God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[Sherlock Holmes]

"No, not all scientific explanations are reductionist"

I'm prepared to disagree with that. Every explanation is expressed in terms of some kind of abstractions, those abstract ideas are part of the reduction exercise.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

"It might just have always been."
In fact, since it can't ("cannot") be created according to "the first law," it must have always been.

It can though if the agency doing the creation is not constrained by (what we choose to call) laws. The laws themselves were created, one cannot have material without laws, they go hand in hand, they are different aspects of a single reality.

Take lump of rock, it exists in the form it does because of laws, without laws existing there can be no material realm, the material universe is characterized by laws, without laws there could be no interactions, no fields, nothing could ever happen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It can though if the agency doing the creation is not constrained by (what we choose to call) laws. The laws themselves were created.

"Anything is possible, with magic!"

Indeed. Anything is possible, once all the "impossible" is declared "possible", by magical fiat.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

"Anything is possible, with magic!"

Indeed. Anything is possible, once all the "impossible" is declared "possible", by magical fiat.

What is this "magic" you speak of? what do you mean exactly? do you simply mean that if you cannot comprehend something it can be called "magic"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is this "magic" you speak of? what do you mean exactly? do you simply mean that if you cannot comprehend something it can be called "magic"?

You'll get it. Good luck!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You'll get it. Good luck!

Get what? if you can't explain your beliefs then perhaps you should stop believing them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Get what? if you can't explain your beliefs then perhaps you should stop believing them.

Just because I don't do something doesn't mean I can't. And school yard taunts won't work for you. Sorry.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Just because I don't do something doesn't mean I can't. And school yard taunts won't work for you. Sorry.

We were discussing science and then you started talking about something you call "magic", if you don't want to defend your claims then do not post, sorry but science doesn't work like that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We were discussing science and then you started talking about something you call "magic", if you don't want to defend your claims then do not post, sorry but science doesn't work like that.

After you started talking about being able to ignore natural laws.

I wonder if you will manage to connect the two?

Good luck!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

After you started talking about being able to ignore natural laws.

Yet I never said anything about "ignoring" laws, this is the danger of paraphrasing, you can imply that I said things that I never said, why would a person want to do that?

I wonder if you will manage to connect the two?

Good luck!

Get your facts right at least, at least make some effort.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'm prepared to disagree with that. Every explanation is expressed in terms of some kind of abstractions, those abstract ideas are part of the reduction exercise.

I'm prepared to take a nap then get back to work on my bus. Meanwhile, you may read this:

Scientific Reduction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm prepared to take a nap then get back to work on my bus. Meanwhile, you may read this:

Scientific Reduction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Yes I'm familiar with that, its an excellent Philosophy resource, glad to see more people here are seeing the relevance of philosophy to these discussions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet I never said anything about "ignoring" laws, this is the danger of paraphrasing, you can imply that I said things that I never said, why would a person want to do that?

Yeah, ya kind of did. Which is okay. I am just saying your ship has then left the discussion of evidence based ideas.

You are then in magical territory. Any guess is just as valid. Maybe that is so. But it's just magical speculation, at that point.

But a very good demonstration of the thread title and topic. So I will give you that.

 

[ChemEngineer]

That’s not an answer. It’s a ridiculous conclusion.

Just a trite way to try to avoid the question.

I do understand the “logic”.”

If stuff like matter and energy can be neither created no destroyed, then for it to exist it must have always existed. It exists. Therefore it must have always existed.

But … no hint of an answer for where it came from supposedly.

Your last sentence contradicts the sentence immediately before it.
My book exists. It did not always. Buildings, cities, cars, music, relationships exist but did not always.

Mathematical Proof of Nature's God

mathprovesgod.blogspot.com

________________________________

 

[BackAgain]

Your last sentence contradicts the sentence immediately before it.
My book exists. It did not always. Buildings, cities, cars, music, relationships exist but did not always.

Mathematical Proof of Nature's God

mathprovesgod.blogspot.com

________________________________

What?

No contradiction.

Your book exists because you created it.

The atoms and stuff of which the paper and ink was made also exist. Who created them? The claim that they “always” existed simply makes a claim without logical or scientific support.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What?

No contradiction.

Your book exists because you created it.

The atoms and stuff of which the paper and ink was made also exist. Who created them? The claim that they “always” existed simply makes a claim without logical or scientific support.

The logical support is there. It's theoretical evidence. Basically, math. There is theoretical support for it as a possibility.

Now, whether or not the idea can ever be tested empirically is another matter.

 

[BackAgain]

The logical support is there. It's theoretical evidence. Basically, math. There is theoretical support for it as a possibility.

Now, whether or not the idea can ever be tested empirically is another matter.

No. No support for it exists at all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. No support for it exists at all.

Wrong of course. It was a focus for Stephen Hawking toward the end of his life to find a plausible mathematical solution to a cyclical universe that did not villate physical laws and allowed for the local universe to have a perceived "beginning" (of uts spacetime).

And he did. Using imaginary time.

And that's just one example.

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong of course. It was a focus for Stephen Hawking toward the end of his life to find a plausible mathematical solution to a cyclical universe that did not villate physical laws and allowed for the local universe to have a perceived "beginning" (of uts spacetime).

And he did. Using imaginary time.

And that's just one example.

lol.

Ok.

You run with that.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yeah, ya kind of did. Which is okay. I am just saying your ship has then left the discussion of evidence based ideas.

I did not.

You are then in magical territory. Any guess is just as valid. Maybe that is so. But it's just magical speculation, at that point.

But a very good demonstration of the thread title and topic. So I will give you that.

You introduced the term "magic" in the middle of a science discussion, I ask what it means to you and you run away, refuse to tell me.