If you really want to understand Entropy better watch this entire lecture series from Yale, but especially this segment:
23. The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Carnot's Engine
But please at least learn this one thing.
Entropy is the energy in a system no longer available for doing work. This does NOT mean that localized entropy cannot decrease (e.g., this is exactly what an A/C unit does), as long as the entropy of the entire System increases.
When the localized Entropy of an RNA or DNA molecule is lowered by work done with energy released from process of ATP -> ADP hydrolysis the total Entropy increases (you can calculate this using equations for Chemical Entropy if you have a specific reaction in mind).
Sunlight is used by plants to convert water and carbon dioxide into LOWER entropy molecules (sugars, etc). This is all Very Basic Science - pre-101 and is extremely well-known, studied, and the entropy calculations have been carried out to Many decimal places in study after study after study. When your body re-energizes ADP back into the LOWER Entropy molecule ATP it is doing the exact same thing and it's no Miracle™ because again, while the entropy of ADP is lowered during the chemical change the TOTAL entropy of the system increases.
It is an absolutely absurd proposition to object to "evolution" on thermodynamic grounds - anyone doing so is either ignorant, incompetent, or just flat out lying.
More resources that look specifically at evolution and thermodynamics:
Does evolution contradict the second law of thermodynamics?
Talk Origins: Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/06/evolution_and_the_second_law.php
Google Scholar Resources
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
Science, Knowledge, Bias
Response to http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2011/08/science-is-not-only-form-of-knowledge.html
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps people are just being "pedantic" when they object to your strawmen? You also never defined what you mean by "Knowledge". But in general terms, knowledge is an extremely fuzzy concept that has really never been nailed down by philosophy. It's a placeholder concept, we don't know what it is but we know it when we see it.
Even justified knowledge can (and has been) proven false. For example: CLEARLY the sun goes around the earth, I can see it moving, I don't feel like I'm moving. I can form this into a series of hypotheses that I test and all are born out by the facts. Therefore, I can form a justified belief that the sun goes around the Earth. What's wrong here is that I don't have ALL the facts. I didn't do a very good job and I missed some obvious difficulties. If you want to see an example of this at work in reality check out my post on it: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2011/06/response-galileo-rout-galileo-rout.html Where I give a long list of observables that must ALL be satisfied by our theory and the geocentric theory absolutely fails a number of tests. Tests I may not have been aware of initially.
This is the hurdle you must overcome with any epistemic theory and this is the REASON the scientific methodology exists as it does today.
To put it more succinctly, Science is our best methodology for removing sources of error and bias from our conclusions.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps people are just being "pedantic" when they object to your strawmen? You also never defined what you mean by "Knowledge". But in general terms, knowledge is an extremely fuzzy concept that has really never been nailed down by philosophy. It's a placeholder concept, we don't know what it is but we know it when we see it.
Even justified knowledge can (and has been) proven false. For example: CLEARLY the sun goes around the earth, I can see it moving, I don't feel like I'm moving. I can form this into a series of hypotheses that I test and all are born out by the facts. Therefore, I can form a justified belief that the sun goes around the Earth. What's wrong here is that I don't have ALL the facts. I didn't do a very good job and I missed some obvious difficulties. If you want to see an example of this at work in reality check out my post on it: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2011/06/response-galileo-rout-galileo-rout.html Where I give a long list of observables that must ALL be satisfied by our theory and the geocentric theory absolutely fails a number of tests. Tests I may not have been aware of initially.
This is the hurdle you must overcome with any epistemic theory and this is the REASON the scientific methodology exists as it does today.
To put it more succinctly, Science is our best methodology for removing sources of error and bias from our conclusions.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
But I Had A Personal Experience!
Why we cannot rely solely on individual memory to document events.
Remarkable false memories By Daniel Simons
I myself have personally had some pretty amazing experiences and witnessed amazing phenomena as products of meditation (and on occasion, medication). I have SEEN a golden, radiant book with letters of fire burning onto the pages (meditation), I have seen images of the future that have subsequently come to pass (lucid dreaming, meditation), and I have been 'miraculously' saved from physical harm (reality). Be they coincidences, hallucinations, lucky guesses, or who knows, maybe even some quantum process that we don't understand yet. But not a SINGLE one of those experiences is evidence for something supernatural or a soul. The dreaming brain is perfectly capable of generating PROFOUNDLY meaningful and deep, rich experiences that are indistinguishable from reality to the observer. I know this because I practiced at it for many years.
