EEVblog #833 - Mailbag

[jonw0224]

retrolefty,

I'll stand corrected.  I over reacted.  You are right in that it is impossible to prove there is no God.  It's like proving there is no bug in a software program.  At what point of use can you say, "there is no bug, because my program isn't crashing".  How can you know at the next point it can't crash?  So, I guess I used the word incorrectly.  However, you can say, "my program is running correctly".  And in that vain I would say, science in our current understanding falls very short of explaining origins of anything we study.  Anyone that claims that science can be used to explain away God or that science justifies a not believing in God, is just well, to use Dawkin's own words, "delusional".  And the sum of the evidence in my view demonstrates a designed world, not a chance happening because the chance of it happening is so remote.  I'd call it miraculous.  Someone else is free to look at the world around them and believe it's all just dumb luck.  So, I can agree that is a different thing from a proof of God's existence or non existence.  However, my belief in the Christian God is falsifiable, in that you can demonstrate the story line as untrue.  But I guess the problem with that is you've got to chip away the story piece by piece, until a stubborn fellow like me lets go.

Please understand, I'm not trying to justify religious belief, I'm just trying to combat the dogmatic view that religious people are the only ones holding onto a form of faith and by faith I mean believing in something without knowing for 100% sure and the bashing of another person's belief without any real justification.  The quicker we all come to the conclusion that we don't have all the answers, the better off we'll be because we'll try to find them.

-Jonathan

[Lightages]

Evolution is a fact, not speculation.

Life did not start from evolution. Evolution is the process that explains the diversity of life we have now.

Evolution does not describe, nor attempt to describe, how life started. That is another completely different field.  Nobody knows how life started, but the evidence points to random formations of molecules arriving at a form where self replication was probable.

The Universe started from a state of infinite density, not from a point. This state changed rapidly from expansion and caused the Universe that we see today. What happened before the big bang is beyond our current understanding at this point just as was how the diversity of life came about before Darwin made his observations.

We have discovered, using science, that we still need to learn more about our Universe and that we can directly observe only 5% of what exists. Other methods of observation from new technology might reveal what we have not seen yet, just as Galileo did with his new technology.

God(s) are only talked about, asserted, and believed in without any evidence such as has been used in the things mentioned above. No evidence, nothing, just believers and their books written by believers.

God(s), or more correctly the belief in them, are probably the result of evolution. If you didn't believe there was an agent making that crunching sound in the high grasses near you, you became the meal of a tiger. If you did believe there was an agent making that sound and acted to avoid the agent, you survived and so you would be able to have descendants. Better to believe in agency even if there isn't any so you would survive just in case there really was some.

Belief without evidence is irrational. People have a capability to compartmentalize beliefs if they seem to contradict reality. Maybe this is so that they can survive among the others who believe who might think that the lack of belief is dangerous to the group. "Hey, Joe didn't tell us about the tiger noise he thought he heard when there wasn't one. We all run at any noise or when we see someone else running. Joe didn't react and so maybe he is a threat to our society, kill him so he can't be a cause of a false sense of safety. "

If you can't show it, or evidence of it, it isn't real. Sure you can believe in it, but keep the belief to yourself and stop trying to make other believe in something you can demonstrate. Even better, stop killing people because they don't think women should live in bags, or that you should stone a man to death for gathering sticks on Sunday, or that people can't be good without believing that a God made a clone of himself, then killed it, and then made it come back to life and disappear. All this to save his beloved minions from the sin he created knowing they would be sinners and need to be saved from his perfect plan. Ooops plan didn't work, kill everyone except 8 people by drowning all of them, babies, tress, everything. Perfect plan didn't work again? OK, make all man speak different languages so they can't understand each other so they can't be closer to God? Oops, didn't work again... OK, wait till Jesus comes back in 20 years! Ooops, OK 1000 years! Ooops, hmmm, sorry, God is a little busy, he will get back to you soon........

