Incompleteness Thought Experiment. (please try this yourselves)
Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.
I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.
This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.
Er...well
Not sure what you are getting at, I did read what you wrote carefully but...
We can make careful observations of things existing in nature.
The very discrepancies you infer as to observation are intentionally reduced and minimized.
We can make scientific observations, accurately describing the object observed, the unit of measure and the method used so that it can be independently verified.
This can be as accurate as genome sequencing, or as simple as ascribing different categories to differentiate animals by traits, like mammals, reptiles, invertebrates.
What you should be focusing on is that the information gleaned really does not directly apply to the presence or absence of God. If it does however conflict with your literal interpretation of the Bible, well, then the problem is one of your own and not that of science.
Not sure what you are getting at, I did read what you wrote carefully but...
We can make careful observations of things existing in nature.
The very discrepancies you infer as to observation are intentionally reduced and minimized.
We can make scientific observations, accurately describing the object observed, the unit of measure and the method used so that it can be independently verified.
This can be as accurate as genome sequencing, or as simple as ascribing different categories to differentiate animals by traits, like mammals, reptiles, invertebrates.
What you should be focusing on is that the information gleaned really does not directly apply to the presence or absence of God. If it does however conflict with your literal interpretation of the Bible, well, then the problem is one of your own and not that of science.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 15 2008, 02:26 AM)
Incompleteness Thought Experiment. (please try this yourselves)
Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.
I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.
This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.
If that were true, then "incompetent thought" would mean that the Bible is highly inaccurate. And anyway, Darwin STUDIED the animals he looked at. He didn't just take a brief glance, and go away to write up the theory of evolution. So he would have had a much better picture of them in his head (And probably plenty of notes and drawings) before he thought about how they progressed than your picture of your cup.
- Gehn
Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.
I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.
This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.
If that were true, then "incompetent thought" would mean that the Bible is highly inaccurate. And anyway, Darwin STUDIED the animals he looked at. He didn't just take a brief glance, and go away to write up the theory of evolution. So he would have had a much better picture of them in his head (And probably plenty of notes and drawings) before he thought about how they progressed than your picture of your cup.
- Gehn
“Incompleteness” for want of a better world is evident throughout nature. For example in physics there is the uncertainty principle. And in the natural world life is organized in way a way that prevents conscious life from being in direct contact with it ultimate source of life
Light flows to the green plants, which use light to make the food that flows to the animals. It would be an advantage for an animal to be able to make food from light the way that plants do. But there are no animals that can make food from light the way plants do.
Plants that receive their food from this ultimate source are unconscious and unseeing. There are no plants with eyes that can see or minds that can know. Life, it seems, is shielded from ever coming face to face and knowing where its life comes from. Life is divided in two. The living things that receive their “food” as light are unconscious and unseeing. And the animals that can see and think receive the “light as food” only indirectly from the food that the plants produce for them.
Light flows to the green plants, which use light to make the food that flows to the animals. It would be an advantage for an animal to be able to make food from light the way that plants do. But there are no animals that can make food from light the way plants do.
Plants that receive their food from this ultimate source are unconscious and unseeing. There are no plants with eyes that can see or minds that can know. Life, it seems, is shielded from ever coming face to face and knowing where its life comes from. Life is divided in two. The living things that receive their “food” as light are unconscious and unseeing. And the animals that can see and think receive the “light as food” only indirectly from the food that the plants produce for them.
I did not know that plants made food from light. I thought that they used the energy from light to process the nutrients they got from the water and the soil.
You know - photosynthesis.
You know - photosynthesis.
The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that the theory itself lacks a mathematical foundation. As such the Theory cannot be verified by empirical means. The empirical science that is often associated with evolution really exists independent of the Theory of Evolution and would be equally valid if the Theory of Evolution were to completely disappear. So like the coffee cup in one’s mind that is as good as it gets for this theory.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 16 2008, 11:29 PM)
The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that the theory itself lacks a mathematical foundation. As such the Theory cannot be verified by empirical means.
Science is more than just equations. You can make predictions about behaviour of systems in a way which still stands up to Popper's definition of 'scientific'. Evolution makes predictions about how life will behave/develop when put under 'evolutionary pressure'. If you apply pressure to life, it will adapt. The classic example being diseases which adapt to medicines. Evolution in action. If such things didn't occur it would be a point against evolution.
