Looks like it's time for another evolution thread

[AViking]

Nonsense. Mathematics has nothing to do with objective reality.


No they don't. They make factual predictions.


They are tested against reality, and math has nothing to do with reality.

This strikes me as very odd. Math is the language we use to describe reality. What are you talking about when you deny that? I can theoretically model the entire universe using math by simply integrating across every surface, turning each cross section into a binary number, and creating a string out of every single object.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This strikes me as very odd. Math is the language we use to describe reality. What are you talking about when you deny that? I can theoretically model the entire universe using math by simply integrating across every surface, turning each cross section into a binary number, and creating a string out of every single object.

Math is the language we use to describe our ideas -- it is entirely a priori reasoning. It could theoretically model any and every universe, which should make it clear how reality and mathematics are independent.

"All the propositions of logic say the same thing, to wit, nothing." -- Wittgenstein.

 

[AViking]

Gotcha.

 

[PowerEngineer]

What exactly is a soul?

Well, that was intended as an invitation to believers to define. I have sometimes heard people attribute faith to the soul and intellect to the mind (the latter being tied to the fallen physical world, a tool used by the devil to deceive, and therefore not trustworthy).

You dismiss it using a philosophical argument (i.e. it's ridiculous). However, you can never scientifically prove that it's incorrect. That's the difference. The premise of the OP is that the two are scientifically distinguishable. The conclusion of my original post here is that that premise is false. I'm not arguing for one model or the other. I'm simply arguing that, if one presumes to appeal to higher faculties to dismiss something by invoking science, he'd better be damn sure that it's really science he's using. Otherwise he opens himself to ridicule.

You are right when you say that science can never prove that all but one of the possible explanations offered for something are false. But you are wrong to think that this prevents science from discerning which of the possible explanations is most likely, and that's really all that science can do. I've posted Feynman's quote on flying saucers before which (obviously) explains this better than I can.

You may have also overlooked my earlier emphasis on agreement with known facts in addition to predictions of new facts. Here's an on-topic article I just stumbled across that underscores what I mean:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...e-appealing-part-of-creationism-is-wrong.html

Math is the language we use to describe our ideas -- it is entirely a priori reasoning. It could theoretically model any and every universe, which should make it clear how reality and mathematics are independent.

"All the propositions of logic say the same thing, to wit, nothing." -- Wittgenstein.

This is a helpful clarification to your original statements about the linkage between mathematics and science. In most cases (maybe all?), descriptions of scientific theories involve mathematics. It seems to me that science might not exist if the physical world didn't lend itself to being expressed in mathematics (and logic).

And there's still too much name calling going on in this thread. Calm your emotions before starting another post here, maybe dissipate them in P&N?

 

[crashtestdummy]

This is a helpful clarification to your original statements about the linkage between mathematics and science. In most cases (maybe all?), descriptions of scientific theories involve mathematics. It seems to me that science might not exist if the physical world didn't lend itself to being expressed in mathematics (and logic).

It's interesting to note that while I wholeheartedly agree with Cerpin Taxt in his characterization of mathematics, it is by no means a universally held view among scientists. There is a sense in the fringes of theoretical physics that any mathematical connection between two observable concepts is inherently correct and does not need observation to be believed.

String theory, in particular, has yet to produce a single observable prediction. Its entire basis for existing is that it creates a mathematical link between General relativity and quantum mechanics. The fact that it requires 11 spacial dimensions to create this link reeks of the kind of over-fitting I described in a previous post, and the fact that there is (currently) no way to test whether that link is real makes me very suspicious as to its usefulness.

Even Einstein, when asked what would have happened had experiments showed that General Relativity was wrong, said, "Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct anyway." There is in that statement the underlying assumption that a model can be correct if the math is rigorous, absent real observation.