Remarkable false memories By Daniel Simons
I myself have personally had some pretty amazing experiences and witnessed amazing phenomena as products of meditation (and on occasion, medication). I have SEEN a golden, radiant book with letters of fire burning onto the pages (meditation), I have seen images of the future that have subsequently come to pass (lucid dreaming, meditation), and I have been 'miraculously' saved from physical harm (reality). Be they coincidences, hallucinations, lucky guesses, or who knows, maybe even some quantum process that we don't understand yet. But not a SINGLE one of those experiences is evidence for something supernatural or a soul. The dreaming brain is perfectly capable of generating PROFOUNDLY meaningful and deep, rich experiences that are indistinguishable from reality to the observer. I know this because I practiced at it for many years.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Chilling Effects of Religious Bigotry
The maltreatment of Galileo Galilei in the hands of the Church is well known (despite their far-too-little-too-late and backhanded apology) but what may be less well known is that Galileo got off easy compared to Giordano Bruno who was murdered by the Church.
Copernicus suppressed his research due to the church, Campanella was tortured by the church repeatedly for supporting Galileo, Rene Descartes suppressed his research due to Galileo's treatment, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Edmond Halley, Isaac Newton, Georges Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon, William Buckland, Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, Adam Sedgewick, Robert Chambers, Charles Darwin... all scientists whose work was negatively affected by the actions of the Roman Catholic Church against the progress of science.
Why, might we ask, was the work of Galileo and Copernicus so feared by the Church and by the Popes Paul V and Urban VIII?
The answer is simple, if the earth was not the fixed center of creation then the Bible was FALSE. It was, and still is, that simple.
The force and weight of this realization requires an understanding of apostolic succession - the Pope is not claimed to be an ordinary man but a man who is in the direct line of succession from the original apostle Peter:
The very idea of the firmament is the rigid and solid vault of the sky set upon the solid, immobile earth and diving the waters below from those above. But now we know that space is vast and filled with many other stars like our own. It is not a fixed dome upon which chariots of fire move, ridden by the angels (the planets).
It took hundreds of years to overcome the deep-seated bigotry of the Roman Catholic Church against science, and now we live in a world where even 5 year old children can grasp the basics of planetary motion, human beings have traveled to the moon and back to earth, and people can communicate around the globe in a blink of an eye.
Thankfully the stewards of the RCC have slowly come around and seen the error of their ways (although they now turn a blind eye to the obvious contradictions with reality) - unfortunately, their blind eye extends to the horrible actions of their own Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and even their own Pope who was complicit in the cover up. Ye shall know them by their fruits indeed.
Copernicus suppressed his research due to the church, Campanella was tortured by the church repeatedly for supporting Galileo, Rene Descartes suppressed his research due to Galileo's treatment, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Edmond Halley, Isaac Newton, Georges Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon, William Buckland, Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, Adam Sedgewick, Robert Chambers, Charles Darwin... all scientists whose work was negatively affected by the actions of the Roman Catholic Church against the progress of science.
Why, might we ask, was the work of Galileo and Copernicus so feared by the Church and by the Popes Paul V and Urban VIII?
The answer is simple, if the earth was not the fixed center of creation then the Bible was FALSE. It was, and still is, that simple.
The force and weight of this realization requires an understanding of apostolic succession - the Pope is not claimed to be an ordinary man but a man who is in the direct line of succession from the original apostle Peter:
Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.These men KNEW what the bible said and what it meant better than anyone else and it was unquestioned that the earth was the fixed center of the universe (and they had absolutely no inkling of other galaxies). And, while I argue in the strongest possible terms that:
The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth and died to give His work its final consecration never had any existence ~ Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965, Nobel Prize 1952), Ph.D, Christian theologian and Dean of Theological College of Saint Thomas at the University of Strasburg; The Quest of the Historical Jesus: First Complete Edition, trans. W. Montgomery, et al., ed. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), page 478I do believe these men, these Popes, believed what they wrote and that the Bible proclaims that the earth is 1 Chronicles 16:30 "...all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved" and Psalm 93:1 "...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved".
The very idea of the firmament is the rigid and solid vault of the sky set upon the solid, immobile earth and diving the waters below from those above. But now we know that space is vast and filled with many other stars like our own. It is not a fixed dome upon which chariots of fire move, ridden by the angels (the planets).
It took hundreds of years to overcome the deep-seated bigotry of the Roman Catholic Church against science, and now we live in a world where even 5 year old children can grasp the basics of planetary motion, human beings have traveled to the moon and back to earth, and people can communicate around the globe in a blink of an eye.
