
Okaaay, So you're one of the crazies...
What you should understand is that emotions are HUMAN constructs that CANNOT be applied to the universe. Besides, emotions are simply brain-states; advanced chemical reactions.
Did it ever occur to you that the thousands of scientists that believe Einstein's theory could be correct? Your theories are based on absolutely no lgic (or logic that can be attributed to a 3-year-old/religious-fundamentalist). Please post ANY proof at all of your theories. MATHEMATICAL proof.
randomness defeats deterministic outcome. Humans can be unpredictable, can follow no logic, can have whims and fancies.
You cannot determine the outcome of a random event. How can you determine my password if i choose individual characters randomly?
True randomness does not exist.
Everything is caused - everything has an effect.
Even if you go right down to the smallest levels, everything happens on a predictable level - albeit within the bounds of probablistic outcomes.
True randomness only occurs in the ideal states of text books - the same place as the "inelastic beam".
If there was any true randomness then cause and effect break down.
Cris
I think your conclusion doesn't follow your premises - its not clear how the push/pull forces of atomic particles can lead to anything that doesn't also operate on push/pull forces of atomic particles
then where is the question of individual responsibility in society? For instance why are you so adverse to religion (since such a world view that you advocate doesn't allow for any notions of good/bad, punishment/reward). Even a if a person blows themselves up in a bus what would bethe point of addressing that sort of behaviour since free will is a non entity - why would you even bother to post on a debate forum if you were convinced that the notion of free will is completely fictional in the "real" word of predetermined effects from established causes?
I think your conclusion doesn't follow your premises - its not clear how the push/pull forces of atomic particles can lead to anything that doesn't also operate on push/pull forces of atomic particles
If you have evidence of push/pull forces creating anything but push/pull forces in an environment please elaborate - as it stand s though it seems that you are trying to conveniently avoid discussing this
On the contrary Dawkins dosen't have the monopoly on such ideologies - just as I don't havethe monopoly on pointing out the obvious flaws in such ideologies
The distance between these two statements (in bold) is clearly bridged by speculation
then where is the question of individual responsibility in society? For instance why are you so adverse to religion (since such a world view that you advocate doesn't allow for any notions of good/bad, punishment/reward). Even a if a person blows themselves up in a bus what would bethe point of addressing that sort of behaviour since free will is a non entity - why would you even bother to post on a debate forum if you were convinced that the notion of free will is completely fictional in the "real" word of predetermined effects from established causes?
I think that the entire universe obeys certain set laws, and emergent phenomena like minds are no different.
Yet determinism ignores a rather fundamental property of the universe; the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Which I believe amplifies itself through the butterfly effect into macroscopic random behaviour)
Yet determinism ignores a rather fundamental property of the universe; the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Which I believe amplifies itself through the butterfly effect into macroscopic random behaviour)
I don't think that it's logical or polite to hold a person's actions in a stochastist/determinist debate. Claiming that a true determinist would do nothing because it's pointless is like saying that an athiest would be immoral because he has no fear of god.
Isn't that Chaos Theory??
The HUP merely states that when measuring two conjugate observable quantities of a single entity, increasing the accuracy of the measurement of one quantity increases the uncertainty in the measurement of the other - for example - for a moving object - you can not measure both its position and its momentum accurately at the same precise time.
And determinism, I think, takes into account the quantum probability of outcomes - i.e. cause A has a 20% chance of effect B and 80% chance of effect C. This probabilistic outcome is still within the bounds of Determinism, but does offer the possibility of different outcomes to the same initial conditions.