 

[Paul98]

I pose two initial states governed by identical physical laws. In state 1, billions of years ago, we have the big bang and everything since. In state 2, ~6000 years ago, we have an initial state exactly what would be predicted using a perfectly accurate simulator of a perfect cosmological model yielding an identical universe to that predicted ~6000 years in the past by solving the model with the initial condition from state 1. From that point ~6000 years ago, both of these offer identical predictions for everything at all future times. How, then, can you scientifically distinguish one from the other without a time machine?

Or maybe I am god and everything in this universe is thought up subconsciously by me. Maybe we and everything in the universe came into being a second ago but in the exact state that we so so we think the universe has been around for billions of years. Or maybe none of what I see think or feel is real and I am just dreaming, and when I die I wake up to the real world.

 

[PowerEngineer]

It's interesting to note that while I wholeheartedly agree with Cerpin Taxt in his characterization of mathematics, it is by no means a universally held view among scientists. There is a sense in the fringes of theoretical physics that any mathematical connection between two observable concepts is inherently correct and does not need observation to be believed.

String theory, in particular, has yet to produce a single observable prediction. Its entire basis for existing is that it creates a mathematical link between General relativity and quantum mechanics. The fact that it requires 11 spacial dimensions to create this link reeks of the kind of over-fitting I described in a previous post, and the fact that there is (currently) no way to test whether that link is real makes me very suspicious as to its usefulness.

Even Einstein, when asked what would have happened had experiments showed that General Relativity was wrong, said, "Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct anyway." There is in that statement the underlying assumption that a model can be correct if the math is rigorous, absent real observation.

I understand your point and don't think that it's really at odds with my post. Mathematics isn't sufficient by itself but can still be necessary. I think it's fair to say that throughout history advances in mathematics have added useful tools for the pursuit of science, and even suggested directions to take when formulating new theories. Perhaps this is a philosophical thought, but it seems to me that the two are intertwined.

I agree with you that string theory pushes hard on the boundary between science and philosophy. It's my impression that most scientists (even string theory proponents) realize that string theory has a long way to go (e.g. making verifiable predictions) before it can be considered as a likely explanation of what we see. At this point, it is only an interesting possibility suggested by mathematics that is IMHO worth pursuing. After all, Einstein's developed general relativity by following the math.

I've always taken the Einstein quote as being a somewhat tongue-in-cheek response to the millionth time he'd been asked that question. It is certainly true, however, that he was hard set against quantum theories despite mounting supporting evidence.

 

[norseamd]

mathmatics does not exist. it is an invention to measure anything

 

[CycloWizard]

You keep saying it is not Science. However, that is incorrect. You are redefining Science to fit your premise.

I'm redefining science? Howso? I see no contradiction between the two schema I've proposed and any definition of science I can find.

 

[CycloWizard]

You keep using the term "prediction" when I think you mean "explanation." These are not the same thing. There is an enormous amount of information that no other model predicted we would find that has been predicted by Natural Selection theory and then verified by paleontology, experimental biology, genetic analysis and so on. Some of the links provided in this thread will enumerate a small fraction of those, but the most concise way to put it is that biological research as we know it today would be essentially impossible without the concept of Natural Selection.

Creation theory has no produced a single original prediction. That it can be adjusted ex post facto to fit the data does not mean that it is at all predictive. Thus, any creation theory that does not provide an original prediction is not scientific theory and does not, for example, belong in a science classroom.

It is also worth noting that predictions don't have to be for events in the future (although evolution certainly has a lot to say about those as well). What they have to do, though is predict the presence of some observation that is not currently known. Thus, predicting a common ancestor between species, and the form that the common ancestor would hold, were new predictions created by natural selection that were not previously available.*

I don't think you understand my statement. Neither theory, as posed, makes different predictions or explanations for anything we might ever find, except for their origins (where they came from/how long ago they were put there/what processes were involved in generating the condition of everything ~6k years ago). However, we cannot test any hypotheses regarding these origins. The problem would be the same if we pose two theories:
1) the Big Bang occurred 13.5 billion years ago and the universe/multiverse progressed according to all physical laws since that time based on the initial condition of a singularity, and
2) another that it occurred 13.5 billion years ago minus one Planck time where the initial conditions are as predicted by theory 1 at t_0=one Planck time.
We have no way to distinguish between these two theories: we choose theory 1 over theory 2 only because its initial condition is simpler. I can pose infinitely many models which would make identical predictions and have an identical amount of explanatory power (t_0=2 Planck times...t_0=now - one Planck time). We cannot distinguish between any of these models using any available scientific methods.