I asked you in a previous thread but you didn't reply : Do you actually know anything about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem or the Uncertainty Principle. Because in both cases you have shown that you don't understand the concepts they put forth and I get the distinct impression you have no idea about the actual maths/physics involved.
Science is more than just equations. You can make predictions about behaviour of systems in a way which still stands up to Popper's definition of 'scientific'. Evolution makes predictions about how life will behave/develop when put under 'evolutionary pressure'. If you apply pressure to life, it will adapt. The classic example being diseases which adapt to medicines. Evolution in action. If such things didn't occur it would be a point against evolution.
I asked you in a previous thread but you didn't reply : Do you actually know anything about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem or the Uncertainty Principle. Because in both cases you have shown that you don't understand the concepts they put forth and I get the distinct impression you have no idea about the actual maths/physics involved.
Well, In a way, every observation we make about anything is flawed. You can never make a 100% accurate prediction because that would require a 100% accurate model and a 100% accurate starting point, both of which are impossible.
To demonstrate i'll use a mathematical example, because numbers illustrate well.
Suppose you know Pi to three decimals, 3.142. Now, if you try to calculate the surface of a circle with a radius of a meter, you'll be off by about 407 micrometers. If you know pi to within 5 decimals, you're off by about 2.6 micrometers.
Keep improving the theory, and you'll get closer to the perfect truth. However, there comes a point where you're still not at the absolute truth, but nobody really cares about the difference anymore.
In the example, when you know pi to within 8 decimals, you're off by 3 nanometers. That's 99.9999997% accurate, or as we like to call it: It's a working theory.
So, while no scientist (except mathematicians) will ever reach the absolute, complete truth, it's the best we're actually going to get. Besides, it's the only way to actually learn anything about the universe we live in.
To demonstrate i'll use a mathematical example, because numbers illustrate well.
Suppose you know Pi to three decimals, 3.142. Now, if you try to calculate the surface of a circle with a radius of a meter, you'll be off by about 407 micrometers. If you know pi to within 5 decimals, you're off by about 2.6 micrometers.
Keep improving the theory, and you'll get closer to the perfect truth. However, there comes a point where you're still not at the absolute truth, but nobody really cares about the difference anymore.
In the example, when you know pi to within 8 decimals, you're off by 3 nanometers. That's 99.9999997% accurate, or as we like to call it: It's a working theory.
So, while no scientist (except mathematicians) will ever reach the absolute, complete truth, it's the best we're actually going to get. Besides, it's the only way to actually learn anything about the universe we live in.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jun 16 2008, 05:29 PM)
The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that the theory itself lacks a mathematical foundation. As such the Theory cannot be verified by empirical means.
Empirical: Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment or experience; depending upon the observation of phenomena; versed in experiments
Empirical: Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment or experience; depending upon the observation of phenomena; versed in experiments
QUOTE
The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that the theory itself lacks a mathematical foundation. As such the Theory cannot be verified by empirical means. The empirical science that is often associated with evolution really exists independent of the Theory of Evolution and would be equally valid if the Theory of Evolution were to completely disappear. So like the coffee cup in one’s mind that is as good as it gets for this theory.
If Evolution lacks a mathematical basis, then so does Quantum Theory.
Holy Crap this reminds me of something hilarious
User posted image: http://xkcd.com/435/
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jun 17 2008, 01:28 AM)
If Evolution lacks a mathematical basis, then so does Quantum Theory.
Holy Crap this reminds me of something hilarious
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://xkcd.com/435/'>http://xkcd.com/435/</a>
The Theory of Evolution is indeed a math free zone whereas quantum physics is not
[Moderator: Suspended 20 days for lying in ignorance of what the theory of evolution is and what math is.]
Thread title DELIVERS!
"Thought experiement reveals faults"
yup
"Thought experiement reveals faults"
yup
Is it Ok to say now that The Theory of Evolution is a math free zone ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df3qFbpCuoQ...Sl2J8C24OXaIhlN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df3qFbpCuoQ...Sl2J8C24OXaIhlN
QUOTE (no1nose+Feb 16 2012, 03:36 AM)
Is it Ok to say now that The Theory of Evolution is a math free zone ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df3qFbpCuoQ...Sl2J8C24OXaIhlN
No one knows!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df3qFbpCuoQ...Sl2J8C24OXaIhlN
No one knows!
So far so good 
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.