Can Science Answer All Questions About The Universe? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities

DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Can Science Answer All Questions About The Universe?

Debate Information

I don't mean presently, but rather in theory. Once "all the data is in".

Will science ever be able to answer questions like: "What is time", "What is space", "What is a number", "What is the mind", "What is knowledge", "What is reality", "What is evil", "What is justice" etc...

Or do you think questions like these will forever exist only in the realm of philosophy? That science either does not, or perhaps should not, deal with them?

Please discuss.
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    Science is about answering natural questions, so anything that has a natural component to it can feasibly be answered via scientific inquiry. essentially, any question about what "is" can be obtained. Science can not however answer questions about what "ought" to be, that is the realm of ethics and philosophy.
    xlJ_dolphin_473AlofRIPlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 2
    @Happy_Killbot

    Science is about answering natural questions

    What do you mean by "natural questions"? What makes a question natural as opposed to a question which is unnatural?

    essentially, any question about what "is" can be obtained.

    Well, that isn't true, is it? Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle debunks that notion. If I know the momentum of a particle I cannot answer where it is.

    Science can not however answer questions about what "ought" to be, that is the realm of ethics and philosophy.

    I think you have a point, but it would only apply to one or two of the eight questions in the OP. 

    Indeed, I think you could equally argue that, even though science cannot explain what "ought" to be, that isn't the same question as "what is evil", or "what is justice."

  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;
    What do you mean by "natural questions"? What makes a question natural as opposed to a question which is unnatural?
    I mean questions about the natural world.
    Well, that isn't true, is it? Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle debunks that notion. If I know the momentum of a particle I cannot answer where it is.
    Heisenberg's uncertainty principal is about quantum objects, these things are natural and might be described by "is" statements.

    For example, a quantized object "is" a wave and a particle.
    I think you have a point, but it would only apply to one or two of the eight questions in the OP. 
    It applies to all of them if you classify them as being "is" or "ought" statements.

    These are all "is" questions and can be understood by science:
    "What is time"
    "What is space"
    "What is a number"
    "What is the mind"
    "What is knowledge"
    "What is reality"
    "What is evil"
    "What is justice"

    these are "ought" (should) statements and science can not explain them:
    "do you think questions like these will forever exist only in the realm of philosophy?"
    "That science either does not, or perhaps should not, deal with them?"
    Indeed, I think you could equally argue that, even though science cannot explain what "ought" to be, that isn't the same question as "what is evil", or "what is justice."
    Both of those can be answered scientifically, but even then you rely on what your base assumption is in the form of your definition.

    If you define evil as: "hurting people in ways they don't like" then you can measure it with science.
    NomenclaturexlJ_dolphin_473SkepticalOneZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    I mean questions about the natural world.

    No, you said "natural questions", which means it is the questions themselves you believe to be "natural" or "unnatural". You made a statement about the properties of the questions, not the subject of the questions.

    Heisenberg's uncertainty principal is about quantum objects

    Science deals with quantum phenomena so this is not relevant.

     these things are natural and might be described by "is" statements.

    You can't describe where a particle is if you don't know where it is. Why am I repeating myself?

    For example, a quantized object "is" a wave and a particle.

    This does not tell me where the particle is.

    It applies to all of them if you classify them as being "is" or "ought" statements.

    They are all questions, not statements, and they are all "is" questions. Hence, by your very logic, science should be able to answer all of them.

    Let's not continue this conversation. It's clear that you are tying yourself up in knots again.

    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    If you define evil as: "hurting people in ways they don't like" then you can measure it with science.

    If I define evil as blue I can measure it with science. That doesn't make my definition correct, or even scientific.

    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;
    No, you said "natural questions", which means it is the questions themselves you believe to be "natural" or "unnatural". You made a statement about the properties of the questions, not the subject of the questions.
    lol
    Science deals with quantum phenomena so this is not relevant.
    That would support my point.
    You can't describe where a particle is if you don't know where it is. Why am I repeating myself?
    ...
    This does not tell me where the particle is.
    You can describe it using its wave function. Something that "is". Superposition and/or Non-locality could be a physical property of the universe.
    They are all questions, not statements, and they are all "is" questions. Hence, by your very logic, science should be able to answer all of them.
    Science can and does (at least make serious attempts) to answer all of them. Each of those questions has a field associated with it.
    Let's not continue this conversation. It's clear that you are tying yourself up in knots again.
    lol.