I think at this point we are having different conversations. You appear interested in the Truth of the universe. That is fine, but please do not consider your approach scientific. It does not belong in a science class. If you wish for our kids to have basic instruction in metaphysical thought, or to partake in a comparative religion coursework, I won't argue with you. When you equate creation with scientific theory, though, you hamper our ability as a nation and as a species to make useful scientific discoveries. The inability of the average person (and even many scientists) to distinguish between a predictive and a non-predictive correlation holds us back probably more than any other scientific misconception (hence why you see all those people who don't believe in vaccines).

Lastly, both as a scientist and as a person, I am uninterested in the notion of absolute Truth or even of a stable reality. The best I can hope to achieve is a notion of usefulness. If I cannot take a piece of information and use it to make a verifiable test, then I simply don't care about it. That information may as well simply not exist. If you tell me there is a God, but cannot provide me with a way to use that information in a way that is independently verifiable, then there might as well be no God. Life is too short and I am too busy to bother with ideas that are merely possible. That is indeed a philosophical choice (the as a person part, as a scientist it's required to function). I can understand why that wouldn't be enough for many people, but it is more than sufficient for me.

*You can make a comment about Lamarkism here, but that provided other predictions that were very much shown to be false, and Natural Selection predicted the eventual discovery of information that would not have been predicted by Lamark or his philosophers.

You have misunderstood my remarks (see above). I never equated these things: I simply stated that they are scientifically indistinguishable. Until this simple truth is accepted, then the debate regarding curriculum is moot. Once we agree on this truth, then we can discuss various rationales (albeit somewhat arbitrary) means for choosing theories.

 

[CycloWizard]

Using Cyclo's methodology, any and every Creation myth is valid. Including such ideas as Earth sitting on the back of a turtle or the Universe coming into existence cause 2 beings did the nasty. It's only the way you frame the argument that matters.

That's a blatant mischaracterization of what I've said. I can look at the world and see that there is no turtle under it: that's a scientific approach to disproving a theory. However, science cannot disprove the second myth you mentioned (yet) because we have no testable hypothesis regarding when/why/how the universe came into existence.

 

[CycloWizard]

But only one of them is scientific: evolution.

Total bullshit. The difference is that evolution doesn't merely explain why things are they way that they are, but it also explains why they aren't different. That's called falsifiability, and it something that magical hocus-pocus creation lacks.

I haven't conflated anything. I explained precisely why omphalism is simply a solipsistic approach to denying historical knowledge.

I have made no error in logic.

It impossible to distinguish the real world from a false one created for your brain in a vat in a mad scientist's laboratory. Which one is the reasonable one to believe?

It is impossible to distinguish a real world from an imaginary one wherein the observeables only exist in one's mind. Which one is the reasonable one to believe?

It's the same bullshit Cartesian skepticism applied in every instance, and one that nobody takes seriously because every reasonable person believes that a real world exists and they are able to access it with their senses.

That's false, too. We can distinguish the one that is falsifiable from the infinitely many that are not.

My point remains -- you are hypocrite if you claim that the theory of evolution is indistinguishable from magical hocus-pocus creation and simultaneously accept that there is a true reality within reach of your physical senses. You are arbitrarily applying Cartesian skepticism because you don't want to accept that evolution is as much a fact as is the computer monitor in front of your face. Knowledge of both facts rely on the same assumptions, but you arbitrarily reject the assumption in the case of evolution. Hypocrite.