[Fungus]

My belief is totally falsifiable.

No it isn't.

And bring me some evidence that falsifies it instead of making mere assertions and conjectures ("certain groups of atoms might be more stable?"), and I'll change my mind.  Thanks,

You can always say "God was guiding those atoms" and nobody will be able to prove otherwise. That's unfalsifiability.

In the unfalsifiable position the burden of proof is on you to prove that god did it, not the other way around. Until you grasp that concept there's no possible debate.

[Fungus]

Please understand, I'm not trying to justify religious belief, I'm just trying to combat the dogmatic view that religious people are the only ones holding onto a form of faith

There's no such thing as atheist dogma, there's no such thing as atheist faith.

Dogma and faith are things that can only come from unfalsifiable beliefs.

(OK, that's not quite true: I have faith in the scientific method)

[mtdoc]

Dogma and faith are things that can only come from unfalsifiable beliefs.

(OK, that's not quite true: I have faith in the scientific method)

Just as an FYI - with respect to dogma,  that is not strictly correct. 

While often used to describe religious (faith based) views,  in common usage it has also been used to describe any opinion or idea held to be a central, incontrovertible  "truth" even if that idea is based on scientific evidence.  And one can be dogmatic about their belief that there is no god (something which science has not proved or disproved).

For example The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (though its use in this context has been controversial).

[miguelvp]

The Universe started from a state of infinite density, not from a point. This state changed rapidly from expansion and caused the Universe that we see today. What happened before the big bang is beyond our current understanding at this point just as was how the diversity of life came about before Darwin made his observations.

We have discovered, using science, that we still need to learn more about our Universe and that we can directly observe only 5% of what exists. Other methods of observation from new technology might reveal what we have not seen yet, just as Galileo did with his new technology.

The Big-Bang is a theory not a fact, it has been questioned and because of current research is almost refuted.
M-String, Multiverse, etc have yield no proof yet either, with bad results when testing the theories on the Large Hadron Collider.
New theories are being investigated including the new Rainbow Gravity, and another one called Scaled Symmetry.

All of them still theories.

Also the discovery of a big group of quasars contradicts the Big-Bang theory because things just don't add up.

It's pretty arrogant of us to think we can get there in the short term, it's a gradual process and we really can't prove a lot of it because of the 11 dimensions to which we only see a projection and can't interact with other realities.

Nature is not about to give us the keys just yet.

Edit: That said, nature is just there, it doesn't care about our quest because we are not equipped to interact with many of the dimensions that project into our reality and the math proves that it's imposible for us to even reach and observe the full theories because it's physically imposible, and whatever is playing that harp of vibrating our reality into essence is probably not even aware nor can interact with our reality nor observe it. We however can observe the consequences of that melody which we know as nature.

[coppice]

The Universe started from a state of infinite density, not from a point. This state changed rapidly from expansion and caused the Universe that we see today. What happened before the big bang is beyond our current understanding at this point just as was how the diversity of life came about before Darwin made his observations.

We have discovered, using science, that we still need to learn more about our Universe and that we can directly observe only 5% of what exists. Other methods of observation from new technology might reveal what we have not seen yet, just as Galileo did with his new technology.

The Big-Bang is a theory not a fact, it has been questioned and because of current research is almost refuted.
M-String, Multiverse, etc have yield no proof yet either, with bad results when testing the theories on the Large Hadron Collider.
New theories are being investigated including the new Rainbow Gravity, and another one called Scaled Symmetry.

All of them still theories.

Also the discovery of a big group of quasars contradicts the Big-Bang theory because things just don't add up.

It's pretty arrogant of us to think we can get there in the short term, it's a gradual process and we really can't prove a lot of it because of the 11 dimensions to which we only see a projection and can't interact with other realities.

Nature is not about to give us the keys just yet.

