Scientific Quandary- or Logical Devil's Advocate
Shiggily wrote:
that is not true. There are multiple different sizes of infinity and some sizes of infinity are larger than others.
there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 2.and one is bigger than the other.
there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 2.and one is bigger than the other.
This is not true. f: (0,1)->(0,2) such that f(x) = 2x is a bijection between the first and the second, and hence both have the same size, 2^aleph_null. In fact, it isn't too difficult to show that there exists a bijection from (0,1) to R, and hence the interval (0,1) is of the same size as the set of all real numbers. (proof of this is left to the reader).
However, your point about their being different sizes of infinity does still hold; for example, the set of naturals is smaller than the set of (real) numbers between 0 and 1.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
twoshots wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
that is not true. There are multiple different sizes of infinity and some sizes of infinity are larger than others.
there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 2.and one is bigger than the other.
there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, and an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 2.and one is bigger than the other.
This is not true. f: (0,1)->(0,2) such that f(x) = 2x is a bijection between the first and the second, and hence both have the same size, 2^aleph_null. In fact, it isn't too difficult to show that there exists a bijection from (0,1) to R, and hence the interval (0,1) is of the same size as the set of all real numbers. (proof of this is left to the reader).
However, your point about their being different sizes of infinity does still hold; for example, the set of naturals is smaller than the set of (real) numbers between 0 and 1.
I over simplified to make a point... noted.
Magnus wrote:
Is there a point where you can say that goes beyond human comprehension?
While there can be no reason to suppose that there is nothing that exceeds the possibility of human comprehension, the problem is that we may quite well be unable to say when it begins.
Until then, I will yield to nothing.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
Can you say that once again in a robot voice for all us yokels?
Quote:
While there can be no reason to suppose that there is nothing that exceeds the possibility of human comprehension, the problem is that we may quite well be unable to say when it begins.
Until then, I will yield to nothing.
Until then, I will yield to nothing.
_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
-Pythagoras
twoshots wrote:
Magnus wrote:
Is there a point where you can say that goes beyond human comprehension?
While there can be no reason to suppose that there is nothing that exceeds the possibility of human comprehension, the problem is that we may quite well be unable to say when it begins.
Until then, I will yield to nothing.
?? not sure what you are saying.
Magnus wrote:
You are still subscribing to natural law. Is there a point where you can say that goes beyond human comprehension?
Like twoshots said, it's difficult to determine. There are limits to human memory capacity and processing power, but collectively, humans can understand more than a single individual. It's not yet clear how far that collective understanding can be pushed. Even if there were no inherent limit to collective knowledge, as long as you have a finite number of humans there is a finite limit to the complexity of things humans may understand as a group.
Magnus wrote:
If there is than that is by definition "supernatural".
What does understanding have to do with whether something is natural or supernatural? And what would make human understanding the yardstick for the division? Why not a wombat's understanding. If human understanding is the yardstick, does that mean that whenever humans understand something new it changes from being supernatural to being natural?
Gromit wrote:
Quote:
What does understanding have to do with whether something is natural or supernatural?
It has everything to do with it. Our perceptions of natural laws are based upon our own senses. Our logic is created by our mind.
It may not necessarily be the truth in the larger scheme of how the universe operates.
Quote:
The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe.[1
-Wikipedia
_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
-Pythagoras
Shiggily wrote:
pandd wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
adaptation might occur, that does not imply evolution is fact. Speciation might occur, that does not prove evolution as fact.
If by 'evolution' you mean 'something else (but not evolution)', then maybe.
the idea that species can adapt, or even diversify does not prove that life can arise spontaneously... which is the topic of the discussion.
The topic of the conversation was stated as being about whether the supernatural could be proven or not (using methods that rely on natural law). None of that requires or implies that the normal meaning of 'evolution' be abandoned for some made up as you go along definition that you spring on everyone half way through the thread, and expect everyone to adhere to because it conveniences your argument.
Evolutionary theory does not argue that life can or did occur spontaneously. Evolution is not about the origin of life, it is about the origin of species, in other words it is about variability between life-forms. Evolutionary theory explains why life-forms are varied, it does not explain how or why life forms came to exist initially.
