Yeah well, he's not. Unless he can break the rules of logic, he is never omnipotent because that will create numerous paradoxes. And if he can break logic, then we have no reason to believe him neither.If God cannot communicate to the humans he has created, in a concise and understood way, then he is not all-powerful. — chatterbears
In this sense, it is not much different.Also, people are not misinterpreting scientists, they are misunderstanding them.
Alas there is evidence that this is the case. I assume we don't disagree on the deviation. But since there are several tests for iq, we have a certain iq test that has results that are on average 12 points lower than another iq test. So either one of the tests is inaccurate and off by 12 points, or both of the tests are inaccurate, off by 0-12 points. — Tomseltje
I understand. English is also not my mother tongue so I can understand it happens.You are probably right on this part, however, that doesn't mean it's an indication of my level of understanding statistics. More likely it's just a translation error, since I'm not a native english speaker.
My mathematical training was in my native language. So thanks for pointing it out. — Tomseltje
My apologies for causing confusion on this, I didn't think the difference was that relevant to the subject in this case. Since on a single measurement the precision influences the accuracy. Wich applies in this subject, since generally the individuals only get tested once for iq.
I refer you to my final reply to FLUX23 - I believe you must have a very specific theory of mind-brain identity involving a very specific definition of "measurement" and probably some representational view of perception such that merely in seeing something, a measurement is always being made. Under any run-of-the-mill notion of "measurement" seeing and "s" on a page and measuring an "s" on a page are entirely different kinds of activities. — MetaphysicsNow
Our disagreement seems to be based upon your more narrow definition of the word 'to measure', You seem to apply it as something that only is about determining quantity. Perhaps if you reconsider my statements under this definition of measure : the act or process of ascertaining the extent, dimensions, or quantity of something;
In case of determining wether an 's' or a 'z' is spelled, you made a measurement of what you saw. Otherwise, how could you tell the two apart? — Tomseltje
Well, I am not assuming you don't understand statistics. I am assuring you that you don't understand statistics.Why are you assuming it is me who doesn't understand statistics? As long as you don't provide a decent argument for your assumption, you are just poisoning the well.
I might just as easily assume that it is you who doesn't understand statistics to the degree required to understand me correctly, and don't know enough about how iq tests are made and applied to give an accurate response. An assertion that at least is substanciated by the fact that you failed provide any actual counterargument to my statements, but instead opted for an ad hominem fallacy. — Tomseltje
If by accurate you mean there is no error margin, they are inaccurate, but the same goes for measuring liquids in a measuring cylinder. The only difference is that measuring cylinders used in chemistry are less inaccurate than iq tests. — Tomseltje
Odd that you seem to think I don't understand statistics, while we at least seem to agree on this statement. Perhaps your reply was adressed at someone else? — Tomseltje
which was ambiguous.Since the speed of light is the constant — Metaphysician Undercover
Spectral measurements indicate that amino acids and sugars indeed form in interstellar dust. They are all over the place, literally. I am by no means an expert, but that might suggest that simple organics didn't have to be seeded: if they form so readily everywhere, couldn't they have formed here on Earth? — SophistiCat
I thought you were against extreme skepticism. You seem to be unable to accept general relativity because of certain area that it cannot account for despite the good description (or approximation) of reality that general relativity provides (and is actually used in engineering area, and it works well). This is likely the same for any other theory. Does that mean you disagree with every single theories out there?According to your claim then, we cannot prove the existence of anything, and this is probably true, we take the existence of things for granted. But that's just extreme skepticism, to claim that we can't prove the existence of anything. — Metaphysician Undercover
This tells me thatSo when something which is clearly contradictory in terms of description, (such as the expansion of space inside an object being different from the expansion of space outside an object), can only be accounted for with mathematics, I consider such an application of mathematics to be deception, used to hide a contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
is a lie.I have a reasonable scientific background and you might be surprised at how well I understand this stuff — Metaphysician Undercover
You are right.Lots and lots of people claim so and present what they consider to be evidence. But whether what they consider to be evidence is, indeed, evidence is a matter for inquiry -- it is not a given. Which is why part of the problem is an examination of what is evidence and what is not.
(Note that it is possible, and even very common, for evidence to be ambiguous, and also for it to support contradictory theories). — Mariner
This is begging the question. Your conclusion essentially implies that god(s) were actually experienced by people, which requires as a premise that god(s) actually do exist. This is circular reasoning.Nope, the "concept of God" certainly developed later than the experience of gods -- and any experience of gods is (in the viewpoint of the subject) "observation of the actual object". — Mariner
I agree that my wording was not good. What I meant was the resulting object (X') derived from the interpretation of the evidence produced by supposedly existent actual object (X).An interpretation is an explanation or description of the meaning of something. How can that be the thing itself. To say what something means, is not the thing itself. An interpretation may be judged as an understanding or it may be judged as a misunderstanding, but this is irrelevant to the fact that an interpretation cannot be the thing itself which is being interpreted. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is pretty much rephrasing what I've said. I don't understand what you disagree.Let's say that there is an existent thing referred to as X. If an interpretation of this thing contains contradictions, that does not mean that the thing does not exist, it means that there is a faulty interpretation, a misunderstanding. It is nonsense to assert that the faulty interpretation indicates that the thing does not exist. If I say that my shirt is blue, when it is really green, because I am colour blind, this does not mean that my shirt doesn't exist. — Metaphysician Undercover
Who said we can't prove the existence of anything?I don't understand your point. All we have to go on, with respect to any existing things, is our interpretations of those things. According to your claim then, we cannot prove the existence of anything, and this is probably true, we take the existence of things for granted. But that's just extreme skepticism, to claim that we can't prove the existence of anything. — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree with this also. The question does seem to be about X itself instead of our interpretation of it. — GreyScorpio
This is complete nonsense. First, in number 2 you allow that an interpretation could be the thing itself, which is impossible. Then in number 3 you state that the interpretation, X', must be apprehensible with the senses, but this is nonsensical. How would you apprehend with the senses an interpretation? — Metaphysician Undercover
But the real question is not about X' (our interpretation of X), but rather about X — Mariner
The latter.Does the Universe and the physical laws of physics happen because of math of QM or does the mathematics of QM just describe the behavior? — Mike
I don't know how far into the "cause" you are talking about, but I'll tell you from the point of Quantum Field Theory.What is the cause of things like particle interactions and things like gravity and magnetism?
I am trying to understand what the interpretation for this question is. I hear some people say that math determines the behavior of the physical universe while others say that math just describes the behavior. Has this question been settled?