UK Census 2011

[Ed209]

And we're back to square one. I'll stick to science. You stick to having your head in the clouds

[worm]

And we're back to square one. I'll stick to science. You stick to having your head in the clouds

[llcoolphil]

It's how we describe the sequence of events, like length is a way of describing positions in space.

[Ed209]

What if you dont know the sequence of events?

[llcoolphil]

By that i mean say you have 2 small particles and they join to make 1 particle and then split again to make the original 2 separate particles - if you're observing the two particles how do you know if they are the before or after particles? And how do you explain the sequence if you dont know where in the sequence you are?

This isnt a facetious question btw!

[llcoolphil]

Then time is useless, in the same way that a number system is useless in describing quantity if we don't know the order of size.

[Ed209]

By that i mean say you have 2 small particles and they join to make 1 particle and then split again to make the original 2 separate particles - if you're observing the two particles how do you know if they are the before or after particles? And how do you explain the sequence if you dont know where in the sequence you are?

This isnt a facetious question btw!

[markeee]

got ours still to do, not got round to it

but got an email saying apparently you can face a fine of 1k if you dont

so guess i'll do it tomorrow to avoid hassle/fine :|

[worm]

If its a case of that you one moment you have two particles, then one, then two - then there's no way to say at what time in that sequence you have observed them. Or if indeed there's a sequence at all. However if they have come together, joined and then separated again because of motion, then causality is embedded into the sequence of events, and consequently a time frame can be constructed from a single observation.

e.g. if the two particles are moving apart, and you know that at some point they had/have to be one particle then by the conservation of momentum (which has time built into it), your observation has to have occurred after the separation. However the problem comes that the observation has to occur over a non-zero interval of time to discover the direction something is travelling. If you only observe it for an zero-length instant then you don't know.

I don't know if that answers your question

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

It's the theory interpreting the data that I distrust, not the data itself.

shame you don't apply the same principles to religion - where, if you have any consistency to your thinking, you should distrust both the theory and the data.

If you have any consistency, there is a definite winner in this knowledge battle. By your lack of consistency you create the ground for your continued inconsistency.

[worm]

shame you don't apply the same principles to religion - where, if you have any consistency to your thinking, you should distrust both the theory and the data.

[eFestivals]

There is no 'knowledge battle', that's the point. There are two constructs of knowledge completely unrelated to each other.

Utterly wrong.

There is a 'knowledge battle' but one side of that battle does not class as knowledge, it classes only as fantasy.

Your inconsistency comes from crediting it as knowledge when there is no basis for it to be classed as that. From that inconsistency, everything else comes.

Edited March 24, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

There is a 'knowledge battle' but one side of that battle does not class as knowledge, it classes only as fantasy.

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Your inconsistency comes from crediting it as knowledge when there is no basis for it to be classed as that. From that inconsistency, everything else comes.

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

You have no idea of whether or not evolutionary theory is real or not. Absolutely none.

If you're going to cite the contemporary findings of science as proof, then the contemporary findings of science also found that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth and that music came from heaven in the sky.

We don't really have a good history of interpreting science do we.

You don't get the difference between guesswork and evidence-informed deductions, do you?

[worm]

You don't get the difference between guesswork and evidence-informed deductions, do you?

[eFestivals]

Evidence-informed deductions are a type of guesswork. So yes, I clearly do.

they are something more than JUST guesswork.

You: "the contemporary findings of science also found that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth and that music came from heaven in the sky."

What you have said is utterly wrong. These things were not scientific deductions based on evidence, they were simply guesses.

[worm]

they are something more than JUST guesswork.

You: "the contemporary findings of science also found that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth and that music came from heaven in the sky."

What you have said is utterly wrong. These things were not scientific deductions based on evidence, they were simply guesses.

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm

[jonbob]

They were deduced. The premises were later found to be wrong. What problem are you having here? They were scientific deductions later found to be wrong.

Edited March 24, 2011 by jonbob

[eFestivals]

They were deduced. The premises were later found to be wrong. What problem are you having here? They were scientific deductions later found to be wrong.

.... that's about the equivalent of you believing you know the rules of football.

Yes, I guess they could be said to be deduced, but the basis that was used for doing so was so primitive that they were as good as worthless from a modern take of science.

Ultimately, you've used the same primitive method as those early 'scientists' to reach the conclusion you've expressed above, and are believing it to have a sound basis. All you're really doing is showing that the philosophy you subscribe to is worthless bollocks, because you're saying "these things are the same" when they're not.

You're crediting two vastly different things as being identical. You might as well be saying that blood-letting is no less good for brain injuries than brain surgery - your philosophical methodology gets to say that they are, when results show beyond all doubt that they're not.

As I've already said, deductive (scientific) premises are never considered true or false. They are considered variable and axiomatic. That is to say that they are considered either sound or unsound according to our CURRENT knowledge. And as I've just said to you, knowledge is changeable.

Is CURRENT knowledge the same knowledge as existed in the very early days of 'science'?

[worm]

This is nonsense, these two concepts are at odds with each other.

[worm]

No, some are considered sound due to the irrefutable and static, cultureless knowledge that they draw upon.

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Ultimately, you've used the same primitive method as those early 'scientists' to reach the conclusion you've expressed above, and are believing it to have a sound basis.

Edited March 24, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

I've said that I don't trust a culture's interpretation of scientific data. It's the interpretation, not the data, that I mistrust.

while it has to be interpreted and there's always the possibility of error, you're basing your distrust on the ignorance of those past times.

The world is no longer as ignorant.

Sadly for you and your thinking, the philosophical methodology you use to reach that conclusion very much is.

[worm]

Nope, science had deduced the world was round centuries before Copernicus, its the sword of cultists that forced these incorrect viewpoints, not deduction.