Edit: That said, nature is just there, it doesn't care about our quest because we are not equipped to interact with many of the dimensions that project into our reality and the math proves that it's imposible for us to even reach and observe the full theories because it's physically imposible.

I think you need to look up what the word theory means.

[Fungus]

The Big-Bang is a theory not a fact, it has been questioned and because of current research is almost refuted.

I'm not aware of any such research but if either the Big Bang or Evolution is refuted then it's a big win for science. It proves that science is working.

PS: Which of these problems downgrades the Big Bang theory to "almost refuted" status? I'd honestly like to know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems_and_related_issues_in_physics

[miguelvp]

That movie I mentioned which is on YouTube ends with the poet reciting Enigmas by Pablo Neruda (Chilean Poet) which fits the full plot.

If you are going to watch it, don't read it. And if you read it and don't watch the movie, try to understand what it really means.

Movie (long and boring and very brainy in all aspects, social, economical, political, physics, quantum theory, and a poet's point of view:


Poem towards the end of the movie recited by the poet to summarize his view:
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/enigmas/

Enigmas - Poem by Pablo Neruda

You've asked me what the lobster is weaving there with his golden feet?
I reply, the ocean knows this.
You say, what is the ascidia waiting for in its transparent bell? What is it waiting for?
I tell you it is waiting for time, like you.
You ask me whom the Macrocystis alga hugs in its arms?
Study, study it, at a certain hour, in a certain sea I know.
You question me about the wicked tusk of the narwhal,
and I reply by describing how the sea unicorn with the harpoon in it dies.
You enquire about the kingfisher's feathers, which tremble in the pure springs of the southern tides?
Or you've found in the cards a new question touching on  the crystal architecture
of the sea anemone, and you'll deal that to me now?
You want to understand the electric nature of the ocean spines?
The armored stalactite that breaks as it walks?
The hook of the angler fish, the music stretched out
in the deep places like a thread in the water?

I want to tell you the ocean knows this, that life in its jewel boxes
is endless as the sand, impossible to count, pure,
and among the blood-colored grapes time has made the
petal hard and shiny, made the jellyfish full of light
and untied its knot, letting its musical threads fall
from a horn of plenty made of infinite mother-of-pearl.

I am nothing but the empty net which has gone on ahead
of human eyes, dead in those darknesses,
of fingers accustomed to the triangle, longitudes
on the timid globe of an orange.

I walked around as you do, investigating the endless star,
and in my net, during the night, I woke up naked,
the only thing caught, a fish trapped inside the wind.

Translated by Robert Bly

[miguelvp]

The Big-Bang is a theory not a fact, it has been questioned and because of current research is almost refuted.

I'm not aware of any such research but if either the Big Bang or Evolution is refuted then it's a big win for science. It proves that science is working.

PS: Which of these problems downgrades the Big Bang theory to "almost refuted" status? I'd honestly like to know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems_and_related_issues_in_physics

Here are a few linking to the largest discovered structure in the universe:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/11/the-largest-discovered-structure-in-the-universe-contradicts-big-bang-theory-cosmology-weekend-featu.html

https://www.icr.org/article/5350/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/779.abstract

Rainbow Gravity:
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-black-holes-space-theory.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html

The rest you can find yourself

Edit: Ok I'll give you one more:
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/multiverse/

Edit again: also read the next subject after the link you gave me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculations

[miguelvp]

The Universe started from a state of infinite density, not from a point. This state changed rapidly from expansion and caused the Universe that we see today. What happened before the big bang is beyond our current understanding at this point just as was how the diversity of life came about before Darwin made his observations.

We have discovered, using science, that we still need to learn more about our Universe and that we can directly observe only 5% of what exists. Other methods of observation from new technology might reveal what we have not seen yet, just as Galileo did with his new technology.

The Big-Bang is a theory not a fact, it has been questioned and because of current research is almost refuted.
M-String, Multiverse, etc have yield no proof yet either, with bad results when testing the theories on the Large Hadron Collider.
New theories are being investigated including the new Rainbow Gravity, and another one called Scaled Symmetry.