    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;
    If I define evil as blue I can measure it with science. That doesn't make my definition correct, or even scientific.
    You could define it that way, but then you can't use the word "evil" to also mean doing mean things and such.


    PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOne
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 2
    lol

    Great counter-argument.

    That would support my point.

    You don't have any point. I still don't know where the particle is.

    You can describe it using its wave function.

    No, you cannot describe the position of a particle you already know the momentum of through its wave function. That would violate the Uncertainty Principle.

    Something that "is"

    You have not told us where the particle is, so it is not "something that is". You are writing gibberish.

    Superposition and/or Non-locality could be a physical property of the universe.

    If that were true we would not know where anything is. It is only the particle we do not know the location of.

    Science can and does (at least make serious attempts) to answer all of them.

    That is not the question. The question is can science answer them.

    Each of those questions has a field associated with it.

    No they don't.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -   edited April 2
    @Nomenclature ;
    Great counter-argument.
    Clarification needs no defense. You can't argue against what I mean, that would be Kafka-trapping. If you don't accept what I mean, then you are just being willfully ignorant.
    You don't have any point. I still don't know where the particle is.
    The fact that you don't is the point.
    No, you cannot describe the position of a particle you already know the momentum of through its wave function. 
    Knowing the momentum is knowing the wave function. When you measure it's position, the wave function collapses. This is all a serious of "is" statements insofar as they define something that "is" true/false.
    You have not told us where the particle is, so it is not "something that is".
    That's the point.
    If that were true we would not know where anything is. It is only the particle we do not know the location of.
    You are in for a rude awakening, quantum mechanics depends on this fact. The reason we don't observe this in classical mechanics is because at large scales (bigger than an atom) decoherence guarantees that everything is behaving more like a particle.
    That is not the question. The question is can science answer them.
    And the answer is: Science can and does (at least make serious attempts) to answer all of them.

    Science can answer these questions, each one has a field of study associated with it.

    I actually don't understand what your issue is here.
    No they don't.
    "What is time" field: physics
    "What is space" field: physics
    "What is a number" field: mathematics
    "What is the mind" field: neurology
    "What is knowledge" field: neurology
    "What is reality" field: physics
    "What is evil" field: sociology
    "What is justice" field: sociology


    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    You could define it that way, but then you can't use the word "evil" to also mean doing mean things and such

    The problem being that "mean" is often a very subjective term. Is it mean that you eat beef? Because that supports an industry which murders millions of cows each year. Hence where science runs into difficulty. You cannot measure subjective notions objectively.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    Clarification needs no defense.

    "Lol" is not a "clarification". Are you mad? You made a statement about the properties of questions, and when I asked you to clarify you first deflected to a separate statement about the subject of questions, then posted "lol" when I pointed out your fallacy. 

    You can't argue against what I mean

    I asked you to clarify what you meant and you gave a nonsensical answer. I can and did explain why your answer was nonsensical.

    If you don't accept what I mean, then you are just being willfully ignorant.

    If you don't accept that you are continuously contradicting yourself then you like having your feet tickled by East German men.

    The fact that you don't is the point.

    You began by claiming science answers "is" questions. You still haven't told me where the particle is. You are instead writing streams of gibberish with zero relevance to anything.

    Knowing the momentum is knowing the wave function.

    Knowing the momentum is not knowing the position. Why can't you answer a simple question? Where "is" the particle that you claim science can locate for me.

    When you measure it's position, the wave function collapses.

    As it does when I measure its momentum, so congratulations on yet another contradiction. You are literally writing gibberish and cannot answer the most basic of questions.

    This is all a serious of "is" statements insofar as they define something that "is" true/false.

    You began by claiming science answers "is" questions. Now you have swapped that to "science makes 'is' statements", and yet STILL cannot tell me where the particle is. What is actually wrong with you pal?

    That's the point.

    That you are contradicting your own statements?