It is highly illogical to argue that because you conflate B with A, and do not believe B is true, that therefore A is false, when A and B are in fact two distinct (and separate) things.
Quote:
evolutionary theory rests on the premise of abiogenesis.
No, it does not. It rests on these premises;
life-forms are individually varied in ways that are heritable
Individual varied forms experience varied reproductive success resulting in varied rates of heritable traits being transmitted to the next generation
As you can see, no premise about how or why or by what means life initially occurred is necessary.
pandd wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
pandd wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
adaptation might occur, that does not imply evolution is fact. Speciation might occur, that does not prove evolution as fact.
If by 'evolution' you mean 'something else (but not evolution)', then maybe.
the idea that species can adapt, or even diversify does not prove that life can arise spontaneously... which is the topic of the discussion.
The topic of the conversation was stated as being about whether the supernatural could be proven or not (using methods that rely on natural law). None of that requires or implies that the normal meaning of 'evolution' be abandoned for some made up as you go along definition that you spring on everyone half way through the thread, and expect everyone to adhere to because it conveniences your argument.
scroll down to the 2nd part of the argument. right there. the part about cell theory and spontaneous generation. that's part of the original argument and it deals with origin of life.
if evolution didn't rest on naturally occurring abiogenesis they wouldn't teach it like they do.
I am not redefining evolution, merely focusing on the part that is relevant to the conversation. Because the remaining parts of the theory are not. Because the first part of the discussion is not relevant to any specific scientific theory, though it is indirectly relevant to evolution as people claim evolution proves that there is no possibility for the existence of supernatural beings. It really just relates to people attempting to prove or disprove supernatural beings with scientific methods relying on strict adherence to natural law and the uniformity of nature.
Shiggily wrote:
if evolution didn't rest on naturally occurring abiogenesis they wouldn't teach it like they do.
They would and they do.
Quote:
I am not redefining evolution, merely focusing on the part that is relevant to the conversation.
You are redefining it as being something that it sometimes is merely associated with (and other times has no particular relationship to at all).
Quote:
Because the remaining parts of the theory are not.
Then the entire theory is not relevant. If you do not know that evolution is a theory entirely separate to abiogenesis, then you simply do not know what evolution is. The simple fact is, the soundness of the theory is unaffected by the truth value of the premise "life initially arose via the process of abiogenesis".
Quote:
Because the first part of the discussion is not relevant to any specific scientific theory, though it is indirectly relevant to evolution as people claim evolution proves that there is no possibility for the existence of supernatural beings.
Which people? Certainly no honest person who knows what the theory of evolution is, and comprehends it and its implications. Evolution has a particular meaning. Many people do not understand evolution, evolutionary theory, what these refer to (and what they do not refer to, apparently yourself being an example of the latter), much less what the theory of evolution does or does not imply or necessarily imply. To randomly pick out assorted ramblings of these people and reformulate what evolution means based on their misunderstanding of the same is far from logical. In fact it strikes me as absurd and hopelessly muddled.
pandd wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
if evolution didn't rest on naturally occurring abiogenesis they wouldn't teach it like they do.
They would and they do.
Quote:
I am not redefining evolution, merely focusing on the part that is relevant to the conversation.
You are redefining it as being something that it sometimes is merely associated with (and other times has no particular relationship to at all).
Quote:
Because the remaining parts of the theory are not.
Then the entire theory is not relevant. If you do not know that evolution is a theory entirely separate to abiogenesis, then you simply do not know what evolution is. The simple fact is, the soundness of the theory is unaffected by the truth value of the premise "life initially arose via the process of abiogenesis".
Quote:
Because the first part of the discussion is not relevant to any specific scientific theory, though it is indirectly relevant to evolution as people claim evolution proves that there is no possibility for the existence of supernatural beings.