All of them still theories.

Also the discovery of a big group of quasars contradicts the Big-Bang theory because things just don't add up.

It's pretty arrogant of us to think we can get there in the short term, it's a gradual process and we really can't prove a lot of it because of the 11 dimensions to which we only see a projection and can't interact with other realities.

Nature is not about to give us the keys just yet.

Edit: That said, nature is just there, it doesn't care about our quest because we are not equipped to interact with many of the dimensions that project into our reality and the math proves that it's imposible for us to even reach and observe the full theories because it's physically imposible.

I think you need to look up what the word theory means.

I think I know what a theory means, just a hypothesis. Meaning is a conjecture that is not proven but a way to try to explain why things work the way they do and to try to see via experimentation if it holds water.

[coppice]

The Universe started from a state of infinite density, not from a point. This state changed rapidly from expansion and caused the Universe that we see today. What happened before the big bang is beyond our current understanding at this point just as was how the diversity of life came about before Darwin made his observations.

We have discovered, using science, that we still need to learn more about our Universe and that we can directly observe only 5% of what exists. Other methods of observation from new technology might reveal what we have not seen yet, just as Galileo did with his new technology.

The Big-Bang is a theory not a fact, it has been questioned and because of current research is almost refuted.
M-String, Multiverse, etc have yield no proof yet either, with bad results when testing the theories on the Large Hadron Collider.
New theories are being investigated including the new Rainbow Gravity, and another one called Scaled Symmetry.

All of them still theories.

Also the discovery of a big group of quasars contradicts the Big-Bang theory because things just don't add up.

It's pretty arrogant of us to think we can get there in the short term, it's a gradual process and we really can't prove a lot of it because of the 11 dimensions to which we only see a projection and can't interact with other realities.

Nature is not about to give us the keys just yet.

Edit: That said, nature is just there, it doesn't care about our quest because we are not equipped to interact with many of the dimensions that project into our reality and the math proves that it's imposible for us to even reach and observe the full theories because it's physically imposible.

I think you need to look up what the word theory means.

I think I know what a theory means, just a hypothesis. Meaning is a conjecture that is not proven but a way to try to explain why things work the way they do and to try to see via experimentation if it holds water.

Maybe you should look up the term in a proper dictionary. A scientific theory is an explanation of observed facts. Therefore, sentances like "The Big-Bang is a theory not a fact" are meaningless. It might be that a theory in conflict with certain facts, which would cause it to be reviewed. Any fact which can be solidly confirmed, and which does not fit a theory, means that theory needs revision or replacement. Theories are the highest standard we have in science and engineering.

[miguelvp]

Maybe you should look up the term in a proper dictionary. A scientific theory is an explanation of observed facts. Therefore, sentances like "The Big-Bang is a theory not a fact" are meaningless. It might be that a theory in conflict with certain facts, which would cause it to be reviewed. Any fact which can be solidly confirmed, and which does not fit a theory, means that theory needs revision or replacement. Theories are the highest standard we have in science and engineering.

Nope, a theory is not law until proven, that' s why the term, you look it up.

The normal progress is that you hypothesize a theory, then by experimentation you confirm it and becomes a law which holds true for all events.

Until is not fully proven it stays at the theoretical level. as in assumption.

Edit: Law is the highest standard by the way. Although some Laws are constricted by parameters, like Newtons Laws or even Kirchhoff's Laws. They remain true, but within new found constrains.

[coppice]

Maybe you should look up the term in a proper dictionary. A scientific theory is an explanation of observed facts. Therefore, sentances like "The Big-Bang is a theory not a fact" are meaningless. It might be that a theory in conflict with certain facts, which would cause it to be reviewed. Any fact which can be solidly confirmed, and which does not fit a theory, means that theory needs revision or replacement. Theories are the highest standard we have in science and engineering.

