I'll propose a theory.
The Moon revolves on its own axis as it orbits the Earth.
Can you prove it ?
The Moon revolves on its own axis as it orbits the Earth.
Can you prove it ?
Cracking an age-old conundrum.
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Dexter Sinister said:
Willard Libby, in 1946, discovered that when plant or animal dies radioactive carbon-14 diminishes. And there are formulas to calculate those remaining carbons to estimate the age of the things.
Did anyone live 20,000 years to tell us what's happened in the past.
How can they estimate the age of their discoveries?
They pass and experiment now (or have passed in the past) with certain assumptions, they create some some formulas to calculate it.
And they test this theory with another finding, that they know the age. If theory proves that it can find the age of another discovery, it is accepted as theory.
Then they use it to estimate the age of all other discoveries to tell us that the bond belongs to the period of 20,000 years ago or things like this.
But the theory is made know, today (or have been made in the past), how can we know that the same theory hold for the past.
We can use this theory because we might not have an alternative.
If there is an alternative, that might not have been (or be) tested, or failed the test now, but might be good for past.
And any theory must be approved by other scientists in order to be accepted as a theory.
But, what if theory is tested, approved, and everything esle, but it's not really good one. We cannot know it because no one has lived more than 100 years to tell us, and the records that we might have today go back maximum to 5000 years ago. We don't know what had happened in the past.
We know about the past, only thanks to theory which is built under certain assumption.
#juan said:
Well, personally, I saw it when I was about 6 or 7 years old. My mom cooked that for me. That tasted good.
At least that's greater than 6000. Showing more promise every day! I did not, BTW, realize that time travel was necessary to verify the existence of things like dinosaurs, Jesus, and prehistoric aviforms. If every matter of scientific debate was required to be a spectator sport, then I suggest you promptly cease using all electrical devices, as the current might be construed as invisible to the naked eye.dekhqonbacha said:
On the matter of chickens, we (meaning humans, and not even a particularly old sort of human) were there when the first one was hatched...because we pretty much invented the thing, like chihuahuas from wolves, but with considerably less effort. Domesticated breeds we would have identified as "mm, mm chicken" were recorded in India as far back as 3200 BCE.
Now... Do I have to prove that India existed at that time? (and not the CC member this system has so generously linked)
My point was
not when humans saw the first egg, but when, and what, was the first hard-shelled egg? Presumably, the first land creatures laid some kind of eggs and somewhere along the line, the hard shell evolved as a protection against something.
not when humans saw the first egg, but when, and what, was the first hard-shelled egg? Presumably, the first land creatures laid some kind of eggs and somewhere along the line, the hard shell evolved as a protection against something.
CAD said:
No, you don't need to.
You are right on your point of view. And I'm right on my point of view.
We are not talking about the same thing. Our debate will lead nowhere.
Truth comes out of debate. But not in this debate. I repeat we are not talking about the same thing.
You might be right; I might be right. You might be wrong; I might be wrong.
Re: RE: Cracking an age-old conundrum.
What is it you want proven? That the moon revolves on its axis, that it orbits the earth, or both? If you'll grant that the moon orbits the earth, proving it revolves on its own axis is a simple matter of observation and logic. You can directly observe that it always shows us the same face, so it must be rotating on its own axis in the same period it makes one orbit. Demonstrating that the moon orbits the earth is a little more subtle, but the direct evidence is there.
jimmoyer said:
What is it you want proven? That the moon revolves on its axis, that it orbits the earth, or both? If you'll grant that the moon orbits the earth, proving it revolves on its own axis is a simple matter of observation and logic. You can directly observe that it always shows us the same face, so it must be rotating on its own axis in the same period it makes one orbit. Demonstrating that the moon orbits the earth is a little more subtle, but the direct evidence is there.
To my incredible surprise, I found a few people who
don't believe the moon turns on its own axis preffering
to get stuck on the idea that spinning on an axis would
never be in tandem to its orbit about the earth.
don't believe the moon turns on its own axis preffering
to get stuck on the idea that spinning on an axis would
never be in tandem to its orbit about the earth.
Someone on 50th told me that the Sun turns around the Earth.
When I told him it is other way around he was surprised.
Yeah, thanksfully, he didn't ask me for explanation or for proof.
Otherwise I would beleive that the Sun turns around the Earth too because he was convinced on his opinion.
When I told him it is other way around he was surprised.
Yeah, thanksfully, he didn't ask me for explanation or for proof.
Otherwise I would beleive that the Sun turns around the Earth too because he was convinced on his opinion.
dekhqonbacha said:
They can directly observe the decay rate of carbon-14, the relative amounts of all carbon isotopes currently present in the general environment, and the relative amounts of carbon isotopes in once-living material, and calculate an estimate of its age from the differences. There are certain corrections to be applied, because we know from studies like tree ring and ice core analyses that the ratios of various carbon isotopes in the general environment haven't always been what they are now, but that's the essence of it. The only assumption in the procedure is that the processes we can directly observe now were also going on in the past, such as that the decay rate of carbon-14 is constant for instance, and it all comes down to the simple assumption that nature is consistent.