Which people? Certainly no honest person who knows what the theory of evolution is, and comprehends it and its implications. Evolution has a particular meaning. Many people do not understand evolution, evolutionary theory, what these refer to (and what they do not refer to, apparently yourself being an example of the latter), much less what the theory of evolution does or does not imply or necessarily imply. To randomly pick out assorted ramblings of these people and reformulate what evolution means based on their misunderstanding of the same is far from logical. In fact it strikes me as absurd and hopelessly muddled.
well since you completely skipped the part of my quote where abiogenesis is relevant. And you are, to date, the only person who claims abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. And the fact that I have previously studied evolutionary theory. And that it is put forth at both the high school level and college level as such... Though I could go with the "no honest person who knows what the theory of evolution is, and comprehends it and its implications"
it would just indicate most people aren't honest. Or don't understand. And most scientists won't admit that until you pin them down with it.
And as I have already stated that I am NOT reformulating evolutionary theory. I just don't get what on earth are you complaining about. And the fact that you readily admit that something not considered evolution is taught as evolution even if it is not evolution is a little silly.
So if abiogenesis is not part of evolution... then how does an evolutionist explain where cells come from? A theory would be useless if it can explain where life comes from, but not where life comes from. And why is abiogenesis (naturally occurring) taught as evolutionary theory? And why do professors at a college level, and researchers include abiogenesis as part of evolutionary theory? and why do you define evolutionary theory differently then pretty much every other evolutionist on the planet? And I suppose specifically how do you define evolution since it is different than pretty much all other definitions.
And why do you not understand that evolution is an umbrella theory that connects multiple other smaller independent theories together to form a theory of the beginning of the universe to now? adaptation exists on its own, speciation exists on its own, abiogenesis exists on its own. And evolution is the basic theory that connects aspects of those smaller theories together to formulate one big theory. Sort of the T.O.E. version of the theory of life, including paleontology, biology, geology, etc.
Shiggily wrote:
And you are, to date, the only person who claims abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory.
Depends on how narrowly or broadly you define evolution. People who study the origin of life often talk about chemical evolution. To get evolution, you need heritable variation, that variation must affect contribution to the next generation through effects on reproduction or survival. If you want to see speciation, you also need a fitness landscape with multiple peaks and some mechanism that reduces gene flow between populations to the point where they can be distinct. All of these things can happen to entities that we would not normally define as life (though I am not sure anyway that there is any natural demarcation point that separates life from non-life). Because nobody knows any natural process that could have generated life apart from chemical evolution, the field of abiogenesis is the attempt to extend evolution from where it's known to work to where one should expect it to work. So whether you include abiogenesis within evolution depends on whether you are talking about more narrowly defined biological evolution, studied by evolutionary biologists, or more broadly defined evolution. The people who work on abiogenesis are usually chemists and physicists, for good reason.
Shiggily wrote:
So if abiogenesis is not part of evolution... then how does an evolutionist explain where cells come from?
Most likely "Not sure yet, this is still being investigated, ask again in 20 years when we may be able to tell you possible origins, but if there is more than one viable path, it may never be possible to be definite."
Shiggily wrote:
A theory would be useless if it can explain where life comes from, but not where life comes from.
Sorry, don't understand this one. Would you reformulate?
Shiggily wrote:
And why do you not understand that evolution is an umbrella theory that connects multiple other smaller independent theories together to form a theory of the beginning of the universe to now?
That is an exaggeration. Neither biological nor chemical evolution have anything to do with the beginning of the universe. That's the domain of cosmology. People do sometimes talk about "the evolution of the cosmos", but then they use the word "evolution" in the sense of change, not in the sense in which evolutionary biologists use it. Creationists like to exploit that potential for confusion, but cosmology really is a different subject.
Shiggily wrote:
adaptation exists on its own, speciation exists on its own, abiogenesis exists on its own. And evolution is the basic theory that connects aspects of those smaller theories together to formulate one big theory. Sort of the T.O.E. version of the theory of life, including paleontology, biology, geology, etc.
You have to be a bit careful here. You are right that geology provides important information about how old fossils are. And once you know when a species lived, you can use that as a short cut to date geological layers. but geology is not a subset of biological evolution.
