...value
There are things we can accuratly count, one hydrogen atom, two h-atoms (it's going to be already here difficult -> isotops, but let's keep it simple) but if we try to measure how fast is X moving or the weight of Y, everythings going to be inaccurate since A)we measure inaccurate in the first place B)X or/and Y are influenced by graviy/other forces, of other objects, of every other photon/electron/atom/molecule/etc.
It's like in math this function that's going straight near a limit and is getting closer but never reaches it.
Today i thought if science/math would be able to measure things perfectly-> interpreting the result 100% correctly then it would be possible to callculate everything to that point where you could predict everything and change maybe even laws of physics, since you got to that point where you got your god-like math function with which you could do everything.
But i'm actually not quite certain about the last part.
Also i came to the conclusion that since you can't measure everything perfectly, you can't prove that the creator exists but also not prove that he dosen't exists. As long as there is gonna be a chance even below 0.1%, it could be the creator (don't like to call him god since -> religion abuse this term). And I'm not very religious, just curious.
Want to hear your opinion.

And please don't mind my mistakes since english isn't my native language

Hello, and welcome into the lifeboat ! This is our greeting for all new members and contains some useful stuff for you.

If you haven't seen it already, you may want to take a look at our New Members' Welcome Pack which will give you some helpful resources such as how to modify your membership display settings, how to navigate around the forum, point you to some threads which address commonly asked questions from newbies, and gives you some handy links to other sites which will help you develop your skepticism. It also contains our forum rules, which we ask that you abide by at all times.

If you're new to this type of phpBB software on forums, you might like to take a look at our Handy Hints for Posting On The Forum, which will show you how to change your text, insert images & youtube clips, and do some other cool stuff.

And finally, as a house warming present for you, here's a few laughs for your entertainment.

Accelerator wrote:...value
There are things we can accuratly count, one hydrogen atom, two h-atoms (it's going to be already here difficult -> isotops, but let's keep it simple) but if we try to measure how fast is X moving or the weight of Y, everythings going to be inaccurate since A)we measure inaccurate in the first place B)X or/and Y are influenced by graviy/other forces, of other objects, of every other photon/electron/atom/molecule/etc.

Hmmmm...you seem to be mixing up accuracy and precision. Handy graphic here:



In terms of making measurements, we will always aim to be accurate i.e. collect data that matches reality, however, we can choose the precision to which we make a measurement with the caveat that we use a device that is precise enough for the job. For example; if I'm weighing out rice to be cooked, I'll use my kitchen scales which will measure to + or - 2 grams. This is good enough for the job if I'm weighing out 200g of rice. If I was a drug dealer weighing out 1g of coke - I'd use scales that measure to + or - 0.01 grams.

Accelerator wrote:
It's like in math this function that's going straight near a limit and is getting closer but never reaches it.
Today i thought if science/math would be able to measure things perfectly-> interpreting the result 100% correctly then it would be possible to callculate everything to that point where you could predict everything and change maybe even laws of physics, since you got to that point where you got your god-like math function with which you could do everything.
But i'm actually not quite certain about the last part.

You seem to be hinting at uncertainty here... In any measurement, there will be uncertainty due to the resolving power of the instruments used. But, fundamentally, there is inherent uncertainty at the microscopic scale. In other words, we can never have 100% knowledge - that's built into da roolz

Accelerator wrote:
Also i came to the conclusion that since you can't measure everything perfectly, you can't prove that the creator exists but also not prove that he dosen't exists. As long as there is gonna be a chance even below 0.1%, it could be the creator (don't like to call him god since -> religion abuse this term). And I'm not very religious, just curious.
Want to hear your opinion.

I have no idea how the creator snook into this. How do you make measurements from a hypothesis that provides no results to test against?

Accelerator wrote:
And please don't mind my mistakes since english isn't my native language

No worries.

Metaphysical propositions cannot be tested because they are beyond the remit of the scientific method

Science is only inaccurate because it relies on evidence rather than proof and evidence is never absolute

Only proofs are absolute and they are only found in philosophical arguments or in mathematical equations

campermon wrote:

I have no idea how the creator snook into this.

Call me a cynic but I suspect the reason for the post was to sneak Gawd into the mix.

Briton wrote:

campermon wrote:

I have no idea how the creator snook into this.

Call me a cynic but I suspect the reason for the post was to sneak Gawd into the mix.

Yes...I suspect that are highly accurate with that assumption.

Accelerator wrote:Is science accurate?

It's a method for achieving accuracy. But there are always finer grains, and hence always more potential accuracy achievable.

campermon wrote:

Briton wrote:

campermon wrote:

I have no idea how the creator snook into this.

Call me a cynic but I suspect the reason for the post was to sneak Gawd into the mix.

Yes...I suspect that are highly accurate with that assumption.

Precisely!

Yeah, I see the point, and I've seen it a lot.

However, this is what happened. About a hundred years ago, exploring the world in a classical manner, our experiments got so damned good that by any reasonable standard, we would have seen classical properties in atoms. But we didn't. We saw something that was hugely counterintuitive. It took an amazingly short time to come up with models of these that worked. It took a lot longer to get over human prejudices and make people emotionally happy with them. (I'd say that process still isn't done, but the rise of the decoherence view over the past decade or two gives me hope.)

We've gotten way better, even, than those days of boxwood with no plastics or lasers or even decent metallurgy. We can see so incredibly far beyond the overt weirdness that it is perverse to think that the fault lies with out experiments. No, nature is to blame, and if it works in a way that monkeys don't like to think about, that's just tough toenails.

Now, I don't know what this has to do with a creator. Except that according to some theories, we should be able to create our own universes, that is, unless we've done it already (and it's happening everywhere all the time). Usually people define "creator" as more that that, usually having something to do with penes and what you are allowed to do with them. Also, the more sophisticated ones, by theological standards of sophistication anyway, are constantly being adjusted to avoid science, reducing the idea largely to nothing but a cheap rhetorical game.

If you want to believe in a god or a creator, go ahead. It is always possible to come up with one that avoids scientific scrutiny. Some people are in awe of that. Others think that the very fact that you can do it renders the exercise meaningless.

In any event, the "hard" sciences (which should be called the "easy" sciences) are already way more accurate certainly than almost everything that was puzzling a century ago, and a good solid most of the things that puzzle some people today.

The stochastic nature of many phenomena and sensitive dependence on initial conditions means many things cannot be measured with complete accuracy, even when the systems are well understood.

God isn't hiding in those gaps either.

Spearthrower wrote:

campermon wrote:

Briton wrote:

campermon wrote:

I have no idea how the creator snook into this.

Call me a cynic but I suspect the reason for the post was to sneak Gawd into the mix.

Yes...I suspect that are highly accurate with that assumption.

Precisely!

But how certain are you?

campermon wrote:
But how certain are you?

I'll shoot first, then we can paint the target on after!

Spearthrower wrote:

campermon wrote:
But how certain are you?

I'll shoot first, then we can paint the target on after!

Classic creationist tactics!

epepke wrote:
In any event, the "hard" sciences (which should be called the "easy" sciences) are already way more accurate certainly than almost everything that was puzzling a century ago, and a good solid most of the things that puzzle some people today.

I am going to steal the basic concept here to use as a witty party repartee with friends in the sciences who tend to argue over these kinds of distinctions.

The hard sciences should be called the easy sciences on account of all the informational content just laying around waiting to be observed, while the soft sciences, also known as social sciences, are really fucking difficult because they're so full of human bullshit it's a wonder anyone can make heads or tails of a subject or even agree on the time of day.

That'll go down well over pudding.

Spearthrower wrote:The hard sciences should be called the easy sciences on account of all the informational content just laying around waiting to be observed, while the soft sciences, also known as social sciences, are really fucking difficult because they're so full of human bullshit it's a wonder anyone can make heads or tails of a subject or even agree on the time of day.

That'll go down well over pudding.

Joe Electron doesn't try to con you.

Accelerator wrote:...value
There are things we can accuratly count, one hydrogen atom, two h-atoms (it's going to be already here difficult -> isotops, but let's keep it simple) but if we try to measure how fast is X moving or the weight of Y, everythings going to be inaccurate since A)we measure inaccurate in the first place B)X or/and Y are influenced by graviy/other forces, of other objects, of every other photon/electron/atom/molecule/etc.

It's worse than that. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know every single physical parameter of an object at the quantum level. And this is not just a statement of the technological limits of our measuring devices, or of the fact that we cannot measure a value without somehow affecting that value. It is more along the lines of a physical law stating that once one of these parameters is precisely measured, the other parameters do not exist except as a range of possible values, the extent of which varies inversely with the precision of the initial measurement.

That is to say, an object cannot have a precisely defined location and a precisely defined momentum. It not just that we cannot know both of them. It's that they both cannot exist.

That's my understanding, anyway. Hopefully the physics-heads (I'm looking at you, campermon) will correct anything I said there that might be misleading.

God is hiding in the quantum

What sort of measurements are supposed to confirm or refute God's existence, anyway?

epepke wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:The hard sciences should be called the easy sciences on account of all the informational content just laying around waiting to be observed, while the soft sciences, also known as social sciences, are really fucking difficult because they're so full of human bullshit it's a wonder anyone can make heads or tails of a subject or even agree on the time of day.

That'll go down well over pudding.

Joe Electron doesn't try to con you.

Nah, he was just hanging around waiting to be observed!

Shrunk wrote:What sort of measurements are supposed to confirm or refute God's existence, anyway?

Big ones with lots of integers, no fuck it - ALL the integers!