Re: RE: Cracking an age-old conundrum.
Well, it does, sort of. Depends on what you choose as your frame of reference, which is entirely a matter of convenience depending on what you're trying to figure out. You can predict solar eclipses, for instance, by considering the earth to be stationary with the moon and sun orbiting it, or you can consider the sun to be stationary with the earth and moon orbiting it. You can get into all sorts of foolish philosophical speculations about which one is more "true" I suppose, but to an observer outside the solar system it'd be perfectly clear what the actual situation is: the earth, 8 other planets, and a large assortment of smaller debris, orbits the sun, most of the planets have smaller bodies orbiting them, and so on.
And the solar system is near the inner edge of the Orion Arm of a large spiral galaxy and orbiting the centre of it once every 220 million years or so, and that galaxy is the second largest (which will crash into the largest, eventually) of what's called the Local Group, a cluster of gravitationally bound galaxies about 6 million light years in diameter, and the Local Group is part of what's called the Virgo Supercluster which is about 100 million light years in diameter... And all of those entities are moving in certain directions as separate entities, and the things within them are moving independently within the group.
Sorry, got a little didactic there. So, what goes around what depends where you stand.
dekhqonbacha said:
Well, it does, sort of. Depends on what you choose as your frame of reference, which is entirely a matter of convenience depending on what you're trying to figure out. You can predict solar eclipses, for instance, by considering the earth to be stationary with the moon and sun orbiting it, or you can consider the sun to be stationary with the earth and moon orbiting it. You can get into all sorts of foolish philosophical speculations about which one is more "true" I suppose, but to an observer outside the solar system it'd be perfectly clear what the actual situation is: the earth, 8 other planets, and a large assortment of smaller debris, orbits the sun, most of the planets have smaller bodies orbiting them, and so on.
And the solar system is near the inner edge of the Orion Arm of a large spiral galaxy and orbiting the centre of it once every 220 million years or so, and that galaxy is the second largest (which will crash into the largest, eventually) of what's called the Local Group, a cluster of gravitationally bound galaxies about 6 million light years in diameter, and the Local Group is part of what's called the Virgo Supercluster which is about 100 million light years in diameter... And all of those entities are moving in certain directions as separate entities, and the things within them are moving independently within the group.
Sorry, got a little didactic there. So, what goes around what depends where you stand.
Re: RE: Cracking an age-old conundrum.
:roll:
thanksfully, I'm little familiar with astronomy. It's quite interesting.
Dexter Sinister said:
:roll:
thanksfully, I'm little familiar with astronomy. It's quite interesting.
Hi Dexter Sinister!
Expand on Godel's Incompleteness Theory for me would you?
If Science uses axiomatic "truths", another name for assumptions set in concrete derived through existential (experiential) sampling of the experience of existence and the nature of that experience, isn't Godel simply pointing out to us that all "proofs" are and have to be by the nature of the experience, incomplete and hence useful in only a limited sense?
Expand on Godel's Incompleteness Theory for me would you?
If Science uses axiomatic "truths", another name for assumptions set in concrete derived through existential (experiential) sampling of the experience of existence and the nature of that experience, isn't Godel simply pointing out to us that all "proofs" are and have to be by the nature of the experience, incomplete and hence useful in only a limited sense?
Which isn't to say that scientific "proofs" aren't "useful", simply that they're limited. It's always struck me that the energy spent by folk arguing science vs. religion or religion vs. science if you prefer, lacks any semblence of falsifiability.....
The domains of science and religion have to remain seperate until the bridge of falsifiability is built....if it could be of course
The domains of science and religion have to remain seperate until the bridge of falsifiability is built....if it could be of course
MikeyDB, the context of your remarks suggests you're already familiar with the incompleteness theorem and don't need me to expand on it, and in fact I suspect you're just curious about exactly how I'd expand on it. However, the answer to your question (actually it's several questions), "...isn't Godel simply pointing out...etc.? " is no, that's not what he's pointing out.
Godel's incompleteness theorem is actually two theorems, both of which he proved in 1931. They were in reference to a massive three volume work by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead that they called Principia Mathematica, either in homage to or arrogant presumption about Sir Isaac Newton's great work of the same name published in 1687. Russell and Whitehead put up what they thought was a logical foundation for mathematics in the form of a system of axioms and rules for reasoning, by means of which all mathematics known at the time (1913) could be formulated and proven. The first incompleteness theorem says that there is at least one statement in the language of Russell and Whitehead's system that can be neither proven nor disproven, it is undecidable, within the system. The second incompleteness theorem says that if Russell and Whitehead's system is consistent, which means there's no possible statement in the language of the system that can be both proven and disproven in the system, then its consistency cannot be proven within the system.
These days the theorem is usually stated as being about any system of formal logic within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be expressed and some basic rules of arithmetic can be proven. In simpler terms, the theorem says that any such system, if it's consistent, contains undecidable propositions, and the consistency of the system cannot be proven within the system itself. Generalizing the theorem to subjects beyond mathematics that are not systems of formal logic is unjustifiable. Science is not a system of formal logic in that sense, so you can't really generalize Godel's theorem to "all proofs" as your question did.
Illegitimate applications of Godel's incompleteness theorem have probably generated more philosophical crap than any other single idea in mathematics. The theorem is about the completeness and consistency of systems of formal logic, and the words "consistent," "inconsistent," "complete," "incomplete," and "system" are technical terms in logic that don't mean what they do in ordinary language.
Godel's incompleteness theorem is actually two theorems, both of which he proved in 1931. They were in reference to a massive three volume work by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead that they called Principia Mathematica, either in homage to or arrogant presumption about Sir Isaac Newton's great work of the same name published in 1687. Russell and Whitehead put up what they thought was a logical foundation for mathematics in the form of a system of axioms and rules for reasoning, by means of which all mathematics known at the time (1913) could be formulated and proven. The first incompleteness theorem says that there is at least one statement in the language of Russell and Whitehead's system that can be neither proven nor disproven, it is undecidable, within the system. The second incompleteness theorem says that if Russell and Whitehead's system is consistent, which means there's no possible statement in the language of the system that can be both proven and disproven in the system, then its consistency cannot be proven within the system.
These days the theorem is usually stated as being about any system of formal logic within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be expressed and some basic rules of arithmetic can be proven. In simpler terms, the theorem says that any such system, if it's consistent, contains undecidable propositions, and the consistency of the system cannot be proven within the system itself. Generalizing the theorem to subjects beyond mathematics that are not systems of formal logic is unjustifiable. Science is not a system of formal logic in that sense, so you can't really generalize Godel's theorem to "all proofs" as your question did.
Illegitimate applications of Godel's incompleteness theorem have probably generated more philosophical crap than any other single idea in mathematics. The theorem is about the completeness and consistency of systems of formal logic, and the words "consistent," "inconsistent," "complete," "incomplete," and "system" are technical terms in logic that don't mean what they do in ordinary language.
And a brief but relevant (I hope) post script: one of the defining characteristics of science is that it's falsifiable, that is, it's possible to conceive of evidence that could prove any of its claims false. Any true claim must at least in principle be falsifiable in that sense: if no conceivable evidence could ever disprove a claim, then the evidence in its favour doesn't matter either, its invulnerable to any kind of evidence. Similarly, one of the defining characteristics of most religious claims is that they're not falsifiable. In particular, the basic claim, that there's a supernatural being who has some interest in us and will guide and protect us if we follow the proper rituals, is absolutely not falsifiable. That doesn't mean it's not true, it means only that in scientific terms the claim can't be tested for its truth content.
Boy, this thread's gone a long way from the trivial old chicken and egg conundrum.
Boy, this thread's gone a long way from the trivial old chicken and egg conundrum.
OK
So I hope I don't offend anyone with the observation that chicken-pre-egg or however one cares to address the connundrum, while an "interesting " mental game isn't really anything much more than just that...a game..until we have something that science can tell us with a higher degree of "certainty.
In terms of Godel's thorem being misused (I suppose 'misue' might be suggestion that the logic of philosophical inquiry....can't reasonably be held as germane within the context of "proof" as it relates to the question of "gods" existence....am I close?
I don't think that logic whether one applies Aristotelean or even St. Anselms to the question of the existence of an extraphenomenal entity we call "god" works in any way to answer the question.
I want falsifiable evidence and until that's been provided it's all just a game of semantics (in large part).
"God" is a nice idea but that's about it.
So I hope I don't offend anyone with the observation that chicken-pre-egg or however one cares to address the connundrum, while an "interesting " mental game isn't really anything much more than just that...a game..until we have something that science can tell us with a higher degree of "certainty.
In terms of Godel's thorem being misused (I suppose 'misue' might be suggestion that the logic of philosophical inquiry....can't reasonably be held as germane within the context of "proof" as it relates to the question of "gods" existence....am I close?
I don't think that logic whether one applies Aristotelean or even St. Anselms to the question of the existence of an extraphenomenal entity we call "god" works in any way to answer the question.
I want falsifiable evidence and until that's been provided it's all just a game of semantics (in large part).
"God" is a nice idea but that's about it.
While we are thinking along these lines....Adam & Eve? Which arrived on the scene first? Biblical answers will be discounted.