The power of prediction.

It's not MAD science...just disappointed.

Moderator: Gav

The power of prediction.

Postby Average on Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:34 am

Oddly, I've had this very same conversation with an IDer. I explained that I used predictions based on time dilation on a very regular basis.

I pulled out my handy $80 Garmin GPS. When creating GPS, it was necessary to calculate both time dilation due to satellite orbital speed and compression due to the lower gravitational field in orbit. This theory predicts something accurately, and that's a first step.

Faith, though predicts nothing. It cannot tell you that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. At least once in the Bible it rose in the west, per the whim of God, and so a true believer should absolutely refuse to predict where the sun will rise.
Average
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Postby Ostracee on Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:30 am

Now, you see, that's exactly the kind of argument Gav could have made if he'd read his physics books.
User avatar
Ostracee
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:56 am

Postby Wafath on Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:32 pm

Perhaps he was so busy perfecting the Mad part he forgot the scientist bit.

W
Wafath
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2000 12:00 am
Location: MD, US

Postby CodeGuy on Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:15 pm

To some degree science has faith in it. But it's not faith in the religious sense, it's faith as in "I trust this person because he's come through for me before." That kind of faith is necessary since nobody has time to personally double check every scientific experiment ever done.

I often like to think that atheism is faith in people. Praying didn't cure the sick person, but the penicillin that the doctor gave him sure did.
User avatar
CodeGuy
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 12:00 am
Location: LA,CA,USA

Postby Lareth on Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:02 pm

"A=B and B=C, therefore, A=C" can't be proven to be a universal law.

But so far it's been true in every single individual case anyone's ever observed. That's not faith. That's assumption for the sake of argument, and an assumption based on a hell of a lot of evidence.

"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" has a pretty bad track record by comparison.
User avatar
Lareth
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:30 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Postby bloodeye on Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:16 am

Lareth wrote:"A=B and B=C, therefore, A=C" can't be proven to be a universal law.


Actaully, it can. You just have to be careful with how you define '='.

Anything that is pure logic can be proven or disproven. It's when to corrupt the pure logic by trying to connect it with the real world that thigns start to break down.

Most of science is based on theories. Things that have been observed many many times under a variety of circumstances, yet continue to react in a manner predicted by the theory.
So far, everytime someone dropped a rock, it's fallen to the ground as preticted by the theory of gravity. But, if someday, the rock doesn't do that due to some as yet undiscovered factor, the theory of gravity will have to be changed.

Part of why I changed majors form physics to philosophy. Philosophers admit they don't know a damn thing. The honests ones at least.
User avatar
bloodeye
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2001 11:00 pm

Postby Jeffery McLean on Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:33 am

bloodeye wrote:
Lareth wrote:"A=B and B=C, therefore, A=C" can't be proven to be a universal law.


Actaully, it can. You just have to be careful with how you define '='.

Anything that is pure logic can be proven or disproven. It's when to corrupt the pure logic by trying to connect it with the real world that thigns start to break down.


A=B and B=C but not at the same moment.

First A=B then B=C but by then B changed so by the time you get to thinking A=C you discover that A and C are changing all the time.
User avatar
Jeffery McLean
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Concord, California, USA

Postby bloodeye on Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:41 am

Actaully the postulate is usually worded as "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C"
The 'If' is important.

Besides, if if B changes, and A and C do not also change approprately, it is not longer the case that A=B, B=C.
User avatar
bloodeye
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2001 11:00 pm

Postby towr on Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:46 am

If A=B (at time 0) and B (at time t) = C, then unless A = C, B (at time 0) =/= B (at time t).

If B can change in the meanwhile, then B isn't B. You can't step in the same river twice.
towr
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: groningen,nederland

Postby Lareth on Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:58 pm

The postulate's terms already have formal definitions that are well known in mathematics and logic.

You can't disprove something just by changing the definitions.
User avatar
Lareth
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:30 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Postby bloodeye on Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:35 am

Sure you can. Havn't you been paying attention to the issue of gay 'marriage'?
User avatar
bloodeye
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2001 11:00 pm

Postby Wafath on Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:34 am

For good or for ill, politics has nothing to do with logic.

W
Wafath
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2000 12:00 am
Location: MD, US

Postby bloodeye on Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:28 am

And thus, logic has nothing to do with politics....
User avatar
bloodeye
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2001 11:00 pm

Postby Grey_jackal on Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:22 am

"A=B and B=C, therefore, A=C" can't be proven to be a universal law.


There's three different ways to prove it. The first one is available in the Principia Mathematica :

Image

(The definition of equality is x=y means for all functions f, f(x) <-> f(y))

The second one doesn't define equality, just uses 7 axioms on it :

http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/equtr2.html

The third one uses equality as defined by x=y means for all z, z belongs to x <-> z belongs to y (since all objects are defined as sets in mathematics and sets are only defined by their members). I don't know the proof for transitivity for this one.

But really, the big thing that is missed here is that it can be proved because it is in no way or shape a physical law, but a mathematical theorem. Mathematics is proved by axioms, which are assumed to be true (and are, unless you're called Wittgenstein - they don't have to have any connection to the real world because they don't describe it).
Grey_jackal
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:16 am

 

Return to Nukees

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests