I don't see why this is necessary, seeing I'm simply looking to show you can't prove it to be logically imperative my beliefs contradict the laws of conservation.
Because I've already shown how "reasonable" interpretations of the relevant concepts violate the laws. There is no reasonable interpretation of the data that doesn't violate the laws. The only reasonable explanation remaining, the one that doesn't violate the laws is that we're dealing with fiction.
... except for maybe the tachyons you just mentioned?
The tachyons are kind of complicated - first, they're pure hypothesis, and no experiment has shown they exist. Nor has any experiment conclusively shown they don't. They're not a necessary part of any theory, just something that could be described by some particle models.
But, as I said, it doesn't matter - even if they do exist, they wouldn't be a suitable way to transfer information in such a way that violates causality. Information is bound up in causality - information traveling faster than the speed of light violates causality. The tachyons cannot be used to transfer information faster than light.
Are you saying if nothing can travel faster than light, it's impossible for a being to know everything going on?
Yes. The randomness inherent in quantum transactions implies that you cannot predict the future, even with perfect information, beyond an incredibly short horizon - definitely shorter than a millisecond. But perfect information isn't available anyway, because of the increase in total possible entropy associated with the inflationary period. Therefore, in order to "know everything going on", one must be able to observe everything. But the universe isn't small enough for that - parts of the universe are sufficiently far away from others that information would take longer than the total age of the universe to travel from one point to the other.
I think what we don't know about the energy forms of which we're aware, as well as the possibility of there being energy forms of which we aren't aware, is enough to leave open the possibility of revelation not violating conservation laws.
What makes you think there's anything we don't know about energy?
You're just doing the hand-waving thing again. Trying to hide in "we don't know what we don't know". It's pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
Science in general, and physics in particular, are about building models of reality. As I've said, the model we currently have - quantum mechanics and general relativity - models the universe to an incredibly precise level. What's still missing from the theory is some aspects of its behavior at extremely high energy levels - levels that have not occurred naturally since very shortly after the big bang.
The model covers everything that's been observed to happen in the interaction between matter and energy. Moreover, the model is structured so as to make predictions that can be tested. Very many such predictions have been extracted and tested and observed to conform to the model.
There's no room in the model for any new kinds of energy suitable for carrying the information claimed by revelation. And none of the existing kinds of energy are suitable either.
I don't think this follows from the premises. Which option explains the facts better depends on the facts.
Nope. You admitted that the facts are not amenable to third-party validation. Therefore "delusion" explains the facts 100% perfectly. No other explanation can possibly fit the facts better - at best they can be an equally good fit.
I don't see the relevance of this line of thought.
No. You just don't want to admit its relevance.
We're not talking about something that's a matter of individual opinion, here, like whether chocolate is better than vanilla. We're talking about the nature of the real world, and that's exactly what science studies. A scientists knowledge of the world makes their judgement about such facts more reliable than a layman's.
The US population widely believes in the existence of a personal god, but the preeminent scientists in the US do not. I therefore conclude that the reason they don't is because such a belief is inconsistent with what they know as scientists.
This is true not just of that particular group. I've given the stats before - disbelief in gods correlates very well with knowledge.
Lack of evidence.
Absurd. If anyone has the relevant evidence, it's these people. It's hardly as if the non-scientists are more likely to have the evidence.
Add a Comment
Email This
RSS
RE: Religion and conservation laws
I don't see why this is necessary, seeing I'm simply looking to show you can't prove it to be logically imperative my beliefs contradict the laws of conservation.
Because I've already shown how "reasonable" interpretations of the relevant concepts violate the laws. There is no reasonable interpretation of the data that doesn't violate the laws. The only reasonable explanation remaining, the one that doesn't violate the laws is that we're dealing with fiction.
... except for maybe the tachyons you just mentioned?
The tachyons are kind of complicated - first, they're pure hypothesis, and no experiment has shown they exist. Nor has any experiment conclusively shown they don't. They're not a necessary part of any theory, just something that could be described by some particle models.
But, as I said, it doesn't matter - even if they do exist, they wouldn't be a suitable way to transfer information in such a way that violates causality. Information is bound up in causality - information traveling faster than the speed of light violates causality. The tachyons cannot be used to transfer information faster than light.
Are you saying if nothing can travel faster than light, it's impossible for a being to know everything going on?
Yes. The randomness inherent in quantum transactions implies that you cannot predict the future, even with perfect information, beyond an incredibly short horizon - definitely shorter than a millisecond. But perfect information isn't available anyway, because of the increase in total possible entropy associated with the inflationary period. Therefore, in order to "know everything going on", one must be able to observe everything. But the universe isn't small enough for that - parts of the universe are sufficiently far away from others that information would take longer than the total age of the universe to travel from one point to the other.
I think what we don't know about the energy forms of which we're aware, as well as the possibility of there being energy forms of which we aren't aware, is enough to leave open the possibility of revelation not violating conservation laws.
What makes you think there's anything we don't know about energy?
You're just doing the hand-waving thing again. Trying to hide in "we don't know what we don't know". It's pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
Science in general, and physics in particular, are about building models of reality. As I've said, the model we currently have - quantum mechanics and general relativity - models the universe to an incredibly precise level. What's still missing from the theory is some aspects of its behavior at extremely high energy levels - levels that have not occurred naturally since very shortly after the big bang.
The model covers everything that's been observed to happen in the interaction between matter and energy. Moreover, the model is structured so as to make predictions that can be tested. Very many such predictions have been extracted and tested and observed to conform to the model.
There's no room in the model for any new kinds of energy suitable for carrying the information claimed by revelation. And none of the existing kinds of energy are suitable either.
I don't think this follows from the premises. Which option explains the facts better depends on the facts.
Nope. You admitted that the facts are not amenable to third-party validation. Therefore "delusion" explains the facts 100% perfectly. No other explanation can possibly fit the facts better - at best they can be an equally good fit.
I don't see the relevance of this line of thought.
No. You just don't want to admit its relevance.
We're not talking about something that's a matter of individual opinion, here, like whether chocolate is better than vanilla. We're talking about the nature of the real world, and that's exactly what science studies. A scientists knowledge of the world makes their judgement about such facts more reliable than a layman's.
The US population widely believes in the existence of a personal god, but the preeminent scientists in the US do not. I therefore conclude that the reason they don't is because such a belief is inconsistent with what they know as scientists.
This is true not just of that particular group. I've given the stats before - disbelief in gods correlates very well with knowledge.
Lack of evidence.
Absurd. If anyone has the relevant evidence, it's these people. It's hardly as if the non-scientists are more likely to have the evidence.
View Full Discussion