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 2
    @Happy_Killbot

    "What is time" field: physics
    Physicists measure time, not define it.
    "What is space" field: physics
    Physicists measure space, not define it.
    "What is a number" field: mathematics
     Mathematicians measure numbers, not define them.
    "What is the mind" field: neurology
    Neurologists study electrical activity in the brain. No evidence exists that the mind and the brain are the same thing.
    "What is knowledge" field: neurology
    Neurologists study electrical activity in the brain. Epistemologists study the theory of knowledge.
    "What is reality" field: physics
    Physicists measure the components they find in reality, not define reality. Ontologists study the nature of reality.
    "What is evil" field: sociology
    Sociologists measure (and compare) groups and societies, not define evil. Even if evil were a notion which could be defined objectively and scientifically (which to the best of our knowledge it isn't) then it would be the remit of psychology, not sociology.
    "What is justice" field: sociology
    Measuring and comparing societies cannot define what justice is, or even if it exists.

    I just find your ignorance to be absolutely shocking, and surpassed only by your own incessant desire to disguise it.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    I have already explained definitions above in case you are too weak minded to follow or to lazy to actually read and pay attention:

    "Both of those can be answered scientifically, but even then you rely on what your base assumption is in the form of your definition."
    Neurologists study electrical activity in the brain. No evidence exists that the mind and the brain are the same thing.
    ...
    Neurologists study electrical activity in the brain. Epistemologists study the theory of knowledge.
    lol
    Physicists measure the components they find in reality, not define reality. Ontologists study the nature of reality.
    Information science, a branch of physics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science



    The Brain Meme Will Expand Your Mind


    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot
    You are in for a rude awakening, quantum mechanics depends on this fact.

    I am afraid you are the one in for the rude awakening because there are plenty of objects in the universe larger than an atom and we can locate them. Hence, "superposition and non-locality" are not physical properties of the observable universe.

  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;
    The problem being that "mean" is often a very subjective term. Is it mean that you eat beef? Because that supports an industry which murders millions of cows each year. Hence where science runs into difficulty. You cannot measure subjective notions objectively.
    I agree, and made this exact point myself.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;
    "Lol" is not a "clarification". Are you mad? You made a statement about the properties of questions, and when I asked you to clarify you first deflected to a separate statement about the subject of questions, then posted "lol" when I pointed out your fallacy. 
    You didn't point out a fallacy, you just straw-maned my position. Stop getting so mad.
    I asked you to clarify what you meant and you gave a nonsensical answer. I can and did explain why your answer was nonsensical.
    lol
    If you don't accept that you are continuously contradicting yourself then you like having your feet tickled by East German men.
    "dog questions" are about: dogs
    "cat questions" are about cats.
    "natural questions" are about?
    You began by claiming science answers "is" questions. You still haven't told me where the particle is. You are instead writing streams of gibberish with zero relevance to anything.
    Yes I did, it's defined by it's wave function, something we can measure. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean I didn't give a good answer.
    Knowing the momentum is not knowing the position. Why can't you answer a simple question? Where "is" the particle that you claim science can locate for me.
    ...
    As it does when I measure its momentum, so congratulations on yet another contradiction. You are literally writing gibberish and cannot answer the most basic of questions.
    Cool straw man. Now read my actual response and respond to that.
    You began by claiming science answers "is" questions. Now you have swapped that to "science makes 'is' statements", and yet STILL cannot tell me where the particle is. What is actually wrong with you pal?
    lol
    That you are contradicting your own statements?
    That you don't understand them doesn't make them unanswered.




    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;
    I am afraid you are the one in for the rude awakening because there are plenty of objects in the universe larger than an atom and we can locate them. Hence, "superposition and non-locality" are not physical properties of the observable universe.
    You clearly didn't read what I wrote. The fact that we can locate anything larger than an atom was the point.




    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 2
    @Happy_Killbot

    I have already explained definitions above in case you are too weak minded to follow

    Buddy, try to understand that personal attacks are not going to help you dig yourself out of the self-contradictory quagmire of meaningless gibberish you are standing in. You keep refusing to acknowledge your own mistakes and deflecting to something else every time they are pointed out to you. 

    For the third time, you made a statement about the properties of questions (i.e. "natural questions") and when I asked what you meant you deflected to a statement about the subject of questions (i.e. "questions about the natural world"). You are running all over the planet to avoid acknowledging this fallacy.