Thankfully the stewards of the RCC have slowly come around and seen the error of their ways (although they now turn a blind eye to the obvious contradictions with reality) - unfortunately, their blind eye extends to the horrible actions of their own Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and even their own Pope who was complicit in the cover up. Ye shall know them by their fruits indeed.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Photomagnetics
Solar power without solar cells: A hidden magnetic effect of light could make it possible
[ Scientific paper: Optically-induced charge separation and terahertz emission in unbiased dielectrics ]
Basically, this is a possible way to generate electricity directly from light. It's one of those exciting findings that may not pan out for 100 years or could prove to be impossible to harness in a useful way at the large scale.
My guess is that it will find application in the field of optical computation LONG before you are powering your house with an empty coke bottle and some duct tape. But it's something to keep an eye on closely over the next couple of years as it COULD be a game changing discovery (IF they can find materials that do not require light that is 100000000x times stronger than sunlight).
[ Scientific paper: Optically-induced charge separation and terahertz emission in unbiased dielectrics ]
Basically, this is a possible way to generate electricity directly from light. It's one of those exciting findings that may not pan out for 100 years or could prove to be impossible to harness in a useful way at the large scale.
My guess is that it will find application in the field of optical computation LONG before you are powering your house with an empty coke bottle and some duct tape. But it's something to keep an eye on closely over the next couple of years as it COULD be a game changing discovery (IF they can find materials that do not require light that is 100000000x times stronger than sunlight).
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Basis in Fact
The fundamental reason that I do not believe in the existence of a god lies in the fact that evidence for the existence of a god has not been forthcoming while there are many facts which argue against the existence of a god.
First, I admit that I am fairly ignorant about many of the specific claims that non-christian religions make about their god or gods. I used to be a christian and I have read more on christianity than I have any other religion so I have much more of a background in that area. So the majority of my arguments focus on that aspect of belief.
However, I have made at least some effort to know a little bit about these other religions. In all cases, the people of that religion or belief system have the burden of proof and I have not found any such proof forthcoming, nor do I find the claims to be credible on their face, and I have, in fact, found many fraudulent claims.
For example, in India there are many claims of miracles and many claims that such-and-such is a Guru who can produce vibhuti (sacred ash), who can levitate, who can produce objects from 'thin air', etc. Most often, these claims are not even allowed to be evaluated by outsiders by the guru's handlers, but when they have been tested they have been shown to be fraudulent. Most of them are not even good stage magicians. With many of them I can look at the video and SEE the slight-of-hand being used (I'm an amateur prestidigitateur myself). They aren't even trying very hard because they don't have to - the people WANT to believe and they see a miracle where I only see a scammer, a liar, and a cheat.
I do believe that people have certain types of deeply, and personally meaningful experiences as a result of either meditation or natural occurrence of these states of consciousness. However, there is absolutely no evidence that these experiences are anything other than brain states. For example, no amount of meditation has given us the mass of the Higgs particle.
Sure, these can be states conducive to creativity but nothing more than that is evidenced in thousands of years of practice.
Most christian claims of miracles are even worse. Found a job? MIRACLE! Pull some miners out of a Cave? MIRACLE! Doctor cures your cancer despite it seeming to be terminal initially? MIRACLE! Everything perceived as good is magically and automatically a MIRACLE!, no matter how much humans had to work and toil to accomplish something. And yet, nothing truly miraculous ever actually occurs - it is always within expected, normal statistical probability. This is Confirmation Bias and it does nothing to establish that some supernatural event is actually taking place.
So I dismiss these claims of miracles until something truly miraculous can be proven. You can read more in my entry But I Had A Personal Experience. If you can prove a miracle then please contact the James Randi foundation and claim your million dollar prize and THEN I will be willing to consider that your claim is valid. Until then, you can save your breath. I don't care that you found your lost dog, were cured of cancer by sneezing, survived a 30,000 foot fall, or any other ridiculous claim.
I similarly dismiss your claims that Prayer works. It's been studied (See Intercessory Prayer) and failed.
What about claims about the bible? Here are my issues with the Bible:
#1 The bible contains sections which are absolutely abhorrent to ANY sense of right and wrong and only a diseased mind can forgive them. God commands genocides and infanticides. No good god would order men to slaughter babies, period. And if you excuse this in your mind then you are sick and mentally deficient. And it undeniably does so, those people who deny the bible is commanding genocides are also clearly borderline insane.
God killing all the first-born of Egypt and god killing everyone in the flood are examples of these unimaginably abhorrent acts. The Old Testament is a tribute to a god of genocide and slavery. I cannot imagine a better book for what kind of god to REJECT than the Old Testament and the New Testament does not redeem this evil god that fails to clearly speak out against Slavery, or for equal rights for all, women are still spoken of as property and told to submit to their husbands and keep silent, and parents are told to beat their children for their own good.
Only diseased and immoral men would come up with such stories, attribute them to a god, and claim to be righteous for supporting them. The same goes for the idea of stoning people to death for things like dishonoring your Father and Mother.
