Joined: 2 Mar 2016 Age: 34 Gender: Male Posts: 545 Location: Kentucky
25 May 2016, 5:38 pm
_________________ “In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
25 May 2016, 7:04 pm
Turns out I was right. Even though mathematically, a theorem or physical property may give solutions that are possible within mathematical construct, they are not considered to be hard science by the AAS, unless they can be observed or tested in a lab setting. And no, there is no such thing as theoretical falsifiability. As I mentioned before, it is a term that AspE made up.
I never used the term "hard science". I was explaining the standard definition of falsifiability.
Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".
i believe god exists as a construct and is therefore real, but not necessarily true.
The concept of god exists. Trivial point.
the whole question is trivial. and the poll options still can't hope to cover it. to me, god is synchronous with government. there ya go.
I think the question is an important one. This belief influences politics on a very basic level. Government is important, and religions based on belief in God seek to change it to align with their faith.
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
26 May 2016, 8:47 am
AspE wrote:
I never used the term "hard science". I was explaining the standard definition of falsifiability.
Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".
I do not disagree with the statement you are quoting. Simply put, there is only one form of falsifiability, and that is the ability to put an experimental concept to the test. There is no such thing as "theoretical" falsifiability. It is a term you made up.
Thus the multiverse model is unfalsifiable as it cannot be tested upon or observed.
I never used the term "hard science". I was explaining the standard definition of falsifiability.
Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".
I do not disagree with the statement you are quoting. Simply put, there is only one form of falsifiability, and that is the ability to put an experimental concept to the test. There is no such thing as "theoretical" falsifiability. It is a term you made up.
Thus the multiverse model is unfalsifiable as it cannot be tested upon or observed.
But the standard is simply the ability to conceive of an experiment, not the ability to do the experiment given the current state of technology, funding, practical considerations, etc... Falsifiable in principle is a valid concept in science.