    "Both of those can be answered scientifically, but even then you rely on what your base assumption is in the form of your definition."

    Both of what? They are not questions. You made one statement and when asked to clarify deflected to a different statement. You are writing gibberish with no relevance to what you are being asked to clarify.

    lol

    Another great counter-argument. Except not even scientists agree with you.

    Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body

    https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body/

    Factual Reporting: HIGH

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quartz/

    Plaffelvohfen
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 2
    @Happy_Killbot

    You didn't point out a fallacy, you just straw-maned my position.

    Here was your initial statement:-

    Science is about answering natural questions

    Here was my reply:-

    What do you mean by "natural questions"? What makes a question natural as opposed to a question which is unnatural?

    Here was your answer:-

    Questions about the natural world.

    Here was me pointing out the fallacy:-

    No, you said "natural questions", which means it is the questions themselves you believe to be "natural" or "unnatural". You made a statement about the properties of the questions, not the subject of the questions.

    Since you have now been demonstrated to be a liar I see little to gain in continuing this pointless conversation.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 2
    Yes I did, it's defined by it's wave function
    You yourself claimed 15 minutes ago that once a particle is measured the wave function collapses. 

    I'm getting bored of reading your incessant self-contradictions.

    "It's defined by it's [sic] wave function" is not a scientifically valid answer to the question, "Where is the particle". Your gibberish is just plain annoying.


    Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -   edited April 2
    @Nomenclature ;
    Buddy, try to understand that personal attacks are not going to help you dig yourself out of the self-contradictory quagmire of meaningless gibberish you are standing in. You keep refusing to acknowledge your own mistakes and deflecting to something else every time they are pointed out to you. 
    You aren't reading & understanding what i wrote, so that's hardly a personal attack, just accurate.
    453 Best gangsta quotes images in 2019  Quotes Gangsta
    For the third time, you made a statement about the properties of questions (i.e. "natural questions") and when I asked you what you meant you deflected to a statement about the subject of questions (i.e. "questions about the natural world"). You are running all over the planet to avoid acknowledging this fallacy.
    Not a fallacy. By natural questions I mean questions about the natural world. Not definitions. Not philosophy. Not hard.
    Both of what? They are not questions. You made one statement and when asked to clarify deflected to a different statement. You are writing gibberish with no relevance to what you are being asked to clarify.
    This is something I said before in case you can't keep up where I addressed that I am not talking about definitions. 

    Another great counter-argument. Except not even scientists agree with you.

    Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body
    Give me a link that's not behind a pay wall.

    Here are some counter points, all open scientific studies:

    How the brain forms the mind:
    https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29299

    Must we observe the brain to understand the mind:
    https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/do-we-need-to-study-the-brain-to-understand-the-mind

    Predicting the outcomes in choices of mice by probing their brain, destroying any chance of dualism:
    https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30809-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627320308096%3Fshowall%3Dtrue


    Frankly, if you want to have a debate about dualism I think that belongs in a new thread.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -   edited April 2
    @Nomenclature ;

    Since you have now been demonstrated to be a liar I see little to gain in continuing this pointless conversation.


    Yeah, I clarify what I mean, then you seem to think that by asserting your own interpretation you can override mine, that is being willfully ignorant.

    If you don't want to continue this conversation then just stop responding. You can do that at any time.





    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;
    You yourself claimed 15 minutes ago that once a particle is measured the wave function collapses. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

    "In quantum mechanicswave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation". It is the essence of a measurement in quantum mechanics which connects the wave function with classical observables like position and momentum.
    I'm getting bored of reading your incessant self-contradictions.

    "It's defined by it's [sic] wave function" is not a scientifically valid answer to the question, "Where is the particle". Your gibberish is just plain annoying.
    Yes actually, it is but you don't understand.

    The particle is a wave. The wave is a particle.




    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    Good one buddy.


    Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;
    Good one buddy.

    This is why you are in meme prison. 


    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    Yes actually, it is but you don't understand.
    The particle is a wave. The wave is a particle.

    The particle is not a wave because it is under direct observation. It is a particle.

    In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

    You literally said this yourself 15 minutes ago, so stop contradicting your own statements. It's really annoying.



    Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;
    The particle is not a wave because it is under direct observation. It is a particle.



    You literally said this yourself 15 minutes ago, so stop contradicting your own statements. It's really annoying.
    Not a contradiction. Just more complex than you know.

    PPT - Looking back at Electrons in Atoms PowerPoint



    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 3
    Not a contradiction. Just more complex than you know.

    Ahahahahahaha!!!

    Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave)

    Other atomic-scale entities, such as electrons, are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired towards a double slit.[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

    Shut up please. You are not going to debunk Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. What is actually wrong with you?

    Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;
    Shut up please.
    I actually love it how you are now making my arguments for me, yet seem to think they are somehow different from what I am saying galaxy brain...





    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 3
    @Happy_Killbot

    Killbot logic 101:-

    1) I can't tell him where the particle is.

    2) I don't want to admit I was wrong.

    Oh wait, I know!!!!

    3) I'll simply deny it's a particle!!!!




    Plaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;
    Killbot logic 101:-

    1) I can't tell him where the particle is.

    2) I don't want to admit I was wrong.

    Oh wait, I know!!!!

    3) I'll simply deny it's a particle!!!!
    Cool straw man, bet you won't contend with what I actually said. Quantum objects are a particle and a wave, they have wave-particle duality.

    Nom logic 101: If someone says something I don't understand:

    1) pretend to know things you know nothing about

    2) if proven wrong or challenged: deflect with Kafka trapping

    3) refuse to understand or contend with the argument

    4) claim victory despite the fact that we are laughing at you on discord  ;)




    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Nomenclature

    Can Science Answer All Questions About The Universe?

    Yes, because all the questions of the universe go on forever the Universe is not a boundary. It's just like Pi an approximation.

  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -   edited April 3
    A very interesting question , I guess if all the data was in I would be altering my answer a bit


    Logic and mathematics can prove something to be true science cannot science theories are simply better or worse


    From an interesting piece I read recently ........


    The philosopher Karl Popper argued this in his theory of falsifiability. Essentially, science works like this: scientists observe some unexplained phenomena, they propose many reasonable sounding hypotheses, they test each one and attempt to falsify it until only one hypothesis remains, that hypothesis is then considered to be scientific fact. One can, however, come up with a new hypothesis that explains more and falsify the old hypothesis. This is what happened in 1919 when Einstein’s theory of general relativity was shown to bend light by the correct amount around the Sun, falsifying Netwon’s theory of gravity (which couldn’t explain light bending).

    Medium.com


    Or do you think questions like these will forever exist only in the realm of philosophy? That science either does not, or perhaps should not, deal with them?



    Is the sun going to rise tomorrow?  This brings us to Humes problem of induction and the uniformity of nature a whole debate I posted in the past , I think that one got pretty heated but fun.



    Probable reasoning has no rational basis

    The uniformity of nature is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same, e.g. if X is the cause Y, then Y will necessarily exist whenever X exists. In particular, the uniformities observed in the past will hold for the present and future as well. Hume’s query in Inquiry IV/ii is whether our belief in this principle is founded on reason or not.

    After rejecting the notion that its certainty derives from demonstrative reason (because there is no contradiction in the thought that nature does not continue uniformly the same), Hume asks whether it can be supposed to rest on probable (i.e. empirical) reason. He argues that this assumption leads us into a vicious circle, and therefore must be false...



    I think such questions as below will be debated until we are no more .......

    Science cannot answer questions like when is euthanasia right ?

    Should animals have rights ?

    Why is this painting beautiful to me ? Or what is Art? 



    Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science




    Happy_KillbotNomenclatureZeusAres42John_C_87
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 3
    @Happy_Killbot

    Here are some counter points, all open scientific studies:
    How the brain forms the mind:
    https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29299

    This is not a "counter-point". I never argued that the mind does not need the brain to exist. I argued that the mind and the brain are not the same thing, which this article seems to agree with. The same goes for your other links. Here is what I wrote:-

    No evidence exists that the mind and the brain are the same thing

    Arguing with you is absolutely pointless because you have no idea what you are talking about, you can't stop contradicting yourself, everything you say is wrong and indeed you struggle to comprehend plain English.