The young Earth creationism theory, as I've posed it, does not disallow evolution. Stop projecting your prejudice against morons on me and perhaps you will be able to wrap your head around why you are completely wrong. You have no idea what I consider to be true, false, probable, or unknowable: you've simply assumed that anyone who challenges your premise is an idiot. Until you admit that there is a difference between falsifying a hypothesis and choosing a reasonable belief, then we're at an impasse. On that note, please propose a falsifiable hypothesis by which we can disprove/differentiate between either of the theories as I've posed them without invoking time travel or admit that I'm correct.

 

[CycloWizard]

Nonsense. Mathematics has nothing to do with objective reality.


No they don't. They make factual predictions.


They are tested against reality, and math has nothing to do with reality.

Math is a symbolic language which allows us to formalize your so-called "factual predictions" into something which can actually be tested. This is the standard of any and all scientific journals (even if the exact standards they utilize are inherently arbitrary). Thus, your idealized form of science lacks foundation in reality. Perhaps this is why you're struggling to understand why two hypotheses cannot necessarily be distinguished scientifically.

 

[CycloWizard]

You are right when you say that science can never prove that all but one of the possible explanations offered for something are false. But you are wrong to think that this prevents science from discerning which of the possible explanations is most likely, and that's really all that science can do. I've posted Feynman's quote on flying saucers before which (obviously) explains this better than I can.

You may have also overlooked my earlier emphasis on agreement with known facts in addition to predictions of new facts. Here's an on-topic article I just stumbled across that underscores what I mean:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...e-appealing-part-of-creationism-is-wrong.html

This still doesn't get at the heart of my argument. My two theories, as posed, do not dispute evolution, laws of motion, conservation of energy, or anything else we could use to distinguish them: they simply choose a different time point and initial conditions for the beginning of this extrapolation process. Based on our observations, I can't conceive of a way to differently estimate the probabilities/likelihoods of these two initial conditions. If someone can I would be very interested to hear it.

 

[OverVolt]

That's a blatant mischaracterization of what I've said. I can look at the world and see that there is no turtle under it: that's a scientific approach to disproving a theory. However, science cannot disprove the second myth you mentioned (yet) because we have no testable hypothesis regarding when/why/how the universe came into existence.

Science doesn't actively research the origins of the universe so much as just learn about the world around us. I literally have-no-freaking-clue where he gets the idea that there are scientists in some university somewhere trying to figure out the origin of the universe, because they aren't.

All the philosophical stuff is just that, philosophizing on history channel and such.

Very derp if you ask me but whatever.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The young Earth creationism theory, as I've posed it, does not disallow evolution.

There isn't a "young Earth creationism theory." Scientific theories are developed using the scientific method. The scientific method necessitates the presuppositions of methodological naturalism. The propositions of any "young Earth creationism" reject those presuppositions, and therefore the method. They are not theories, therefore.

Stop projecting your prejudice against morons on me and perhaps you will be able to wrap your head around why you are completely wrong.

I'm not wrong. Only one model is scientific. You have claimed otherwise, in error.

You have no idea what I consider to be true, false, probable, or unknowable: you've simply assumed that anyone who challenges your premise is an idiot.

What you "consider to be true, false, probable, or unknowable" is irrelevant. Your claims are false for the reasons given.

Until you admit that there is a difference between falsifying a hypothesis and choosing a reasonable belief, then we're at an impasse.

Where do you think I have equated the two?

On that note, please propose a falsifiable hypothesis by which we can disprove/differentiate between either of the theories as I've posed them without invoking time travel or admit that I'm correct.

You haven't presented any other scientific theories, therefore there is no need to differentiate any.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Math is a symbolic language which allows us to formalize your so-called "factual predictions" into something which can actually be tested.

No. Language is useful for only one thing: communication.

This is the standard of any and all scientific journals (even if the exact standards they utilize are inherently arbitrary).