#2 The bible was written 30-60 years AFTER the supposed events and there are no eye-witness accounts. Paul wasn't an eye-witness - he had a vision. The Gospel authors are anonymous and only attributed by Tradition, not by evidence of fact. For example, Luke explicitly admits he's not an eyewitness:
#3 The bible has been redacted and modified and there is not a single original autograph remaining where we can verify what it originally said. Textual criticism that argues the copies we have are fairly accurate is wrong because it denies the documented fact that the early stewards of the church destroyed everything they could find that contradicted what they wished the documents to say and they murdered people who disagreed with them. You do not get to tamper with the evidence to such extremes, with 1800 years of terrorism - and then claim things were not tampered with. I do not trust them, not even one tiny bit.
The Protestant branches of this abhorrent system are no less guilty. They did not protest to the church having tortured and murdered innocent people. They protested at being held to a standard of good works for salvation -- they prefered to just claim you love Jesus and you are magically saved by faith. That's hardly a ringing endorsement for a new religious movement.
And Martin Luther, after earlier attempts to peacefully convert the Jews to Christianity, turned towards being a violent racist against Jewish peoples who wrote in Concerning the Jews and Their Lies:
#4 There is not a SINGLE contemporaneous historical account that would support the claims about Jesus described in the bible. The FIRST historical MENTION of Jesus appears in Testimonium Flavianum, written 60 YEARS too late and even then shows strong evidence of having been tampered with. We've no doubt that Christians existed, it is their Christ that seems to be lacking in all evidence.
But Josephus goes on at some length about Judas of Galilee - and actually attributes several events to Judas of Galilee, which are claimed of Jesus in the bible. It seems very likely that the bible authors stole those events in order to give their false Jesus some historical basis.
There are some common Myths:
#1 Myth: People wouldn't die for a false belief? Then Islam must be the truth ALSO? This myth is so blatantly wrong it's not even funny.
#2 Myth: Finely Tuned Universe - This claim is based on false assumptions and ZERO evidence. Victor Stenger (Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii) ran simulations with varied physical parameters and found the claims of Fine Tuning to be false: Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us?
And even if Stenger's results are wrong, everyone is basing these assumptions on models that we KNOW are flawed. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have not been unified, therefore no extrapolations can be presumed to be valid. We can propose hypotheses and test them within our present limits but without a fully validated model we CAN NOT trust such extrapolations.
I also reject the validity of Black Holes on this basis and there is a LOT of evidence for them - but it is inconclusive. We know there are super-massive objects, that is an observable fact. But we do not know that those objects are 100% accurately modeled by our present equations - we only know things seem to fit to the limit of our current ability to measure.
#3 Myth: First Cause - Again, logic alone cannot prove reality as it does not, itself, provide facts. Logical conclusions must be based on factual observations. These types of arguments are all based on pure assumptions and if Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have taught us anything about the universe it is that our classical assumptions are wrong.
So, no miracles, no prayer, no personal experiences, no bible that is trustworthy, No empirical evidence supporting any logical arguments, and evidence that the early church was bloodthirsty and violent (Inquisitions, Indulgences, Crusades, Wars, Torture, Racism, Murder, Destruction of Contrary Evidence).
There are probably a thousand other reasons I have rejected theistic claims.
Epistemically speaking, Science does not prove propositions to be true but rather demonstrates which claims are false. The problem with the god-proposition is that it cannot even be formulated in a scientifically-valid, falsifiable form - because the fact is, nobody knows a single fact about god - they only have their own wishful thinking projected onto an idea.
First, I admit that I am fairly ignorant about many of the specific claims that non-christian religions make about their god or gods. I used to be a christian and I have read more on christianity than I have any other religion so I have much more of a background in that area. So the majority of my arguments focus on that aspect of belief.
However, I have made at least some effort to know a little bit about these other religions. In all cases, the people of that religion or belief system have the burden of proof and I have not found any such proof forthcoming, nor do I find the claims to be credible on their face, and I have, in fact, found many fraudulent claims.
For example, in India there are many claims of miracles and many claims that such-and-such is a Guru who can produce vibhuti (sacred ash), who can levitate, who can produce objects from 'thin air', etc. Most often, these claims are not even allowed to be evaluated by outsiders by the guru's handlers, but when they have been tested they have been shown to be fraudulent. Most of them are not even good stage magicians. With many of them I can look at the video and SEE the slight-of-hand being used (I'm an amateur prestidigitateur myself). They aren't even trying very hard because they don't have to - the people WANT to believe and they see a miracle where I only see a scammer, a liar, and a cheat.