    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 3
    @Dee

    The philosopher Karl Popper argued this in his theory of falsifiability. Essentially, science works like this: scientists observe some unexplained phenomena, they propose many reasonable sounding hypotheses, they test each one and attempt to falsify it until only one hypothesis remains, that hypothesis is then considered to be scientific fact.

    Hey buddy. I'm reading through Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery at the moment. I think it is more the case that Popper believes scientific facts can't (and indeed are not meant to) exist. He wrote his work as a response to Hume's problem of induction, where Hume basically argued that there is no logical way to make inductive references about the world (i.e. no logical way to validate ubiquitous laws on the basis of human experience), and hence a criteria of demarcation is needed (i.e. separating scientific from non-scientific knowledge). Popper argued in response that science does not need to validate its theories, but to merely make them falsifiable, and that falsifiability (not validation) is the criteria by which a theory can be judged scientific.

    The last part sounds a bit more like the Hegelian dialectic (thesis + antithesis = new thesis etc...).

    One can, however, come up with a new hypothesis that explains more and falsify the old hypothesis. This is what happened in 1919 when Einstein’s theory of general relativity was shown to bend light by the correct amount around the Sun, falsifying Netwon’s theory of gravity (which couldn’t explain light bending).

    Yes, absolutely true. And it may also be true that eventually someone will falsify Einstein. His theories have already led to physicists hypothesising some wacky stuff which they haven't really got any physical evidence for (dark matter and/or dark energy for starters).

    The uniformity of nature is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same, e.g. if X is the cause Y, then Y will necessarily exist whenever X exists. 

    Yes, but I think the issue is that quantum physics has already turned that notion on its head. For example, if we consider a standard uranium atom, then we can only express a probability that it will emit an alpha particle in any given timeframe. Hence, the exact same cause can result in a different effect (0 particles, 10 particles, 20 particles etc...). For the most part it suits scientists to keep the micro and macro theories separate (given that they frequently seem to contradict each other), but sometimes we see the effects of this type of quantum probability on the everyday world, such as when we measure radiation with Geiger Counters.

    Good post buddy.

    Dee
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4759 Pts   -   edited April 3
    @Nomenclature ;

    This is not a "counter-point". I never argued that the mind does not need the brain to exist. I argued that the mind and the brain are not the same thing, which this article seems to agree with. The same goes for your other links. Here is what I wrote:-

    "No evidence exists that the mind and the brain are the same thing"
    Arguing with you is absolutely pointless because you have no idea what you are talking about, you can't stop contradicting yourself, everything you say is wrong and indeed you struggle to comprehend plain English.
    That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to this:

    "Another great counter-argument. Except not even scientists agree with you.
    Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body"

    If you agree that the brain is required to form the mind, it is confined to the brain & body.



    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Thanks Nom , I’ve always had a soft spot for Hume as I like the way his philosophy and way of thinking is not bogged down by academic language and statements that make the head spin. Kudos to you for reading Popper I tried years ago and gave up as I found it very dry and technical and much prefer books by the Stephen Law who writes beautifully and simply , Peter Cave and Simon Blackburn all immensely readable and entertaining I have a great love for philosophy and when you finish Pooper I would like to hear your thoughts 

    I buy a magazine called Philosophy now which is a great read and again written to be accessible to academics and lay people they pick a different topic to explore  in each issue 


    Quantum physics is fascinating and your thoughts on the subject  are interesting , it’s a subject I’m afraid I lack any real knowledge on if you know of a good book on the subject accessible to an ordinary Joe  please let me know 
    Nomenclature
  • @Dee

     This is what happened in 1919 when Einstein’s theory of general relativity was shown to bend light by the correct amount around the Sun, falsifying Newton's theory of gravity (which couldn’t explain light bending).
    General Relativity and the Law of Gravity share the same issue with Pi as an approximation, this means the law of Gravity is a theory by mathematic principle. While not preventing gravity to be written as a mathematical law of motion. 
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87



    General Relativity and the Law of Gravity share the same issue with Pi as an approximation, this means the law of Gravity is a theory by mathematic principle. While not preventing gravity to be written as a mathematical law of motion. 