Nope, a theory is not law until proven, that' s why the term, you look it up.

The normal progress is that you hypothesize a theory, then by experimentation you confirm it and becomes a law which holds true for all events.

Until is not fully proven it stays at the theoretical level. as in assumption.

You have this completely backwards. The law of gravity is simply an observation of the factual relationship between the distance between two bodies, their mass, and the attractive force between them. The theory of gravity sits above that, providing an explanation of just why that law works out the way it does.

[Lightages]

The Big-Bang is a theory not a fact, it has been questioned and because of current research is almost refuted.
M-String, Multiverse, etc have yield no proof yet either, with bad results when testing the theories on the Large Hadron Collider.
New theories are being investigated including the new Rainbow Gravity, and another one called Scaled Symmetry.

All of them still theories.

Also the discovery of a big group of quasars contradicts the Big-Bang theory because things just don't add up.

So we don't know everything and we have some problems with some things we see, therefore God? This God can do everything, except forgive us without any strings for the sins he imposed on us? The Big Bang, or more correctly the expansion of the Universe, is a logical conclusion that everything is moving away from everything else. When we get back to the very early Universe our knowledge fails us and we need to learn more, just like when we did when we found the reason for the difference in species, how stars work, and the Earth is not flat supported by four pillars and you could see the whole of the Earth from a tall tree.

A certain book, or books, compiled from many wrong stories made up by primitive people who didn't know the Earth went around the sun should not be our guide to reality nor the mind of a imaginary agent who causes everything.

[miguelvp]

Maybe you should look up the term in a proper dictionary. A scientific theory is an explanation of observed facts. Therefore, sentances like "The Big-Bang is a theory not a fact" are meaningless. It might be that a theory in conflict with certain facts, which would cause it to be reviewed. Any fact which can be solidly confirmed, and which does not fit a theory, means that theory needs revision or replacement. Theories are the highest standard we have in science and engineering.

Nope, a theory is not law until proven, that' s why the term, you look it up.

The normal progress is that you hypothesize a theory, then by experimentation you confirm it and becomes a law which holds true for all events.

Until is not fully proven it stays at the theoretical level. as in assumption.

You have this completely backwards. The law of gravity is simply an observation of the factual relationship between the distance between two bodies, their mass, and the attractive force between them. The theory of gravity sits above that, providing an explanation of just why that law works out the way it does.

Then I guess since both can change they are meaningless.

What is the term of something that is proven? and if such a term doesn't exist, then is anything proven?

[Lightages]

Then I guess since both can change they are meaningless.

What is the term of something that is proven? and if such a term doesn't exist, then is anything proven?

If you don't believe that things can be proven in a practical sense, why isn't it that rational people don't test the theory of gravity and jump out of a window 10 stories up?

If you don't believe that quantum mechanics are a good explanation for how electronics work, why are you here on an electronics forum that relies on it working?

Why did Jesus tell people to not wash their hands as there was no benefit? Do you not believe the proof that germ theory has benefits to health?

It has been proven that the Earth goes around the sun, in opposition to the word of God. It has been proven that you cannot see the whole of the Earth from a tall tree as has been asserted in a certain holy book which is said to be the perfect word of God. It has been proven that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, in opposition of that perfect word, again.

How many proofs need to be demonstrated as being against the beliefs of someone before they stop believing because they just need to believe? Obviously this is a pointless question because people believe and use faith as the justification and won't adjust according to evidence. This is good for the government, corporations, and churches.

[Lightages]

What does this all have to do with a tube headphone preamp that is all show and no go? It goes along with people who want to believe and are willing to spend money just to believe and feel like they "know" something others do not. To me the problem with people having their own beliefs is that they are not harmless. People make decisions based on their bias based on their beliefs.