I do believe that people have certain types of deeply, and personally meaningful experiences as a result of either meditation or natural occurrence of these states of consciousness. However, there is absolutely no evidence that these experiences are anything other than brain states. For example, no amount of meditation has given us the mass of the Higgs particle.
Sure, these can be states conducive to creativity but nothing more than that is evidenced in thousands of years of practice.
Most christian claims of miracles are even worse. Found a job? MIRACLE! Pull some miners out of a Cave? MIRACLE! Doctor cures your cancer despite it seeming to be terminal initially? MIRACLE! Everything perceived as good is magically and automatically a MIRACLE!, no matter how much humans had to work and toil to accomplish something. And yet, nothing truly miraculous ever actually occurs - it is always within expected, normal statistical probability. This is Confirmation Bias and it does nothing to establish that some supernatural event is actually taking place.
So I dismiss these claims of miracles until something truly miraculous can be proven. You can read more in my entry But I Had A Personal Experience. If you can prove a miracle then please contact the James Randi foundation and claim your million dollar prize and THEN I will be willing to consider that your claim is valid. Until then, you can save your breath. I don't care that you found your lost dog, were cured of cancer by sneezing, survived a 30,000 foot fall, or any other ridiculous claim.
I similarly dismiss your claims that Prayer works. It's been studied (See Intercessory Prayer) and failed.
What about claims about the bible? Here are my issues with the Bible:
#1 The bible contains sections which are absolutely abhorrent to ANY sense of right and wrong and only a diseased mind can forgive them. God commands genocides and infanticides. No good god would order men to slaughter babies, period. And if you excuse this in your mind then you are sick and mentally deficient. And it undeniably does so, those people who deny the bible is commanding genocides are also clearly borderline insane.
God killing all the first-born of Egypt and god killing everyone in the flood are examples of these unimaginably abhorrent acts. The Old Testament is a tribute to a god of genocide and slavery. I cannot imagine a better book for what kind of god to REJECT than the Old Testament and the New Testament does not redeem this evil god that fails to clearly speak out against Slavery, or for equal rights for all, women are still spoken of as property and told to submit to their husbands and keep silent, and parents are told to beat their children for their own good.
Only diseased and immoral men would come up with such stories, attribute them to a god, and claim to be righteous for supporting them. The same goes for the idea of stoning people to death for things like dishonoring your Father and Mother.
#2 The bible was written 30-60 years AFTER the supposed events and there are no eye-witness accounts. Paul wasn't an eye-witness - he had a vision. The Gospel authors are anonymous and only attributed by Tradition, not by evidence of fact. For example, Luke explicitly admits he's not an eyewitness:
1 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us
#3 The bible has been redacted and modified and there is not a single original autograph remaining where we can verify what it originally said. Textual criticism that argues the copies we have are fairly accurate is wrong because it denies the documented fact that the early stewards of the church destroyed everything they could find that contradicted what they wished the documents to say and they murdered people who disagreed with them. You do not get to tamper with the evidence to such extremes, with 1800 years of terrorism - and then claim things were not tampered with. I do not trust them, not even one tiny bit.
The Protestant branches of this abhorrent system are no less guilty. They did not protest to the church having tortured and murdered innocent people. They protested at being held to a standard of good works for salvation -- they prefered to just claim you love Jesus and you are magically saved by faith. That's hardly a ringing endorsement for a new religious movement.
And Martin Luther, after earlier attempts to peacefully convert the Jews to Christianity, turned towards being a violent racist against Jewish peoples who wrote in Concerning the Jews and Their Lies:
That we should set fire to their synagogues and schools, and what cannot be burnt should be covered over with earth, that no man may ever discover a stone or brick of it-we are to do this for the glory of our Lord and Christianity. Burn all their houses and lodge them in stables like gypsies, in order that they may know they are not lords in this land, but in captivity and misery. Burn all their prayer-books and Talmuds, forbid the Rabbis under pain of death to give instruction, deny Jews the rights of protection on the highways, for they have no business with the land. Being neither lords, farmers not merchants, nor anything of the kind, they are to remain at home: you Lords shall not and cannot protect them, unless you would take part in their abomination. Put a flail, axe, mattock or spindle in the hands of every young and strong Jew or Jewess and compel them to do manual labor
#4 There is not a SINGLE contemporaneous historical account that would support the claims about Jesus described in the bible. The FIRST historical MENTION of Jesus appears in Testimonium Flavianum, written 60 YEARS too late and even then shows strong evidence of having been tampered with. We've no doubt that Christians existed, it is their Christ that seems to be lacking in all evidence.
But Josephus goes on at some length about Judas of Galilee - and actually attributes several events to Judas of Galilee, which are claimed of Jesus in the bible. It seems very likely that the bible authors stole those events in order to give their false Jesus some historical basis.
There are some common Myths:
#1 Myth: People wouldn't die for a false belief? Then Islam must be the truth ALSO? This myth is so blatantly wrong it's not even funny.
#2 Myth: Finely Tuned Universe - This claim is based on false assumptions and ZERO evidence. Victor Stenger (Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii) ran simulations with varied physical parameters and found the claims of Fine Tuning to be false: Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us?
And even if Stenger's results are wrong, everyone is basing these assumptions on models that we KNOW are flawed. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have not been unified, therefore no extrapolations can be presumed to be valid. We can propose hypotheses and test them within our present limits but without a fully validated model we CAN NOT trust such extrapolations.
I also reject the validity of Black Holes on this basis and there is a LOT of evidence for them - but it is inconclusive. We know there are super-massive objects, that is an observable fact. But we do not know that those objects are 100% accurately modeled by our present equations - we only know things seem to fit to the limit of our current ability to measure.
#3 Myth: First Cause - Again, logic alone cannot prove reality as it does not, itself, provide facts. Logical conclusions must be based on factual observations. These types of arguments are all based on pure assumptions and if Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have taught us anything about the universe it is that our classical assumptions are wrong.
So, no miracles, no prayer, no personal experiences, no bible that is trustworthy, No empirical evidence supporting any logical arguments, and evidence that the early church was bloodthirsty and violent (Inquisitions, Indulgences, Crusades, Wars, Torture, Racism, Murder, Destruction of Contrary Evidence).
There are probably a thousand other reasons I have rejected theistic claims.
Epistemically speaking, Science does not prove propositions to be true but rather demonstrates which claims are false. The problem with the god-proposition is that it cannot even be formulated in a scientifically-valid, falsifiable form - because the fact is, nobody knows a single fact about god - they only have their own wishful thinking projected onto an idea.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Can Science Disprove God
How can science disprove a higher power (or god) in general?
Science can, and only cares to, disprove definite, testable claims. So the question is not IS there a higher power, but how does some person claim to KNOW there is a higher power in ways that are observable (measurable) and then how do those observables demonstrate the reality of said higher power.
In simple terms, the one making a claim that something is real (a positive ontological claim) has the burden of proof.
For example, if the answer is "well, there is a higher power because my prayers are answered". That is a claim that can be tested. But the additional question is, is merely asking for something and then receiving actually evidence for a higher power? When you dig into these claims they usually vanish as being either Confirmation Bias (you ask for 100 things, 1 mundane item comes true - god exists!) or Wishful fulfillment (See Also: But I Had A Personal Experience).
Here it is worthwhile to study things like illusions (how our brains can be fooled) and things like Cognitive Biases.
Consider the alternative epistemic (how you approach knowledge or truth) approach, famously posed as Russell's Teapot.
So, how can science disprove a China Teapot in orbit about the sun?
Sure! I'll send a probe there, give me the coordinates.
Oh no, sorry it's invisible and undetectable (here I have Moved The Goal Post - a tactic often used by theists)
If we cannot DISPROVE the China Teapot must we then accept that it is true? Surely not.
We cannot absolutely disprove the teapot but it's an extremely reasonable position to be aTeapotist -- there almost certainly is NOT a Celestial teapot in orbit about the sun, it is no leap of faith to believe so. So saying "I disbelieve your claim of a Celestial teapot" is therefore a reasonable atheistic position - Even though it allows a (vanishingly small) possibility of being incorrect.
If, on the other hand, you believe a claim to be reasonable, but simply cannot find evidence to prove or disprove the claim then an Agnostic position may be more fitting (and many people will disagree with me on this point - and I admit to an oversimplification). Some might say that the multitude of anecdotal evidence, combined with possibly personal experiences is sufficient that we should remain Agnostic on the question. Some people see that as lending undeserved credibility to the claim.
Which label you use is of little practical difference, what really matters is your position, your evidence, and your reasoning.
I would argue that the idea of god is made-up. I base that on a deep study of ancient History and Shamanism (including my own personal 'Shamanic' experiences). And even though I have personally seen burning books, "angels and demons" (I would say entities), touched a lightray, and many other such things I absolutely do not believe in a spirit, or soul, or god, or higher power, or ghosts, or intelligent causative agency, etc. I believe in the power of my brain to create entire worlds and immersive experiences as it does while dreaming.
By most definitions I am therefore an atheist and I happy take up that position in a discussion on the subject.