Irrelevant.

Thus, your idealized form of science lacks foundation in reality.

Science is an ideal. It is an ideal method, to be precise. It is never to be found in reality, but it exists in the minds of many humans. What in the world could a scientific "foundation in reality" resemble, I wonder?

Perhaps this is why you're struggling to understand why two hypotheses cannot necessarily be distinguished scientifically.

I am not struggling in the slightest. You haven't presented any scientifically indistinguishable theories. You have mentioned one scientific theory -- the theory of evolution -- and a collection of scientifically invalid hypotheses. It is easy to distinguish the former from the latter.

Well, for the rest of us, anyway.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That's a blatant mischaracterization of what I've said. I can look at the world and see that there is no turtle under it: that's a scientific approach to disproving a theory.

Can you? How can you exclude the possibility that your senses are actively deceived by an omnipotent trickster god?

However, science cannot disprove the second myth you mentioned (yet) because we have no testable hypothesis regarding when/why/how the universe came into existence.

We don't know that the universe came in to existence in the first place.

 

[JEDIYoda]

We don't know that the universe came in to existence in the first place.

That's just a fancy way of side stepping the issue.
Just come clean and admit that you are a contrarian who really does not want a dialogue other than for trolling purposes....

 

[PowerEngineer]

This still doesn't get at the heart of my argument. My two theories, as posed, do not dispute evolution, laws of motion, conservation of energy, or anything else we could use to distinguish them: they simply choose a different time point and initial conditions for the beginning of this extrapolation process. Based on our observations, I can't conceive of a way to differently estimate the probabilities/likelihoods of these two initial conditions. If someone can I would be very interested to hear it.

Assuming that your young earth creation theory posits the age of the universe to be only thousands (rather than billions) of years, then it certainly (and very obviously) disputes evolution and many other well supported theories in biology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology. The natural processes as we understand them take much longer to produce the world around us than just a few thousand years. All the evidence points toward an earth that is approximately four billion years old, and a universe that is about fourteen billion years old.

What you seem to be trying very hard to ignore is that the theories that explain what's going on around us have also left evidence of their affects over time on the physical world we now see. Fossils are an obvious example; the mean time for neutrons to escape the core of the sun (as mentioned in the link I posted) is another. The bottom line is that currently accepted scientific theories (which are certainly not completely correct) give a much better explanation of the observable facts than any young earth creation alternative.

By picking an arbitrary "time point and initial conditions" that we can only look forward from, you are in effect claiming that there need not be any continuity between the way the world worked in the past and the way it works today. The earth orbits around the sun today, but that doesn't mean the sun didn't orbit the earth in biblical times. Carbon-14 decays at a certain rate now, but did so much more rapidly just a few thousand years ago. The speed of light is fixed now but must have been much higher in the past for us to being seeing distant galaxies already. Your convenient discontinuity between past and present in fact opens the door to many wilder alternate explanations such as Dr. Pizza's claim to being our creator.

While I agree with you that a scientific theory needs to make predictions of future results in order to be credible, it even more important that it doesn't conflict with the evidence we already have of what happened in the past. Put another way, scientific theories are expected to hold across time rather than just during parts of it. If you ignore this, then the result you get is not science.

P.S. -- Conservation of energy was undermined by general relativity and is pretty clearly not conserved in an expanding universe with a positive cosmological constant.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That's just a fancy way of side stepping the issue.
Just come clean and admit that you are a contrarian who really does not want a dialogue other than for trolling purposes....

 

[JEDIYoda]

I see you took a selfie...very nice!!

 

[CycloWizard]

You haven't presented any other scientific theories, therefore there is no need to differentiate any.

 

[CycloWizard]

Assuming that your young earth creation theory posits the age of the universe to be only thousands (rather than billions) of years, then it certainly (and very obviously) disputes evolution and many other well supported theories in biology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology. The natural processes as we understand them take much longer to produce the world around us than just a few thousand years. All the evidence points toward an earth that is approximately four billion years old, and a universe that is about fourteen billion years old.

What you seem to be trying very hard to ignore is that the theories that explain what's going on around us have also left evidence of their affects over time on the physical world we now see. Fossils are an obvious example; the mean time for neutrons to escape the core of the sun (as mentioned in the link I posted) is another. The bottom line is that currently accepted scientific theories (which are certainly not completely correct) give a much better explanation of the observable facts than any young earth creation alternative.

By picking an arbitrary "time point and initial conditions" that we can only look forward from, you are in effect claiming that there need not be any continuity between the way the world worked in the past and the way it works today. The earth orbits around the sun today, but that doesn't mean the sun didn't orbit the earth in biblical times. Carbon-14 decays at a certain rate now, but did so much more rapidly just a few thousand years ago. The speed of light is fixed now but must have been much higher in the past for us to being seeing distant galaxies already. Your convenient discontinuity between past and present in fact opens the door to many wilder alternate explanations such as Dr. Pizza's claim to being our creator.

While I agree with you that a scientific theory needs to make predictions of future results in order to be credible, it even more important that it doesn't conflict with the evidence we already have of what happened in the past. Put another way, scientific theories are expected to hold across time rather than just during parts of it. If you ignore this, then the result you get is not science.

P.S. -- Conservation of energy was undermined by general relativity and is pretty clearly not conserved in an expanding universe with a positive cosmological constant.

None of what you wrote here is true. If the earth is 6000 years old, evolution could still hold. The relative abundance of C14 could have evolved according to the exact same rules as it does now (assuming the initial abundance was altered accordingly as I specifically stated previously). And no, relativity doesn't undermine conservation of energy: it simply shows that conservation of mass and energy are inherently related.

 

[PowerEngineer]

None of what you wrote here is true. If the earth is 6000 years old, evolution could still hold. The relative abundance of C14 could have evolved according to the exact same rules as it does now (assuming the initial abundance was altered accordingly as I specifically stated previously). And no, relativity doesn't undermine conservation of energy: it simply shows that conservation of mass and energy are inherently related.

Actually everything that I wrote in my post is true, and I'm sorry that you aren't seeing that your desire to pick some arbitrary time (and initial conditions) as a starting point for science isn't consistent with science as the rest of us define it.

Take a look at this link and pay particular attention to the third bullet on consistency of the causes.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging. Science operates on the assumptions that:

• There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us. For example, if a ball falls to the ground, science assumes that there must be a natural explanation for why the ball moves downward once released. Right now, scientists can describe gravity in great detail, but exactly what gravity is remains elusive. Still, science assumes that there is an explanation for gravity that relies on natural causes, just as there is for everything in nature.
• Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes. Science assumes that we can learn about gravity and why a ball falls by studying evidence from the natural world. Scientists can perform experiments with other falling objects, observe how gravity affects the orbits of the planets, etc. Evidence from a wide range of experiments and observations helps scientists understand more about the natural causes of gravity.
• There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world. In other words, the same causes come into play in related situations and these causes are predictable. For example, science assumes that the gravitational forces at work on a falling ball are related to those at work on other falling objects. It is further assumed that the workings of gravity don't change from moment to moment and object to object in unpredictable ways. Hence, what we learn about gravity today by studying falling balls can also be used to understand, for example, modern satellite orbits, the formation of the moon in the distant past, and the movements of the planets and stars in the future, because the same natural cause is at work regardless of when and where things happen.

These assumptions are important and are not controversial in science today. In fact, they form much of the basis for how we interact with the world and each other everyday.

You can also look at this link about conservation of energy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

which says in part:

In general relativity conservation of energy-momentum is expressed with the aid of a stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor. The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe.

And the open question is answered with a "no" if the universe is in fact expanding and has a positive cosmological constant; both these seem to be true based on recent observations.