If you believe that God will take care of you for whatever reason, then you are likely to make decisions not based on good evidence in other parts of your life. Climate change? Who cares, God told us it doesn't matter. My daughter needs a blood transfusion? My God said no, so we pray, and she dies for no reason. My God said to not worry for the future, so I have $200,000 in debt because I was told it didn't matter. I am the President of the USA, and the end times are coming and I believe that this is the best thing as this is what God says, lets nuke the Russians and get the end times started.

[coppice]

Then I guess since both can change they are meaningless.

What is the term of something that is proven? and if such a term doesn't exist, then is anything proven?

Nothing can be proven in absolute terms. The laws of gravity are a good example. Newton's laws seemed really solid for a long time, until we started to push into extreme conditions. What we learned there didn't invalidate the square law relationship used since Newton, but we now know its an approximation that breaks down under extreme conditions. We needed to know more to get a more complete picture. That's something that regularly happens in most areas of the investigation of nature.

[Lightages]

I know a few things without doubt. I am not the God of the bible. I am not omniscient. I know I exist. There are probably many more things, and some I can prove to others, but I am tired of this. I am out.

[coppice]

I know a few things without doubt. I am not the God of the bible. I am not omniscient. I know I exist. There are probably many more things, and some I can prove to others, but I am tired of this. I am out.

How do you know you are not a brain in a vat, that everything you perceive is not an illusion, and that the God of the Bible is not a creation of your own mind?

[Fungus]

Nope, a theory is not law until proven, that' s why the term, you look it up.

Nope, a theory can never be proved. It's part of the definition.

And laws don't start out as theories that are later upgraded to 'law' status. They're a completely different thing.

[miguelvp]

I do "believe" in quantum physics but that has no bearing with electronics, Electronics predate quantum theory by a lot.

To my belief it's all entangled in waves and particles. And Engineering is not theoretical, it's by definition the practical use of science within controlled constrains as in the lumped element model that makes things practical to our use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumped_element_model

The question at hand I guess is:

Is there anything that is proven and what is the term for that, theory or law?

My understanding was that Law is greater than Theory. Gravity is a strange beast that remains theory because we still don't have a unified model, but Newton's gravity remains Law within constrains or practicality at the macro level, which the M-Theory was supposed to address but I guess that's not the case anymore, so just by Hawking declaring it as a fact (even if it's not his work)

So I guess we all base our views on beliefs.

I will repeat also that I'm not religious at all, but I do value the teachings of humanity on its many forms, not unlike an almanac.

Very distorted and open to interpretation since the stories are just a big telephone game at a grand scale and the intended audience was far more detached than our current audience (well, not really the case all the times because there are still both believers and non-believers that try to take things literally).

It's all more complicated than that. Our physical perception or blocks is totally outdated. Reality is beyond our human comprehension still to this date. The atom model that they show you in school is an aberration of reality.

It's all interconnected fields and waves, reality is just our perception of things. But I really don't have metaphors to explain what matter is because our sensors only see the projection of that reality. At the math level it's all just fields with no real substance with a lot of dimensions that we can't envision what it means. So we do our best to visualize them using what we can grasp.

[miguelvp]

Imagine for a second that you are just a shadow of 2 dimensions projected from a 3D world into a 3Dworld, you have no height at all so you can't see the 3 dimensional environment, and even if you are just in 2 dimensions and projected into a 3d environment you can only deal with your 2 dimensional perception.

You do see the effects of those 3d projections and you can interact with your 2D buddies, but you lack the dimension needed to go beyond that.

Or even the understanding, you can theorize the 3d world and how that behaves and how it affects your 2D world but you only can conceive the 2D and the 1D reality.

The math you come with will work because of your observations of your nature, but you can't never ever jump or probe that other dimension because it's beyond your reality.

[Brumby]

Here's a comment by American theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku on the 'Foundation' series written by Isaac Asimov...

http://dai.ly/x233jzu?start=2069    (already cued - just watch the next 45 seconds.)

Does this make any difference to the discussion here?