But strictly philosophically speaking, I identify most strongly with Thomas Huxley's brand of Agnosticism. But not in the same way that most people use the term 'agnostic'. This is my blog entry on it if you have any interest in the philosophy of it: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-agnosticism.html
However you identify (atheist or agnostic or antitheist or antheist or all of the above) I highly recommend reading some of the works of Thomas Huxley (who was also known as Darwin's Bulldog), Bertrand Russell, and Robert G. Ingersoll.
Google Books has a lot of these older texts available for Free! [including Darwin's Origin of Species, which is also available as a free 'amateur recording' audio book: ]
Science can, and only cares to, disprove definite, testable claims. So the question is not IS there a higher power, but how does some person claim to KNOW there is a higher power in ways that are observable (measurable) and then how do those observables demonstrate the reality of said higher power.
In simple terms, the one making a claim that something is real (a positive ontological claim) has the burden of proof.
For example, if the answer is "well, there is a higher power because my prayers are answered". That is a claim that can be tested. But the additional question is, is merely asking for something and then receiving actually evidence for a higher power? When you dig into these claims they usually vanish as being either Confirmation Bias (you ask for 100 things, 1 mundane item comes true - god exists!) or Wishful fulfillment (See Also: But I Had A Personal Experience).
Here it is worthwhile to study things like illusions (how our brains can be fooled) and things like Cognitive Biases.
Consider the alternative epistemic (how you approach knowledge or truth) approach, famously posed as Russell's Teapot.
So, how can science disprove a China Teapot in orbit about the sun?
Sure! I'll send a probe there, give me the coordinates.
Oh no, sorry it's invisible and undetectable (here I have Moved The Goal Post - a tactic often used by theists)
If we cannot DISPROVE the China Teapot must we then accept that it is true? Surely not.
We cannot absolutely disprove the teapot but it's an extremely reasonable position to be aTeapotist -- there almost certainly is NOT a Celestial teapot in orbit about the sun, it is no leap of faith to believe so. So saying "I disbelieve your claim of a Celestial teapot" is therefore a reasonable atheistic position - Even though it allows a (vanishingly small) possibility of being incorrect.
If, on the other hand, you believe a claim to be reasonable, but simply cannot find evidence to prove or disprove the claim then an Agnostic position may be more fitting (and many people will disagree with me on this point - and I admit to an oversimplification). Some might say that the multitude of anecdotal evidence, combined with possibly personal experiences is sufficient that we should remain Agnostic on the question. Some people see that as lending undeserved credibility to the claim.
Which label you use is of little practical difference, what really matters is your position, your evidence, and your reasoning.
I would argue that the idea of god is made-up. I base that on a deep study of ancient History and Shamanism (including my own personal 'Shamanic' experiences). And even though I have personally seen burning books, "angels and demons" (I would say entities), touched a lightray, and many other such things I absolutely do not believe in a spirit, or soul, or god, or higher power, or ghosts, or intelligent causative agency, etc. I believe in the power of my brain to create entire worlds and immersive experiences as it does while dreaming.
By most definitions I am therefore an atheist and I happy take up that position in a discussion on the subject.
But strictly philosophically speaking, I identify most strongly with Thomas Huxley's brand of Agnosticism. But not in the same way that most people use the term 'agnostic'. This is my blog entry on it if you have any interest in the philosophy of it: http://iconoclasm2000.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-agnosticism.html
However you identify (atheist or agnostic or antitheist or antheist or all of the above) I highly recommend reading some of the works of Thomas Huxley (who was also known as Darwin's Bulldog), Bertrand Russell, and Robert G. Ingersoll.
Google Books has a lot of these older texts available for Free! [including Darwin's Origin of Species, which is also available as a free 'amateur recording' audio book: ]
Saturday, March 5, 2011
F***ng Magnets, How Do They Work?
First, a little history -- The Insane Clown Posse once infamously pondered how Magnets might function: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fcking-magnets-how-do-they-work
The genius of Richard Feynman was asked a similar question in 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets, and he struggles to explain it in lay terms. But it's a great look at what each of us must bring to the table to understand an answer.
In summary: Physics is hard -- but, WHY it is hard has an interesting answer.
Our understanding of the electromagnetic force is described in detail in the equation that represents the Standard Model of physics. To really understand Electromagnetism would require that you undertake understanding that equation.
But I think that understanding that it is the result of an alignment of many atomic spins in the material and all those tiny forces add up is a pretty good start.
I also found a nice mathematical explanation on Quora.
If you know of a very insightful resource for this let us know!
The genius of Richard Feynman was asked a similar question in 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets, and he struggles to explain it in lay terms. But it's a great look at what each of us must bring to the table to understand an answer.
In summary: Physics is hard -- but, WHY it is hard has an interesting answer.
Our understanding of the electromagnetic force is described in detail in the equation that represents the Standard Model of physics. To really understand Electromagnetism would require that you undertake understanding that equation.
But I think that understanding that it is the result of an alignment of many atomic spins in the material and all those tiny forces add up is a pretty good start.
I also found a nice mathematical explanation on Quora.
If you know of a very insightful resource for this let us know!
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Science is under attack by dishonest quacks
Robert Lanza, M.D.: Why You Will Always Exist: Time Is 'On Demand'
Science is clearly under attack here -- this kind of dishonest filth has to be brought under control somehow. Lanza should be ASHAMED of himself for publishing this nonsense but I suspect he is laughing all the way to the bank. Stupid is winning.
Physicists do not mean the same thing by Observation as this guy is implying here. They mean that a 'measurement' is taken which necessarily interacts with the particle being measured (e.g., a Photon has to be absorbed and re-emitted by an Electron to "Observe" it). Usually in very exacting and precise ways.
There is simply no evidence that that consciousness is involved (wishful statements, even by respected scientists, are NOT theory). This is nothing but a bunch of Woo. Or Cite an accepted, peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates consciousness is required for wave collapse. Not much is yet known about the intricate details causing wave function collapse or if it even happens (e.g., de Broglie–Bohm's ideas). This is a huge fact checking failure.
These are basic facts you can learn by spending 10 minutes on Google and evaluating the data with a critical eye. It's not like we're digging down into the actual equations here.
So why is it that a supposed MD apparently cannot be bothered to at least Google this? Or maybe ask an actual physicist? And why is the public lapping up this drivel instead of laughing this guy off the internet and out of publishing? Please, stop spending your hard earned money on nonsense.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Monday, December 13, 2010
How Slow Can You Go (Light)?
It is a common misconception that light speed itself changes in a medium, what changes is the rate of PROPAGATION. It is not the photon that is slowed, it is only the propagation of information that is slowed (the photon is absorbed and re-emitted).
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-05/893732585.Ph.r.html
One way to understand the implication of relativity is to understand that spacetime is one thing and you have a constant velocity vector through this spacetime. And the absolute value of every velocity vector, in spacetime, is constant = 1.
So everything is always moving through spacetime at "the speed of light". But what happens is the direction of the velocity vector can be tilted more towards space dimensions or more in the time dimension.
An object at "rest" in space moves through time at a unit rate of 1 (consider units where c = 1). As the object starts to move through space the velocity vector is tilted slightly causing the object to move less through time and more through space.
There are other effects as well but that's a good summary that can help people understand the effects in a more natural way. It also explains why you can't go faster than light-you already are moving at 'lightspeed' through spacetime.
Hypothesis
This is a purely speculative post, I just wanted to put some ideas down on 'paper' when I wrote this. A bit of brainstorming if you will. A possible flow-chart on how we move from observable, sensory data towards a model that represents knowledge.
Observation > Analysis > Categorization > Correlation > Inference > Elimination > Synthesis > Deduction > Confirmation > Knowledge
First, we make observations. These can come from external or internal sources (we can hear , feel , or think about something).
Our brain then analyzes the data, breaking it up into chunks and ultimately categorizes it (that is a cat, that is a dog, that is the word 'brain'). There are probably many layers of categorization, e.g., visual processing, language processing, etc.
We then make correlations with the data against previous data, looking for patterns which we draw inferences about. Many of those inferences will be wrong which begins the pruning process where we Eliminate as many fallacious and false inferences as possible.
Synthesis begins the process of putting things together from the inferences, thus creating hypotheses to be tested using more deductive forms of reasoning. This is, I suspect, the first time we reach the level of conscious thought in the process.
We then seek out Confirmation of our conclusions and when we get Confirmation we store that bit of information away as knowledge.
Observation > Analysis > Categorization > Correlation > Inference > Elimination > Synthesis > Deduction > Confirmation > Knowledge
First, we make observations. These can come from external or internal sources (we can hear , feel , or think about something).
Our brain then analyzes the data, breaking it up into chunks and ultimately categorizes it (that is a cat, that is a dog, that is the word 'brain'). There are probably many layers of categorization, e.g., visual processing, language processing, etc.
We then make correlations with the data against previous data, looking for patterns which we draw inferences about. Many of those inferences will be wrong which begins the pruning process where we Eliminate as many fallacious and false inferences as possible.
Synthesis begins the process of putting things together from the inferences, thus creating hypotheses to be tested using more deductive forms of reasoning. This is, I suspect, the first time we reach the level of conscious thought in the process.
We then seek out Confirmation of our conclusions and when we get Confirmation we store that bit of information away as knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)