    You’ve neglected one vital link in your position and that is If sensory experience is veridical, we must posit that nearly all the deliverances of normal science bolster Nozick's radical account of the lottery paradox, thus leaving you in the sorry position that your post is void of meaningful implication 
    NomenclaturePlaffelvohfen
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 3
    @Dee
    Kudos to you for reading Popper I tried years ago and gave up as I found it very dry and technical and much prefer books by the Stephen Law who writes beautifully and simply

    Brother, I've had several arguments about this with my old uni tutor. I agree with you 100 percent. The technical language academics use is almost always unjustified and unnecessary. It serves only to compartmentalise knowledge. My position is that -- much like maths -- everything should always be stripped down to its most basic components to simplify what is being explained. Popper isn't easy by any means, but try reading something written by Zizek for example. It might as well be written in a different language!!!! And it isn't that his ideas are extraordinarily complex. It's simply that his writing is poor.

    A lot of academics disappear up their own arseholes mate. I've seen it happen. They grow so full of their own self-importance that they start believing subconsciously that the goal is to confuse people, rather than to communicate their ideas as effectively as possible. 

    Quantum physics is fascinating and your thoughts on the subject  are interesting , it’s a subject I’m afraid I lack any real knowledge on if you know of a good book on the subject accessible to an ordinary Joe  please let me know 

    There are plenty of great books on it brother. One of my favourites is The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. It's mainly about string theory but he covers a lot of interesting subjects. The Quantum Universe by Brian Cox is another good one. Cox is brilliant. Ridiculously intelligent guy, and he used to be the keyboard player in a dance band called D-ream. 

    Dee
  • @Dee
    Void is your middle name. It's not Astrophysics it is basic math ratio / Approximation both General Relativity have it trapped in the calculation of linear algebra.
    Besides being an approximation Pi is not represented by a negative state like normal real numbers.

    NB.pdf (ubc.ca)
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87


    Void is your middle name.

    It’s not , nice try though 

    It's not Astrophysics it is basic math ratio / Approximation both General Relativity have it trapped in the calculation of linear algebra.

    Nonsense ,you haven’t a clue what you’re on about 


    Besides being an approximation Pi is not represented by a negative state like normal real numbers.

    Gibberish here is the final nail in your “thesis”
    It is a consequence of proper functionalism that polyadic predicates Gettierize instances of nomological necessity.
    It is uniquely puzzling for direct reference theorists that some quantifications over possible worlds reduce to
    non-human consciousness 

  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Popper isn't easy by any means, but try reading something written by Zizek for example. It might as well be written in a different language!!!! 


    I listened to 10 minutes of Zizek in a lecture online and had to put my head in a freezer , he says a lot but to me he may as well have been talking in Swahili 


    And it isn't that his ideas are extraordinarily complex. It's simply that his writing is poor.


    Yes I picked a book up in a store and read the intro and again totally lost and I wondered surely he could state things in terms ordinary mortals could comprehend 


    A lot of academics disappear up their own arseholes mate. I've seen it happen. They grow so full of their own self-importance that they start believing subconsciously that the goal is to confuse people, rather than to communicate their ideas as effectively as possible. 


     I totally agree ,  my field is the arts and Art colleges worldwide now run courses in whats termed “Art speak “ it’s basically spouting a pile of horse sh-it to make the work seem worthy and special and it pumps prices up significantly , here is an example of an Artist describing his work..... As spatial replicas become distorted through emergent and personal practice, the viewer is left with a tribute to the limits of our existence......

    Absolute bo-locks , it’s everywhere and it drives me nuts 


    There are plenty of great books on it brother. One of my favourites is The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. It's mainly about string theory but he covers a lot of interesting subjects. The Quantum Universe by Brian Cox is another good one. Cox is brilliant. Ridiculously intelligent guy, and he used to be the keyboard player in a dance band called D-ream. 


    Thanks a lot will check them out Cox is great , makes it even greater he was in a band , you couldn’t see Popper or Hegel in a band 

    Check out this site , it’s a great place to ask a panel of leading lights in the world of philosophy a question that’s bugging you , they decide if a question is worth an answer and if so give it their considered opinion , I had 3 accepted in the past and two not accepted , some great questions and answers are there to amuse and inform 


    http://www.askphilosophers.org

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 4
    @Dee

    I listened to 10 minutes of Zizek in a lecture online and had to put my head in a freezer , he says a lot but to me he may as well have been talking in Swahili 

    LOL! His books are even worse . He sounds like John_C_87. 