Shiggily wrote:
people claim evolution proves that there is no possibility for the existence of supernatural beings
Do you remember the names of some of these people? I know Dawkins would like to prove there is no god, but I' don't know whether even he claims that evolution proves there is no god. I think the most anyone can say is that, as a scientific explanation of thunder removes the need for a thunder god, so a scientific explanation explanation for the origin of species removes the need for the kind of creator god who handcrafted each individual species. You can still say that Thor makes thunder by creating large differences in electric potential that lead to lightning and lightning creates a shock wave. you can still say that a creator god used evolution (perhaps divinely guided towards a goal) to create species, but there is less need for that explanation. That is all.
Gromit wrote:
Depends on how narrowly or broadly you define evolution.
That is true. I mostly included evolution as they would believe in a naturally occurring abiogenesis, where creationists would believe in a supernaturally occurring abiogenesis. It is really the only thing that separates evolutionists and creationists. Many creationists are intelligent design adherents or theological evolutionists (who believe that God created life and evolution acted on it). So all I am really looking at is the one thing that does not blend together to form a myriad of theories in between.[/quote]Quote:
Most likely "Not sure yet, this is still being investigated, ask again in 20 years when we may be able to tell you possible origins, but if there is more than one viable path, it may never be possible to be definite."
I think I have had only 2 professors that honest. One just stated that he didn't think life developed from nonlife on earth, but maybe on another planet and was brought to earth on an asteroid/meteoroid. I prefer the honest view of "We just don't know" but it doesn't seem like people are likely to admit that, considering how much we don't know. It was the one thing that frustrated me enough about Biology that I dropped out of the program to pursue Molecular Biophysics and then I switched again to Math. The other guy I met was a Biochemist. He is my favorite scientist to date. We spent a whole semester discussing biochemical evolution and mathematical probabilities.Quote:
Sorry, don't understand this one. Would you reformulate?
It was just the idea that they try to explain where all life on Earth comes from (species-wise) but somehow did not explain where life first began (non-life to life cell-wise). It was sarcasm.Quote:
That is an exaggeration. Neither biological nor chemical evolution have anything to do with the beginning of the universe. That's the domain of cosmology. People do sometimes talk about "the evolution of the cosmos", but then they use the word "evolution" in the sense of change, not in the sense in which evolutionary biologists use it. Creationists like to exploit that potential for confusion, but cosmology really is a different subject.
You have to be a bit careful here. You are right that geology provides important information about how old fossils are. And once you know when a species lived, you can use that as a short cut to date geological layers. but geology is not a subset of biological evolution.
In that instance I am not talking about biological evolution. See that's is part of my frustration with trying to understand evolution is that it is so fluid and people apply it to anything. Its not consistent. I need better definitions. And Biology frustrates me so much because their definitions suck so much butt. The way one person uses it seems to be different than the way another person uses it. I know cosmology, and I know where geology is defined. I guess because I had to study geology a bit and evolution is referred heavily there. That I am not limiting my perspective to biological evolution, but to the combination of chemical evolution, geological evolution and biological evolution, and cosmology as making up the overarching theory of evolution from the big bang until now.You have to be a bit careful here. You are right that geology provides important information about how old fossils are. And once you know when a species lived, you can use that as a short cut to date geological layers. but geology is not a subset of biological evolution.
Quote:
Do you remember the names of some of these people? I know Dawkins would like to prove there is no god, but I' don't know whether even he claims that evolution proves there is no god.
You could do a google search but you won't turn up anything reliable, right now it is all about peanut butter... I feel like I missed something. And granted I have met a few honest scientists, they just oddly enough... weren't when I studied Science. It was when I studied Math. But several are like Dawkins or Gould. Usually the people are sort of hardcore atheist. I prefer agnostic scientists. But when I studied Biology it was in California, that place is hard to navigate when it comes to avoiding crazy left-wing people. In the same way living in the south and the midwest makes it hard to avoid crazy right-wing people... particularly Kansas.
the most logical people I know are agnostics. Or atheist/religion with a good dash of agnosticism. Something along the lines of "this is what I believe, but I can't guarantee 100% for sure that it is correct." They are easier to talk to and debate. Like my mathematical biology teacher. At the end of the class we talked about the probability that evolution occurred (biochemically-life from nonlife) and while he still believes in evolution, I was seriously hit by the probabilities. But at the same time we both agreed that it was possible... just not very probable. And I still sit on the fence. And we are both ok with each other's position. We can discuss the actual issues and neither of us argue over what the other person believes.
Shiggily wrote:
Explain to me the argument that you can prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural being using methods that rely on natural law and the uniformity of nature.
The uniformity of nature is an assumption. I think it is a necessary assumption, in the absence of which we would have no rational basis for making predictions or formulating explanations of what we experience in the world.
Since none of us have been everywhere in the cosmos we have no firm empirical proof that nature is uniform. On the other hand we have no proof that it isn't. It is a working assumption we must make to get anything done.
ruveyn
Shiggily wrote:
Gromit wrote:
Most likely "Not sure yet, this is still being investigated, ask again in 20 years when we may be able to tell you possible origins, but if there is more than one viable path, it may never be possible to be definite."
I think I have had only 2 professors that honest.Could be a cultural thing, could be contextual, or a combination of both. I quoted what I understand to be the orthodox position, but my sources for statements to the general public are European (lectures, science broadcasts), and I think what I quoted is also the orthodox position in scientific publications, no matter where the authors come from. Could be what you experienced comes from communicating with a more general audience in the presence of creationists who exploit anything they think they can portray as a weakness. The combination could lead to a more extreme position. Adopting a more extreme position is a common response to attack. I know I have to guard against the temptation when I encounter creationists.
Shiggily wrote:
Biology frustrates me so much because their definitions suck so much butt.
A very visual metaphor that leaves a very biological aftertaste. That aside, I suggest four reasons. Biology often deals with continua, where categorical distinction are either arbitrary or statistical. People still try to define categories, because it makes thinking easier. Then you often find people attacking analogous problems independently. By the time they discover each others work (about 20 years in one case I read about), they have developed inconsistent nomenclature. Often people don't make up an entirely new word, they take a word with a meaning close to the new concept and use it in a technical and more restricted sense. The mixing up of the general and specific meanings of "evolution" is an example. I will demonstrate in a moment how difficult it is. A final reason for definitions less stringent than you like is that nobody seems to have deep and broad enough knowledge of both mathematics and biology to develop a set of definitions as precise as what you see in mathematics.
And here comes what I think is a demonstration of how easy it is to use ambiguous language even when someone knows the difference:
Shiggily wrote:
That I am not limiting my perspective to biological evolution, but to the combination of chemical evolution, geological evolution and biological evolution, and cosmology as making up the overarching theory of evolution from the big bang until now.
"Theory of evolution" normally refers to biological evolution, which you know does not apply to most of cosmology and geology (and I don't know of any demonstration that is applies to anything in cosmology or geology, unless you count Cairns-Smith's theory of abiogenesis). But if I didn't know that you are aware of the different meanings, I would have thought you had confused them in this sentence. I wouldn't use the phrase "theory of evolution" for what you are trying to do, to avoid confusion with biological evolution. I think you are in the situation I described above. You need a new term, you use the one you know that is closest in meaning to what you intend, at the risk of blurring distinctions you know of. You are clearer than many others, you added "overarching" to emphasize the distinction that matters, but without the context I still would have thought you had mixed up different meanings.
(Second example: I had to edit this bit to clear up poor phrasing of my own )
Magnus wrote:
Gromit wrote:
What does understanding have to do with whether something is natural or supernatural?
It has everything to do with it. Our perceptions of natural laws are based upon our own senses. Our logic is created by our mind.
It may not necessarily be the truth in the larger scheme of how the universe operates.
I take the definition you quoted next to refer to the truth in the larger scheme of how the universe operates, not the present level of understanding.
Magnus wrote:
Quote:
The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe.[1
-Wikipedia
The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe.[1
-Wikipedia
If "scientifically visible" referred to the present understanding of the world by either an individual or a group, then the border between natural and supernatural would move as understanding changes. "Supernatural" would become synonymous with "not yet understood". I would not see that as a useful definition of supernatural.
Last edited by Gromit on 03 Jan 2009, 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.