Holmes

This is an excellent summary. I recently asked if we should regard Rachel Dolezal as African American as she wants to be regarded using a similar justification to that used by a transgender person for being regarded as Women. Then the question arose - how should we react to a white male who wants to be regarded as a black female? Would we allow him to have the woman part of that "identity" but deny the black part?

I'll no longer be responding to you in this thread.

Which we can contrast with these, each of which appears in replies you've posted to me: your appeals to personal incredulity have been rampant, too for reasons of psychological comfort one that pleases you psychologically pinning all of your hopes you’re incredulous and ignorant too bunch of pseudo woo woo horseshit in the middle Argument from personal incredulity There's a pattern of dismissing an argument I've made by labelling it as "incredulity" or "ignorant" or "horseshit" as if that amounts to a reasoned rebuttal. If this was a formal refereed debate these kinds of insults and mischaracterizations would not be tolerated.

It seems to me that the main thrust of your responses are to express disapproval of me, my character and my motives and this amounts to what could be construed as an on-going ad-hominem attack. I just gave you the opportunity to address each of the three elements from my original post in this thread and you've refused and again post complaints about me or my manner or my motives all of which are irrelevant to what is being discussed. This is not how one debates in good faith, the ongoing absence of a well articulated rational response to my arguments serves to show that you are bereft of any sound counter arguments, you may want to consider how this makes you look in the grander scheme of things. I may cease discussing this subject in this thread as there is real danger of the conversation descending into pettiness, I have no desire for that and I'm sure others share that view.

There are some inaccuracies in that summary. Here's what I actually claimed, you'll find this in my very first post in this thread: Let me put this into a tabular form: We cannot logically, ever have a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe. All theories in physics refer to pre-existing material quantities and laws. The explanation for the presence of the universe (matter, energy, fields, laws) must be non-scientific. Which of these do you dispute and why?

OK NP.

Has anyone in the forum ever witnessed ball lightning? This has long been a mystery and is so rare that meaningful observations are very hard to perform. I wondered if there have been any recent developments in this are that someone might want to share.

I'd be inclined to consider measuring vibrations within the surface material. This strikes me as something that could be done by gathering a lot of test data to create a data model that a computer can use to extract meaningful information. What are you trying to measure anyway? simply the placement/removal of something from the surface or its location too? When you say you're measuring impedance can you elaborate?

Please consider altering the page setup so that "Edit" becomes an option at the bottom of the page right next to "Quote" (which is already there). This could reduce the likelihood of (me at least) mistakenly clicking "Quote" and posting what I think is an edit, only to have messed up the entire post. Thanks

I see, that's noteworthy. So by making (presumed) simplifying assumptions we may actually be making the problem harder to solve, if we remove assumptions about the string being unstretchable, there being no friction and so on - would we get to a more complex looking model but one that has an "easier" solution...

I wish I had the time to indulge, I have so many books I purchased this past twelve months and then I realized that I'm not reading the damn things! This is all extremely interesting though, my earlier studies in physics were really during the 1970s as I was approaching my twenties, had time etc and were quite focused on GR and various associated bits of math. This whole symmetries and groups etc were unknown to me, possibly not even discussed much at all outside of academia at that time. Are you drawing a distinction here between reality and how we represent, describe reality? Not sure, special pleading is sometimes a knee-jerk accusation whenever a discussion in metaphysics makes a reference to "god" or "supernatural", I've had it levelled at me many times, a bit like the tiresome response "goddidit" or "sky daddy" or "there's no evidence for God" and so on. Its helpful before claiming something is special pleading to at least be honest with oneself and play devil's advocate, see if you can explain (to yourself) why something is special pleading, often it is just blurted out as a precursor to dismissing what was said. This was instrumental in me abandoning atheism many years ago when I became critical of some atheist reactions (including some of my own at the time) to theists. I disagree we were discussing the merits of my claim that all theories rely on assumptions therefore asking for the theory itself (rather than a set of numbers) is reasonable. I make no apologies for making assumptions, as I said repeatedly we must make assumptions if we want to formulate and write down scientific explanations, you seem to want to contest this but appear unable to. So obviously you're assuming these "procedures" and "policies" are always sufficient to reach the levels of safety you desire.

I fail to see how asking you to describe your hypothesis can be deemed "confrontational". I never said they were, but if you think about that it's not really true. You must assume the dial works, you must assume the dial is reliable, gives acceptable repeatability, is not unduly influenced by temperature and so on. Perhaps, my position was though that every theory in science make assumptions, posting a set of measurements is not a theory so my remarks are not directed at your data and never were. In which case why present this as rebuttal? as I just explained my assertion is that every theory in science makes assumptions posting something that isn't a theory hardly serves to invalidate that assertion. Why you are asking me to formulate a hypothesis? All I've said in this regard is IF you show me a theory, any theory, then it will make assumptions (and I'm happy to point these out should you disagree). That's all I'm saying about this.

When I see this I often wonder - is there a simpler way to solve it, is our initial approach somehow inhibiting our ability to get a simpler solution.

Please post a numbered list of these purported fallacies and lets examine them together one at a time. Do you think that "it's always been there" qualifies as special pleading? (Here's the definition of special pleading to help you answer this question).

I was a bit taken aback recently when I learned that the motion of a pendulum is complex to model, I must have last looked at this when I was in school and paid little attention, I think we used some simplified model and I never appreciated it was more complex. My experience with differential equations is rather limited and I had no idea that an equation like Eq. 1 was so involved. Fascinating how sometimes something that gives an impression of simplicity turns out to be far more involved.

I think this short clip from a formal debate between William Craig and Peter Atkins may help explain my position. You'll note how Craig eventually shows that he has a deeper understanding of the foundations of science than Atkins. I think Atkins comes up short, does not seem to appreciate his predicament in the debate. Note too that Craig does not reject the assumptions that he calls out, he agrees and says so, that these are rational sensible things to assume but they are nevertheless beliefs, accepted as true but not provable. Well science is littered with undefined terms, that's all I have to say about these remarks of yours. Good. But what is the theory? what is the hypothesis, what does it predict that we can test? You seem to have skirted around this part of your argument. Show me the theory, the hypothesis and I'll show you some assumptions. Absolutely, yes. Yes, this is true, I've read about this recently (in a book by Susskind) but only scratched the surface. @MigL I just stumbled upon this paper, looks like a relevant read.

If god did "do it" then how would one state that fact? If it were found to be true how would one write this fact? Obviously we'd write "god did it". This is akin to how some here want to write "it just always existed". If the former is "no explanation at all" then I do not see how the latter is any better. This is interesting, your question "how does god operate" is a bit like the example I mentioned from Feynman when asked "how do the two magnets repel". Are you seeking a scientific explanation for how god "operates"? are you seeking a reductionist explanation? on what basis do you insist that there should be such an explanation? particularly when the alternative is "it has always existed", tell me please how does "it has always existed" operate? Very well I will not paraphrase you, I don't like that myself so thanks for mentioning it. This is not true, my "whole case" rests on logic and reason, I've rationally inferred god by recognizing the futility of believing that all explanations must be scientific, reductionist, of believing that the presence of the laws of nature can be explained by recourse to other laws. Since this leads to paradoxes I must - if I care about being honest - reject the belief that everything has a scientific explanation. Nothing in my thesis is being forced upon you, I have no emotional baggage, my words are plain, my reasoning is sound. Objecting to my thesis because I happen to use a term that you personally find distasteful is not a very good basis for a rebuttal. Yes. Yes, I see that. This is odd, first you express disapproval of my choice of the word "god" then you go to great lengths to show that the terms we use don't really matter, does not diminish an argument. If this is the case then "god" is as good as any other term. Well the claim that I presented no argument is likewise, just your opinion.

OK, I'll assume nothing, the list is a randomly generated list. I steer away from misleading terms like "validated assumption" science deals with falsification, it can only ever invalidate an assumption. Consider Newtonian gravitation, was the inverse square law "validated" and if so when was it validated? it was regarded as such for two and a half centuries by many until the unexpected and stubborn deviation of the perihelion of mercury refused to play ball. At that stage the assumption (that the inverse square law is true) was invalidated and was eventually abandoned as I'm sure you know. So how can something be validated if it can later be shown to be invalid? the answer is very obvious, it was never "validated" at all. I too object, to your misleading attempt to imply that scientific theories are not based on assumption, unprovable beliefs. Newtonian gravitational theory was tested by reproducible observations of nature, tell me please at what point do you think the inverse square law became validated? if it was validated then how on earth could it later be invalidated? The conservation laws are assumptions, mathematical theories that hinge upon them draw their conclusions on the basis that the laws are assumed to be true. So far as the mathematical analysis goes they are axiomatic. I did give an example, there are in fact many, the inverse square law assumed by Newton is an excellent example as is the luminiferous aether hypothesis. I do not really think your making a good rebuttal, nothing I've said is false, at odds with reality or history. You object it seems to the fact that I refuse to elevate science and theories to the status of unquestioned absolute truth. Completely irrelevant to our discussion. This is partly true but you've misunderstood. Yes it is unscientific (I've stressed that point several times in this thread) and that is because the explanation for the origin cannot possibly be scientific if we are to avoid paradoxes. I make no apologies, very clearly, the logic is trivially simple here, if the explanation for the origins of the laws of nature cannot be explained scientifically then we must accept the fact that the explanation will not be scientific, we must accept the fact that non-scientific explanations must be considered. Here you go again, I made no mention of "myth" or "old bloke" or "sitting on clouds" this is an attempt at a strawman, an attempt to misrepresent what I actually said, this is not the first time you've stooped to this level and it makes your attempt at rebuttal look intellectually rather weak not say rude. Saying a "quantum foam" has always been there is fine, by all means one can propose that but it is not a scientific explanation it is a belief an assumed absolute truth that cannot be subject to test, it cannot be falsified. It leads one to just dumbly stare and say "it's just always been there" how that is a "better" explanation than an agency with power and will, intentionally bringing it into existence? I do not think it is a better explanation, perhaps it is more palatable because of deep seated prejudices, biases against what you think "God" may represent or imply but that's your choice. We are all familiar with agencies that have power and will, just look in the mirror, will, intent does exist in the universe. More mischaracterizations! you do like to garnish your posts with emotive terms like "warm cozy inner peace" you seem unable to discuss this without using such emotive terms, well let me say here and now these are your terms, reflecting your perceptions not mine. I don't think you're making a very strong case, as rebuttals go this is intellectually disappointing, I've debated with many competent thinkers over the years, this is not my first rodeo as the saying goes.

Well you use the term "measurements" so if I assume T represents Tesla, then these are measurements of a magnetic field strength. 45T is the strongest magnetic field we've created so far on earth so these must be extra terrestrial values. But such a set of measurements (perhaps of stars) does not seem to make much of a theory, perhaps it represents a fluctuation, a series of measurements over time of the same object. No, I cannot guess from that data.

One can argue that yes, theories are rooted in various things I suppose, history being one of them along with testability and so on, but without stating assumed truths there is no theory, no ability to reason because there's nothing to reason from. I don't think its a question of "may make assumption" but of "must make assumptions". I also disagree that a theory is not a theory until its been subjected to some kind of verification only that it must lend itself to verification, that is be falsifiable. Yes I agree, this is what we call inductive reasoning as I'm sure you know but the assumptions are still assumptions. It was assumed the aether existed and played a role in what we observe until it was abandoned, assuming it was therefore wrong despite the sensible reasons that it was initially considered. You can take any law and argue that because we've tested it a billion times we are confident in it and elevate to the status of an axiom, regard it as universally true but that is very far from establishing that it is invariably true. For all we know speed of light may drop by 5% in 1 million years and remain at that speed for the next trillion years, this could be the case and all our misplaced confidence based on our relatively brief history would be but a blip. All well and good, but is it possible to formulate a mathematical theory in physics that makes no assumptions? of course it is not, so this begs the question what is the origin of the truths we are assuming? until that is answered we have not explained the universe's presence.

The whole point of my earlier post is in danger of being lost if we dwell on the merits or want thereof of specific terms. What is important is this - can one have a scientific, mathematical theory that does not base its conclusions on assumptions?

God created the universe ≠ not an explanation.

All scientific explanations, theories are reductionist, the explained thing is "bigger" than the things used in the explanation, this characterizes scientific explanations. "Always been there" is an answer, but not a scientific answer, it is not a scientific explanation (it is not reductionist for one thing) and if we're willing to admit that reality can be explained by non scientific explanations then introducing a "God" is no big deal. The "always been there" answer means that the universe cannot be explained, it just "is" whereas a "God" bringing it into existence with some motive, intent is an explanation, it is reductionist. On this basis it is more attractive as an explanation - IMHO. Self referential algorithms are man made abstractions, they are created by human intelligence, I'm not aware of anything resembling them in nature.

Well you haven't really made much of a point. You seem reticent to admit an obvious self evident truth and because the word "supernatural" is being used (and used quite appropriately I might add) you are stubbornly fixated on that. Here's a definition of supernatural, since we're discussing laws of nature this term is absolutely appropriate for denoting situations where there are no laws of nature: Since the origin of the laws of nature was an event obviously not subject to the laws of nature, we are, I'm afraid, very much dealing with the supernatural. I can only assume that bias, prejudice and preconceptions are making this rather straightforward discussion a struggle for you.

Kinda...! I'm reading about electromagnetic mass, not really read about this before. It begs the question (in my naive mind) why regard the charged particle as having a mass + an electromagnetic mass? why not regard all of its mass as electromagnetic mass, rather than a particle + a field why not just think of it as a field with mass... This is naive I know, but it is quite interesting and is giving a bit more insight so thanks.