    Yes I picked a book up in a store and read the intro and again totally lost and I wondered surely he could state things in terms ordinary mortals could comprehend

    That's what it's all about brother. Writing is about communicating ideas, but the culture of academia in the west has turned that notion upside down. It's just intellectual flexing with no real purpose outside of showing off. Using five words where one will serve. It just plain annoys me because a lot of people would find Zizek's ideas interesting, but he hides them all inside impenetrable language.

     I totally agree ,  my field is the arts and Art colleges worldwide now run courses in whats termed “Art speak “ it’s basically spouting a pile of horse sh-it to make the work seem worthy and special and it pumps prices up significantly , here is an example of an Artist describing his work..... As spatial replicas become distorted through emergent and personal practice, the viewer is left with a tribute to the limits of our existence

    Ahahahaha! Exactly brother. Pompous horse crap. The social sciences are littered with these nonsensical word salads also. 

    Thanks a lot will check them out Cox is great , makes it even greater he was in a band , you couldn’t see Popper or Hegel in a band 

    He's one of my favourites specifically because he breaks stuff down to make it easier to understand. He isn't obsessed with himself and his own ego.

    Check out this site 

    Yeah, I've had a look at that. Haven't asked any questions yet though. What is the response rate like?

    I had 3 accepted in the past and two not accepted 

    Ah, ok. Sixty percent is pretty good I think.

  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    Hi Nom , John c is a hilarious nut , he makes up words as in he calls a female president a “presedara” ......LOL 

    Yes unfortunately is especially rife in academia. Cox is superb on TV cannot wait to read some of his works


    Here is one of the questions I asked if it sparks their interest they reply .......



    http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/28037


    Nomenclature
  • @Dee Void

    Ratio / Aproximation
    The difference is mathematical precision. 
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    Hi Nom , John c is a hilarious nut , he makes up words as in he calls a female president a “presedara” ......LOL 

    Yes unfortunately is especially rife in academia. Cox is superb on TV cannot wait to read some of his works


    Here is one of the questions I asked if it sparks their interest they reply .......

    http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/28037

    That's a great question. What is luck?

    As the guy says, a lot of philosophy these days is getting entangled with linguistics. What used to be considered philosophical problems are now being considered problems with language.

    For me, general relativity tops everything, so I believe in a deterministic universe where luck doesn't exist objectively. 
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -   edited April 4
    @Nomenclature

    That's a great question. What is luck?

    As the guy says, a lot of philosophy these days is getting entangled with linguistics. What used to be considered philosophical problems are now being considered problems with language.

    For me, general relativity tops everything, so I believe in a deterministic universe where luck doesn't exist objectively. 


    Thanks Nom , yes we are on the same page. The problem with that particular site is you cannot answer back as I wanted to push it a bit further.

    It amusing also when I think of it I got into an almighty scrap with 7 gunner years ago regarding this particular question and it seems it drives people mad if you claim no luck at all is involved if you get a hole in one as that was your intention , I love questions that get people totally fired up 

  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -   edited April 4
    @John_C_87



    Ratio / Aproximation
    The difference is mathematical precision


    I defend the Kripkean account by arguing that some true sentences about logical possibility are not logically necessary.
    I corrected you on this before but do you listen? On the standard Kripkean modal semantics both definite descriptions and proper names are not a logically sufficient condition for genuinely persuasive counter-examples 
    Nomenclature
  • standard Kripkean modal semantics 
    I corrected you on this before but do you listen? Your not making a correction you are making an excuse for the lie that Pi is a mathmatic ratio.
    The difference between precise and approximation is not semantic. When listing a rebuttal of a complete mathematical error the fact Pi has an irrational state of negative created by its approximation is void on paper. However, on observation, the translation to error is in scale and proportion to the area between two points. In the contest as something left in unscaled proportion like the universe, science creates a subconscious idea of an expanding universe by never using an area by proportional scale.

    How big is the universe? When we decide we will then know. Until then we choose to keep the universe size unknown by not giving it size. In the simplest terms, the principle of the argument is motion, not energy as mass.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch