[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Now I am confused, so maybe you could answer the following, which I believe to be theories, which people either believe or do not believe.

Originally Posted by Profpat

Big bang theory - Theory or belief
String theory - Theory or belief
Evolution theory - Theory or belief
Multiuniverse theory - Theory or belief

Again to me the above are THEORIES that you either believe or don't believe, or have no opinion on. What you BELIEVE or DON'T BELIEVE doesn't make the theory correct or incorrect. The theory may be correct, incorrect or partially correct.

It is my belief that scientist have the same degree of FAITH that theist have only in different matters.

Remember Einstein didn't believe that God would play dice with the universe, and did not originally believe in the big bang theory.

In general, Pat, I think we can agree that when someone mentions belief or theory that they are more or less saying the same thing, and that in both cases the proposed delivery is somewhat hanging in the air because ultimate proof/evidence for the delivery is not available. I don't think we have any problems communicating in this respect.

I'll try explaining at the bottom of the post why establishing the exact meaning and difference is important, but first let me focus on how belief and theory are not the exact same thing. For instance, with a belief, something considered a truth is implied, even though the evidence/proof is lacking. The dictionary in front of me says, for instance: 2. mental acceptance of or conviction in the truth or actuality of something. This differs from theory somewhat. For theory, the dictionary says, for instance: 3. an assumption or guess based on limited knowledge or information. I hope you can already sense the small but precise difference.

We basically agree that both may indeed be seen, as an axample, as having the color red in common, but one of them is more orange, while the other is more purple. If you focus on the red only, both are so much the same, it is not worthy mentioning the difference. But if you focus on the amount of yellow (as found in more orange) or blue (as found in more purple) then the differences are clear.

The four theories you are asking about are indeed theories.

Let's sharpen this further: I do not think it is possible to call evolution theory a belief. Yet people may believe that evolution theory is correct. The same goes for the Big Bang theory. Scientists state the theories, yet they can do so with or without claiming to believe in them. The information provided should give the reader a clear indication about the level of accuracy of the theory. Evolution theory and Big Bang theory hang in the air, but they contain a lot of grounded facts.

The other two, I consider them beliefs as well as theories, for in my eyes something fudamental is missing in them. From previous posts, you may recollect that I think string theorists are basing their theory on something with a single dimension and that such something cannot exist. I consider that an impossibility (for which I bring my own arguments), and can therefore say that it is a belief as well as a theory.

For you, on the other hand, it would be prudent to call it a theory and not a belief, because you consider something having a one-dimensional profile as very well possible. Therefore, you can believe in String Theory being correct, but since you consider the basics of the theory as correct, you would not consider String itself a belief; it is then only a theory, because all the parts on which it is based are then indeed there.

I do not know what your position is on multiple universes, but I think we must leave the option open for this one to be a belief next to it being a theory. It is a theory, because it is based on many facts that we have knowledge of; yet it is also a belief, because it is also based on something we do not have knowledge of (the option for multiple universes to come about).

Quick and dirty conclusion: one is something in the sky based on facts (theory), while the other is something in the sky not based on, though adjusted by, facts (belief).

The reason the distinction is important is to show that the view that scientists have is slightly different from the view, for instance, priests have. I like the historical fact that before the Renaissace, priests and scientists were one and the same people, but that with the Enlightenment the two views were separated and two groups of specialists started to occur.

For the Theory of Everything the distinction is important, because we are not looking for something in the sky with facts being slightly involved, but with facts being fully involved. The ToE is (or -if you are still looking- must be) based on the facts we have gathered.

Some have said that in the material reality we always have opposition, but that in a religious sense unity is always an option. I have no problems there, but it indicates that a scientific ToE is therefore based on at least one level of opposition.

When focussing on beliefs, one may fail to see the overall oppositional deliveries we find in our material reality. Coming to a scientific ToE would then be out of sight when considering a religious framework (of not requiring the ToE be based on facts only), while it is easier to find when only using the famework of science (based on just the facts).

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by insomniac

Howdy Fredrick,


This is true, but that is because "science" ignores the facts available on the subject. It is a fact that evidence of ritual use of hallucinogenic fungi exists for nearly every organized religion on the planet. It is a fact that today's users of those same fungi report religious experience, including the meeting of entities that certainly fit the traditional image of gods. Just a couple of examples of facts that seem to warrant some kind of theory. Here we have a phenomenon(religion) that has seriously altered history, with evidence that it could be caused by ingestion of plants that affect consciousness directly, and nobody has the time nor inclination to look into it? Time to update that dictionary.

So, it is your belief that religion is bogus and science sincere, if not entirely accurate.

In a perfect world, science would be driven by facts and theories, but in reality it is money behind the wheel with politics riding shotgun.

Hi Jim,

I can debunk the view you have of me immediately by stating that I am not saying anything about the validity of religion(s). Whether religions are correct or not is besides the scientific question. Scientists can very well believe in god (or gods, or no gods). That is not the point. The point is that scientific theories are based on facts, while your example of history altering experiences are historical facts, not scientific facts.

I need to apologize for having begun to describe a difference that is in reality quite small, and something that is ordinarily best avoided, but in light of the ToE it is a distinctive difference we should (in my opinion) be all aware of, otherwise our language becomes warped with opinions. Science and religion, though covering a lot of the same grounds, are not the same frameworks.

Please understand that god or not god is not the question. The question is: What is the scientific ToE? If you want to hear me say that the scientific ToE will automatically be a limited delivery? No problem, I have no qualms there. Yet it will be based on scientific facts, contain a theory, and fit within the scientific framework. And that is all that is required.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

FOR FURTHER THOUGHT:

Albert Einstein has stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Karl Popper concluded that "most mathematical theories are, like those of physics and biology, hypothetico-deductive: pure mathematics therefore turns out to be much closer to the natural sciences whose hypotheses are conjectures, than it seemed even recently."

I am happy you looked up these quotes, but I do not know how these general statements undermine the statements I made or my specific math information. My evidence is based on the basics of math, the natural numbers, not on math laws. I don't think it can get any more basic than that. The information the math provides is really simple: zero is there when making use of a math system, always.

I do like it that you try to undermine the math information, but I will not accept generalizations without it specifically addressing the information I provided. Also, a theory is much like a hypothesis; the qualifying standard that needs to be reached is therefore not that of a truth, but of a theory. I base the theory on the fact that zero is always part of math systems. The theory need not be true beyond doubt, but the math fact needs to be true within the overall math framework.

[insomniac]

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com

Let's say that 'O' (origin) = Some stuff appeared.

(Baggage, Creatures, Intent eliminated)

Without intent? Why?

I don't see that origin is important, but what does it do now and where is it going? The idea that we could reverse engineer the cosmos back to its beginnings based on an incomplete understanding of what it is doing today, seems like pure fantasy to me.

cheers,
jim

[austintorn@aol.com]

Yes, even reverse engineering would not find the origin if it is long gone and no longer originating.

All we can say is that some stuff appeared, so anything more, like intent or accident or there forever from someplace else, remains unknown.

However, people like to invent, so we have that

'some stuff appeared' = there is Heaven and Hell

'some stuff appeared' = we are the chosen tribe

'some stuff appeared' = life is a test

Looks like the origin had no baggage, though we try to claim it at the airport anyway…

[insomniac]

Stuff? Must have leaked out of something else, huh? Or maybe that stuff was not material... like a thought, or something? Where did that stuff come from? Why did it appear? Could it do that without some sort of intent? Or core pattern to form around? Not unless we are to believe in magic or god or something. Intent must be a part of stuff in the first place. Intent couldn't have waited for human beings to arrive, or they never would have.

cheers,
jim

[dleviwing]

Hi Fredrick;
You shouldn’t let facts cloud the issues!

BTW: Excellent posts but I fear they will simply be ignored.

[austintorn@aol.com]

We don't know if the material stuff originated had intention, purpose, objective, object, goal, target; design, plan, scheme; wish, desire, ambition, idea, or aspiration.

All we know is that it is here.

We don't know if it had a mind.

All we can do is probe the stuff.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Hi Fredrick;
You shouldn’t let facts cloud the issues!

BTW: Excellent posts but I fear they will simply be ignored.

Thank you for putting a smile on my face, David! I agree, I think the stuff is so basic that it has an excellent chance it will be ignored.

[austintorn@aol.com]

There is a tendency to turn "stuff appeared" into [take your pick of a random pronouncement] and then add more layers of [take your pick] and then say it has to be.