Everyone is too busy to blog this week. But I’ll point you to my favorite quotes from Ezra Klein’s liveblogging of last night’s Republican presidential debate:
- 7:15 If this election is to be decided on ties, Ron Paul is totally going to win. And Sam Brownback will be executed.
- 7:41 Does anybody really believe religion is a “very important” part of Giuliani’s life? He seems like the type who would make holy water sizzle.
- 7:47 McCain thinks Americans should be exposed to “all theories.” All children will now go to school until the end of time.
Talk amongst yourselves, as long as it doesn’t involve Paris Hilton.
Reginald,
Firstly, my definition of ‘God’ is not some arbitrary definition I have just dreamt up but one that goes all the way back in the development of science (cf: Johann Kepler: “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”) to the Hebraic belief in a creator described by the story of Moses and the burning bush. In Hebrew the holy name for God “I AM that I AM” is dynamic, not static, in meaning, viz: “I am bringing into existence that which exists”.
Secondly: [quote]If you have evidence that the “laws of science” have an “author and originator,” go ahead: get your hands dirty and present it. Garth Barber has certainly failed to do so.[/quote]
Absolutely correct, I do not claim [em]evidence[/em] that the “laws of science” have an “author and originator,” it is a statement of faith, my whole point is that to claim otherwise [em]is also a statement of faith[/em]. It is just that those making that statement, such as yourself, are blinded by the circular ‘teapot’ argument to recognise the fact.
Garth
Whoops! Wrong HTML tags – where is my ‘Preview’ option?
I used to have one but now it has disappeared.
Garth
Sean,
You shutdown the Cosmology FAQ thread so maybe you don’t want any more questions. But if you have room for one more here it is:
The expansion of the universe stretched the photon wavelength of the CMB. Does the expansion of the universe stretch the de broglie wavelength of massive particles, say like the neutrinos that may be part of the neutrino background? (Assuming they have mass)
Comments on old threads just get shut down automatically, to cut down on spam.
The de Broglie wavelength, which tells you the uncertainty in where the particle is and is inversely proportional to its momentum, does indeed grow in an expanding universe. That’s just because the momentum does redshift away.
But the Compton wavelength, which gives a fundamental uncertainty below which you can’t localize the particle (and can thus be thought of as measuring “how big” it is, in some loose quantum-mechanical sense) is inversely proportional to the mass, and does not change as the universe expands.
So the size of a neutrino (or an atom) doesn’t grow, but your uncertainty about where it is does (until you measure it).
It is just that those making that statement, such as yourself, are blinded by the circular ‘teapot’ argument to recognise the fact.
Garth Barber: You assert, after a lengthy discussion, that the teapot argument is circular. Your time might have been better spent if you could demonstrate that the teapot argument is circular. All you have accomplished so far is to point out the gaps on which you base your gap theology, which is not enough to convince anybody reasonable. Meanwhile, Neil B. would claim that your evidence is irrelevant – oops, no he wouldn’t, since he is on your side. He only claims that my evidence is irrelevant, when he is not busy presenting his own evidence.
Since you are unable to make and defend a coherent argument for your side, and since Neil B. has severe problems with intellectual integrity, I’ll leave now. Have a nice day.
Reginald,
Garth Barber: You assert, after a lengthy discussion, that the teapot argument is circular. Your time might have been better spent if you could demonstrate that the teapot argument is circular.
I thought it was obvious, I will obviously have to spell it out.
Unobservable hypotheses cannot be falsified, nevertheless ‘Russell’s Celestial Teapot (CT)’ argument concludes that certain hypotheses, such as that of the existence of God, does not have to be falsified because the ideas themselves are ridiculous.
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.”
It is obvious that a firm refutation of the CT assertion does not require a great act of faith because Russell has chosen a ludicrous concept in the first place.
However, we can replace in the argument the CT concept with a plausible alternative such as the proposal of a planet Vulcan interior to Mercury, suggested in the 19th Century to explain Mercury’s anomalous orbital precession:
“If I were to suggest that interior to Mercury there is planet Vulcan revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the planet is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes because it is lost in the Sun’s brilliance.”
Now, the question of the object’s existence or non-existence is not a trivial matter but one that had to be answered by careful observation and finally by General Relativity’s resolution of the anomaly.
In one case the question is absurd in the other it is reasonable. Therefore, whether faith is required or not to disbelieve in the existence of God depends on whether the concept itself is considered reasonable or absurd in the first place. Is the argument not circular?
I really would like a ‘Preview’ option!
That last statement could have said:
Russell’s argument runs as follows:
“God is unobservable just as a CT is unobservable so it appears that the idea of their existence is not falsifiable, however the very idea that there is a God is absurd, just as the idea of a CT is absurd.
The refutation of their existence is therefore self-evident.
As the concept of God’s existence has been refuted the idea is absurd.”
Is this argument not circular?
Peace
Breaking news: string theory is, in fact, falsifiable!
Is it possible that dark energy IS gravity? Does matter exist because “normal” energy (us) is fundamentally incompatible with dark energy and the result is matter as we know it? Could it be that normal matter displaces dark energy and the result is gravity? Is there a quality of dark energy that causes the speed of light to be the value we observe? Just curious.