tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post669311074529275790..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Critique of "The Scientific Worldview": Part 2 The Renaissance of DeterminismGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-37138444468388337942013-06-02T10:03:12.631-07:002013-06-02T10:03:12.631-07:00The difference is that there is prolific evidence ...<b>The difference is that there is prolific evidence for (and none against) an "unmitigated truth", whereas an assumption is "accepted as true, without evidence or proof" (Webster).<br /><br />Calling macro-infinity an "assumption" puts it in the same context as any random belief or blind faith, which is an insult to the entire scientific, materialist endeavor.</b> <br /><br />[Obviously, I do not agree with Webster on that one. That definition implies that assumptions could pop out of nowhere, which is entirely false. Also, there are few theories that have only evidence for and none against. That is why we still have flat-earthers, geocentrists, and big bangers. <br /><br />Remember that Collingwood defined metaphysics as that which is “beyond physics.” Thus, that which is beyond physics is either non-physical or simply more physics. As scientists, we assume the latter, just more physics. That is what we are doing when we assume macro-infinity, the belief that there is no end to the universe. Nonetheless, it always must be an assumption, because we can never go to the end of the universe or even receive data from the end of the universe that would change that assumption into an absolute fact. It is true that we have already observed over a trillion galaxies, each with over 100 billion stars, in support of folks like ourselves who believe in macro-infinity. That is a lot of “proof” that we are correct, but it is not a complete proof lacking in uncertainty whatsoever. As you will see when you get to the Third Assumption of Science, <b>uncertainty</b> (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything), infinity explains why the finite causality of classical mechanics and classical determinism was a failure.<br /><br />Despite all the data supporting our belief in macro-infinity, big bang cosmogonists believe just the opposite: that the universe is finite, having exploding out of nothing and that it had a beginning and will have an end. This steadfast belief, despite all the evidence against it, appears phantasmagoric to us. This proves that the mere accumulation of data is not sufficient. Conservative believers in a particular assumption (or “law” if they wish to call it that) generally can come up with interpretations supporting their belief. Paraphrasing and turning your comment on its head: <b>their belief or blind faith is an insult to the entire scientific, materialist endeavor</b>. We agree that an insult has been perpetrated, but not on the reason for it. The discovery of one more galaxy is unlikely to remove the insult, because the insult is based on an erroneous, indeterministic assumption. Calling the opposing deterministic assumption of infinity a “law” will not likely convince the insulters to flip flop.<br /><br />I beg to differ on your insinuation that infinity or any of the Ten Assumptions of Science amounts to a <b>“random belief or blind faith.”</b> As explained in Chapter 3, the fundamental deterministic assumptions are neither “random” nor “blind.” All are based on an accumulation of necessarily finite data that led me to those assumptions. The selection was guided by lifetime observations that caused me to generalize that there are “material causes for all effects.” The non-scientist may not have the same experience, and might even hold opposing assumptions. Nevertheless, I realize that even those opposing assumptions were not chosen randomly or blindly. The “data” supporting them is found in ancient texts regarded as just as “completely true” as you wish macro-infinity to be.]Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-54119497347247687492013-06-02T01:00:00.062-07:002013-06-02T01:00:00.062-07:00Glenn Writes:
[Sounds like an assumption to me.]
...Glenn Writes:<br /><i>[Sounds like an assumption to me.]</i><br /> <br />The difference is that there is prolific evidence for (and none against) an "unmitigated truth", whereas an assumption is <i>"accepted as true, without evidence or proof"</i> (Webster).<br /> <br />Calling macro-infinity an "assumption" puts it in the same context as any random belief or blind faith, which is an insult to the entire scientific, materialist endeavor.Westmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.com